Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts 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. 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, Laser brain and Ealdgyth—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Please do not use graphics or 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. The only templates that are acceptable are {{xt}}, {{!xt}}, and {{tq}}; templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples; and {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. 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, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Shortcut WP:FAC Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Featured article criteria Featured article candidates Featured article review Featured article log Featured article statistics Random featured article Former featured articles

Nomination procedure Toolbox Analysis Disambig links External links Alt text 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. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. 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. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. 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. Supporting and opposing 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.

Nominations[edit]

Second Silesian War[edit]

Nominator(s): Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is the second in a series of four I've written about the Silesian Wars of the eighteenth century. It has already been through a Good Article Nomination and a Military History A-Class Review, and I've tried to proactively incorporate feedback the previous article received in its recently concluded FAC. I'd love to get some more constructive feedback on this one and try to get the whole series to featured quality. Thanks in advance to all reviewers and coordinators! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

John Leak[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is the latest in my series about South Australian winners of the Victoria Cross, Australia's highest award for gallantry in combat. Leak won the VC at Pozieres soon after Australian troops joined the fighting on the Western Front in WWI by eliminating a German machine gun post that was holding up his battalion. Later in the war he was convicted of desertion, but the sentence was soon commuted and then suspended. He returned to combat and survived the war, but struggled with his war experiences for the rest of his life. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

Sources look reliable, no issues. Checked some of the online sources which support the content. Thoroughly researched. buidhe 03:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Buidhe! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

(I must note that I am planning to claim WikiCup points for these comments.) @Peacemaker67: On first read, this looks short but sweet, and as someone who knows nothing about the subject, the prose is engaging. I will leave detailed comments later, but I had a few questions first.

• Australian recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest award for gallantry in battle that could be awarded at that time to a member of the Australian armed forces. - for a lead sentence, this seems clunky. Is there a way to condense this?
• He was the son of a miner, James Leak.[4][5] - Do you know anything about his mother? It's fine if you don't.
• In January 1917, Leak was charged with disciplinary offences for entering the Sergeants' Mess and demanding a drink, and disobeying his regimental sergeant major. He was convicted and underwent fourteen days detention as a result. On 23 February, he went absent without leave until 2 March, and was awarded four days detention as punishment. On 23 March, Leak was transferred from the 9th Battalion to the 69th Battalion. - This paragraph reads as if it was converted from a timeline. I would switch the wording up a little. By the way, is this supposed to be 14 days' detention?
• but this time only received a fine - Does the source say why the punishment was different?
• His sentence was life imprisonment, but this was commuted to two years hard labour. Ultimately, the sentence was suspended - This seems pretty cursory. Any idea why the sentence was commuted?
• Leak and his new wife - Don't know about you, but "new wife" sounds weird to me. Especially as it's given that this is his first wife, and the article is describing her as though she is his property or something.
• A street in Gallipoli Barracks in Enoggera, Queensland, is named after him.[34] The John Leak monument was unveiled in Rockhampton on 20 April 2012 to honour Leak, who enlisted in the city.[35] In 2015, Leak's grandson Peter Townsend said his family always travel to Rockhampton for the Remembrance Day service, which is held annually at his grandfather's memorial.[36] - This is in later life, but talks about legacy. Furthermore, the sentences don't necessarily flow: it sounds like these are three different things. Is it possible to expand on these?

I will make more comments later, but so far, so good. epicgenius (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

James Humphreys (pornographer)[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

An insalubrious character, James Humphreys was a peddler of mucky mags, a strip club owner and a pimp. In order to carry on his business in the 60s and 70s he spent thousands on bribing the Dirty Squad, as the Obscene Publications Branch of the Met were called. Cars, cash, jewellery and holidays ensured the money kept rolling in from his Soho porn empire. Then it all went wrong and Humphreys used his records of bribes to get a shorter jail sentence after beating up his wife's lover. Thirteen bent coppers were banged up because of his evidence. This is a new article that's recently gone through GA. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass[edit]

Per previous review. buidhe 13:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks Buidhe, I'm much obliged to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose by Fowler&fowler[edit]

The first FAC was archived on 2 January 2020, and a discussion was continued on the Talk page. This article has seen just one edit since. The GAC was conducted long before the first FAC was archived. I have not had time to even get much beyond the lead. The nominator made no effort to ping me. Surely that is not in consonance with WP:FAC rules. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Please point out exactly where any action here "is not in consonance with WP:FAC rules". I am sure that the @WP:FAC coordinators: will explain the basics to you, and that your oppose is unactionable, given there is no "specific rationale that can be addressed". And in future, please WP:AGF. - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

This article has a major blind spot, a major gap: that of sexual exploitation and abuse of young women. He did that his entire life. There is no mention anywhere in the article. The article deadpans its way through. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

We are clear as to exactly what he did. If you wish to provide reliable sources that directly link Humphreys to any additional exploitation or abuse (above the 'normal' levels of the sex industry), please provide them. - SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

— Fowler&fowler 's reply at 16:29, 12 January 2020‎ — continues after insertion below

(edit conflict) The point is is that for that information to be included, we would need a specific source that directly and explicitly links Humphrey's to the exploitation of, etc. No-one (I'm sure) disagrees with your point in principle, but Wikipedia cannot be seen to make the link independently to the sources. That would be both original research and synthetic. The most that we could have without such a source is a (probably single sentence) piece of context in which it is noted that the 60s was a decade in which female rights came to the for, but so did pornography (or something). But it would be part of the general background rather than accusing Humphrey's personally. ——SN54129 16:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Where is that background? There are books written on sexual exploitation in Soho in the 1960s and 70s, often not just of underage women, but foreign women, who were more vulnerable. Where is there any mention of that? There are apparently "normal levels" of sex abuse in the porn industry (according to the nominator); there are also "normal levels" of corruption in the police. The article is entirely about the breaches of the latter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

DO YOU HAVE ANY SOURCES THAT STATE HUMPHREYS WAS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY EXPLOITATION OR ABUSE? - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Who is "We?" And "additional?" Where is there any mention of sexual exploitation or abuse? Are you saying your article is comprehensive about sexual exploitation and abuse of young, and even underage, women for which James Humpherys was directly or indirectly responsible? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

"We" is Wikipedia, (i.e.: the article is clear). Do you have any sources that state Humphreys was directly responsible for any exploitation or abuse (above the 'normal' levels of the sex industry)? If so, please could you provide them. - SchroCat (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

What are the "normal" levels in the sex industry? I have no idea. Your article makes no explication of these standards. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

If you have no idea, how are you basing an oppose on it? The article links to various other articles which deal with the wider social impacts of the sex industry. I think we'd be going well outside the limits of a biography if we start looking at the social impact of pornography in this article.

So we're back to the question again: do you have any sources that state Humphreys was directly responsible for any exploitation or abuse (i.e. those that fall outside any general coverage that appears in the articles linked from this one)? - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I was alluding to the use of "normal" without telling us what constitutes that notion of normal under which James Humpherys was engaging in sexual exploitation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that state Humphreys was directly responsible for any exploitation or abuse? - SchroCat (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

F&F, you should also oppose because the article makes no mention of the Sociology of punishment or imprisonment either. ——SN54129 16:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

If a man was a warden at Auschwitz and there is no source for his directly killing the inmates. Can we nominate a biography of his to FAC that does not tell us about the context, about what went on in Auschwitz? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Wut. ——SN54129 17:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Take the suprious and straw men discussions elsewhere. Do you have any sources that state Humphreys was directly responsible for any exploitation or abuse? I am going to disengage from this line you are pushing now. I consider it increasingly disruptive as it is outside the scope of this biography. The socio-economic impact of pornography and the sex industry is dealt with in article linked directly from this one. Should you have any constructive comments to make about the article, I will deal with them, otherwise I have better things to do. - SchroCat (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

How is the latter half of the second paragraph in the Later life section a comprehensive summary of this report in The Independent? The Independent article says, "His wife, June, 59, who often acted as a maid to the prostitutes, forced the women to pay such high rents that they frequently had to work 12 hours a day, seven days a week to meet her demands, Southwark Crown Court in south London was told. ... The judge said he accepted they did not coerce or corrupt the women they used, but 'on any view the financial arrangements for them were extortionate'. Humphreys, of West Hampstead, north-west London, admitted living on immoral earnings; his wife, charged under her maiden name of Packard, admitted aiding and abetting him."? I have many more sources ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

This is actually a good point to make, and I've added something about the amount of time the women worked. - SchroCat (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

As long as those sources aren't memoires of retired peelers, that's fine :) ——SN54129 18:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Serial Number, that's what comes of writing articles on what some people describe as "hobby topics". If you choose to do that, you'll end up being crucified here because you haven't written an article on a "vital" topic. It's that sort of mindset that makes for a less than smooth review process. - SchroCat (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with either hobby or vital, and everything to do with a slanted, sanitized, and incomplete account. Have you, for example, used the sources I pointed out to you on the article's talk page:

• Tyler, Melissa (19 December 2019), Soho at Work, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1-107-18273-8
• Mort, Frank (2010), Capital Affairs: London and the Making of the Permissive Society, Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-11879-7 to give the reader a background or context to Humphreys's career? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Please do not lie: tThis article is not slanted, sanitised or incomplete. No, I have not used those sources. They are not about Humphreys, and the information they contain is too far away from this biography. We have articles about pornography and the sex industry that readers are able to read. They do not need to be given a lecture on the socio-economic impact of prostitution in this article: that is what other articles are for. If you wish to improve the other articles, or, indeed, create a new article the sex industry in 1970s London, please feel free, but it would fall outside the remit of this article, except for a link. - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• The description of the sting in Cyprus in your summary begins with, "In January 1972 Drury, Humphreys and their wives travelled to Cyprus and Beirut for a fortnight's holiday." and continues with "A journalist flew to Cyprus and was given a copy of the hotel register; the newspaper hired a private investigator who visited the branch of Thomas Cook on Regent Street, where he obtained a duplicate of the receipt, which showed Humphreys had paid for Drury's ticket." But that is not how the narrative unfolded. There was no public awareness of that trip. It was uncovered in an investigation directed by Laurie Manifold, the head of the investigative team at The Sunday People. The description in Roy Greenslade (27 May 2008), "Subterfuge, set-ups, stings and stunts: how red-tops go about their investigations", in Hugu de Burgh (ed.), Investigative Journalism, Routledge, pp. 329–330, ISBN 978-1-134-06871-5 is fuller (I have italicized some important elements.)

Do you think your summary will be helped by accommodating the italicized sentences in Greenslade's account in some fashion? You may not have seen this source, but our imperative is to be comprehensive. Note: I will make my more detailed comments on the Talk page of the article and link them here, as this review might become too long. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x 2 I am well aware of the Greenslade source (and, indeed, we use it in that section). The additional information is not core to Humphreys's biography and we cannot bloat this article out with extraneous detail of what the journalists did. What we have in the article is entirely correct. Where there is a question over how the information was passed to The People, we provide both alternatives. How they got confirmation from the London end, we clarify this. I don't see anything else useful for this article in what Greenslade has written. If you disagree, please bullet point exactly what facts you think are missing and why/how they are crucial to Humphreys's biography.

Please do NOT paste information both on the talk page and here: that way confusion lies. I am concerned that you think you will be making this article too long, but if we are going to discuss blocks of text that are extraneous to this article I can see how that would happen. - SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Greenslade's account says nothing about being given a copy of the hotel register—the register, in any case, is a bulky thing—only that he was shown the register. It says nothing about a private investigator (not even an undercover investigator, only man with a shady past, who broke the law ...). It says nothing about paying for Drury's "ticket." A ticket is ambiguous because you make no mention of a package tour. And, it wasn't just Drury's ticket. Greenslade says, "Humphreys had paid for Mr and Mrs Drury’s holiday." I asked because I'm perplexed at the paraphrasing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Greenslade's isn't the only account, and the weight of all the other sources differ at a few points to his. The other sources include input from people involved, investigative journalists, and people who have looked into this matter in depth, not in the limited way that Greenslade does. - SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, Greenslade is the only one who has been cited. Where are those other sources? Why have they not been cited? The ones that say, "He was given a copy of the hotel register," for example. You don't have to give me quotes, only the names of the references; I'll look them up to see if the description can be improved. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

There are a series of sources used in the text when discussing the holiday. Start there. - SchroCat (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I've changed 'ticket' to 'holiday' and added a second source. Neither change is really needed, but given the needless pressure being applied when it doesn't need to be... - SchroCat (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• I am going to bed now. In the last FAC, I had barely covered the first paragraph of the lead and one paragraph of another section when the nominator withdrew his nomination. Because of my comments and queries, those paragraphs stand changed. I will be looking at the article more closely this coming week. My main concerns, which are the same as my concerns in the previous FAC, are:
  • (1) Vague and inaccurate summarizing of the source material. This is my major concern, not the prose. This was my major concern in the previous FAC as well.
  • (2) Inadequate background material on the sex industry in SOHO, London, in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and especially of exploitation of women, including sexual abuse of them, in the industry. I am not convinced that the absence of source material (if that turns out to be the case) for James Humphreys's direct complicity in sexual crimes against women is an excuse to not discuss the indirect complicity of belonging to a milieu for which such crimes are documented.
  • (3) Besides, I am not convinced that there is no source material for his direct complicity. I will be examining all these issues more closely this coming week. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC) Updated with numbers for the issues listed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, the paragraphs were changed, but for no reason other than me trying to get over an impasse. The article was not improved by the changes (and the clue was all the other reviewers who disagreed with you).
    • This article is NOT the venue for an examination of the abuse of women in the sex industry, unless you can find information that directly links Humphreys to specific acts.
    • "I am not convinced that there is no source material for his direct complicity". So you are speaking from a position of ignorance in your Oppose? (and I sincerely hope the FAC co-ords take note of that). I don't mind people opposing when they know what they are on about, but when they don't know the subject and haven't read the sources, but make up spurious claims that you think there is untapped source material, then it makes a review process something of a rather unfunny joke. I do hope this isn't going to be as disruptive a process as the last review, which I regret having withdrawn. - SchroCat (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry that was a note to the coordinators about the issues that have caused me to oppose this submission, the issues that I will be looking at more closely this week. I'm a little stapped for time now, but, in addition, I will also be looking at:

• (4) The absence of Legacy. Most FA biographies have a paragraph or two about legacy; most have sections. There is nothing in the article about how history, his friends, his loved ones, and indeed he himself has judged James Humphreys. There is certainly no absence of data there. There is nothing about his character. There is again no absence of data there.
• I have now numbered my FAC issues. As I go through them in more detail, I will be presenting my actionable suggestions here, Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• There is little actionable in anything you have said do far (aside from one or two minor points, and certainly very, very little given in good faith) that needs to be actioned SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
• A legacy section? I’m afraid this shows complete ignorance of the subject matter. If you can get to grips with the subject matter before making any more similar comments, it would be best for all. - SchroCat (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• (Continued note to the coordinators about (4)) By "legacy," I mean the extended usage, "a long-lasting effect of an event or process (OED)," the "lasting influence of a person or thing." I mean the summing up of a life or career. I mean the contemplation or retrospection of the lived life, the tributes, the criticisms, the aftermath. There is no shortage of those in the sources for James Humphreys. I will be making a list of those as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• I look forward to seeing what unencyclopaedic dross you come up with in an attempt to justify this unjustifiable, oppose made in complete bad faith. This clutching at straws is all very second rate and disruptive.

And rather than sending notes to co-ordinators, perhaps you can drop the obstructive manner and address comments about the article to the nominator. Grandstanding has no place in any review. - SchroCat (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Graham Beards[edit]

Support unreservedly. This article was ready for promotion at the last FAC nomination, which was withdrawn because of a confrontational review based on the usage of a couple of adverbs.Graham Beards (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks Graham, your kind words during the last review, and subsequently, have been very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: Are you suggesting that the article is comprehensive with respect to the topic of sexual exploitation of young and underage women? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The topic is not "The sexual exploitation of young and underage women", the topic is James Humphreys (pornographer). Also, please do not ping me, or attempt to lobby me when I have already declared my support. Address your comments to the nominator.Graham Beards (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Cassianto, without a doubt, as per Graham. This article meets all the criteria. It's a pity to see Fowler&fowler, engaging in this rather immature and stupid line of rhetoric. I would encourage the coords to examine this oppose against the FA criteria and subsequently kick it into a ditch where it belongs. Cassianto^Talk 18:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Cass, thanks very much for your second review on this article. It is much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

coord note[edit]

Did I miss the request to run this early? The previous candidate received was archived on 2 January, and its only 12 January. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth, the bot was late to run. Ian closed the last FAC on the 30th. So it is a little early, but only a few hours. Graham Beards (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth, In addition to the slow bot, I emailed Ian, who gave me the green light. Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

This is my fault. A markup error on the nomination page meant that the Bot could not see Ian's close. Because of the time of year, I did not correct the problem until 2 January. My apologies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not a problem Hawkeye, (and thanks for the explanation). It would explain why edits made 'post close' have largely been ignored by the sole opposer to this article, with the unfortunate and entirely erroneous claim of "only one" edit having been made. - SchroCat (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

′’’Everyone’’’ if you don’t want me refactoring your comments, please do so by striking thru all commentary on other editors. There is no need for editors to discuss other editors motives. If it doesn’t stop, it’s going to require outside intervention. And Mama Ealdgyth really does mean everybody here. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, Moder Ealdgyth...unless you're feeling particularly God-like (quite apt, I think this FAC might need some divine intervention), in which case ALL HAIL Modoreynd Ealdgyth to whom we lowly FACers are mere Módoru... :) ——SN54129 19:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Ealdgyth is out on the road with hubby in semi truck. First day, hasn’t even had a chance to find the laptop in the pile of stuff on the bunk...so yes, Ealdgyth is CRANKY. Let’s not make her have to dig for the laptop while barreling down the highway at 63 miles per hour (101 km/h). She should have the truck cleaned and arranged by tomorrow and won’t have to edit from the iPad then...and if you think hubby invites Ealdgyth along just to organize the truck, you may be on to something....Ealdgyth - Talk 20:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe, Ealdgyth, you can give your opinion on the editor whose oppose has nothing to do with WP:FACR and everything to do with his own personal preference. I think if you fix that, they'll be no need for editors to discuss other editors. Cassianto^Talk 20:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Cass, it isn’t necessary to comment on other editors. This comment here isn’t helpful. Or do you think the FAC coords are incapable of actually reading the nomination and seeing which reviews are based on the criteria? That is, after all, our job. We don’t need nominators and reviewers muddying up the nomination commenting on other editors. If other editors are not engaging with the criteria, we’ll know and judge accordingly. So please strike any comments on other editors. Thank you. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

And it's unnecessary to oppose an article that does not fail the FACR. The oppose here isn't helpful, either. Of course I think the coords are capable of reading a nomination and judging it against the criteria, which is why I find it puzzling that there has been a tumbleweed moment with regards to Fowler&fowler's oppose, and a very vocal challenge over people daring to talk about it in this candidacy. Cassianto^Talk 22:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

at this point, an oppose isn’t a nomination closer, so for now, let’s let the discussion develop, without unnecessary commentary on other editors. If folks don’t refactor their comments by mid a day tomorrow, I’ll take my red pen to anything that isn’t helpful. I’d prefer that folks do it themselves, and I’m trusting that we all are adults and can discuss content without attacking or feeling attacked, as long as the comments stay on the content. It is possible to disagree with other editors without it being a battleground. Prose is the most subjective of the criteria and as a coord, I’m much less worried about differences over prose than I am about the other aspects of the criteria, especially when other reviewers do not agree on the nature of prose concerns...I.e, if a reviewer opposes on prose and word choices but many other reviewers do not agree that the prose concerns are a concern, it not something that should hold up a nom. Note, that is all hypothetical..and I have no idea if that situation applies here or not. The nom is only 12 hours or so old. At this point, my main concern is productive discussion that doesn’t focus on editors. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Just backing up a point that Ealdgyth has made here... folks can and do disagree on subjective prose matters all the time. As a coord, I'm going to consider opposition over subjective prose matters to be a matter of consensus. I'm hoping the discourse can stay civil and comments can remain about the subject and not about other editors. A nomination that turns into a bloodbath is more likely to be archived than one where there is civil disagreement over the prose. --Laser brain (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley[edit]

I am puzzled and distressed at the clash, above, between two editors I much admire. I have looked closely at all the points made, and I can in conscience only repeat that to my mind, and after a further careful reading, the article meets the FA criteria, and with the exception of Fowler&fowler the other contributions so far (both from editors I respect greatly) express the same opinion – quite emphatically. I didn't think the first nomination should have been withdrawn, and I support this second one. Tim riley talk 18:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Tim, thanks very much for your second review on this article. It is much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

• Suggest scaling up the map, and an inset might be helpful to give a wider perspective on where in London this neighbourhood is situated

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:James_Humphries,_1972.jpg: the source link has some more information on provenance that would be worth copying into the image description

• File:The_Sunday_People,_27_February_1972.png: suggest expanding the purpose of use. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Nikkimaria. These all now duly attended to. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Support per my support of last time. I also think that the first nom should not have been archived.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks Wehwalt. Yes, in hindsight, I should have let things run, but I was trying to avoid disruption. It seems it has just been delayed, rather than dissipated, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Support. I also supported the last nomination and my opinion has not changed. Moisejp (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, Moisejp, for your comments and tweaks on this article on two ocassions. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Donald Forrester Brown[edit]

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Donald Brown, a New Zealand soldier of the First World War who was a posthumous recipient of the Victoria Cross. Only the second New Zealand soldier to be so recognised during the war, it was awarded for his actions during the Battle of the Somme in the First World War. The article was submitted to FAC last year but was closed without promotion due to a lack of comments at the time. Source and image reviews were done by Brianboulton and Nikkimaria respectively; it passed the source review and I have actioned the comments by Nikkimaria. Thanks in advance to all those who participate in the review. Zawed (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Segnosaurus[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

This is the first FAC nomination of a therizinosaur, one of the strangest dinosaur groups; they would have looked like huge, pot-bellied birds, with long claws on their forelimbs. This article is about one of the first known members of the group, and therefore also covers the long standing mystery about them, and how palaeontologists slowly realised what they were. It can therefore be rather technical and complicated in places, but I hope it is readable. It has been GA reviewed and copy-edited. FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Herbert Maryon[edit]

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

When the Queen asked him what he did, Herbert Maryon responded that he was a "back room boy at the British Museum." This humble (or, perhaps, deer-in-headlights) comment belied the fact that Maryon, at Buckingham for his appointment to the Order of the British Empire, had only just embarked on his second career; a sculptor, metalsmith, and archaeologist for the first half of the 20th century, Maryon joined the museum's research laboratory at the end of the war and immediately set to work on the treasures from Sutton Hoo, one of Britain's greatest archaeological finds. In other work, he excavated one of Britain's oldest gold artefacts, restored a Roman helmet from Syria, and influenced a painting by Salvador Dalí. When nearly 90 he retired for the second time—then left for an around-the-world museum and lecture tour (where at least two Wikipedians, Peter Knutsen and AJim, heard him speak in 1962).

This exhaustive article has been built over the last three years. It is easily the most comprehensive take on Maryon's life and contributions, collecting information from hundreds of sources, and spawning a number of related articles (e.g., Works of Herbert Maryon). It was reviewed by KJP1 last May and recently given a fresh copyedit by me, and is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

• As per Commons, signatures are eligible for copyright protection in the UK

• This page doesn't reflect an official policy and as far as I can tell, its UK commentary merely reflects one user's opinion from 12 years ago. None of the sources mentioned offer more than a line or two of analysis, and the one court decision mentioned in the UK is significantly mischaracterized, which makes me question the sweeping declaration that UK signatures should not be used on Wikipedia. A better analysis, I think, would ask whether the signature does more (and/or is intended to do more) than fulfill a utilitarian purpose; here, there is no question that it is simply a utilitarian signature.

• Our article and the source provided there seem to support the Commons claim. Do you have any alternate sources suggesting that signatures aren't protected by copyright in the UK? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• File:Statue of Industry at the North East Coast Exhibition after tarring.jpg: do we know why this is believed to be PD?

• Newcastle Libraries only posts images to Flickr that they understand to be in the public domain (link).

• I understand that, I'm just wondering why they have that belief in this particular case. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• File:Valsgärde 6 (Greta Arwidsson) - Taf. 1 - Helmet.png needs a US PD tag

• Added.

• File:Maryon - Dalí Colossus.png: are both of the images believed to be non-free? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. Both were published in 1954, so—assuming life +70 applies—the earliest either of them could enter the public domain is around 2024.

Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk[edit]

• I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
• There are a bunch of duplinks in rather close succession throughout.

• Thanks, FunkMonk. Good point about the links—removed other than the post-nominal in the first paragraph, where the first link might get overlooked. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review

• Avoid having more than three citations in a row, especially in the lead; it's distracting.
• Per WP:NOT and standard practice, we should not host an exhaustive list of Maryon's articles. Only keep those that are cited in the article or meet some other defined criteria.

More to come. buidhe 14:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Randall Davidson[edit]

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 18:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a biography of the longest-serving Archbishop of Canterbury since the Reformation: he served for 25 years, from 1903 to 1928, through momentous times, and in a quiet way he was one of the foremost religious leaders of his time. The article has had an exceptionally thorough and wide-ranging peer review, with input from Cassianto, Fowler&fowler, Gog the Mild, Josh Milburn, KJP1, Noswall59, SchroCat, Smerus and Wehwalt for which I am immensely grateful. I think the article now meets the FA criteria, and I look forward to colleagues' comments here. – Tim riley talk 18:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Cassianto[edit]

I never did finish, did I! Nevermind, it has certainly had the Rolls-Royce treatment since and is a stunning piece of work. Cassianto^Talk 19:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Cassianto! Yes, I've indeed been privileged at PR. Support gratefully received. Tim riley talk 19:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Some trivia:

• "and, after a brief spell as a curate he became chaplain and secretary" Comma after "curate"?

• Yes indeed. Done. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Henry's father, grandfather, and great-grandfather were Presbyterian ministers" Link minister.

• Hmm. You and I often differ over what is or isn't an everyday word. I can't imagine anyone reading this article will struggle with the meaning of the term. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. But note that I had to look up just what a minister was to see what what you had written meant. Knowledge of the intricacies of the various Christian hierarchies may not be as widespread as you believe.

OK, I'm persuaded. Linked. Tim riley talk 10:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Link housemaster.

• Done.

• "he had hoped to study Greats (classics and philosophy)" Lower case g? "the less demanding subjects of Law and History" Ditto l and h? "Third Class Bachelor of Arts" And again. Followed by "degree in law and modern history". "Roman Catholic doctrine such as Benediction". "opposite the Chapter House".

• Capitalisation has been tricky throughout this article, and I don't doubt others might not capitalise everything I have capitalised. "Greats" is always capitalised. I should think even The Guardian would capitalise it. I am persuaded about "third class bachelor of arts, though. The Chapter House is borderline, but is usually capitalised in the sources. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• " he thought too much power was in the hands of its general" Optional: Link general to William Booth.

• I think it was more generic than just Booth – it was the nature of the general's office he was concerned about. Tim riley talk

• Note 8: "The 26 senior diocesan bishops sat, and (2020) still sit, as Lords Spiritual as opposed to Lords Temporal.[51] Davidson succeeded to the seat on the death of James Atlay, Bishop of Hereford." Should that be 'a seat'?

• Yes, probably better. Done. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• "In 1895 Davidson accepted the offer of translation to the largely rural diocese of Winchester, which involved less arduous work" This reads as if it were the translation which was less arduous.

• I have reread this sentence and try as I may I cannot see anyone misunderstanding its meaning. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Later: an alternative wording has come to mind. Now tweaked. Tim riley talk 18:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Optional: Link cope.
• "the link between Buckingham Palace and Lambeth Palace" is, sadly, only likely to make sense to a learned few. Possibly a bracketed translation?

• We've explained earlier that Lambeth Palace is the Archbishop's residence and headquarters, and I don't think many people will need Buckingham Palace explaining. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• "In August 1904 Davidson accompanied by his wife, sailed to the United States" Comma after "Davidson"?

• Indeed. Done. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• "and North America. This accomplishment in North America" I am unsure that the second "North America" is necessary.

  Yes. Changed. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• "He was much more forthcoming on atrocities by the Belgians in the Congo and the Bulgarians in Macedonia" "Belgians in the Congo" might more helpfully be linked to Atrocities in the Congo Free State; similar to how "Bulgarians in Macedonia" is linked.

• Thank you. Much better. I had missed that article. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• "241 bishops were present" One would normally avoid starting a sentence with a number. Perhaps 'It was attended by 241 bishops' or similar?

• I have never seen an explanation of why it is sinful to start a sentence with a number. Seems to me a superstition on a par with the mythical split infinitive. I think the prose is crisper as it stands. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Later: I've turned the full stop into a semicolon, which now means the digits are in mid-sentence, appeasing the superstition without making the slightest difference. Tim riley talk 14:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• "and reunion with other Churches" I read "other" as meaning the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Which further reading suggests is not what you intend. Possibly you could be more specific?

• That's all the source says. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean that it is unclear in the source as to

"reunion with other Churches" is the actual wording in the source. Tim riley talk 10:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• "an eight-day visit to combatant troops at the front" Are you sure that he visited "the front"? On the face of it it seems unlikely.

• Davidson visited "more or less the whole front line held by the English from north of Ypres to the Somme". (Bell, Vol II, pp. 778–779) Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Under Lambeth Conference, 1908: "Prayer Book"; under Revision of the Book of Common Prayer: "Prayer-book".

• I thought I'd caught all those. The form "Prayer-book" is the usual version in the contemporary sources and I have tried to standardise on that, though my personal usage would be "Prayer Book". Now amended – thank you! Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• "opened the door to Romish practices" Might it be mentioned to a reader what these may have been, and, more pertinently, why anyone might have objected to them. (Possibly a brief explanation of high v low church and its relationship to Catholicism earlier in the article may be appropriate?)

• I'm not keen to repeat the examples given earlier – east-facing communion, lighted candles, making the sign of the cross, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament and so forth. Not that Joynson-Hicks was specific. He cleverly hinted at – and never named – the Romish excesses he professed to fear. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking more of something like 'ceremonial rituals and accoutrements similar to those used by the Catholic Church, also known as the Church of Rome, which the Church of England objected to because [you're on your own there I'm afraid]'.

I see what you mean, but we're straying into WP:OR here. Everyone in the House knew what his hints were referring to (bells and smells as you say) but, as far as I can now find, none of the sources interpret them into unequivocal plain words. If I can find such a thing after a a more leisurely search I'll add it. Tim riley talk 10:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

OK. Not a deal breaker, IMO. I can more or less follow what is happening, but I suspect that one doesn't need to be far removed from the internal Anglican wranglings of a century ago to find it impenetrable.

• "He had served as Archbishop of Canterbury for longer than anyone since the Reformation" Optional: Footnote pre-Reformation A'soC who did serve longer?

• There seem to have been some in the pre-Conquest era such as St Honorius and Berhtwald; after the Conquest I can only spot Henry Chichele, Thomas Bourchier and William Warham. (This is from our WP list of Archbishops of Canterbury.) The sources I have used, even the massively detailed Bell double volume, don't go into the matter. I agree it would be nice to mention the long-serving predecessors, and I'll look out a WP:RS next time I'm at the BL. Ideal for a footnote, as you say. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• "and was buried with him" - 'alongside him'?

• On top of, I should think. I wasn't looking closely when I was last at the Cathedral, a couple of years ago, but I think from the photograph in the article, the graves are not double-spreads.

My point was that, to me - and I may be alone in this - "buried with" means at the same time as. Not important if you are confident of your meaning.

Oh, I see! It's a fair point, but the dates rule out any misunderstanding. We could just leave it out if you prefer. Tim riley talk 10:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC) Or perhaps "buried in the same grave?" Tim riley talk 12:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

My point is a fairly trivial one, so I wouldn't want to beat it to death. I like 'in the same grave', but don't insist.

• "this particular bark of Christ" Optional: Link "bark" to barque.

• We aren't supposed to put blue links into quotations, but I think you're right, and I'll chance it. (Nice mixed metaphor in the quote, I think: mansions in a bark?) Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

From the MoS "Be conservative when linking within quotations: link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author."

Thank you for these points, Gog, as well as for your v. helpful input at the peer review. Much obliged. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

No problem. An impressive article. A couple of minor points above for your minor consideration. If I haven't responded then I am content with your response. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. A couple of comments above purely for your consideration. Great work, I am more than happy to support this outstanding article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Gog, thank you very much for your detailed input at PR and now here. I am much indebted to you, and hope to repay your thorough reviewing when next you want it. Tim riley talk 16:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Nb: it is my intention to claim points in the WikiCup for this review. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Noswall59[edit]

I may have time to review this fully, but I apologise if not—things have been rather busy offline lately. I am glad that you found Grimley's book helpful. It has just occurred to me that Roy Strong's 2005 book Coronation probably has some discussion about Davidson's roles in the 1902 and 1911 crownings. I remember Strong going into some detail on the organising committees' "behind the scenes" politics which might add something to the article (or not, I don't know). I apologise for this slipping my mind while this was at PR. Otherwise, this is looking like a fine summary of the man's life, work and thinking. —Noswall59 (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC).

This is the one that I mean (other booksellers being available of course...) —Noswall59 (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC).

Excellent! I'll put it on my list for my next visit to the British Library. I don't think anyone will object to my adding a sentence or two, if appropriate, after the current review is concluded. Tim riley talk 09:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Fowler&fowler[edit]

I read this article very closely during the Peer Review, taking time to weigh its every word, phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, and section. I have no hesitation in recommending it for promotion to a Wikipedia Featured Article. May I take this opportunity to congratulate the author. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your valuable and detailed input at PR and for your support here. I am greatly indebted. Tim riley talk 09:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

SC[edit]

Lead

• "He was the longest-serving holder of the office since the Reformation, and also the first to retire from it": the "also" brings nothing to the party.

• The "also" is not needed grammatically I agree, but I have written and rewritten this sentence and the "also", to my mind, helps the flow and rhythm. It has, I think, the additional benefit of distancing the second part of the sentence from the first, making it clearer that he was the first ever to retire, not just the first since the Reformation. Tim riley talk 12:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Your call. I think it hinders the flow, but I never press my personal style onto others' work. - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• "In 1903, he succeeded": no need for the comma (you don't use it in this fashion elsewhere)

• Indeed. Blitzed. Tim riley talk 12:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Early years

• "Although high-church versus low-church controversies were rife": as these are the first mentions after the lead, best to link high-church and low-church.

• Good. Done. Tim riley talk 12:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Done to the end of the EL section. More to follow. – SchroCat (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for these, SC. Looking forward to more, at your convenience. Tim riley talk 12:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Continuing:

Curate and chaplain

• Do we need the Mews quote? This looks like one that could easily be re-written.

• Done. Tim riley talk 10:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Dean

• "unbudging". I'm not a fan of the word; would "unwavering" or "unchanging" suffice? (your call to leave as is, if you prefer).

• Changed to "resolute" Tim riley talk 10:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Rochester

• "1894–95" should be, according to the MoS, "1894–1895", in mmuch the way you have 1888–1890 above.

• The MoS allows the shorter form for two contiguous years, if I read it correctly. I hasten to add that am not accusing the MoS of common sense here. Tim riley talk 10:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Winchester

• "Purgatory" or, as our article has it, "purgatory"?

• The sources use the capital. I think the supposed actual place is capitalised as a proper noun, but the figurative and more general use of the word ("...temporary suffering or expiation") has a lower-case p. The OED gives a pertinent example: "The doctrine of a purgatory seems innocent in itself..: it is only the absurd notion of praying or buying souls out of Purgatory, that renders it a heresy repugnant to reason". Tim riley talk 10:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Ditto for "benediction"

• In this specialist sense I think the capitalisation is correct. All the examples in the OED are capitalised. (In more general senses it isn't capitalised, of course.) Tim riley talk 10:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Link for copes?

• Done. Tim riley talk 10:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• There are link for a few religions here (Roman Catholic and Baptist are in this section). Although it is advised not to link these (in MOS:OVERLINK), I think it's advisable to retain them here, given the subject.

• I agree. I am as a rule in the less rather than more camp for links, but the links here are, I think, ones people might possibly find it helpful to click on, given the subject. Tim riley talk 10:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Link for the see of London?

• Done.

Done to the end of Winchester; more soon. - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Canterbury

• "In 1907, Davidson": another errant comma (there are a couple of others lower down I'll leave to you to sort)

• Blast! I thought I'd caught all these. (Legacy of a short-lived and well-meant effort by another editor to improve the article with AmE commas.) I'll have another comb-through to find any further stragglers. Tim riley talk 10:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Domestic affairs

• "and was succeeded by George V": this final sentence needs a citation

• Done. Tim riley talk 11:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Kikuyu controversy 1913–14

• "1913–14" (in title and first sentence): again, the MoS now suggests 1913–1914 is the way to go (another ridiculous change foisted without much of a discussion outside a small set of devotees, but we're supposed to pay the MoS some lip service at least)

• Again, I think 2 contiguous years are exempt from the MoS's weird diktat. Tim riley talk 10:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• This is true, although it does make the Contents table look a bit odd with the following:

5.2 Domestic affairs, 1909–1911

5.3 Kikuyu controversy 1913–14

5.4 First World War, 1914–1918

Feel free to leave it as it is: I'll leave the decision to you over what to do with the rather silly decisions of the "Guardians of the MoS"®! - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

You're right: the headers do clash a bit with each other. I've changed the Kikuyu one to 4+4 digits, but left the 4+2 form in the text à la MoS. Inconsistent, admittedly, but what can you do given the MoS's prescription.(Rather silly, as you say: I can't recall seeing the 4+4 prescription applied anywhere else but Wikipedia, and I'm always uneasy when we're out of step with the rest of the world.) Tim riley talk 13:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

First World War

• "and even considered resigning[100] But, despite": a missing full stop, or was it something else?

• It was indeed a missing full stop. Now stopped.

Done to the end of the war, for now. As a general point, you may just want to cast you eye over your commas in lists: some are serial, some are not (and the serial are not in places where there is confusion ("put to Parliament in 1894, 1895, 1911, and 1912", as an example)). Best to make consistent, where possible. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Working on this. Tim riley talk 12:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC) And now, I think (and hope) done. Tim riley talk 12:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The Welsh

• Any need for the accent in "élite"? The OED eschews the use...

• it does! I think that may be fairly recent. I shall reset my autocorrect in Word. The e is now less acute (not even grave, in fact). Tim riley talk 12:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Strike

• You have "co-operation" here, but "cooperate" a bit further up

• That'll learn me to cut and paste! Now relieved of the hyphen. Tim riley talk 12:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• "John Reith, general manager of the BBC": the general manager?

• I'm happy with or without the definite article here, and have added it. (I have so far lost a little bet I had with myself that someone would boggle at "general manager" and try to change it to the metachronistic "director general".) Tim riley talk 12:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• "fearing reprisals from the government": it's odd he feared reprisals, as he allowed the TUC their say and tried to get a Labour broadcast in too. Maybe he was coming under increasing pressure by this stage.

• I don't know the details of the BBC and the General Strike, but the sources are clear so far as Davidson's proposed broadcast is concerned. KJP1 may know – indeed will certainly know – more about the wider question than I do. Tim riley talk 12:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

That's my lot. A fine article – certainly up there with that on Lang, which is exceptionally good. – SchroCat (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SC. Your comparison with the Lang article means a lot to me, for obvious reasons. Tim riley talk 12:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support. All good from me (I'll let you get on with the commas in your own time), but there is certainly passes the FAC criteria. - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Wehwalt[edit]

Support Had my say at the peer review, seems fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Wehwalt, both for support here and for your input at peer review, for which I was, and am, most grateful. Tim riley talk 10:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from KJP1[edit]

Just booking my spot in what's an already crowded field. Pleased to pick up the Source review unless a more ecclesiastically-minded reviewer has their sights on it. KJP1 (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

KJ, all comments gratefully received. A source review would be a bonus, especially from one who knows the period as well as you. Tim riley talk 19:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Images[edit]

• File:Randall Thomas Davidson losslesscropstrict.jpg: There is a broken link in there.
• File:Montagu-Butler-Brooke-Westcott-Harrow.png: The file's provenance is quite vague; also if they are really that old they probably are Template:PD-UK.
• File:Craufurd-Tait-.png and File:Archbishop-Archibald-Campbell-Tait-1876.png: OK license although the PD-UK question exists for these ones too.

ALT seems OK to me, regarding use isn't one file of Tait sufficient? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Only one of Tait included, plus one of his son. Tim riley talk

Thank you for the review, Jo-Jo-Eumerus. Is there anything above that I need to action to make the images acceptable? Tim riley talk 21:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The provenance and broken link issues should probably be addressed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Scans of originals now noted. No idea about the broken link. I should have known better than to use an image from Commons: they invariably cause grief at FAC. Can delete the image and do without in the info-box if you insist. Tim riley talk 22:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

That's more a problem with files that directly link to the source file rather than Commons. I don't think the broken link is a serious issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you so much for the review. Tim riley talk 12:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Given that the Clerk of the Closet article states someone can retain the office after leaving his see, I'd like to see a source for the 1903 end date

• Done. Tim riley talk 18:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Source for "Appointed Clerk of the Closet immediately after his consecration, he remained in close touch with Queen Victoria"?

• Done. Tim riley talk 18:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'd suggest moving the archive link in your web sources to immediately before the retrieval date

• Done.

• FN56 should have full details for the original publication as well as the republication

• I'm afraid they aren't available. This impression of the Book of Common Prayer (1662 version) was printed by John Baskerville, but no publisher is mentioned. The two functions often overlapped in those days but I really do not know whether that was so in this case. I have my own copy of the Prayer Book to hand, (printed in the 1960s) which I could cite instead if wanted, but I thought a link to an online source would be helpful to those who haven't a BCP on their shelves. Tim riley talk 18:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated

• One had slipped through. Now amended. Tim riley talk 18:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• FN125: what source is this referring to?

• Changed. (It was agreed at PR that "Barber" was a more appropriate citation than "Taylor", though it isn't as straightforward as chapter author -v- book editor, and I clearly omitted to change the ref.) Tim riley talk 18:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• FN140 doesn't match other Times refs

• Stray characters deleted. Tim riley talk 18:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• FN144 should include doi, although I'm not sure why you're using {{cite journal}} in the Sources section and not here?

• I'm not familiar with doi, and haven't used it before. Is it now a requirement for FA? WP:CITE says it is optional. Added, anyway. I could remove the template from the Quinault reference if you prefer. (The length of that article is the reason why it is sequestered under "Journal" – at 16 pages it needs a specific page number in the references.) Tim riley talk 18:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Further reading should be a separate section rather than subsection

• Done. Tim riley talk 18:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Begbie OCLC goes to a different work

• Amended. Tim riley talk 18:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Jacobs: looks like Magee is an illustrator rather than a coauthor?

• Trimmed. Tim riley talk 18:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• How does the Martell source meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• I should say Martell's work, published by Durham University, meets the second criterion in the list at WP:SCHOLARSHIP. It is, incidentally, cited by Dan Cruickshank of Glasgow University in his The Theology and Ecclesiology of the Prayer Book Crisis, 1906–1928, which I have not read. The quotations are verifiable in William Bridgeman, Philip Williamson ed., The Modernisation of Conservative Politics - The Diaries and Letters of William Bridgeman, 1904–1935, The Historians' Press, 1988, p. 212, I am told, though I have not seen it. Tim riley talk 18:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria - I can certainly vouch for the quote. I have a copy of Bridgeman in front of me now. The full cite reads: “The Archbishop thought, ‘he absolutely muffed it ... a poor speech with no knowledge and no fire’. Bridgeman himself called it ‘the worst speech in his life’.” Philip Williamson is a respected historian of the Baldwin-era Conservative Party and, although this may be less of a recommendation, he taught me! KJP1 (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Smerus[edit]

I made my meagre comments at PR, but am very glad to support this excellent article for FA.--Smerus (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, Smerus, for support here and for your input at PR. Gratefully received. Tim riley talk 08:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Fir Clump Stone Circle[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a stone circle in Wiltshire (where Avebury and Stonehenge are also found) that was unfortunately completely destroyed. Little is known of the circle, so it's a fairly short article. It gained GA status last year and is now ready for FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

• Sources are reliable
• Checked Hutton reference. No issues. buidhe 05:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• All images are free and appropriately licensed.
• Could you alter the map to make it more obvious where the circle is?
• A free or non-free image or diagram of the actual circle (like this one) would be helpful. buidhe 05:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Other comments

• It seems a bit unbalanced when the "context" section makes up the majority of the non-lede article text. Maybe you could cite Richard Reiss directly to expand that part of the article? buidhe 05:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Buidhe and thanks for taking the time to read this article. Your suggestion for a drawing of the circle is an excellent one and is something that I'm working on. I'll ping you when I've made it. I'll use the David Field and Dave McOmish book you link to in order to expand the latter part of the article a little bit but unfortunately it seems that Reiss' original report was never published and so is just sitting in an archive somewhere. Obviously, we can't use unpublished sources as that would constitute OR. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• I have now added a diagram of the circle, as you suggested. Thanks again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Cas Liber[edit]

Looking now...

• ...who measured the size of the monument and recorded its existence. - odd order, and "recorded its existence" seems a bit waffly. How about just "described and measured it"

• A fair point; I've made the change you suggest, which works well Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• ...All of the other examples are ruined, - err, Avebury and Stonehenge aren't exactly not ruined.....

• Oh, I would have to disagree. Both Stonehenge and Avebury seem to have stones missing, other stones are leaning at angles, and at least half the stones that are there are being propped up by concrete bases. Neither of those monuments are in states anything like how they would have appeared in the Bronze Age. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• An adjective/descriptor would be good before Richard Reiss allowing reader to understand who/what he is.

• A very good point. I'll add, quite simply, that he was "the archaeologist", which should do the trick. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The article ends rather abruptly - I was expecting some more discussion of Reiss' discovery - what was there - did he have to dig - what is there now. Not even a marker by the side of the M4? Is it directly under the M4? Do we have any sort of diagram? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Cas. Apologies for the delay in responding; I'm not spending as much time on Wikipedia these days as I used to. There is no marker by the side of the M4 and to be honest I am not precisely sure exactly where in relation to the motorway the circle was. Going through Reiss' original (unpublished) reports (which I presume are sitting in an archive somewhere) might reveal said information, but that would definitely be entering the realms of original research. Regarding a diagram, that's a point that others have also raised here; it's something that I'm working on, as it's a good idea. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

If there is an embellishment of all of Reiss' investigations that can be added, it'd be good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I have now added the diagram of the circle, as you suggested. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

Just an initial placeholder comment for now; did you manage to get hold of a copy of The Making of Prehistoric Wiltshire? From the Google Book preview, this seems to contain both a diagram and a comparison to another circle built in a similar style. These would both be useful additions to the article, I think. I know it's not from an academic press, but the authors definitely seem to be reputable, so it passes the RS bar. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking at Burl p. 413: Though I'm struggling with his notation, it looks like he's citing Reiss's private papers and two other sources. Now, we can't cite private papers here (unless they're somehow made public) but have you bee able to dig up the other sources? They're Nat Mons Record (whatever that means) and Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine. They may contain information omitted, but, at the very least, they'd be good to add to the bibliography. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments, Josh, and my apologies for the delay in responding to you. I'm not spending as much time on Wikipedia these days as I once did (probably for the best, as it does get addictive). Regarding The Making of Prehistoric Wiltshire, I had forgotten about it since the GAN but I'll be consulting a copy in the next few days; I'll certainly use the diagram in there as the basis for my own, which I'll add into the article. As for the Nat Mons Record, that'll be the National Monuments Record, which should be available online I think; indeed it's probably going to be largely the same as the HER record already in the External Links (although the latter will have been updated). You're also right that Burl cites an old copy of WAM on page 413 - that's intriguing, and I'll take a look and get back to you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

So the 1894 piece in WAM is a short article by A. D. Passmore primarily discussing the Day House Lane Stone Circle but also mentioning the Broome Stone Circle. On the final page Passmore also mentions "a number of sarsens" at a Hodson. This is almost certainly the same phenomenon as the Fir Clump stone circle so I will incorporate it into the article. Thanks for spotting the reference! Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Confusing things somewhat is that in his notebooks, which Burl prints in his 2004 article, Passmore seems to discuss the Fir Clump stone circle and the Hodson circle separately (here). Things get confusing. It seems possible that at the time of his 2000 book, Burl listed Passmore's 1894 reference to a Hodson circle as a reference to the Fir Clump circle, but that on discovering Passmore's later notebooks he realised that they were distinct. I'll try and convey some of this confusion in the article itself, sources permitting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

This all sounds great. Ping me when the changes are made and I will take another look. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Usernameunique[edit]

Lead

• The buried megaliths — The body of the article says "fallen," not buried. Which was it? Were the stones still there in 1965, just not in their original standing form?

• I've gone back to the Burl source, and he uses the word "fallen" in this instance, so I think we should use that in the lede too. Will make the change. And yes, it seems that the stones were still there in 1965, simply recumbent (and perhaps hidden amid undergrowth, although the sources don't explicitly state this). Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Is there a reason Passmore's notes aren't mentioned in the lead?

• There's no particular reason. Do you think we should specifically mention Passmore? The lede does already mention the information that Passmore reported in said notes. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• The M4 is linked as "M4 motorway" in the lead, but "M4 motorway" in the body.

• I've standardised this so that they both link as M4 motorway. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Context

• "silent and empty monuments" — Whose words?

• The historian Ronald Hutton. I'll add his name into the sentence here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• The archaeologist Mike Parker Pearson suggests that in Neolithic Britain, stone was associated with the dead, and wood with the living. — Why?

• His argument stemmed from an ethnographic comparison drawn with recent Madagascan memorial practices coupled with his arguments about the chronological development of the Stonehenge ceremonial landscape. To be honest I think it would be a bit too complex to start discussing how he built his argument in this particular article. Certainly relevant for the main Stone circles in the British Isles and Brittany article, but not so much here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• are reported as having existed — Where do the reports come from?

• In various antiquarian reports. Do you think this is something worth noting in the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Description

• a photocopy of the original site plan — Reiss's plan, or another?

• It would almost certainly seem that it was Reiss' plan however Burl doesn't explicitly state this, so I'm not sure whether we should either. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Discovery and destruction

• the circle had been broken up about thirty years prior — Any word on why/how?

• Unfortunately not. Although it was most probably achieved by lighting fires around the stones to crack them and then throwing on cold water to accentuate the cracking. That's what happened at Avebury, certainly, when folks wanted to destroy the stones. It may be that a farmer just wanted the stones out of the way if they wanted to convert a field to arable use, although it may instead be that the stones were broken up to be used as road metal or building material, again things that occurred at other prehistoric sites in southern England. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• after they had been purchased by the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society — How did the society come to purchase the notebooks?

• Unfortunately I do not know and the source I'm citing (Burl) doesn't appear to say; it merely mentions that they were obtained "at considerable cost". Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• He produced a plan of the site as it then existed — Is there a diagram, and can it be included in the article?

• Yes and yes! Give me a few days, and I'll create a copy and add it into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• these stones were removed during construction of the M4 motorway — Does the M4 now cover where the circle once was?

• Unfortunately the available sources don't say if the motorway actually covers the location of the circle or not, merely that the stones were moved during its construction. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Interesting article, Midnightblueowl. Comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to read through the article, Usernameunique. Glad you found it to be of some interest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Sol-20[edit]

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The Sol-20 is a surprisingly little-known microcomputer given its place in history. It appears to be the first truly mass-produced personal computer - there are numerous earlier examples of PCs like the Micral and Altair, but they were only the CPU box and required an external terminal of some sort to be useful; most also did nothing when turned on and the user had to "switch in" a program. In contrast, the Sol-20 could be purchased complete, plugged into the wall, plugged into any television for display, and thanks to its onboard ROM, was running as soon as you turned it on. It pre-dates the "1977 trinity" machines -TRS-80, PET and Apple II- which also had these qualities, and sold some ten thousand or more units during its two-year production run. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review

• https://www.sol20.org/ and https://www.pc-history.org/ look self-published

The first is used only in a parenthetical note and seems uncontroversial? I could simply remove the note if need-be, it doesn't add much. The second is a re-"printing" of the original book, "Stan Veit's History of the Personal Computer", should I re-cite it to that source? I am actually quoting the web page itself, so I cited that, but I could probably get a copy of the book somewhere.

For the first one, I would remove the note. For the second I would credit the original source in some way. I don't think it's necessary to get a copy of the book but one could say something along the lines of, "reprinted from... "

Fixed and fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Ham Radio Horizons and Byte sources should use the same format as other sources, unless there is a reason.

Moved.

• Please cite specific pages for where the information can be found in the Byte article, Swaine & Freiberger 2014, Felsenstein 1977, Systems 1977. (Longer page range makes info harder to find).

Ok, so...

Byte moved and clarified exactly what I was quoting with another cite for the price comparison.

Swaine & Freiberger fixed, just an oversight.

Found an original for Felsenstein 1977, re-cited and pages added. That version showed blockquotes, one of which I begged to be included.

Systems 1977 - this is actually referring to the entire document.

That leaves Veit, which I simply don't have in a version with numbers. I know it's Chapter 9, and the page range is around 138 to 142, but that's all I can get out of Google.

• Is Kilobaud Magazine being used to cite anything?

Apparently not, removed. That is very odd, normally the cite tool I have turned on would put that up as an unused template. Perhaps it is no longer working, I'll have to look.

• Otherwise, sources seem reliable for what they're being used for. A cursory search didn't find any more information.
• It's a shame there's only google preview for PC World article, which is one of the better sources from a RS perspective. If you'd like I can request it via ILL from my university.

Oh, I'd love that! I'm also STILL trying to get a photo of the expansion bus, I know someone that has one of these machines (still working if you can believe it) but he keeps forgetting to forward them :-) Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested. If you send me an email, I will send you the scan as soon as I get it. buidhe 01:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• I was able to verify some information through source checks. buidhe 14:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Description—this is all cited inline as per FA criteria. Is it necessary to state "From the Sol Systems Manual unless otherwise noted."? buidhe 01:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• Lead caption needs editing for clarity

• File:Popular_Electronics_cover_July_1976.jpg lacks a sufficient FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

All should be fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Still a bit of an issue with the last of these - that fair-use tag is intended for cases where the publication, not the thing featured, is the focus. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there some other tag I should use? Perhaps you can point to a similar example? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hawkeye7 I think this is a great article. Although I remember with other computers of the era, I'd never heard of this one. Which is a way of saying that your work here is truly appreciated.

• "where it was a huge hit" Suggest deleting "huge" per WP:PEACOCK

Done.

• Link "modem". Most millennials would never have seen one.

Added.

• Link "baud" A term you never hear anymore

Changed and linked to BPS instead.

• "The terminal was deliberately designed to allow it to be easily repaired by anyone. Combined with the Pennywhistle, users would have a cost-effective way to access Community Memory from anywhere." "anyone"? "anywhere"? Sounds like hyperbole. Suggest deleting these words.

Deleted.

• "with its primary funding source" Who was that?

Added.

• "hacking minded engineers" hyphen required here?

That seemed wordy in retrospect, removed.

• Footnotes a, c and f could use a reference

Well A is a claim of obvious fact, and the second part is reffed in the body. F already has the ref. Added C.

Suggest moving the reference to the end of footnote f? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Link Static random-access memory

Already is...

• Link BASIC programming language on first appearance

Moved to first.

• "Stan Veit later joked to Les that they named it after Solomon in another way" Suggest "Stan Veit later joked to Solomon that they named it after him in another way"

Changed.

• " a kludged up box of parts", hyphen required here?

Grammarly, which is normally spot-on with these, says no. But eyeballs say yes, so added.

• 8" should be "8-inch" and 5.25" should be "5.25-inch" Remember, most people have never encountered the old measurements, and would not know what the whole 9^x means.

Added. I assume we don't need a conversion here, as this was the name more than the physical dimension?

That would be my position. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• "From the Sol Systems Manual,[32] unless otherwise noted." Do we need this?

I have always found this VERY useful because it indicates you will be referring to it a lot. A list of para-ends is not the same implication. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, let me thank you for taking on the task of writing this article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The Holocaust in Slovakia[edit]

Nominator(s): buidhe 15:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about an important event that oddly didn't have any Wikipedia article until last year. This unfortunate episode in Slovak history occurred when its German-allied government deported most of its Jewish population, actually paying Germany for the privilege. It is a pair with List of Holocaust transports from Slovakia, currently at FLC. The article recently passed A-class review and has been copyedited by GOCE. Thanks in advance for your comments. buidhe 15:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Bridgeport, Connecticut, Centennial half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about... a coin with P.T. Barnum on its face, which given the troubled commemorative coin market of the 1930s has led to the obvious description of buyers of this and other issues as suckers, born every minute. Given the scarcity of coin collectors these days, the "born every minute" is probably not accurate, anyway...Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Ceoil[edit]

Support on prose, sourcing and comprehensiveness. The usual standard for numismatic FACs; most informative, have made a few trivial edits. Ceoil (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support..--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Usernameunique[edit]

Infobox

• Thickness, but not diameter, is converted to inches

Well spotted, there was an error in the template. Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Background

• What is a calliope/what is its relation to a circus? The calliope article leaves it unclear.

There is discussion under calliope (music). I have piped.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• to a group authorized by Congress — perhaps "to groups"?

I've recast the sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Legislation

• one of several commemorative coin bills to be considered on March 11, 1936 — What were the others?

There were about ten, plus a couple of medals and to bring back the three cent piece. I think we give the reader enough info.

• authorizing legislation placed no prohibition on this — Should this be "the authorizing..."?

I could do "their authorizing ...". I'm not sure "the" adequately refers to several pieces of legislation. It feels like it doesn't.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• six coinage bills being considered one after the other — What were the others?

Like the above, I wonder if it's really needed. If you insist, I'll drop a footnote with them.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

On both counts I would find a footnote interesting—not only would it help integrate the articles, but it would also further illustrate one of the recurring themes of these articles, i.e., that the 1930s saw a glut of commemorative coins that flew through Congress for several years without much pushback. But totally your call.

Preparation

• Do sketches of the originally proposed design still exist?

Yes, Taxay reproduced them and they're probably in the Numismatist. However, Kreis hasn't been dead 70 years so even though the Numismatist wasn't copyrighted at the time, I don't feel we can use them.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

You might ask at the copyright desk—it seems to me as if they might be in the public domain as either a) pre-1978 works without copyright renewal, or b) works of someone for the federal government, but someone there could give you a better idea.

Design

• Dealer B. Max Mehl, in his 1937 work on commemoratives — Any reason why this is not cited?

I've changed to the more direct cite.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Production, distribution and collecting

• May as well cite to the auction for the exceptional specimen: link.

Did that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

References

• Are 8 and 12 the same source?

No, 8 is the copy of the bill, that contains information about who introduced it and when, and to what committee it was referred. The other is the published transcript of the Senate committee hearing.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Due to changes since my comment, they’re now 8 and 13. To confirm, those are the ones you were talking about? If so, I would recommend changing the citation format somewhat so that, without having to click on the link, one is clear what documents the citations refer to.

Looks good, Wehwalt. Minor comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Usernameunique Many thanks, I've either done those things or have responded.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

My pleasure, Wehwalt. Adding my support. Three discretionary comments above. —Usernameunique (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Wolf[edit]

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the wolf, one of the most well known and well studied carnivores and the ancestor of the dog. This article has been worked on for months and has been both peer reviewed and copyedited. Credit to William Harris and Mariomassone. LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• What's the difference between lime and green?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• File:Wolves_attack_moose_2012-04-12_001_(cropped).jpg is tagged as being of low quality

Its the best one we got of wolf tearing into prey. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, the image quality is admittedly quite poor. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• File:Capitoline_she-wolf_Musei_Capitolini_MC1181.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original work

I have not seen this required for other photo of pre-modern works. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

It should be fairly straightforward. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what tag to use. LittleJerry (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why I have to add another PD tag for a work created before copyright even existed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Italy#Freedom_of_panorama . Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• File:Dore_ridinghood.jpg has no copyright tag at all

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• File:Chinook2.gif needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Grenier_Saint_Martin_loup_MdlaC.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

When/where was the former first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand. The image page states so. LittleJerry (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Not that I can see? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

It says it was made c. 1900 by Charles Marion Russell, an American. LittleJerry (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Made is not the same as published. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment from Tim riley[edit]

I'll have more comments later, I hope, but from a first read-through I wonder why in an otherwise BrE article the AmE "gray" is used throughout rather than the English "grey"? (The OED admits "gray" but favours the usual "grey"). – Tim riley talk 15:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This is written in Canadian English with Canadian spellings. See talk page. LittleJerry (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod[edit]

Lead

• "...is a canine native to the wilderness and remote areas of Eurasia and North America." Not sure of the technical meaning of "native" in zoology, but the wolf was surely "native" to pretty much the whole of these continents until driven out by man (as said lower down)? I suspect there is a better way of putting this.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• "is the largest extant member of its family," which isn't named or linked for a long time after...

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Only 3 lead paras, none very long. Large tracts of this long article (141 K crude bytes) are not mentioned at all.

Will get to. LittleJerry (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• There is talk of wolves in Mexico, but the distribution map has them nowhere near that far south, apart from a little dot in the southern US.

We only have the IUCN to give us the full wolf range. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Mammal Species of the World (3rd ed., 2005), a standard reference work in zoology, recognizes 38 subspecies of C. lupus including the domestic dog." Do we neeed to spell out the source in the 1st para?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• "its highly advanced expressive behaviour" is there a link for "expressive behaviour"?

No. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• "long history of association with humans" is "association" the right word?

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Although the fear of wolves is pervasive in many human societies,..." - nothing I can see lower down on societies where it was not "pervasive".

Pawnee? LittleJerry (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Description

• "Coyotes, jackals and wolves are isomorphic, with the size relationship between their bodies remaining constant.." The mathmatical link here is completely useless ; what does this actually mean?

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• "to overcome the deep snow that covers most of its geographical range" needs "in winter" or something. The "most of" only applies to the last 1,000 years or so, presumably.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Rest

• "Habitat use by wolves depends on the abundance of prey, snow conditions, absence or low livestock densities,..." wonky grammar in the last bit.

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• more later Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Dank[edit]

• Can anyone point me to the most recent discussion of "wolf" vs. "gray wolf" vs. "grey wolf"? I support the current article title, but I think the first sentence could use some help, probably in the form of a hidden comment linking such a discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

It was discussed here. LittleJerry (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks much. I added a hidden comment, and I changed the first sentence to "... also known as the grey wolf or gray wolf". Normally we don't give both spellings for an alternative common name, but I'm arguing that this is an exception, because there are plenty of people who always write "gray" instead of "grey", but "grey wolf" instead of "gray wolf". That is, they think that's the correct spelling, not a language variant. - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC) If anyone wants to change that to "grey (or gray) wolf", that works too, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 22:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Sainsf[edit]

Here are my comments after a brief look through the article. I will keep adding over the next few days. Also, per the rules of WikiCup 2020 I declare my participation in it and that I will enlist this review in my submissions. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• It is the largest extant member of its family would it be better to shorten it to "the largest extant canid"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• with males averaging 40 kg (88 lb) and females 35.5–37.7 kg (78–83 lb) Why do we provide the average for males and a range for females?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Up to 38 subspecies of C. lupus Should we not stick to calling it "wolf" instead of bringing up its scientific name unless necessary?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• its more social nature The sociality article gives examples of both solitary and gregarious behavior. Maybe link it to the appropriate subsection. Maybe "more gregarious" works better?

There's not appropriate subsection to link to. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Link territorial, pathogens

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Although social animals, single wolves or mated pairs typically have higher success rates in hunting than do large packs I don't exactly see the contradiction here.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• The global wolf population is estimated to be 300,000 Include the year this estimate is of

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• It has a long history of interactions with humans Should be "The wolf has a ...." looking at the previous line

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at the infobox,

• do we really need a ref for binomial authority if its already cited in main text?

Sure. LittleJerry (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think the range map needs a caption, and should mention the year the data is from

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Etymology

• ' What do the asterisks in front of a few words mean?

I assume it has something to due with the Germanic languages. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• Is the opening line on introduction of binomial nomenclature relevant enough?

Made changes. LittleJerry (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• The etymology of Canis probably belongs in the earlier section

I disagree, the etymology section is on "wolf" and "lupus" which mean the same thing. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• on the next page is it a relevant point to mention?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• under the wolf C. lupus similar to the lead instance, is the scientific name needed here? I feel wolf should do, and it maintains consistency. 38 subspecies of C. lupus This instance is understandable in the context of that sentence so no need to discuss this one.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Does "some 36" imply an ambiguity in the published number?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• more cranio-dentally robust links would be helpful

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Link divergence

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• In Admixture with other canids there are some duplinks – golden jackals, dhole, basal, red wolf. "Gene flow" could use a link

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• that was 12-14% admixed —> that was 12–14% admixed

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• in the Caucasus Mountains. and in Bulgaria. an extra period?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Description

• Females tend to have narrower muzzles and foreheads, thinner necks, slightly shorter legs, and less massive shoulders than males Should we mention sexual dimorphism then?

I don't see the need. LittleJerry (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• The height should probably be included in the lead as one of the most common measurements

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Diet

• In Europe, wolves eat apples, pears, figs, melons, berries and cherries This line appears to have a lot of common terms linked.. I get the point but maybe we can exclude a few like "apples" at least

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Like all land mammals that are pack hunters, across their range the wolf feeds predominantly on I think it should be "across its range", or the comma comes after "range", altering the meaning.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• with a pack being capable of bringing down a 500 kg (1,100 lb) moose I would be curious how many wolves we are talking of here in a typical pack, but that section comes later in the text. If possible, an idea of the number that could be capable of doing something like this would be a good addition.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Social structure

• The wolf is a social animal A link to sociality would be good

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• covering roughly nine percent of their territory per day either one of "%" or "percent" notation should usually be followed throughout the text consistently

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• I see many instances such as these two lines The wolf can be found between sea level and 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) and Scent marks are generally left every 240 m (260 yd) with different units and abbreviations. Needs consistency throughout the article

The contexts are different. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

At least the "m" or "metres" (abbreviated/nonabbreviated) notation should be consistent for all unit types. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 20:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Wolves advertise their territories to other packs Display (zoology) would be a good link for "advertise"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Scent marking involves urine, feces, and anal gland scents. Scent marking is more effective at advertising territory Two sentences beginning identically. Could be merged or reworded a bit to avoid repetition. The following lines also use "scent mark" frequently, which could possibly be shortened to "mark" as scentmarking is the only mode of marking we are talking about here.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• This includes the use of vocalization, body posture, scent, touch, and taste. The phases of the moon have no effect on wolf vocalisation Two different spellings for "vocalization". Please check for other instances of variant spellings

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Disablement

• deliver a bite force of 28 kg/cm2 (400 lbf/in2) A link for bite force would be good.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• In the caption of an image in this section I guess it should be "white-tailed" deer per the article on the deer. Plus a link would be nice

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

• Support - I had my say at the peer review, which I conducted with FAC in mind. I wonder whether William Harris is co-nominator, as he is not listed? FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Bank War[edit]

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The Bank War was an important sequence of events during Andrew Jackson's presidency and a significant topic in American economic history. When Jackson became President of the United States in 1829, the Second Bank of the United States was an extremely powerful institution that had enormous influence over American economics and politics. It was more powerful than today's Federal Reserve. Jackson believed that the Bank was corrupt and unconstitutional. He wanted to either significantly diminish its power or destroy it entirely. When his political opponents turned his dislike for the Bank into a political issue with which to defeat him for reelection in 1832, Jackson launched an all-out war to decimate the Bank's influence and ensure its collapse. He was successful. The economy did very well during Jackson's presidency, but his war on the Bank is sometimes cited as a factor which led to the Panic of 1837 just as he was leaving office.

NOTE: This is the third time in about the last six months that the article has undergone a featured article nomination and has not been promoted. The failure of the article to gain promotion the previous two instances was not because of any opposition to it but because it could not attract enough reviewers. I fervently hope that enough people will come by to review this article this time around so that the question of whether or not it meets featured article criteria may be decided. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Quick note -- Hi, I've just removed the definite article from several headers as they were discouraged by MOS last time I checked. I left The failure of compromise and war only because removing "The" might make worse what seems to me to be poor grammar, i.e. we're technically saying "the failure of compromise and the failure of war", where as I assume we mean "the failure of compromise, leading to war" -- so perhaps you can come up with something better there grammar and MOS-wise... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ian Rose. I did undo the change you made from "Rise of Jackson" into "Jackson's rise." I believe that the former flows better, and while I fully understand that it is poor taste to begin a header with a definite artile, I do not think that it is as bad to have one in the middle of the header. I did change "The failure of compromise and war" into "Recharter," because that was the issue being debated. Using a one-word header there should resolve that problem. Thank you once again. Display name 99 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Maury This is a new topic to me so I'm coming at it fresh. It's quite fascinating, IMHO. Most of what I see is minor:

• The lede is wordy. It would appear any number of descriptive terms could be removed without changing the actual content. For instance "extend credit where needed" - well, would one extend it where it's not needed? "supply the nation with a sound and uniform currency" - is not sound and uniform somewhat overlapping in this case? As it stands the lede fills an entire page on my screen and I think that should be looked at. I can get more specific, but I'd like to hear other thoughts on it first.

I removed "where needed" because it did seem unnecessary. Sound and uniform are not interchangeable. The currency being uniform means that it was virtually the only currency being used in the United States. The fact that it was sound means that it was stable and not overly fluctuating. We can have one but not the other. Overall, the lead seems about fine to me. MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests that the lead occupy no more than four paragraphs. This lead has exactly four, and it's a similar length to leads of other articles that I've successfully nominated for FA status where this issue was not commented on. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• "boasted that the nationalists had the support of the yeomanry" - the linked article is about a type of British cavalry. The usage is descended from the original, which refers to some sub-group of farmers or landed gentry. I had no idea what this term meant, and was rather confused after reading the linked article. I would suggest adding a small NOTE or even parenthetical statement defining yeomanry. I assume in this case you refer to farmers, in which case why not just say that?

I fixed the link. Thank you for alerting me to that problem. I see no need to define the word yeomanry. It's a common term and anyone incognizant of its meaning can view the now-corrected link. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Lots of jargon, odd phrasing, and unclear statements:
  • "scarcity of specie" - lack of hard money? Overuse of paper money? I shouldn't have to search to find out what the statement means.

Added "or hard money" in parenthesis. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "was exacerbated" - was worsened

I see no improvement here. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "rapid emission" - printing?

I see nothing wrong withe emission. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "...of paper money and fraud" - is fraud a form of money? that's what this wording implies

Changed to "fraud and the rapid emission of paper money." Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "As a result" - of what? "...of the devaluation of the notes,"?

I think that it's made clear by the previous sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "collapse of businesses, and bankruptcies" - what's the difference?

Removed mention of bankruptices. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "Overall," - unnecessary?

Probably so. Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "himself privately" - remove "himself", who else could it be?

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • of "memorandums", he - why the scare quotes?

Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "planter class" - first use of this term. Link. Is this the yeomanry?

Link added. Yeomanry were small farmers. The planter class were much wealthier and owned large plantations, typically operated by slaves. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "A state bank" - is this the same as "the National Bank"? It sounds like he's referring to something else? If the next paragraph is the topic of this statement, it should be moved there.

State banks were run by states. The national bank was run by the federal government. State banks did business with the national bank, which provided them with notes. Who do you mean when you say "he?" It would be helpful if you'd use specific names and make clear what section of the article you're referring to. It would be easier to address your concerns in this way, both here and elsewhere. I did however add more information on state banks to the first two paragraphs of the article. This should help explain how they worked and what kind of relationship they had with the national bank. I felt that there could be more information about that. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "laid taxes" - did what?

Laid taxes, that's what. What's the problem here? Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "not be taxed.[29] In 1819, Monroe" - two paras

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "sole political party in existence" - in the US? at that time?

Changed to "only political party in the country." Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "would provide the support" - how exactly? Do you mean votes?

Yes. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "wielding universal white male suffrage" - this is unclear. How does one "wield" suffrage? Do you mean "win the election"?

Changed to "with the aid of." Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "supporting recharter.[155] The final bill" - para break

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "rendering Biddle" - giving?

I don't see an issue with the word choice here. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "practically immediately" - almost immediately?

Took out completely. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "Jackson determined to " - chose? decided? began to?

Again, I don't detect an issue with word choice here. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that's it for now, more to come. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "his first term.[72] To defuse a potentially" - two paras

If you aren't going to use headers, it would be better if you could at least list these concerns in order of where they appear in the article. The information on either side of this citation covers the same topic, and so I do not see the need for separate paragraphs. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "Polemically, the veto message" - do we need "Polemically"? or is this the right place if we do?

Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "hard-money predilections" - leanings? favored?

I see nothing wrong with this. Adding the word "favored" would be grammatically incorrect. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "would be as fatal to the inflation favoring Jacksonians as the B.U.S. was purported to be" - wordy

Maybe a little bit, but I don't think it's ridiculously wordy. Do you have an alternative proposal? Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "Clay arose and strongly criticized" - Clay strongly criticized

No, because with that version we don't know where he criticized it. As it stands now, the article makes it clear that he made his criticisms on the Senate floor rather than somewhere else. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "Jackson's campaign benefited" - this para jumps back and forth between one side and the other. Should be two paras, one starting "In the end", which is clearly separate anyway. The remaining first para should be reoganized so it presents one side and then the other.

I don't see the need for two separate paragraphs and I don't think that the existing paragraph jumps back and forth. First it talks about Jackson's campaign strategy. Then it discusses Clay's before stating the results. That does not seem disorganized to me. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "Scotched, not dead" - what does this mean?

Those are Jackson's words, so it's not possible to rephrase them. Trying to explain in other words what he meant would be awkward, especially because I think that the meaning is clear. If you don't know what this means, get a dictionary. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "deposits secure.[221] Jackson subsequently" - para break here.

I don't see why. Again, it would have been helpful if you'd listed your concerns in the order in which they appeared in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "or eviscerate the central" - eviscerate?

Yeah? What is it? Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "However, some of the deposit banks drew prematurely" - using the transfer warrants? if so that needs to be mentioned here.

I added a few sentences of explanation here which seemed to be needed. Good catch. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "returned to Washington.[270] In Biddle's view" - para break

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "Having failed in their attempt" - just said this a sentence ago

I'm not certain what happened here. I removed the second appearance of that sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "as did good harvests in Europe" - it is unclear to me why good harvests in Europe would have any effect here.

More cotton being produced in Europe meant that there was a stiffer competition for American cotton. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "was, thus, the drop in the price of cotton that precipitated" - "the resulting price drop caused..."

Changed to something like this. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• • "one he had inherited" - direct quotes need immediately refs

I don't think so. There's no need to cite the same source twice in a row. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• there are 14 "howevers", but that seems OK in an article of this length.

I have a tendency to use that word a little bit excessively in my writing. I removed four usages of the word. It is now used only 10 times. That seems acceptable. Thank you for mentioning this. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

That's about it for now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz, I have responded to your points. Thank you for your comments. I found several of them to be helpful, and the article has definitely improved because of revisions that I made in response to some of your suggestions. However, I had difficulty understanding what you meant at certain points, and I don't think that there was a need for the numerous changes in parlance that you suggested. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I still have significant problems with the article. It appears to be written with an eye to demonstrating the author's vocabulary as its primary goal. I find it hard to read in its current form, and because of this, I don't feel this is FA quality. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz, this is arguably the most ridiculous thing I have heard from an FA reviewer. There's nothing wrong with a person reading an article on Wikipedia and not immediately knowing what every single word means. If they come across a word that they do not know and want to determine what it means, they have the means to do so. The important thing is that an article not use complex vocabulary and florid speech just for the sake of it. I truly do not think this article does. Many of the words that you said you had problems with are not obscure words at all, and you at times did not make clear what issue you had with them. If your knowledge of the English language does not extend beyond a middle school level, that's not my problem. I'm not saying that merely to insult you. I just cannot identify any other reason you would have for wanting all of this language changed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

"The important thing is that an article not use complex vocabulary and florid speech just for the sake of it." - that is precisely what I am claiming is the problem, but I guess that wasn't clear because my "language does not extend beyond a middle school level". Maury Markowitz (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

That's more or less it. Display name 99 (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review (content)[edit]

I am willing to look at the use of sources, semi-randomly (based on source availability), for this FAC. This will likely take me a while, and my goal is to check 8-12 footnotes. (If this review is "not required" in the way that I am doing it, could someone at FAC let me know. I never understand why the focus is on reference formatting instead of use of sources; or if there are "exceptions" for people with prior FAs; and if so, which parts of the source review (content or presentation) they're exempt from.) The footnote numbers are based on this revision. I will only use the green text for quotes from the article. My results will be below, feel free to insert under each bullet point. Outriggr (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Clay... maneuvered the election in favor of Adams... [36]. Is this a fact or a theory? Meacham (2008), 45, writes "Though much may have been implied between them, the likely truth is that Clay and Adams did not reach an explicit deal." Or should I not view those two statements as at odds, given that "explicit deal" may not rule out "Clay maneuvered" (i.e., on his own)? I see that the 1824 election article says "Clay would use his political influence in the House to motivate House delegations in states where he had won at least a voting plurality to vote for Adams"--but I don't feel that the web source there fulfills that statement. Please confirm that my point is moot, I guess?

Meacham does not believe that there was an explicit deal between Adams and Clay. The article does not say that there was. It says that Clay maneuvered the election in favor of Adams. That is widely accepted fact which Meacham does not contest in the above quote. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton said that he was approached by Clay and asked to support Adams. He refused. (Parton III 61-63) The congressional delegation from Kentucky, Clay's home state, received instructions to vote for Jackson. It voted for Adams even though he had not received a single popular vote in that state. On the same day, Ohio declared for Adams. "Obviously Clay had powerful influence with both delegations." (Remini II 89) "And so, Clay told associates in mid-December, he would throw his support to Adams, which would give the secretary of state virtually all the state delegations he needed to prevail in the House." (Wilentz 2005 47) The part which is theory is whether Clay supported Adams as part of an agreement to be appointed Secretary of State. The article takes no position on that subject. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Check 1: pass. The sentence with footnote 36 is supported by Meacham 45-46, (although I feel p. 44 is relevant to the earlier sentence(s) about Clay).

Agreed. I added page 44 to the footnote. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Check 2: pass with comment. Fn 164 (Meacham 211) is relevant to the topic, but since it occurs in the middle of a sentence, whose main verb has not yet occurred ("was not bound" is after the fn), I'm not sure what its purpose is. To show what Jackson "averred"? OK, check.
• Check 3: pass with style issue. Fn 76 (Meacham 75) refers to a quote which is missing the italics from the original. Other than that style glitch, the quote is used well in context.

Historians, especially popular historians like Meacham (who are writing for broad audiences and therefore try to make their writing as engaging as possible and less academic) sometimes add italics to emphasize a paticular part of a quote that they want us to remember. We don't carry those over to Wikipedia articles because they do not fit with an encyclopedic style. The italics also could not have been part of the original document. Letters were written by hand in those days and so it would not have been possible for there to be italics. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Here's Biddle himself, in his collection of correspondence, using the emphasis: https://archive.org/details/correspondenceof00bidduoft/page/70 ("great hazard of any system...") Outriggr (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for finding this. Italics added. Display name 99 (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Check 4. Fn 111 (Remini 1981, p. 326). The term "Kitchen Cabinet" was used by Jackson's opponents, as Remini says, but the article seems to present the term without providing that context: the creation of a "Kitchen Cabinet" – an unofficial group of Jackson advisors.[111] Jackson’s Kitchen Cabinet, led by the Fourth Auditor of the Treasury Amos Kendall and Globe editor Francis P. Blair, helped craft policy... My main points are: this was the opposition's term; and, if something was informally "created" or organized (despite Remini 326 calling it an "invented concept"), we need to know by whom--Jackson, who is missing as an active agent in the current sentence. "Jackson sought advice from an unofficial group of advisors ... who were deemed the 'Kitchen Cabinet' by his opponents."--for example.

I've rephrased this and clarified that the term was used by his opponents. I think it looks better now. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Check 5-6: pass with comment. Pleased with correspondence of fn 121, 122 to Remini. However: at the beginning, I'm not clear how adjusting tariff rates pays down the debt—through which the federal government would adjust tariff rates, fulfilling one of Jackson's goals of paying down the national debt — when it's the 16+8 million mentioned next that does so? Tariffs are mentioned once later on p. 337. Is the "anticipated revenue" tariff revenue? How can that be if "increased revenue meant that the tariff could be adjusted to a more equitable [i.e. lower?] level"? (Remini 337, emph. mine)

Adjusting tariff rates would not pay down the debt. I didn't do a good job of writing this sentence and changed it to "reduce operations and fulfill..." As far as revenue, Remini does not get into specifics. I consulted four other sources (three secondary and one primary) and they don't seem to either. It may have just been annual taxes. There are other sources such as Schlesinger which I'm not able to consult at present. However, I will examine those in the future and try to see if I can find anything. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the detail is necessary, just that the green excerpted text be re-configured as necessary. Outriggr (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Check 7: pass. Fn 268 (Meacham 279).

Outriggr, thank you for your helpful comments. I have responded above. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. I inserted two more replies above, one which I believe refutes a point.

To Be Continued... I will do another batch of source checks (with another source or two) as, and if, the FAC progresses. (I don't agree with another reviewer's claim that the article is overly verbose to an extent that is broadly problematic.) Outriggr (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Also [1], you can access the full text of these public domain books on Google? I can't. That's why I changed three of them to Internet Archive resources. In fact, of the 10+ versions of The True Andrew Jackson on google books, not a single one is viewable to me. Outriggr (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I sometimes can't find full versions of books on Google books. For older books, it is often possible. I found what I think are the entire biographies of Jackson by Snelling and Parton on Google books. In general, I find Google books easier to navigate than archive.org. I've also seen it used more widely on other articles without any problems. Display name 99 (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Outriggr, do you have any more comments to make for this review, or is this all? Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, when and if the FAC proceeds/there is a need for it. (I'm not sure the exchange with the other reviewer is going to attract participants here.) Outriggr (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

French battleship Gaulois[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Gaulois was a member of the first multi-ship class of pre-dreadnought battleships in the French Navy. Aside from having multiple collisions with other French ships, her peacetime career was fairly uneventful. When WWI began, she and her sisters were relegated to secondary roles as convoy escorts before they were sent to the Dardanelles to prevent the ex-German battlecruiser Yavuz from breaking out and to attack the fortifications defending the Dardanelles. The ship was badly damaged during one such bombardment in 1915 and had to be run aground to prevent her from sinking. Gaulois was repaired and returned to the Dardanelles. After a routine refit in France, she was sunk by a German submarine in late 1916 with the loss of only four crewmen while en route to the Eastern Mediterranean. The article had a MilHist A-class review about six months ago and I've made some minor tweaks since then so I believe that it meets the FA criteria. As usual I'd like reviewers to focus on any unexplained or unlinked jargon and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Publisher for Caresse should be Conway Publishing, and both WorldCat and GBooks list a second editor

• Taillemite: suggest translating edition statement. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

• Who made her a company or the Army itself? The lead doesn't say that.
• She was commissioned (armement définitif) on 15 January 1899 I don't think the French term is necessary it's the first time I see this in a French battleship.
• Comte de Rochambeau in Lafayette Square, Washington, D.C. On 23 May D.C. is too common, we need to unlink it.
• She made another port visit to Lisbon, Portugal, before arriving Modern-day Portugal didn't exist the link need to be replaced with the Kingdom of Portugal.
• ship made port visits in Thessaloniki and Athens, Greece I believe Athens needs to be unlinked.
• survivors of the April 1906 eruption of Mount Vesuvius in Naples Link Naples and explain that it lays in South Italy.
• Is it possible we can divide the refs in "References" into two lines? Because it doesn't look nice.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC) and Parsecboy (talk)

The Francesco Caracciolo-class battleships were an Italian design begun before the start of World War I in response to the British Queen Elizabeth-class battleships. Had they been completed, they would have been the fastest and most powerful battleships afloat. Even before the Italians joined the war in 1915, shortages of steel and other material significantly slowed their construction and construction was suspended the following year to build ships that could be completed during the war. Italian financial difficulties after the war prevented their completion, although the navy flirted with the idea of converting the most advanced ship into an ocean liner or an aircraft carrier. The article passed a MilHist A-class review a few weeks ago and we believe that it meets the FAC criteria. As usual we'd like reviewers to look for any unexplained or unlinked jargon and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

• Link knots in the body.
• Pipe Italy to the Kingdom of Italy.
• He originally called for a ship armed with twelve 381-millimeter guns Change "he" with "Ferrati" why because the sentences after this also use "he" which would make it 3 hes next to each other. IMO genders, names and the word "it" should be balanced in a paragraph. Of course if someone disagrees I'm happy to listen.
• They had a beam of 29.6 m (97 ft) and a draft of 9.5 m (31 ft) --> "The ships had a beam of 29.6 m (97 ft) and a draft of 9.5 m (31 ft)" Same reason as above.
• Metric tons vs tonnes.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN11: the References entry for this book lists only one author, while there are two here - which is correct?

• FN12: References entry has authors in a different order

• Clerici and Ordovini are the same periodical but are formatted differently

• For consistency with Cernuschi, Sandler should also include state

• Be consistent in whether you include subtitles - you have it for Goldstein but not Friedman

• Romanych: both Worldcat and GBooks list a different publisher for that ISBN. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Fowler&fowler[edit]

I'm beginning a review here, putting down some quick thoughts:

• "(sentence) "The Francesco Caracciolo-class battleships were a group of four battleships designed for the Royal Italian Navy (Regia Marina) in 1913 and ordered in 1914
  • Isn't the page about the class? I'm a little confused here. Tiger, for example, is about the species—it doesn't begin with "Tigers are a group of 8,000 animals ... " I'm curious, not saying it is incorrect.
• ... ordered in 1914; the first ship of the class, Francesco Caracciolo, was laid down that year. The other three ships, Cristoforo Colombo, Marcantonio Colonna, and Francesco Morosini were all laid down in 1915.
  • semi-colons are used to separate independent clauses if they are felt (semantically or structurally) closer to each other than to sentences to either side of them.
  • Should the separation be: "... ordered in 1914. The first ship of the class, Francesco Caracciolo, was laid down that year; the other three ships, Cristoforo Colombo, Marcantonio Colonna, and Francesco Morosini were all laid down in 1915."
• (sentence) Armed with a main battery of eight 381 mm (15 in) guns and possessing a top speed of 28 knots (52 km/h; 32 mph), the four ships of the class were intended to be the equivalent of the British Queen Elizabeth class.
  • Would "intended to be the equivalent of those in the British Queen Elizabeth class" be better?

PS, on second thoughts:

• • "The" keel was laid," I imagine, is the more common, the more encyclopedic, and the more easily understood expression. (vs. (the ship) "was laid down."
  • Would it be better to write: The keel of the first ship, Francesco Caracciolo, was laid later the same year, and those of the other three, Cristoforo Colombo, Marcantonio Colonna, and Francesco Morosini the following year." No semi-colons are needed now.
  • When were the ships launched? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Teriitaria II[edit]

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for FAC review because this is an extremely influential figure in French Polynesian history. She defeated a French invasion force in the Franco-Tahitian War and indirectly secured the independence of the Leeward Islands and the French protectorate of Tahiti (instead of outright annexation) for four decades after her victory. KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Support by Векочел[edit]

As the reviewer for the GAN of this article, I can say it is a very good article. It is well-sourced and well-written. I am giving my support. Векочел (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Question on sourcing: This is not a full source review but I notice that several of the sources used for this article are VERY old. This always raises a concern in a FAC. Could I ask the nominator why we need to rely on sources from the 19th century, with one as old as 1817? How can we guarantee that such sources meet the standards of modern scholarship? How are they used by modern scholars? I also notice a PhD thesis from 1956; what makes this reliable? Are there no modern sources on Teriitaria? If not, have we consulted any overview sources from this period to ensure that modern scholarly consensus still matches the views held in the old sources? I am not questioning the sourcing as such, but I think reviewers may appreciate some reassurance on these points. Sarastro (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: The 1817 source is a primary source used to cite the term "My wife Tarutaria" by Pomare II not much else. I often cite modern source and primary source side by side like for example Ellis (a good 19th-century source is usually accompanied by a 20th-century source); the primary sources are good places to dig for quotes. Colin Newbury seems to be the English language authority on the subject; his 1956 thesis contains material on the political situation of the islands especially in the 1850s not found in any other sources. Newbury's 1980 Tahiti Nui was the best overview of the period out there. A good chunk of the article is cited to Teissier 1978, Matsuda 2005, Newbury 1980, just some examples, not from 19th-century sources. I don't think that much have come out about Teriitaria besides one or two sentences in sources since the 1980s with Newbury's Tahiti Nui. I don't know what your definition of recent is. But basically if I want to use only recent sources within the last two decades—examples of Kirk 2012 only referring to the Battle of Maeva—this article would be a superficial read. KAVEBEAR (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll try to have a read through later. Sarastro (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Leaning Oppose: I've read the "Birth and Family" section. Sourcing seems fine, but I'm not sure we have quite got this section right. I picked up quite a few little issues and things that require clarification. I would expect these to have been ironed out before FAC and if this section of representative of the whole article, I think I would oppose. I would recommend getting an independent copy-editor to look at this. I'll let the nominator respond first, but I think if I found another section with similar issues, I would switch to a full oppose. Sarastro (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• I did some spot-checks on "Birth and Family", and everything checked out. I will do a few more if I go through, but I don't foresee any issues on this. Further to my comment above, all these sources are very high quality, so I have no further concerns on that.
• "...while her mother" does not quite work as well as it could. This may be simpler as "and her mother".
• I wonder do we have the sequence quite correct here? We talk about her birth and then her family's background. I wonder would it make more sense to give the background to her family losing their power, and then going on to her birth?
• It would also be useful at this point to say where she was born.

• I think this is just a guess on my part. We have no idea where she was born. It could have been Raiatea or Huahine since the Tamatoa dynasty lost secular power between Puni’s conquest and Tamatoa III’s reconquest in the 1800s. KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• "While still retaining their esteem because of their rank..." Could we be more specific about what this means? It is vague to the point of being almost meaningless as it stands.
• "she held special status since traditional titles were passed down by the first-born daughters in the Tahitian social organization as a matrilineality": What special status? What traditional titles? Again, this is rather vague. I also wonder should this be "passed down through the first-born daughters"? It also may make the sentence flow a little better if we maybe moved "as a matrilineality"; maybe something like "... special status as Tahitian society was organised as a matrilineality and therefore traditional titles..."
• The fourth paragraph, that starts "In the Tahitian language..." is a little strangely constructed. "In the Tahitian language, Teri'i is a contraction of Te Ari'i, meaning the "sovereign" or "chief." looks like it's just tacked onto the front, when it should be in the middle of the paragraph. The next sentence, "Tahitian names were rooted in land and titles" would perhaps make more sense as the opening of the paragraph. It is also unclear why she adopted other names.
• "It was connected through marriage and adoption with the hereditary chiefs of the other Society Islands": Doesn't seem quite right. Would it not be better as "...connected by marriage and adoption to the hereditary chiefs"?
• Finally, as someone who knows nothing about Tahiti, or this period of history, perhaps a few sentences to set the scene a little more? I've no idea of what a Ariʻi rahi would do, or how far their power or influence went. Perhaps a word or two on this, and a word or two on how long her family had ruled? Sarastro (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks. I will address these comments one by one. KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Margaret Macpherson Grant[edit]

Nominator(s): GirthSummit _(blether) 14:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a little-known 19th-century Scottish heiress and philanthropist, who inherited a vast fortune from her slave-owning planter uncle, and lived out her life with a female partner in the small town of Aberlour. I was drawn to the story of her life when researching an article about a church she founded - the source of her wealth, her lifestyle (which was very unconventional for the time), and the tragic circumstances surrounding her death at a young age were all very compelling subjects to research, and I think that many of our readers would be similarly interested. I've worked with another editor, SusunW, to find sources and make the article as detailed and reliable as we can, and Gog the Mild has been very helpful with reviews and suggestions for improvements. We'd all be delighted to receive any guidance on how we can take this to FA status - thanks in advance for any suggestions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments

In general I feel like there's not a lot of detail in this article, particularly detail specific to the subject. Below are some unanswered questions and other concerns.

• Given the length of the article, the lead should be considerably longer

• When/where was the lead image first published?

• How many Proctors were involved?

• For how long did she attend school?

• When and why did the brother go to India?

• What were the results of the Jamaican lawsuits?

• Typically cattle are considered neither a crop nor produce

• "provided she had attained her majority" - what age was majority at that point?

• "when Orange Vale was originally developed" - which was when?

• What was the problem with the English will with regards to Scots law?

• Who ended up with the Grant arms?

• How does the Saunders source meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?

• How are you ordering sources without authors? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria, :Thanks for your review. I feel that I would be able to address most of these concerns by revisiting the sources and/or revising the prose. I'd appreciate any further thoughts you have on the Saunders source however, since I'd be returning to that to expand on some of your other points. It's a completed PhD dissertation, reviewed by a committee and supervised by Samuel Wilson, who I think would be considered a specialist in the field - that's what SCHOLARSHIP calls for with dissertations, is it not? We have tried exercise care and to avoid leaning on it too heavily, but information about the Jamaican estates was hard to come by elsewhere. Do you think that we are using it too liberally without additional sources? Also, with regard to the source ordering, I think that's just been done alphabetically based on the titles - is there a preferred method for doing that? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 16:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• SCHOLARSHIP lists several factors impacting assessment of dissertation reliability, one of which is supervisor. Another is citation - has this particular thesis been cited by other sources? As to source ordering, alphabetical is fine, but should be done consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

OK thanks, much appreciated - I'll try to find out whether it's been cited in other scholarly works and get back to you. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria I haven't done a proper citation search yet, but Google tells me that the Saunders PhD is cited as a reference here (the UCL 'Legacies of British Slave Ownership' project), it's referenced in this review essay on the subject, published in Slavery & Abolition in 2017, and it's cited a couple of times in this book published by the University of Georgia Press. Does that give you any confidence in us using it as a source, or would you want to see some metrics? GirthSummit _(blether) 17:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria I've made some changes to the article. To go through your points/concerns (apologies if I should have done this in-line above, please feel free to refactor if I'm doing this wrong):

• Given the length of the article, the lead should be considerably longer

I took a look at a couple of other FA biographies, and have expanded the lead to a similar length to theirs. Do you think this is better?

• When/where was the lead image first published?

I'm looking into that now.

• How many Proctors were involved?

Three - I've named them in the article now.

• For how long did she attend school?

The source isn't clear on this - it just says 'in her teens' - I've added a few words along those lines.

• When and why did the brother go to India?

Again, the source isn't clear - it tells us that he died there, but it doesn't go into any detail about what he was doing there. I haven't been able to find anything else to allow us to expand on this.

• What were the results of the Jamaican lawsuits?

Complicated. The source explains that it ended up as a legal mess, with multiple parties suing and countersuing each other. I' not sure how we could give a concise explanation of the final resolution without adding a lot more material about the other parties involved; my feeling is that this wouldn't really be due in an article about her life (there's probably a decent length article in the history of that court case...).

• Typically cattle are considered neither a crop nor produce

Good call, I've reworded that sentence.

• "provided she had attained her majority" - what age was majority at that point?

The age of twenty was specified in the will, I've added that to the sentence.

• "when Orange Vale was originally developed" - which was when?

1780 - I've added that.

• What was the problem with the English will with regards to Scots law?

The source isn't specific - and I'm not sure whether the lawyers were at the time. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd suggest that the principal problem was that an English document would not afford any income to an Edinburgh lawyer - a serious problem in Scots law! Seriously, I'm not sure we'll be able to get at that.

• Who ended up with the Grant arms?

I don't know - it's not mentioned in the source. It's likely that nobody inherited them - the Proctors don't appear to have taken on the name, I don't imagine they would have used the arms. Machpherson Grant's father had to apply for Royal permission for her to use the arms - my guess would be that if nobody applied for permission to use them following her death, then they would simply no longer be used by anybody, but I don't have any sourcing that would allow me to add anything to the article along those lines.

• How does the Saunders source meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?

As discussed above.

• How are you ordering sources without authors?

I've fixed a couple of inconsistencies there - is there anything else standing out?

I'd be grateful for your thoughts on the work I've done so far - is this heading in the right direction? You mentioned initially that you feel it's short on detail about the subject. I'm not sure how much more we'll be able to do about that at present, we've squeezed as much as we can out of the sources we've been able to find - do you think we're going to be able to get over the line based on what we've got here? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

It's definitely heading in the right direction, but things get tricky when there's not a lot of sourcing available - for me we're not quite there yet, but let's see what other reviewers have to say. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments: I've read through this a few times, and it's looking pretty good to me. Here are a few detailed comments on "Early life and family" to be going on with. Just a few things to iron out so far, I think. I hope to return to review the rest of the article. Sarastro (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Sourcing looks good for this section, and spot checks on a few of the references revealed no issues whatsoever.
• "Following their marriage on 30 April 1825,[3] her parents had their first child, Alexander Grant Macpherson three years later.[4]": Three little issues: 1) We use FamilySearch as a reference to a birth/baptismal certificate. I've no particular issue with this, but I'm never sure how much we should use these kinds of primary sources. If no-one else has any problem, neither do I, but how sure can we be that this is the right person. 2) Clicking the link to FamilySearch takes me to a sign in page. If registration is required to view it, I think that should be indicated in the reference. 3) The sentence is a little strangely constructed using "following" and "later". My inclination would be to replace "three years later" with a date such as "in 1828".
• "...and her mother, despite being the daughter of a farmer,[6] was from the influential Grant family, and the marriage was considered to be beneath her station." Perhaps I'm being a little dim (which is certainly very possible) but why "despite being the daughter of a farmer"? I don't think being a farmer and being from an influential family are mutually exclusive. And looking at the reference that is given for this, there's nothing that actually says Annie Grant (her mother) was the daughter of a farmer. Instead, it says that Macpherson Grant's uncle was "the son of an agriculturalist". This is presumably her mother's brother, but this is not entirely clear from the source (even though it has to be him really!). If there is no better source for this, perhaps explain this in the reference somehow? Someone checking blindly might question the sourcing (which would be kind of annoying as the sourcing is right, but is not obviously right... if that makes sense?) But in any case, I'd be inclined to cut "daughter of a farmer" completely as I don't think it adds much to the sentence and sets up the contradiction that probably isn't a contradiction.
• "Her brother travelled to India, where he died in 1852, leaving Macpherson as the only surviving child": A little nit-picky, but maybe specify that she was her parents' only surviving child.
• We have quite a bit on Alexander Grant here, and I wonder are there any sources that comment on him? He seems to have got rich off the proceeds of slavery, which I wonder do we need to make more explicit? The easiest way may be to find something that comments on him, or gives an opinion. No worries if not, we can't add what the sources don't say. However, when we say "Grant claimed compensation for the loss of his slaves", it looks as if he was being particularly awful in claiming compensation, but this was what everyone did. Perhaps we need something on this, just so it doesn't look like his actions were unusual at the time, no matter how jarring it sounds today. Sarastro (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Babylon Hill[edit]

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 10:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The Battle of Babylon Hill of little more than an early skirmish of the First English Civil War. Both sides were inexperienced and still learning the art of war. As such, the description of this engagement as "more muddle than battle" is fitting. Ralph Hopton was considered one of the more able of the Royalist leaders, and yet here he found himself needlessly ambushed by the enemy.

The article underwent both a GAN and then a MILHIST A-class review in October. As always, all feedback will be gratefully received. Harrias ^talk 10:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be cited anywhere

• "modern estimates are that the Royalists lost around twenty, and the Parliamentarians five" - I see this claim attributed to a single historian in the body, are there others that support this? If no, should make clear that this is a single modern estimate only

• Batten work title is incomplete

• Morris title is missing some commas. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Zawed[edit]

My comments focus more on prose/narrative rather than on the subject matter itself given my limited knowledge of the period/topic.

• Background: "...established a siege of Sherborne..." Suggest "besieged Sherborne"?
• Background: "During the first day,..." Suggest "On the first day,...", seems to flow better
• Background: Any indication of the size of the Royalist garrison at Sherborne?
• Prelude: "Hertford sent Hopton with around 350 men" Delete "with"
• Prelude: Referring to foot soldiers and musketeers separately seems confusing as I think they are the one and the same? Perhaps just refer to 200 musketeers?
• Battle: "...the Royalist leaders decided to retire to Sherborne..." This seems a little vague here as isn't Hopton the overall commander on site? The following sentence refers to the hill (I would suggest explicitly stating Babylon Hill) so it seems this isn't in relation to all Royalist forces outside of Sherborne.
• Battle: "Colonel Lawdy" link colonel, I notice captain is linked later so ranks should be treated similarly.
• Battle: "...cavalry into array..." The wording seems strange here (perhaps you didn't want to get too close to the language of the sources) but I would suggest either "into an array" or just "into battle formation" or similar.
• Battle: "The account records that when Captain Tomson reached the fighting..." No context for who Tomson is here, perhaps the commander of another one of the Parliamentarian troops of cavalry?
• Aftermath: "...on parliament's side..." shouldn't it be Parliament? Ditto for "sympathetic towards parliament".

Another interesting read about the English Civil War. Hope the feedback helps in making this an FA. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now...

• wielding "pitchforks, dungpecks, and suchlike weapons. - can this be rephrased to remove same workds and quote marks?
• Hopton established Babylon Hill as a suitable location to observe the town, due to hedge-lined gullies which allowed his troops to climb the hill unobserved from the town - would be nice if we could eliminate one use of the word "town" and "observe/unobserved", however an alternative is not sprining to mind....

Otherwise reads very well - nice clear English, coherent, succinct and easy to follow. Seems to be to be on track comprehensiveness- and prose-wise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Note: Just to explain why I have been quiet here: we did some sorting over Christmas, and I can't currently find my copy of The Battle of Babylon Hill Yeovil 1642, which much of the article is based on. Harrias ^talk 09:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I know the feeling well...I have most of my books packed up atm. Driving me nuts Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Samuel Mulledy[edit]

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 03:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a Catholic priest who had a less-than-stellar track record as a Jesuit. He became the president of Georgetown University, but was relieved after just a few months and then was booted from the Jesuit order. He drifted around and then was re-admitted on his death bed. Ergo Sum 03:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Coffeeandcrumbs[edit]

I am not sure if I have the time for a full review but I do want to offer what I can:

@Coffeeandcrumbs: I appreciate whatever comments you can provide. If you're able to do a review of the whole article, that'd be great. Ergo Sum 22:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think you have the strong enough sourcing to use the word "severe" in the lead or the body. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I've removed the word severe. Ergo Sum 22:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• there is inconsistent use of "President of Georgetown" and "president of Georgetown". Take a look at MOS:JOBTITLES. If ignoring JOBTITLES, find your own consistent rule.
  • I've made the capitalization consistent. Ergo Sum 17:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• This source says that he received a class ("Silver") medal in mathematics as well as rhethoric which you have mentioned. He also received a honorable mention ("The Premium") in French.
  • Added. Thanks for doing a bit of research. Ergo Sum 17:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Ergo Sum: Mathematics? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
      • @Coffeeandcrumbs: Added. Ergo Sum 05:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• This source on Project Muse says that he was one of three priests at the dedication mass of St. Peter's Church (Richmond, Virginia) on May 25, 1834. It says Mulledy and Samuel Eccleston gave sermons on the occassion. I can email you the pages if you don't have access.
  • Actually, turns out the source confused the two brothers. Checking the source the author cites (column 5), it was Thomas (then president) that was at the dedication. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• This source says that he was appointed president when Ryder was called to Rome. Apparently, Ryder was accused of having an affair. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Added that detail. Ergo Sum 17:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• "Upon his return to the United States, he was named president of Georgetown" – he returned from Rome in 1941 and was not appointed president until 1945. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I've clarified the timeline. Ergo Sum 06:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• @Coffeeandcrumbs: Do you anticipate having any forthcoming comments? Ergo Sum 15:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Nope. I am good. Support. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

An interesting read:

• " but sought to be relieved of the position after just several months." I might conclude (after "position") "after only a few months". Sounds better to me anyway.
  • I like that phrasing too. Ergo Sum 23:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• I might say at first mention in the body how many years older Thomas was.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 23:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• "Near his death, Quarter sent a letter to the vicar general for the Archdiocese of New York " I might say "Shortly before" rather than "Near".
  • Done. Ergo Sum 23:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• "I would capitalize "day" in "Christmas day" Even my autocorrect said to!
  • Done. Ergo Sum 23:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources. Should the Gramatowski title be in title case like the others?

• I'm not following. The title is formatted according to {{Cite book}}. Ergo Sum 23:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• The capitalization.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• I've just capitalized it the way the source capitalizes it. I think if I were to change it, that would be (minor) modification of the original. Ergo Sum 00:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Given the briefness of the section of president of Georgetown College, it might be worth mentioning (having looked at the source) that while he was president the college attended Polk's inauguration and marched in the procession to honor Andrew Jackson on his death. By the dates, those happened during his tenure.
  • I left those out because I didn't think they were too relevant, but I've added a mention of them. Ergo Sum 23:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• I would think that you could mine Dooley for a few more details, again, given that the article is relatively brief. Father Quarter's opinion of his assistant sounds worth repeating. And it sounds like he overcame his alcoholism there, and possibly details of his funeral.
  • I've scavenged for a few more details from Dooley and incorporated them. Ergo Sum 23:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

That's it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Thank you for your comments. I believe I've responded to each. Ergo Sum 23:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Support--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

(I must note that I am planning to claim WikiCup points for these comments.) On first read, this seems to be a decent article, but short. I will leave more detailed comments later. epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• who was a prominent 19th-century Jesuit in the United States and who was also president of Georgetown. - I think you can eliminate both instances of "who was". This makes the sentence unnecessarily wordy.
  • I've removed the second instance. I think it's necessary to keep the first, because otherwise, the sentence could be read as meaning Samuel was the prominent Jesuit. Ergo Sum 20:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. epicgenius (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• proved to be a distinguished student - I feel that this may be slightly vague. Did he have good grades?
  • I find no specific grades. But several sources say he was a very good student, which is why he was sent to Rome. Ergo Sum 20:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Then I suggest you can say "was a distinguished student". "Proved to be" is a vague wording, in my view. epicgenius (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• He sought to be relieved of the position after only a few months. - Do you know why he decided to quit? I also find the phrase "sought to" slightly offputting. You can probably say, simply, that he quit.
  • I mean, technically, he wasn't allowed to quit; he had to get permission from the Jesuit superior. That's why I phrase it that way. I cannot find a reason why he quit, but I imagine it was probably related to early alcoholism. Ergo Sum 20:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• Mulledy then became an alcoholic, and was expelled from the Society of Jesus in 1850 - probably an unnecessary comma.
  • Removed. Ergo Sum 20:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• Samuel A. Mulledy[2] was born on March 27, 1811, - Not a problem in itself. Is the reference there to support his full name being "Samuel A. Mulledy"?
  • Yes. Do you think this is necessary? Ergo Sum 20:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    • That's fine. Optionally I think there can be a footnote saying that "A" is part of his full name, not an initial. epicgenius (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• His brother, Thomas F. Mulledy, was 17 years older than him, - He only had one sibling?
  • I cannot tell from the sources. They only mention Thomas, but do not definitively say he had only one. Ergo Sum 20:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

More to come later. epicgenius (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• some of his tuition he paid in kind, in the form of two horses - I think this can be rephrased because it is awkward. E.g. "He paid some of his tuition in kind,"... Are the horses the only payment he made in kind?
  • I've split it up into two sentences. It seems that the horses was it. Ergo Sum 22:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• He also studied in Nice in 1840, which fell within the Jesuit province of Turin. - Should "in 1840" be at the beginning of the sentence?
  • Either way is grammatically correct, but I've rephrased it. Ergo Sum 22:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• Generally you can mention Mulledy's name more often (first or last, either way), rather than beginning sentences with "He". E.g. He then returned from Europe can be replaced with "Mulledy then returned"...
  • Added a few more Mulledys. Ergo Sum 22:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• Speaking of commas, Mulledy then returned from Europe, and was appointed on November 1, 1841 doesn't need a comma, either.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 22:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• He was young for a holder of the position - Out of interest, any younger people held this position?
  • I'm not sure; that would require going through the 45 different presidents and seeing what age they were when they were appointed. I wouldn't really be sure how to cite that either. Ergo Sum 22:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    • That's fine. epicgenius (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• From 1847 to 1848, he was a professor dogmatic theology at Georgetown, and taught rhetoric thereafter
  1. it's missing a word - "professor of dogmatic theology"
  • Fixed. Ergo Sum 22:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  1. this phrasing may make it confusing with regards to when/where he taught rhetoric. Would that be after 1848 at Georgetown? If so you may want to say something like: "At Georgetown, he was a professor of dogmatic theology from 1847 to 1848, and taught rhetoric thereafter".
  • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 22:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• He then was assigned to the Church of Sts. Peter and Paul in South Boston and St. Mary's Church in Yonkers, New York, in 1859 and 1860 - Respectively or concurrently?
  • Respectively. Fixed. Ergo Sum 22:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• Mulledy was well liked by the congregation there, "well-liked" is an adverbial form so it can be hyphenated.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 22:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• asthma, as well as an enlarged aorta in 1865 - His preexisting asthma, or was he diagnosed with that and the enlarged aorta in 1865?
  • The source doesn't distinguish, but my understanding of asthma is that it generally doesn't arise later in life. Ergo Sum 22:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• Archbishop John McCloskey decided to transfer administration of the parish to the Jesuits,[35] which was done at Mulledy's request - you probably don't need the phrase "which was done".
  • Done. Ergo Sum 22:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

These are the rest of my comments for now. Otherwise I don't see any obstacle to this page becoming yet another priest-related FA. epicgenius (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius: Thank you for your comments. I believe I've addressed them all. Ergo Sum 22:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't really see any other issues. epicgenius (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

• Support - have read this through. It is a small article, but I can't see any prose issues itching to be corrected, nor (judging by this page) fixable gaps in narrative. hence I am tentatively supporting it but am a neophyte in the area. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Coordinator notes[edit]

Requesting a source and image review. --Laser brain (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Somewhat of a short article. Image-wise it seems like both use and license are OK here. Only one of them has ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Both images have alt text. Ergo Sum 15:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Horologium (constellation)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a constellation - so far I have been more or less involved in most of the 32 current featured articles on constellations. This one got a good going-over in GAN and I am throwing it up here for reviews. I will respond pronto. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Support by Fowler&fowler[edit]

I'm still comatose from the Christmas feast, so I can't vouch I'll be wholly cogent, but I'm troubled by this submission, by its length, or the lack thereof, but more by the lack of narrative, the kind of narrative that transmutes data in the form of lists into heuristic explanations which aid our understanding. I'd like to clarify a few things in the first three sentences of the lead first.

I agree about the lack of narrative - problem is creating overarching sentences where no sources have them veers into OR...which is also a problem. Happy for input on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I see that there already is a long line of similar articles, even about Lacaille's constellations, which are FAs. So there's precedent. ( I'll have to mull this over more. My worry is (and this might not be the best place to air it): there are hundreds of topics, for example, in math, physics, chemistry, ... One could narrow down a topic to a constituent that is a near-indivisible thematically, then write something that is comprehensive. It might not have any narrative. What do we do with such an article? ) Still, I think there has to be more content that we can use, especially in the history section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• Sentence 1: Horologium is a faint constellation in the southern celestial hemisphere, one of twelve described in the 18th century by French astronomer Nicolas-Louis de Lacaille.
  • A constellation is an imagined conspicuous configuration. How does the imaginer other than an ancient Greek become part of the non-restrictive appositive?

Most of the more recent ones are faint as they are from left-over stars that the ancients didn't visualise into patterns. Constellations now are polygonal tracts of sky as well. Shall I take the "faint" out? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't so much the faint that I was objecting to here, as the comma that creates an appositive. Can we say rephrase the first two sentences as: "Horologium (Latin hōrologium, from Greek ὡρολόγιον, lit. an instrument for telling the hour<cited to OED>) is a constellation of seven faintly visible stars in the southern celestial hemisphere that was first described by the French astronomer Nicolas-Louis de Lacaille in 1752 and visualized by him as a "clock with a pendulum and a seconds hand." In 1922 the constellation was redefined by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) as a region of the celestial sphere, and has since been an IAU designated constellation."?

Aha, ok. Yes that was worded very well and I will take you up on that offer. I had no idea about appositives until yesterday either. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, adopted. @Fowler&fowler: (or anyone else) you wouldn't have a page ref for the OED would you? I have an OED with the magnifying glass thingy but we are rearranging rooms and I think it is under a pile of books somewhere and can't immediately locate it... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

It is: horologe, noun, Oxford English Dictionary, retrieved 26 December 2019 (subscription required). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

 :) I know all about the pile of books. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• • What is a faint constellation? Does it mean that the least luminous star is faintly visible to the unaided human eye or that in the crowded night sky the configuration itself can be made out with a low (but positive) success rate by the human visual perception apparatus? If it is the former, then what is its value? If it is the latter, then what psycho-physics experiment measures it?

It means that its brightest stars are pretty faint, unlike (say) Orion, Ursa Major or Crux Australis. Its pattern to the unaided eye is pretty indistinct (like many of the more recent constellations). Astronomy guidebooks often call constellations like this (like Mensa, Octans, etc.) "faint" as a quasi-shorthand. So sort of the latter - it just highlights to a lay-reader that is a faint rather than distinctive pattern. For more detail, we have the Bortle scale - I have touched on it in a footnote but not linked as such. Constellations simultaneously have two meanings to the lay-observer - the pattern of their brightest stars, but more comprehensively, a polygonal area covering a piece of sky and all the items thereis as a sort of "address."Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Sentence 2: It is one of the eighty-eight modern constellations designated by the International Astronomical Union.
  • This sentence makes no effort to explain why there are only 88 "modern" constellations, and why, for example, a post-modern teenager with killer eyesight will not find the 89th. (I.e. even if the 88 constellations subdivide the celestial sphere into polygons whose sides are parallel to the spherical coordinate axes, there is no guarantee that this teenager will not find a finer subdivision.)

The whole sky was mapped out into 88 constellations in 1922. It seems a bit off-topic to for discussion on that to be raised here. I did look to see if any planets were described as "one of the Solar System's eight planet" (but they aren't). Would it be better then to just omit the 88, as the main thrust is that the reader understands that this is a currently recognised constellation (not like one of the many that is no longer recognised) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• The constellation is wholly visible to observers south of 23°N.
  • The southernmost star in the constellation of de Lacaille is β Horologii which is visible below 24 N. So, obviously we are talking here about a polygonal definition of constellations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Correct, I guess feasibly if Northern Hemisphere observer with a telescope was desperately keen to see something on the constellation's southernmost limits being the point... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand. Let me think about a rephrase. Sorry, I made a mistake; Beta-Horologium is visible below 26 N. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if the diagram on the left will be useful in the Characteristics section. Without it, or something similar, the notion that the constellation is wholly visible below latitude 23 N might not be clear to many readers. (Or maybe it is, and I'm just underestimating their geometry skills.) It will have to be redrawn by one of the graphics people, though. Also, in that case, you might want to insert the last two sentences beginning, "The official constellation boundaries ..." after the first sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

PS declension = declination; it has secondary meaning in grammar, that most people know. So, perhaps, best to use only declination. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I have the stats in at the bottom of the Characteristics section and figured that the numbers themselves help explain things satisfactorily. I've not been asked in previous constellation nominations. Pondering whether diagram might be good in constellation article somehow so it doesn't get repeated 88 time...(???) Maybe just leaving the phrase out of the lead altogether? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

No leaving the phrase out is not a good idea, as it aids comprehension. Does it aid it sufficiently at the level of lay knowledge? This is a tricky call. My own opinion is that it does not. We are really talking about a 3-dimensional reality. We are saying the tangent plane (i.e. the horizon) at any point of latitude less 22.96 (approx. 23 N) intersects the volume between two downward-pointing cones of apex angles (90 - 39.63) and (90 - 67.04) transversally. "Transversally" means intersecting both the inner and outer surfaces. This, of course, it too complicated an explanation. Here is one resolution: Change the sentence to: "This region on the celestial sphere is wholly visible to observers at any location below 22.96 degrees N latitude." 22.96 instead of 23 will give the reader a clue to make a connection with -67.04, as 22.96 is 90 - 67.04. I will make some tweaks in the lead directly in the interest of moving this forward. Sorry this is taking time :( If you don't like them, please revert. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

My problem here is that the source has rounded to the nearest degree... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

 :) I forgot the cardinal principle. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Update - I made a collapsible box to contain the diagram - can be seen on this version. Have reverted for now as I cannot get it to align on the left of the goddamn page and just sits in the centre jarring the whole thing. No-one has asked for something like this before, and am thinking it would be great on a more dynamic wiki that a hover would get it to appear. The collapisble box is the next best thing (I think). Anyway, have RL chores to do and will ask about how to left-align the collapsible box... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The dynamic wiki would really aid comprehension. The footnote is fine too. I will try to make a more accurae diagram. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I have made a more accurate picture. It may take some time to show in the diagram. Also, as there already is precedent for constellations, so my objection to the short length doesn't belong here. I have changed my vote to Partial support, changeable to full support once some other changes are implemented. If you don't like the new picture, feel free to revert it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - wrestled with a collapsing box for a bit but there is no way to left-align it nicely and it has been pointed out to me that their use is discouraged as per MOS. I guess it has got me thinknig about a more dynamic interface but that is a discussion for another place and time. Newer diagram looks good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I've changed my vote to a full Support. I haven't been able to read the later sections, but I managed to learn a thing or two; in particular, the definitions of ascension, which had been bugging me until I realized it is defined with respect to the sun's longitudinal plane, i.e. longitude where the sun is overhead. I've also learned something new about constellations, especially those of the southern celestial hemisphere, and the stars alpha-, beta-, and R-Horologium, and their value for astronomers both professional and amateur. This was fun for me. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

thanks muchly, @Fowler&fowler:, these articles really benefit from some prose polish.....any spare time for a neophytic look at Rigel I would be insanely grateul for, even just the lead... :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review - pass[edit]

• Consider adding alt text.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Source review - pass[edit]

The sources used are all reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Ersatz Yorck-class battlecruiser[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

This article covers a planned class of German battlecruiser that was cancelled late in World War I - they were originally to have been Mackensen-class battlecruisers, but were redesigned in response to the latest British Renown-class battlecruisers. Never built due to Germany's shifting industrial priorities, they nevertheless provided the starting point when the German Navy began work on what became the Scharnhorst class in the mid-1930s. This article was thoroughly overhauled earlier this year and passed a Milhist A-class review in February, so it should be in good shape. Thanks to all who take the time to review it. Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• The draft in the infobox doesn't match that in the text
  • Fixed
• Gröner: is this the revised edition with additional authors? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, added (and that's a lot of articles I'll need to fix). Parsecboy (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

• Pipe German to the German Empire.
  • Done
• governed the building program of the German navy during World War I Link the German Navy I also believe navy should be capitalised.
  • Done
• had a displacement of 34,000 to 38,000 metric tons (33,000 to 37,000 long tons) Link tonnes and long tons.
  • Done
• estimated to have been able to steam for 5,500 nautical miles (10,200 km; 6,300 mi) Link nmi.
  • Done
• largely been diverted to support the U-boat campaign U-boat campaign is a proper noun.
  • Fixed
• a concept Wilhlem II had been pushing for years Typo here.
  • Good catch
• denotes that the gun quick firing Quick firing needs a hyphen.
  • I don't think it does there - you generally only hyphenate when the two words form a compound adjective that directly describes a noun (the same as "X class" vs "X-class ship")
• in four Drh LC/1913 twin gun turrets; this was identical to the main armament Twin gun needs a hyphen.
  • Fixed
• Link long tons, tonnes and full load in the infobox.
  • Done

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Support by Llammakey[edit]

• battlecruiser should be linked at its first appearance in the first paragraph of development
  • Good catch
• The improved field of view statement after the trunked funnels in the first paragraph of the design section is unclear if you mean the conning tower or the mast, especially since you just spoke about the spotting tops.
  • The mast - hopefully clearer now
• I would hyphenate single ended and double ended boilers
  • Fixed
• In armor, link Derfflinger-class ships
  • Done. Thanks Llammakey. Parsecboy (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Changed to support. Llammakey (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

• All images properly licensed.
• All drawings based on RS sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notes[edit]

Unfortunately this is nearing the one-month mark and hasn't seen much attention overall. I've added it to the Urgents list but otherwise it will be archived in the coming days. --Laser brain (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I left a couple of notes on relevant wikiprojects - hopefully that can drum up a few reviewers. Parsecboy (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias[edit]

• {{lang}} for Kaiserliche Marine, rather than just italics please. (Check for later examples too, I spotted Reichsmarineamt, Grossadmiral, Vizeadmiral, grosskampfschiff Konteradmiral.)
  • Ugh, I still need to go through and fix a lot of articles with this problem - they should all be fixed here
• "..the Mackensens, ..." Is it really right to not italicise the plural 's' here? It looks very odd.
  • You can do it either way - I've tended to see the non-italicized variant, so that's what I've used (see for instance here)
• "..of the three to have construction begin," This sounds a little laboured to me; maybe "..of the three to have begun construction,"?
  • Works for me
• "..were initially to have been members of the Mackensen class, and initial funding.." close repetition of "initial".
  • The first "initially" can probably just go
• "..that hewed closer.." "hewed" is quite an AmEng-centric term. While I appreciate that this article is written in AmEng, is there a more accessible word that can be used?
  • Reworded
• "Capelle stated that the last three Mackensens—Ersatz Yorck, Ersatz Scharnhorst, and Ersatz Gneisenau—and Ersatz Friedrich Carl if work had not proceeded too far along, and that they should be reordered as a completely new design, GK6, which he submitted." This doesn't seem to make grammatical sense to me? Possibly remove "and that they"?
  • Probably something that got rewritten once too many times
• "Since the ships' propulsion system.." This might be an ENGVAR thing, but shouldn't "propulsion system" be pluralised here?
  • Good catch
• "After 1917, work on the ship only took place in order to keep dockyard workers occupied.[2] The ships were never built, primarily because the shipyard capacity available that late in the war.." This feels like a contradiction: the first sentence says they worked on it, essentially, because they had nothing better to do, while the second sentence suggest there wasn't enough capacity to work on it?
  • I can see how you got there if you're only considering manpower, but there were a couple of things going on. The shipyard facilities could only build so many vessels at a time, since there were only so many slipways. And completing the hull would allow the yard to launch it, thus clearing the slipway for other projects There were also only so many support structures (which is to say, the subsidiary production organization that included the workshops that assembled ships' engines, armor plate factories, etc.) - so if, for example, Krupp doesn't have the production capacity to complete guns for these ships on top of the colossal demands the German Army at that point in the war, the ship won't be completed, regardless of whether everything else in the logistical chain would support it.
• "GK3021 and GK3022 types" What are these?
  • Other latewar design studies, two of quite a few - I don't know that a separate article is worthwhile on them since they were purely academic, with no realistic proposition of being built.
• "..the design formed the starting point for the design work.." The second "design" probably isn't needed.
  • Agreed
• One thing I found a bit confusing was that in the Development section, is states "Capelle stated that the last three Mackensens—Ersatz Yorck, Ersatz Scharnhorst, and Ersatz Gneisenau—and Ersatz Friedrich Carl if work had not proceeded too far along". This is the only mention of Ersatz Friedrich Carl, I assume it just never got ordered at all?
  • It's somewhat common to have conflicting names for ships that weren't built - I think Staff is referring to one of the four Mackensens as Ersatz Friedrich Carl, but I don't have the book at hand to confirm. Groner refers to the last Mackensen as "Ersatz A", which doesn't comport with German contract naming practices. I'll check with Staff later today.

Generally very interesting, and only really minor fixes: nice work. Harrias ^talk 15:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Harrias. Parsecboy (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Henry Clifford, 10th Baron Clifford[edit]

Nominator(s): ——SN54129 14:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Another in a series of bold bad barons—yes, I'm typecasting myself!—this time the son of "Butcher Clifford" of Shakespearean fame. This chap was less a butcher and more a shepherd, who went from disgraced son of a traitor to a clapper of cannons, an astrologer and a commander at the Battle of Flodden; in between all this came two wives, many mistresses, mutual accusations of adultery and a lawsuit accusing him of denying his wife her conjugal rights.

Oh yes, and he was a loyal servant of the King occasionally as well.

Any commentary and suggestions welcome for the article's improvement. Cheers. Festive greetings to all who look in! ——SN54129 14:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley[edit]

There's a lot of this article, and I'll need two or three goes at it. These are my comments down to the end of "Patronage, alliances and local relations"

• Lead

• "the King's son, Prince Arthur" – not sure why the blue link takes us not to Arthur but to his younger brother.

Corrected.

• Background

• "The Clifford family, who were originally from Normandy …The family was elevated to the peerage" – singular or plural? Either is fine, but on the whole I'd stick to one or the other throughout.

Avoided the first use, with The Clifford family, originally from Normandy...he family was elevated.... Perhaps reads a little better, tightened?

Fine, I'd say. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• "This title also held the minor baronies" – do titles hold things? Seems slightly awkward phrasing.

Changed to and also held the minor baronies...

• "never to receive an earldom" – a nice line, but I don't think the quotation marks are wanted here: nobody is going to accuse you of plagiarism as the authorship is clearly acknowledged.

Right, thanks. Unquoted.

• "Wars of the Roses——broke" – that's a helluva parenthetic dash

!!! Halved.

• "Clifford's father John, died" – needs a comma before John as well as after.

Done.

• Family and early life

• "Margaret, argues the medievalist A. G. Dickens, as sole heiress to her father Henry, brought Clifford's father a "questionable claim" to the title Lord Vescy, as well as extensive lands in the East Riding." – a rather tortuous sentence. Smoother if you move Dickens to the front: "In the view of the medievalist A. G. Dickens …."

Thanks for the suggestion; I've adopted it.

• "he was moved to either to Yorkshire, or Cumberland "about Threlkeld, where his father-in-law's estate was, and sometimes in the borders of Scotland"" – this seems an unhappy amalgam of unquoted and quoted. As it stands it seems to say that Threkeld was sometimes in Cumbria and sometimes in the borders of Scotland. (I know Threlkeld well and can (WP:OR) assert that it is on the A66 just before Keswick.)

How about a rewording: Whenever his mother believed him likely to be discovered he would be moved. Precisely where to is unknown, but Yorkshire or Cumberland are possible; for example, Clifford's father-in-law had estates in Threlkeld.

Continuing your WP:OR, do you know if the Shepherd Lord story is reflected there still? Pub, street names, for example?

That seems to me just what is wanted. Nothing leaps to mind from personal observation about pub or street names etc. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• "Clifford was alleged to have been monikered" – oh, come on! This is an encyclopedia article, not a Wodehouse novel.

Ho ho! Bloody tricky this one. How about cutting the reference to Bosworth etc (which is repeated later in more detail) and going with This supposedly gave Clifford the soubriquet "shepherd lord".?

Better, I think. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Other reviewers may disagree with me, but I gradually got the feeling during this section that you were throwing everything but the kitchen sink into the various takes on Clifford's supposed secret upbringing. This section amounts to more than 10% of the whole article. I wouldn't mind having it boiled down a bit, but am perfectly prepared to be voted down.

I see your point. Although I would phrase it just like that, to some extent, yes, I wanted to thoroughly present the breadth of scholarly argument, so avoiding WP:UNDUE. If you look at the article history prior to my November rewrite, the Shepherd Lord myth was almost the sole focus of other editors' contributions; this way, hopefully, I've not given anyone the chance to complain!

Oh, I see! We've all been there in one way or another when overhauling an old article for FA. It's difficult to judge how much to prune, and one doesn't want to tread on toes. All the same, if other reviewers express views similar to mine you'll have a sort of mandate to wield the pruning shears further. It's your call, in the end, and 10% of the article or not, it isn't something on which I'd oppose promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Inheritance and estates

• "centred around Cumberland" – there are those (of whom I am not one) who get in a right old state about "centred around". Foolishly over-literal, I think, but still it saves grief if one avoids provoking them and writes "centred on" instead.

I'll bear that one in mind for the future too!

• "both Nevilles were slain at the Battle of Barnet" – how splendidly Old Testament! Very picturesque, but I think a plain "killed" would be preferable.

Done.

• "at this time, as, on 16 March 1472 Edward granted him a royal pardon" – one comma too many or one too few.

Lost the second comma.

• "This was despite Clifford's brother Thomas attempting" – there are those (and this time I am one) who would insist on a traditional gerundive construction here – "Thomas's attempting", but I quite see that this could cause a pile-up of possessives. Perhaps "despite the attempt(s) by Clifford's brother Thomas…"

(More or less) done—what d'you think of This was despite an attempt by Clifford's brother Thomas to raise an—albeit unsuccessful—pro-Lancastrian rebellion in Hartlepool?

Ideal, me judice. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• "She was buried in Londesborough Church, under what Dickens calls an "attractive brass setting forth her titles"." – I don't doubt it, but is it really relevant to this article?

Unfortunately, probably not; if she ever gets her own article, it can be recycled.

• Accession of Henry Tudor

• "the second city of the kingdom" – is that in the sources? I thought Norwich was the second city in those days, but I'm probably wrong.

Struck, "second city": the important point is its regional pre-eminence.

• Career in the North

• "This may well have been prescient, suggests Summerson, as in 1513 he attempted to lay claim to the city's troops for his own army." – nobody is really going to misunderstand you but the "he" here is Clifford, not Summerson, and it would be as well to use the name and not the pronoun.

Done.

• "The medievalist David Grummitt argues" and in the next para "argues Summerson" – a bit too argumentative? (Seven "argues" in the whole article.) Suggesting, commenting, remarking etc are all available.

Reduced to two argues, one of which is an impersonal use.

• "the Dean of York Minster" – is this the idiomatic form? Of course the Dean was in charge of the Minster, but I think "Dean of York" is the normal form.

Done.

That's all for now. More anon. Tim riley talk 18:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Concluding batch from Tim

• Later years

• "wherefrom most of his extant charters and letters are signed" – a touch of the antique about "wherefrom", don't you think? "from where" would do the job more normally.

It must be my inner-Wodehouse attempting to break out again. Done.

• Personal life

• "Anne's chaplain began negotiated this" – "negotiating", presumably.

Bloody silly mistake. Thanks!

• "numerable mistresses – "numerable" is a new one on me, and I suggest a less unexpected adjective such as "many".

I haven't made it up :) but you're correct of course, to keep the language as non-technical as possible. Can we go with "a number of mistresses", as "many" suggests we know a lot of names, whereas actually we don't, if you see what I mean?

No, but let it pass. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Death

• "His widow Florence later remarried" – non-restrictive clause: needs commas round "Florence" (otherwise it's restrictive and he had more than one widow).

Excellent, thanks very much.

• "deliberately intended to be as extravagant as possible" – the adverb seems superfluous: can something be undeliberately intended?

Done.

• Cultural depictions

• "Wordsworth also envisions" – what a hideous verb! It is admittedly in the OED, but in my opinion should not be allowed out of it.

Ha, I agree. It was a real pain trying to express what Wordsworth thought, exactly; how about "imagines"?

That'll do me. Much less painful, thank you. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• "suggests scholar Curtis Bradford" – clunky false title.

Done.

• "The life and career of Henry Clifford was fictionalised and set to a libretto by Isaac Albéniz for his opera Henry Clifford" – this reads as though Albéniz wrote the words. In fact the libretto was by Francis Burdett Money-Coutts; Albéniz wrote the music.

You can tell I'm out of my comfort zone with this. Does The life and career of Henry Clifford was fictionalised by Isaac Albéniz and Francis Money-Coutts—the former writing the music, the latter the libretto—in their opera Henry Clifford, which premiered in 1895, work? although it's now quite a long sentence, annoyingly.

The work sank without trace after its initial run. You can safely prune the sentence, if you prefer, on the lines of "Isaac Albéniz's opera Henry Clifford (1895) presents a fictionalised version of Clifford's life and career".

• Afterthought: I'm not sure about this, but should "the life and career" have a plural verb, rather than a singular, as here? (cf "fish and chips is a classic dish" –v– "fish and chips are a classic dish" - when does a double noun become singular?) Tim riley talk 22:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This is an excellent point; I'm afraid I have no idea. I considered "life and career" to be collective, but have no substantive reasoning behind.

With any luck some other reviewers may express a view. I'll be interested, if so. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Notes

• Note 3 – "Other examples from therein are" – perhaps just "from there"?
• Note 10 – "informing him that due to the patronage of a London merchant" – "due to" is accepted in AmE as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, just "because of" is safer
• Note 12 – "Lander describes the King's treatment of Clifford during this episode "brutal"" – missing an "as"?

All notes agreed and actioned per your suggestions.

That's all from me. I'll look in again when you've had time to consider these points. Tim riley talk 19:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Thanking you Tim riley, all excellent points, all actioned except a couple of points that might need a little further discussion, if that's OK with you. The bulk of my changes came with this edit, if you'd like to Compare And Contrast. Cheers! ——SN54129 13:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Support. The article seems comprehensive and balanced; it is well structured and in good readable prose, with admirable illustrations. I have suggested a bit of pruning to one section, but whether pruned or not the article seems to me to meet the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• File:William_Larkin_Anne_Clifford,_Countess_of_Dorset.jpg: source/photographer link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Updated that source link, Nikkimaria, thanks very much! ——SN54129 13:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

• "Battle of Bosworth" Is it better termed the Battle of Bosworth Field?

Agreed, done.

Also in body under "Accession of Henry Tudor"

• "Henry's victory meant that he needed loyal men to control the North of England for him, and Clifford's career as a loyal Tudor servant began. " loyal/loyal. (with another loyal end of paragraph) Some variety?

I dropped the first "loyal", better? I don't think it's lost accuracy. third "loyal becomes "trustworthy".

• "Clifford was not always successful in this. Nor did his actions always make him popular. " I might merge these.

Good idea, done.

• You are inconsistent, even in the lede, as to capitalisation of king "the King"

Fixed one.

• "Although Clifford rarely attended the royal court himself, he sent his son to be raised with the King's son, Prince Arthur. However, Clifford later complained that young Henry not only lived above his station but consorted with men of bad influence; Clifford also accused his son of regularly beating up his father's servants on his return to Yorkshire." I'm not sure I see the justification for the "However," to say not9ing of the fact that having "Although" and "However" start successive sentences is something like watching a tennis match, back and forth.

right; how about "Clifford rarely attended the royal court himself, but sent..."?

• Shouldn't Henry VIII be linked on first use?

Linked in lead.

• I would rephrase the final lede paragraph to avoid the need to have consecutive sentences start with "Clifford"

Done.

• "Young Henry son inherited the title as 10th Baron Clifford as well as a large fortune and estate, " Awkward in the first few words.

Bizarre extra word removed! Cheers.

• "By this period, the King, Henry VI, was politically weak and was occasionally incapacitated and unable to rule effectively." Which period (or reign) was this? When he was a minor? I'd be more specific.

I've tied it to Clifford's birthdate (which, conveniently, it was).

• " a number of battles were fought over the next few years, in which both Lancastrians and Yorkists won victories.[6]" I don't see the point of the last part of the sentence ("in which" and after) unless it's just a coatrack for the links. Can something a bit more useful be said? In most wars with staying power, both sides win victories.

I found that tricky, as it goes—it was essential to mention the WotR, but too tempting to add lots of—frankly irrelevant—detail from well before Clifford's operative years. How about, By 1461 a number of battles had been fought between nobles loyal to the Lancastrian King and those of the Yorkists, led by Richard, Duke of York, who had claimed the throne in 1460?

• "and buried in a common burial pit." This makes it sound beneath his rank, or possibly dishonourable. Would the sources support an addition after "buried" of "with his men" or "with fellow soldiers" or similar?

I think you've got it with your first point—Cokayne indeed says "with some of his men", or something, so that can legitimately be clarified.

• "After what is now considered the biggest and possibly bloodiest battle ever to take place on English soil,[9][10]" what about "believed to be" for the "now considered"? Now considered implies a change and thus is a bit of a distraction.

Done.

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for your suggestions Wehwalt, all, I think, adopted in one way or another. Any other criticisms are welcome, in your own time. Have a good holiday! ——SN54129 13:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• "Anne clearly believed that Edward IV sought revenge for the murder of his younger brother the Edmund, Earl of Rutland at the Battle of Wakefield in 1460, which placed young Clifford's life in danger." Surplus "the" before "Edmund" .

Removed

• "and, says Malay, "recalls the romantic tale" of the shepherd's family. " Why of the shepherd's family in particular?

Removed unnecessary duplication and tightened the sentence.

• "Accession of Henry Tudor" Would it not be better (easier on the reader) to have "Accession of Henry VII"?

Absolutely, done.

• "As part of his efforts to secure the region, Clifford wrote under his own authority 24 October 1486 to the city of York—at the time, the capital of the north—ordering them not sell arms or armour to non-residents .[47]" Odd place to put the date, note also the rogue space before the full stop.

I've reworded the sentence, and in doind so caught the roge space (On 24 October 1486, Clifford wrote to the city of York)

• "He was knighted on 9 November the same year.[16]" I would change "the same year" to "1485" as "same" really refers to "during his first parliament" and it is not clear from the text if that was entirely in 1485.

Done.

• "Summerson suggests that Henry had little choice in restoring Clifford to his traditional regional position, as Northern England had been firmly Yorkist, first under the Nevilles and then under Gloucester, for over 20 years, the latter making Yorkshire his powerbase.[1]" I would move up "for over 20 years" to after "Yorkist" without a comma between them.

Good idea, actioned.

• "The former had been one Gloucester's most important headquarters.[50] " There's an "of" missing, I suspect. Also, you refer to Gloucester by title thrice in two sentences.

H'mmm, catch. How about he former had been one of Richard of Gloucester's most important headquarters. After Richard took the throne, he granted it...?

• " Clifford tailed it to Braham" a bit informal?

Perhaps! Plain old "followed", then?

• "they served "our ful gode and gracious lorde the duc of Gloucestre" under the previous regime.[62]" The Duke of Gloucester was Richard III, if I read my dramatic personae correctly, but he was also the immediately previous regime. I imagine the previous regime spoken of is Edward IV, and I would say so.

Reworded.

• "successfully besieging and capturing Norham Castle from the Scots.[36]" I would cut "successfully" as redundant. If they've captured it, they were successful.

Indeed! Done.

• "of the 14-year-old Prince Arthur, and managed by the Archbishop of York, Thomas Savage in the early years of the 16th century.[1]" Arthur did not stay 14, or even alive, through the "early years of the 16th century", other than 15 months of it.

Good point, which I've made now, and also added a short footnote explaining Arthur died soon after.

You didn't do the note properly.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

D'oh! Thanks for that, fixed.

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks again Wehwalt! Your comments hopefully addressed here. Cheers! ——SN54129 14:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• "and took the opportunity to rebuild and repair castles and other properties as he did so." It may be an Engvar thing, but I would omit "so".

I don't know about Engvar, tbh, but nothing wrong with shortening a sentence.

• "Quo Warranto" I would lower case.

Done.

• "Matrimony does not seem to have been peaceful," seems an odd way of putting it, I might say "The relationship" or "Their relationship" instead of "Matrimony".

Yes, good point, "relationship".

• "Lady Margaret" there are several Margarets mentioned, it is unclear who is being referred to.

Done (the King's ma).

• "Clifford had a number of illegitimate children by a number of mistresses," too many numbers. Several?

Done.

• "including at least two sons named Thomas and Anthony.[101]" multiple sons or multiple Thomases? I might cut out the "at least"

Right!

• "tythes" Should this be "tithes"?

Yes—I was taken in by the redirect!

• "the north". You are consistent on this phrase, except for one use as a section heading.

Lower-cased the section heading.

• " Charlotte Mary Yonge compared Clifford in his shepherd hut to the roaming of the deposed King Henry VI" Why is this past tense when you've generally made such descriptions be in the present tense?

Yes, I was deliberately trying to keep all commentary in the present tense! Sorted.

• Should note 12 end with a full stop?

Indeed it should.

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again Wehwalt—your suggestions actioned here. (Incl. that refnote from yeserday). ——SN54129 13:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I apologies for the tardiness of my reply, Wehwalt—many thanks, again, for looking in, and a happy new year to you! Cheers, ——SN54129 14:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review - pass[edit]

Booking a spot. Which I will get around to some time. Feel free to nag. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• Nit-picking i: Arnold "pp. 116–138"; Bearne "11–16". Consistency would be preferred.

Indeed it would, but for some reason {{cite book|pages=}} calls pp= and {{cite journal|pages=}} does not.

Does it now? No doubt there is a sound reason for it.

Possibly; but for an alternative view of the citation templates' unofficial guardians, see this mother of all threads at a relatively recent WP:AN...

• Coleridge: "Or" → 'or'.

Done.

• Malay 2017, could NE be given in full.

Is this something new, then?

I was unaware that the US Postal Service's codes for states had ever been an acceptable disambiguator; but then, there are many things I am unaware of. Certainly, it seems a stretch to expect a non-US reader to guess what "NE" indicates.

Ah...I think I saw a discussion taking place on it recently, but can't find it now, if you know where I'm talking about. In any case, It's probably a good idea to fill out Nebraska, so I'll do that now.

• The Political Function of History: The Past and Future of Noble Familes I assume that should be 'Families'? (I realise that it is spelt "Familes" on page v, but see, eg, note 54, page 85; or Google Scholar.)

Shaun Tyas has really gone downhill! Bet he gone raimed on that one.

I have no doubt that he blamed his copy editor.

Touché!

Spot checks to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Why?

Because you can't write things like "Florence sued her husband in ... court for the restitution of conjugal rights" and not expect a source reviewer not to want to find out more! I mean, how did she expect the court to enforce a judgement? Was there a special class of bailiff? When source reviewing I usually, but not always, check some of the sourcing.

PS In the main article, could "fought at Flodden" be linked to Battle of Flodden? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I removed the hatnote as in fact only a section of the section discussed Flodeen, and now linked inline. Many thanks as ever Gog the Mild. Compliments of the season to ye and yours. ——SN54129 14:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The sources used are all reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them; and provided me with several chortles along the way. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go; and where not, to only be used judiciously to cite straight forward facts. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanking you, Gog the Mild, all the best. ——SN54129 15:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notes[edit]

This hasn't seen any activity in recent weeks and needs more review to push it over. I've added it to the Urgents list but otherwise it will be archived in the coming days. --Laser brain (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Right of abode in Hong Kong[edit]

Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

This article is about permanent residency in Hong Kong. Rewrote this article a while ago and think it's up to FA standards. Given current events in the city, looking at its colonial history is particularly interesting. Addressed sourcing issues since last FAC and should be good to go on that front. Hoping this nomination will get a bit more traction this time around, and looking forward to feedback on the content. Horserice (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Kingsif

• There have been no substantial edits since the last nomination, and only some of the sourcing issues have been addressed. I can certainly write a full review, but it doesn't seem to have improved to FA standard in the last two weeks. I also feel like this was GA nominated a while ago but seems to have been removed from there? Kingsif (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I have to note that there was no feedback on the actual content of the article in the last review, so there couldn't have been anything substantial for me to address. Seems like a leap to say it's not up to spec when that was the only outstanding issue? And yeah, I removed it from GAN because seven months without a review is long enough. Your feedback on the content would be appreciated. Horserice (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Well, both of those assertions are highly questionable. Some initial content comments:

The lead does not read like a lead, it reads like an introduction. This is just some stylistic phrasing, perhaps a review of leads in similar articles and/or MOS:LEAD could point this to be better.

The first line of MOS:LEAD says: The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction), so I don't understand what you're trying to point out by saying that the lead reads like an intro.

Leads are supposed to be an overview of the article, not an introduction to the topic. I also think overall it was the phrasing. It doesn't read like a lead, it almost sounds more instructional (i.e. lecture-y)... you know? Kingsif (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Mmmm but I don't know. Opinions from other editors would be nice here? Horserice (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

As a side note, is there any reason that the sidebar is in conflicting shades of green and blue? It's not easy to look at.

It's pretty old and I think whoever made it was trying to approximate the green used on Hong Kong identity cards. Changed the color scheme to be a bit more muted.

Right of abode eligibility was accordingly closely tied could be rephrased to something more easy-to-read.

As with Residents with the right of abode are unconditionally allowed to reside; Those who additionally do not possess the right of abode in foreign countries may stand for office; probably other parts but I would defer to someone more familiar with the ideals of FA prose these pointers.

Tweaked some of the phrasing, but it's written that way to be unambiguous in meaning even if a bit cumbersome.

The background may be too detailed on elements of British nationality that are not really related to right of abode in Hong Kong.

Equally, a bit more detail on complex terms like belonger status, given its relevance, may be useful.

It would be important to distinguish between previous rules on residency and the legally-defined 'right of abode', i.e. why the previous rules are under 'background' and not 'history' (that it's not a different version of the rules, it was a different rule altogether). Unless it is a previous version of the same right of abode law, as Prior to 1997, acquisition of the right of abode... seems to suggest. So this is unclear.

Regulations on residency are largely carried over from the colonial era with relevant changes hashed out through negotiations between the British and Chinese governments. So yes, the rules for residency in British Hong Kong are a previous iteration of the ones currently in effect today, updated to be tied to Chinese nationality law. The focus on British nationality law in the background section is to illustrate how right of abode in this territory evolved to its current state and why it remains distinct from residency in the rest of China. Belonger status is just a synonym for permanent residency, which itself is just a label for possessing right of abode; I'm really not sure what you'd expect to be elaborated on there.

Even just some expansion on the term 'belonger', since it is used nowhere else? Kingsif (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Tweaked the phrasing a bit, maybe that works for you? Horserice (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Surely there is conflict and discussion on the acquired residents having and not having certain rights? I'd expect some coverage of legal, policy, public debate history of the 'rights and privileges' and 'restrictions' sections.

The part where it says A limited number of residents with foreign nationality or right of abode in other countries may be elected to functional constituency seats in the legislature does not then suggest who or why. So, who? And, why?

There's two things that foreign nationals can't do: 1) hold an HKSAR passport and/or mainland travel and residence permits 2) run for most LegCo seats. I'd consider the first one to be self-explanatory because as a general rule, virtually no one can hold a passport of a country they're not a citizen of. Eligibility for the travel and residence permits has always been exclusive to Chinese nationals. For candidacy in the legislature, I don't think it's in scope of this article and should go in the articles on the Legislative Council or functional constituencies since the restrictions are not directly related to Hong Kong right of abode itself.

• I may add more detailed notes, but this came from a quick skim and feels like at least somewhere to start. Kingsif (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Horserice: Thanks for the responses and edits! Kingsif (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Sorry for the delayed response, the holidays were distracting. Horserice (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Could you take a look again at the sources? Don't think I missed anything. Thanks, Horserice (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'm afraid you're unlikely to get a response from Brian. buidhe 10:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Coordinator notes[edit]

I'm afraid this has once again slipped far down the list with very little attention. It will be archived soon unless it receives some significant review. --Laser brain (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Washington Heights, Chicago[edit]

Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Chicago Community Area #73, located on the Far South Side and unrelated to the one in New York. Established where two railroads crossed, it became one of the original community areas in the 1920s. Originally mostly settled by Irish, Germans, and Swedes, it experienced white flight in the 1960s and has been predominately African-American since then. It has mostly retained its middle-class character after the transition but has declined a bit in recent years. It contains the Brainerd Bungalow Historic District and the Carter G. Woodson Regional Library, home to the largest collection of African-American history in the Midwestern United States. I owe it to Mpen320 for looking this over and suggesting additions to the article, which entailed a major expansion of it using the induction info on the Brainerd District and miscellaneous other information; I am unaware of any good major sources outside of what I have included here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • Done

• File:Washington_Heights_OpenStreetMap.png: if this is from OpenStreetMap, why is it tagged as own work? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I took the screenshot and had a lapse of judgment in that regard. I have since corrected it.
    • Okay, but the licensing tag is still own work? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
      • I have fixed it with the licensing tag from File:Soho (London) OSM map.svg, which is another OSM screenshot. Apologies if I am still mistaken with regards to OSM licensing in general. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Please be more specific about source(s) for the infobox data
  • All of the stuff in the infobox (except for time zone, which I don't think is likely to be challenged) is cited in the prose with better sources. As such, per WP:INFOBOXCITE I have removed the infobox footnotes.
    • The area shown in the prose is different from the one in the infobox. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
      • The prose value was a typo that I have corrected. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• What is your source for the inflation calculation in note a?
  • I got it from {{Inflation}}, and have added {{Inflation/fn}}.

• Don't mix templated and untemplated citations
  • All inline citations have been templated.

• Be consistent in when you include locations for publications
  • I have removed all locations from inline citations, but have kept them for bibliography entries when they are available.

• Be consistent in when you wikilink parts of citations
  • I have removed all inline citation wikilinks.

• Don't duplicate |work= and |publisher= when they are the same, use only the more appropriate one
  • I don't see any such duplicates, all of the |work=s have a different |publisher=. I have, however, done some miscellaneous parameter improvements.
    • Keeping in mind that |work= has several aliases, I see several such instances - for example, Illinois Policy. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Done for Illinois policy, as well as the Civic Federation and Kensington Research. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• What makes Rob Paral a high-quality reliable source? ZipMap? Chicago-L.org? Fuder?
  • Paral and Associates is an organization dedicated to providing data for community development; they have had several clients (admittedly their words, but I see no reason to doubt them). The data used is objective enough such that NPOV and CoI issues should be low, and the fact that the data for 1930, 1960, 1990, and 2000 line up with those provided by the Encyclopedia of Chicago indicates that it is an adequate and reliable source. Chicago-L.org is managed by Graham Garfield; it maintains a bibliography of the sources it uses; while it solicits and encourages user entries, they are submitted through e-mail, providing an opportunity for Garfield to vet them. Given that, I believe it is a sufficient source to verify the claim that 95th/Dan Ryan was the 6th-busiest "L" station in 2012, although if you beg to differ I can try to find another source or remove the claim altogether. Fuder is a prayer booklet, and thus probably not the best source for most of the article, but according to its Introduction it was compiled over several years by several people, largely grad students at the Moody Bible Institute. Its sole use in the article was to verify that Longwood Manor is a neighborhood in Washington Heights, which looking through Google Maps and real estate sites seems WP:TRUE enough but which Zangs does not mention and which upon further reflection isn't found in any other sources and should thus not be mentioned in the article; I have thus removed it and Fuder for the time being. ZipMap was not a reliable source, and I have replaced it with a much better one.
    • What is Garfield's background? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
      • He is the CTA's general manager in RPM (Red and Purple Line modernization) and works for them in communications as well: https://thetrolleydodger.com/tag/graham-garfield/. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• FN47 is missing date and authors, the report title should be italicized, and DocDroid should be in |via= or not included at all
  • There are no authors given in that report to the best of my knowledge, but I have attempted to make improvements. I don't think {{cite web}} might be the best template for italicizing the title, perhaps another template may be used.
    • Why not {{cite report}}? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Done, although the title is still not italicized. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Chicago Tribune should be italicized
  • Done

• Be consistent in how DNAinfo citations are formatted
  • I have decided to use {{cite news}} with all of them.

• FN73 returns 404 error. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Archived

Thank you for your feedback, and apologies for the delay in getting to all of them. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by Epicgenius[edit]

@John M Wolfson: In the course of my real-life job (which is not related to editing Wikipedia at all), I had the great pleasure of reading many subjects on Chicago topics, including drawing maps and writing real-estate blurbs for Chicago neighborhoods. I have to say that this is one of the better neighborhood-related pages in the WP:CHICAGO project, as there are only three neighborhood GA's and the Washington Heights article looks like it is at least GA quality.

Anyway, that said, here are some preliminary comments I have.

• There doesn't seem to be any content at all about fire or health. There is only minimal info about police and crime.
  • I have added some material on crime stats, I'll see whether I can find something about fire and health. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
    • This is a good start. Would it be appropriate to make a "Police and crime" section/subsection with both the police district and the crime stats?
    • I think "Governance" should similarly be looked-at. This section is currently a single paragraph with, as far as I can tell, three distinct topics: [Governance/courts], [Police], and [Post offices and ZIP codes]. These topics may be better off if they are split up, at least into separate paragraphs, but that's just a suggestion. epicgenius (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• The "Transportation" section can stand to be split up into separate subsections, I think.
  • The first paragraph is more heavily loaded on Metra, but the Chicago "L" and local buses are only mentioned in one sentence each. I like Metra, but still, I think commuter rail is in a different class of public transit than the "L" and buses. And considering that there is more content about Metra than the "L" or buses, Metra should be its own paragraph.
    • AFAIK the "L" itself doesn't actually run through Washington Heights, although the 95th/Dan Ryan stop is explicitly mentioned in NPS as being in Roseland. I'll see whether I can beef up the stuff about Bus lines. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
      • You're right, and the "L" is mentioned in the Roseland article itself. My main point is that Metra and "L"/bus transit should be treated separately, but within a subsection about public transit. epicgenius (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Washington Heights's history has been described as "all about transit" - This history of transit should probably be summarized here as well, in a sentence or two about the different railroad lines that historically took up the area.
    • Done, with info taken from "History" section. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph is about transportation, only insofar as private car usage/ownership is considered. I wouldn't really consider this transportation, but that's just me.
    • I personally would consider it as transportation, although if other reviewers felt differently I could put it in "Demographics". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• The "Parks and recreation" section:
  • I know the Major Taylor Trail was a rail line before it was a park. Can we expand on this, somewhere in the history or transit section? There's only a passing mention here.
    • The Park District website doesn't specify which railroad it had been, I'll see whether I can find more sources on the matter. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
      • I believe it was Conrail, per Chicago Tribune (subscription required) - but you can apply at WP:TWL for a free newspapers.com subscription. The other sources I saw (which are not reliable) seem to confirm this, but you can look for sources as well. epicgenius (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Are there really only three parks in Washington Heights? I feel like there are more. Are Oakdale and Euclid Parks not part of the Washington Heights community district?
    • I have added stuff about Euclid Park, will see about others. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• The "Geography" section includes housing stock as well - maybe rename this to "Land use and terrain"?
  • Perhaps, although that might be a less intuitive/common title. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
    • OK, I'll wait to see if other people point this out as well. epicgenius (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Subsections: I only see a subsection about Brainerd. What about other subsections? I see a "Washington Heights" subsection is mentioned in the lead, but isn't covered here. Is it substantially different from Brainerd?
    • Reliable sources don't say that much about Washington Heights the neighborhood other than the fact that it exists and where the original settlement was. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Have you checked any newspaper archives? I notice this doesn't contain too many newspaper references. You can ask WP:TWL if you don't already have access to an archive. I feel that more detail on Washington Heights (the sub-neighborhood) would be welcomed here. epicgenius (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• In general, don't start sentences with numbers, e.g. "28.0 percent of units have two vehicles available, compared to a citywide figure of 25.5 percent." MOS:NUMNOTES is the relevant guideline, but this is a general thing to avoid outside Wikipedia as well.
  • I have attempted to fix this somewhat in the "Transportation" section. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

More comments later. Right now I'm seeing a few places where there are a few things to be wondered, content-wise. epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, there are some places in this article where grammar may need to be touched up. I have made a few edits to the lead, but feel free to remove any parts you don't like. Some of the more common issues I noticed are the lack of commas after prepositional phrases (e.g. "Throughout the 20th century"), repetition of some words (e.g. "it" was repeated four times in the last sentence of the second paragraph), and sentences with unwieldy construction (e.g. The area was the site of the formation of the Chicago Bridge & Iron Company). I think this may need a grammatical once-over since there seem to be a lot of these in the article. epicgenius (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius: thank you for your feedback. I will be somewhat busy this weekend, but I have started to address your concerns and hope to do so more in the next upcoming days. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll point out regarding your concerns to that effect that I am a longtime user of Newspapers.com (see my work in 1927 Chicago mayoral election, for example), but have been up to this point mostly focused on book sources for this FAC. I think consulting it some more will be a great idea given the subject matter. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Looks good. You may want to look into clipping your articles, and then link to the clipping. Afterward, the clipping is publicly accessible unless you delete it. epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Major apologies for not getting on to this earlier. I have split the Transportation and Government sections as you've suggested. I've also added new information for the Fernwood neighborhood and a new subsection for the Washington Heights neighborhood; I still feel as if the latter is redundant to the "History" section, since I haven't been able to find much about it in particular in the sources. (I have also considered using newspaper clippings, but I am declining to use them for the time being because I don't want to reveal my real name, which is used for my Newspapers.com account.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson: No problem. I am also using my real name for my newspapers.com account, but I don't really care about my anonymity anymore (my real name is in a few news articles), so I can clip the articles for you if you want. Anyway, I can take a look at your improvements later on, when I have some time. epicgenius (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

That would be great if not an imposition, but no worries if it is. I look forward to your feedback. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem, I've gone & done that. epicgenius (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius: Apologies if this is overbearing, but I was just wondering if you've had the chance to look at this article some more. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @John M Wolfson: Sorry, I forgot about this review. Here are a few minor issues I found:
    • A growing number of African-Americans began moving into the area, starting east of Halsted Street during the 1950s - does this mean that they began moving into the region east of Halsted, starting in the 1950s? If so you do not need the word "starting" and can say "the region east of Halsted...".
      • It means that the African-Americans initially settled east of Halsted, something which I hope I've made clearer.
    • Interstate 57 was built through the area, opening in 1967 and displacing many residents - How so?
      • I've rephrased it to say that it forced the residents to move.
    • 91.4 percent of people and jobs are located in highly walkable areas - what does this mean for non-city planners? I know it, but would the average reader know what this means?
      • I've used the CMAP definition while avoiding close paraphrasing.
    • With respect to Chicago Public Schools the area contains, in addition to Fort Dearborn School, Kipling Elementary School, Evers Elementary School, Fernwood Elementary School, Green Elementary School, Wacker Elementary School, Garvey Elementary School, Mount Vernon Elementary School, and Julian High School - this sentence is clunk. Do you need "in addition to"? Also, I'd rephrase "With respect to".
      • I've attempted to tweak the sentence.
    • 1.8 accessible park acres, 2.4 acres - might be better with metric conversions. Check for others as well, such as square miles.
      • Done
  • Overall, this is in better shape than when I last looked. However, I think there are still a few details left to be clarified, as I mention above. epicgenius (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your comments. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
      • No problem. I found a few more things on my final look-through, and saw these:
        • A minuscule part north of 97th street - "Street" should be capitalized.
          • Done
        • In the United States Postal Service Washington Heights is part of the 60620, 60628, and 60643 ZIP Codes. - I don't think you need to mention USPS when mentioning ZIP Codes, unless you mean to say that the USPS administers these ZIP codes.
          • It was meant to indicate that those were for mail for those who don't know what ZIP codes are, but I think the "Postal service" header already implies that. In any case done.
        • the sixth busiest station on the Chicago "L" as of 2012 - are there more up to date data?
          • I found a more primary source from the City with data from June 2019; it appears 95th/Dan Ryan has slipped to 14th.
      • Otherwise I am inclined to give my support. However, I may still point out a few issues later. There are a few grammar things too, but these vary between different English variations, so I won't point them out. epicgenius (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Support. All the issues I've pointed out above have been resolved. I may check for some minor errors later, but on the whole, this looks fairly comprehensive, without going into excessive or insufficient detail. epicgenius (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now...will make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot queries below...

• The area was primarily agrarian between the 1830s and the 1860s - err, why not just say "farmland"?
  • I have changed it to more closely match the source.

• Calumet Township was incorporated in 1862... - I can't figure out why this is relevant.
  • The NPS source says that Settlement of the Ridge region began in earnest once Calumet Township was organized in 1862; perhaps this can be better phrased.
    • Yeah that is a bit better....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• which began a dominance of the railroad in the region - I know what you mean (I think) but this phrasing sounds odd. Does it need to be in at all?
  • I attempted to reword it, I feel like something to that effect should be in there.

• ...and was annexed to Chicago in 1890 - you mention this twice in the para. I'd remove the first mention as it keeps the flow more chronological and the second one is harder to remove from surrounding material.
  • Done.

• Brainerd is a neighborhood in Washington Heights - I'd remove this sentence in the Brainerd subsection as we've already established this and it makes the prose here sound repetitive.
  • Done.

• I don't get much of a feeling as to what these parks are - forests? lawns? fields?
  • Forgive me if I've misunderstood your comment, but I have added the facilities for each park. Chicago parks tend to be "lawns" except for the forest preserves, of which there aren't any in Washington Heights. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 09:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
    • That's fine. I have no familiarity with the area - if there are no sources that expand on it that's okay. Rading it again, I think there is enough info. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

• Also - what about commercial areas - local shopping districts - where do people go shopping?
  • I wasn't able to find such a good source for this, but I used the zoning map to determine which areas were zoned for commerce and business.

1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

This is an unusual article, which grew organically from humble beginnings. I overhauled it in 2017. It wasn't my intention that it could be a featured article someday, but in its current form I think that it might be. I'd like to draw your attention to the pic of Eisenhower laying the cornerstone for the AEC's headquarters in Germantown, Maryland. The AEC decided to relocate there so it would be safe when Washington, DC, was razed by an atomic blast. Somebody thought that it would be cool if Eisenhower laid the foundation stone with a trowel made from radioactive uranium that had been in the first nuclear reactor, Chicago Pile-1. (With a wooden handle made from one of the benches at Stagg Field.) The Secret Service did not agree, so it is not the one he is using in the picture. Today the radioactive trowel is in the Smithsonian. [2] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

CommentSupport by PM[edit]

I looked at this closely during its Milhist ACR, so only have pretty minor points here:

• in the lead, suggest "shocked the American public with the launch of Sputnik"
• in the lead, suggest "for the use by the Royal Air Force"
• suggest "Many of Britain's top scientists participated in the Manhattan Project" and pipe the article link to "participated in the Manhattan Project"
• the sentence beginning "By the end of 1947..." doesn't make sense to me. If the uranium was stockpiled in the UK, why is it relevant that the McMahon Act didn't allow it to be exported from the US?
• "the uranium needed to fuel it over for ten years"
• "The S5W had a Nnuclear reactor core"

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

All done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Nice job, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

• Some 5.4 tonnes of UK produced plutonium No long tons? Link them both too.
• and 7.5 tonnes of highly enriched uranium (HEU) between 1960 and 1979 Same as above.

  Linked plutonium. The imperial system uses tons for non-precious metals, troy ounces for precious metals, kilograms for fissile metals. Hence no conversion is required. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Tonnes vs long tons?
• Eisenhower and Churchill discussed the possibility Maybe explain here that Churchill was prime minister again because I think non-Britons mightn't know this?

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• the Operation Grapple test series at Christmas Island Are we speaking about the Australian Christmas Island or Kiribati's one because the link goes to Kiribati's one?

  The one at Kiribati. Added "in the Pacific" to make this clear. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• program vs programme?

  Programme. Unfortunately, I cannot change the spelling in the categories. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• US would pay the UK $30 per gram Link dollar here.

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• US in exchange for 6.7 kg of tritium and 7.5 tonnes of HEU between 1960 and 1979. A further 470 kg of plutonium No English units?
• had a stockpile of 21.86 tonnes of HEU, about 80 years' No English units?

  Imperial system. See above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• high-speed cameras, mechanical safeing, liquid and solid explosive Typo here? I couldn't find any dictionary who uses the word safeing?

  It is spelt that way in the source, but probably should be "safing". Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Another thing Suez Canal is a proper noun. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  It is indeed but... I can't find it in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  • In the "Eisenhower administration" section you can find them. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

    You mean the Suez crisis? The 1956 imbroglio where the UK, France and Israel teamed up to invade Egypt, and the US imposed economic sanctions on them? I'm not sure whether this should have a capital C or not. It does in its article, but not in the Sputnik crisis article. I used lower case for both. Is that incorrect? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yes the 1956 crisis in Egypte. Well what I can tell is MOS:MILTERMS says accepted names of wars should be always captalised. But I'm not sure the Sputnik crisis should be also captalised because it is not following MOS miliary rules it could be because a proper noun should be capitalised. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Okay. Capitalised Suez Crisis. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oh damn I know realised I have using Suez Canal instead of the crisis, my bad. Anyway I think that's anything. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

• Experienced and trusted nominator, spotchecks not carried out.
• All links are live and working according to the tool.
• Be consistent in how the author name is formatted; a couple of occasions use Last, First and others use First Last.
• Similarly, be consistent in formatting for Hansard between refs #78 and #81.

• The external links section could do with appropriate formatting.

Generally very good, not much to nit pick here. Harrias ^talk 17:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

All points addressed in a series of changes [3] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Great, all good. Harrias ^talk 20:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Image review - pass[edit]

• Quebec Conference image. Suggest amending to 'Seated (from the left) are... '. Why a mix of commas and semi colons?

• Replaced semicolons with commas. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Consider adding alt text.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Gave it a read over. Just a couple of things:

• "The 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement was signed by Dulles and Samuel Hood, the British Minister in Washington, on 3 July,[76] and approved by Congress on 30 July.[77]" The whole Congress or just the Senate (since it is apparently a treaty).

  The source says "It sailed through the JCAE hearings. Once the full Congress approved of it on July 30, 1958, the the Anglo-American nuclear partnership was fact." This is because it required the amendment of the McMahon Act, hence both houses. [4] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Is there anything on public opinion/protest that is worth saying. This was born in part out of US public reaction to Sputnik, so was the reaction positive? Or of legislative opposition, either of the original agreement or the renewals?

  There was no legislative opposition. Renewals seem to have been handled by the administration. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Canada seems to have been a part of the earlier agreements, but at some step it seems to vanish, though you do mention it as a nation that made its own agreement with the US. Is there something worth saying about why it dropped out.

  It didn't drop out; the 1948 Modus Vivendi remained in force with regard to Canada, and was not superseded by the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement, which did not apply to Canada. Canada acquired nuclear weapons in 1963. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Reads well. I don't see any other problems.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by JennyOz[edit]

Hi Hawkeye7, HNY! just a few minor comments...

• weapons of this supreme importance."[30] - move full stop outside

  Moved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• As a counter-offer, they proposed limiting the British programme in return for American bombs. - 'they' is not clear here in new para. Maybe swap to Britain?

  Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• The first British atomic bomb was successfully tested in Operation Hurricane - locate? ie off the coast of Western Australia?

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• The Soviet Union responded with the test of Joe 4 - responded to Ivy Mike?

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• December 1953, Eisenhower and Churchill,[40] who had become prime minister again on 25 October 1951, - move the comma after Churchill back to after Eisenhower?

  Don't think so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• officials in the United States and Britain seized an opportunity to mend the relationship with Britain that had been damaged by the Suez Crisis the year before - mentioning both nations seems odd. maybe 'mend their relationship'

  Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• political, economic and ideological."[57] - move full stop outside

  Moved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• the printers to destroy their type - wlink Letterpress printing ie, will younger readers know what 'type' means?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority - move its (UKAEA) up to first mention

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• British Minister in Washington, on 3 July - add , DC, per others

  Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• development and fabrication capability."[76] - move full stop out

  Moved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• relationship for nearly 60 years."[79] - move full stop out

  Moved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• deputy chairman; Major General Herbert Loper; - rank already given

  Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• and James W. McCrae - spelling? wlink (if same fellow) James W. McRae

  Heh. New article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• J. H. B. Macklen from the Ministry of Defence - is this Victor Harry Burton Macklen as listed eg on 1975 Birthday Honours and on John Challens, ref now here (author with Penney) and Britain's "Mr Nuclear" per here?

  That's him. Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• British Green Grass warhead - move wlink up to first mention

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Haillard x 5 - is that spelt Halliard (others, ie Burgee, Flagpole, Pennant, seem to have flag-themed names)

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• allow the UK to "anglicise" the W28 nuclear - wlink anglicise

  Corrected. Did not link as article is about language. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• passed on without US permission."[89] - move full stop out

  MOS:LQUOTE: When quoting a full sentence, the end of which coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• weapons for the RAF and British Army of the Rhine - RAF not yer wlinked

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Under the agreement 5.37 tonnes of UK-produced... - convert all these?

  In the imperial system, pounds are used for base metals, troy ounces for precious metals and kilograms for fissile metals. So no conversion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Some of the UK produced plutonium - hyphen after UK?

  Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio - near (not in)

  Okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• As of 2014 there are also two - still as of 2019?

  Probably, but the source is from 2014. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• As of 2018, the most recent renewal - 2019?

  Changed to 2020. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• necessarily in Britain’s favour - straighten curly apostrophe

  Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Jones, Matthew - authorlink Matthew Jones (historian)

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Young, Ken - authorlink

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• caption UK Defence Minister Des Browne (right) addresses a reception hosted by US Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates (left) commemorating the 50th anniversary of the US-UK Mutual Defense Agreement in Washington, DC, on 9 July 2008. - use 'Defence' spelling here before "Agreement"?

  Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• caption President Dwight D. Eisenhower (second from right) and Prime Minister Harold Macmillan (second from left) meet for talks in Bermuda in March 1957 to repair the rift created by the 1956 Suez Crisis. - left-most person is hardly visible, maybe change Macmillan to 'left foreground'?

  Looks clear to me, but changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• caption NNSA Administrator Lisa Gordon-Hagerty and Stephen Lovegrove cut the ribbon on the U.S.-U.K. Mutual Defense Agreement 60th Anniversary commemorative exhibit - Defence?, and US–UK ie remove dots? Add year 2018? Full stop?

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Regards, JennyOz (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this. All points have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@JennyOz: Should I expect further comments from you? --Laser brain (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Sathi Leelavathi (1936 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the debut film of several personalities who later became legends of Tamil cinema, most notably M. G. Ramachandran. I know it is FA-worthy because it is comprehensive and wide in coverage, with every single statement sourced. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47[edit]

Please re-check your comments and strike them if they have been solved. But voluntarily I reduced the sentence "Both men approached Vasan, who gave them the rights to make a film version of his novel. Mudaliar then began writing the screenplay of Sathi Leelavathi" to "After Chettiar obtained the rights to make a film version of the novel, Mudaliar began writing the screenplay of Sathi Leelavathi" for conciseness. How is it? Besides, I think the final sentence of Rangiah's 7-year sentence (as written by me) is not wrong as convicts typically perform rigorous labour during their sentences. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for your response. I normally do not strike out comments; that is just not my approach to doing these types of reviews. I will collapse the above comments though if that helps. The revision to the sentence looks good to me; I did not have an issue with the original wording, but it is always best to try and make things as concise as possible for a featured article. I only asked about the rigorous labour part because it was clarified that way in the pressbook, and it is probably a cultural difference as not all American prison sentences for instance require this type of labour. I do not think it is absolutely necessary for the plot summary. I support this for promotion. If you have the time and interest, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Either way, best of luck with the nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

Which file are you referring to? File:Krishnamurthy and family Sathi Leelavathi.jpg or File:M. G. Ramachandran in Sathi Leelavathi (1936).jpg? Or both? What should I do? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Search for "px" in the edit window of the article, and either remove the value or swap it for |upright=. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• File:Sathi_Leelavathi_(1936_film).jpg: why is this believed to be PD in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Please see this, and I believe it leads to the answer. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The linked page argues against deletion of images with copyright restored by URAA. However, this image has a tag stating it is PD under URAA, and my question is why that is believed to be the case. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know what to do Nikkimaria. Remove the PD-URAA tags from the images (just keep {{PD-India}}) and they can be used? Or remove the pictures altogether? Because apart from the fact that the picture's copyright has expired in accordance with PD-India guidelines, I don't know how it can still be copyrighted in a country where it wasn't published. But I don't know if an Indian film that released on 28 March 1936 would be considered eligible on 1 January 1996. Does this have the answer? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

It's clear that the image is in the public domain in India - the problem is US status. Take a look at Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, specifically the four-point test:

• Is the source country a WTO member or a party to the Berne Convention? Yes, India is.

• Is the work copyrightable in the United States? Yes, it meets the required standard of originality and is not in one of the exclusion categories.

• Was the work published after January 1, 1923? Yes, in 1936.

• Had the copyright expired in the source country on the date of restoration? It appears not. The current PD-India tag indicates en expiration 60 years after publication, counted from the beginning of the following calendar year - which would in this case give us 1997, after the date of restoration. This means that US copyright persists.

You could potentially upload it locally under a fair-use claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher[edit]

• " which was serialised since 1934 in the magazine" Which was serialised in 1934? Or which has been serialised since 1934? It's a bit unclear.

It is unclear whether the novel ended serialisation in 1935, but saying "serialised in 1934" is not misleading in any way is it? Because that's what I wrote now. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• I see a lot of actors in the first para who don't have a wiki article, either red link them or remove them.

Some actors like M. K. Mani, P. Nammalvar and M. R. Gnanambal (the female lead) are too important to omit from the lead because of their characters. But red-linking looks like it will do more damage. I don't think these actors will ever have articles because of lack of sources. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Do we really need to link 'directorial debut' in the lead?

I agree it isn't useful, de-linked. In fact, the page shouldn't even exist as every man has a first film. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

And every woman as well. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Link Madras in the second para.

Madras is linked in the first para in "a wealthy Madras-based man". --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support Can't see any other issue. All the best. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from DBigXray[edit]

• Please fill up the "| runtime =" parameter in the infobox. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Also see if there are others missing parameter in the infobox, that can be added. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Do we really need to include that the reel was of length XY ? what is the significance ? what makes it special ? looks like trivia to me. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

It is needed to signal the film was finished in some way. And since there is no source stating the film's runtime in minutes, we can only state it in reel length. So should I add this value in the infobox? I think so. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes, I forgot, in the olden days, reel was used to measure runtime. If I remember correctly there was a standard that 1 reel = W Mins. So the best way here would be to mention runtime = X reels (Y mins). --DBigXrayᗙ 16:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The runtime parameter is filled, but only in reel length. Can a duration in minutes also be added using the standard durations mentioned at Reel ? --DBigXrayᗙ 13:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray, is this calculation acceptable? Do I write 180 minutes? --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

It is actually 200 mins, writing it in bracket looks helpful to me. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray, I've written 200 minutes in the infobox. Should I put the reel length in brackets next to it? Do you have further comments? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The infobox is fine now. I would suggest to mention "(equivalent to 200 mins)" at the place where the reel length is mentioned. So that one can make out where this 200 mins is coming from. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray, I've solved all your comments so far. Do you have further comments? It seems you do. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Y marked as fixed. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• In the section "Filming" There are 2 refs together that are not arranged in ascending order in pair. Please fix this and review the article if more such examples are there. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I identified it at the sentence "lack of on-screen stage influences" and fixed the ref order. No other set of references arranged this way. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Y Thank you, marked as done, I will try to find more issues in coming days. If no more comments from me then this should be taken as a support from me. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Any further comments DBigXray? If not, you know what to do... at least for the co-ordinators to understand. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

There is one more near "Danesbury House;[22][2] "--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 17:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Please wikilink Tamil Cinema, Warrant of payment--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 17:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Done. I read the plot in English again and it says, "A Marvari who had lent a huge sum to Krishnamurthy, issues a warrant..." Is the current wording fine and accurate though? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Y Thank you, marked as done. Looks fine. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Is it the same magazine Silver_Screen_(magazine) If so please wikilink it.--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 17:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Nope, the link you put here is an American magazine. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Y Thank you for checking, marked as done. since the indian one does not have an article. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Wikilink anti-alcohol movement to Temperance movement in India--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 17:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Y Thank you, marked as done--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• What is "Saadhanaigal Padaitha Thamizh Thiraipada Varalaru" ? a magazine ? newspaper ? please clarify it since Non Tamil speakers cant decipher what it is from the name. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 17:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a book, written. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Y Thank you, marked as done--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Please re read and c/e the entire article for WP:CLOP and WP:COPYVIO issues. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 09:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I would still want a full sweep to fix issues that might have escaped. I will review it again once you have done your sweep. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 09:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the email, I understand that you cannot reply right now, but there is no hurry. Please ping me from this page, once you are unblocked and have checked the entire page to fix the CLOP issues if any. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from zmbro[edit]

Overall very well done. Just a few things:

• Maybe link directorial debut in the lead?

I was advised against this by Yashthepunisher, and his reason was justified. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• My main question is (and I'm sorry if this was already answered above) but is there a reason why the film no longer exists in its entirety? I'd really be interested to know. And how much of it remains? Half? Over half? Or only a small fragment?

Really I don't know. Maybe lack of care and preservation facilities then. Whatever remains is here. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Rest looks good. Great job to you! :-) – zmbro _(talk) 15:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Zmbro, so does this mean you'll say support? --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Yep happy to support :-) – zmbro _(talk) 17:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

1927 FA Cup Final[edit]

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Continuing my work on Cardiff City F.C. related articles comes perhaps the biggest success in the club's history. Its only major trophy in the English football system and the only time a team from outside England has claimed the FA Cup in its 100+ year history. This was originally taken to GA in 2016 by Miyagawa who seems to have left the site. So, I have picked this up, done some fine tuning and expanding where possible and believe it has enough to become a featured article. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• File:FA_Cup_Final_1927_Programme.jpg: FUR is incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Hi @Nikkimaria:, the image was not my upload and I'm not much use with licencing. What needs to be done to complete it? Kosack (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• First off the parameters that are currently "n.a" should be filled in, and then purpose of use should be expanded. You might find WP:FUR helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• I've hopefully provided adequate reasoning for the image now, let me know if it needs more. Kosack (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments –

• "the Football Association Challenge Cup better known as the FA Cup" reads oddly to me. This is a situation where putting "better known as the FA Cup" inside parentheses would probably make for a better read than what's there now.
• Cardiff City: The stray apostrophe in "goalkeeper's" (by the Farquharson penalty save) should be removed.
• Arsenal: "with was then followed by the only goal of the game came shortly afterwards...". A cleaner version would be "and the only goal of the game came shortly afterwards" or similar. In general, the first five words of this are throwing off the grammar more than anything.
• Post match: "saying that the superiority of Cardiff's defence that led them to victory." This would read better as "defence had led them to victory."
• Cardiff captain Keenor later commented his view of the goal". This needs "on" before "his". Giants2008 (Talk) 22:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Giants2008: Thanks very much for taking a look, I've addressed the points you raised above. Let me know if there's anything else. Kosack (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

I've only read the lead, and there are quite a few prose issues that need attention. Thus:

• Opening sentence: "The 1927 FA Cup Final was an association football match between Cardiff City and Arsenal on 23 April 1927 at the original Wembley Stadium (then called Empire Stadium)." Needs a comma after "Arsenal", followed by "which took place". - Done
• It should read "(then called the Empire Stadium)" - Done
• "Both teams required a single replay in different rounds to progress, but otherwise won each of their games." Why is this sentence necessary? People who don't know football won't understand the first part, and the second part is a statement of the obvious. - Removed
• "Both sides played a mixture of home and away games on their route to the final, but Arsenal were not required to play outside London after the initial fourth round match." I'd say this is pretty inconsquential detail, not really ledeworthy. - Removed
• "Additional trains were put on to transport Cardiff's fans to Wembley, and police reinforcements to keep fans at bay who had been sold fake tickets". Incomplete as it stands; perhaps add something like "were deployed" after "police reinforcements". - Done
• Inconsistent capitalisation, e.g. "FA Cup Final" in the opening lead sentence, and "FA Cup final" and "cup final" later on.

This is in line with the two other FA class cup final articles, 1923 and 1956. I think it's capitalised when using the actual title of the final but not when referring to the final in general. Kosack (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• "It was the first FA Cup final broadcast on the radio" – you've already said this, in the first paragraph.

Removed first use. Kosack (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• "having seen more than 300,000 applications for tickets" is clunky, and grammatically dubious. Suggest replace "having seen" with "from". - Done
• "Both teams had opportunities to score, but the only goal of the game was credited to Hughie Ferguson after the ball slipped out of the hands of goalkeeper Dan Lewis, and he knocked the ball into the net with his elbow." Suggest preface with "During the match...", replace "both teams" with "each team", and "and he knocked" with "who knocked". Also, for clarity I'd say "Cardiff's Hughie Ferguson" and "Arsenal's goalkeeper". - Done
• "wool" → "woollen" - Done
• "Arsenal went on to win the trophy in 1930". Relevance? (Arsenal have won the cup at least a dozen times since 1927) - Removed

Brianboulton (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Brianboulton:, I've addressed the issues above and added a comment. Kosack (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the lead reads much better now – I've made a few more tweaks and corrected the odd typo (you can check these out). I see from the article's talk page that the origin of the "square one" phrase is disputed, so you might make your lead statement somewhat more equivocal, by replacing "which has been credited with coining the phrase" with "which according to some sources was the origin of the phrase" (I see you've hedged your bets a bit in the main text). I doubt I'll have time to check out the rest of the prose, but I wish you good luck with this nomination – your dedication to the affairs of Cardiff FC is admirable! Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Brian. I've amended the "back to square one" sentence as per your suggestion also. Kosack (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias[edit]

Note that I read it from a Canadian English perspective, so please let me know if any comments made are simply due to language differences.

• Like the image of the programme included in the infobox, adds a nice touch.

• "...at the original Wembley Stadium (then called the Empire Stadium)." This is more personal preference I think, but wouldn't it make more sense to note the contemporary name of the stadium, and then put the later name in brackets: something like "at the Empire Stadium (the original Wembley Stadium)."

• "The match was watched by 91,206 in the stadium, from more than 300,000 applications for tickets..." This may be a English variant issue, but it feels odd to me. It would seem more natural to note the larger number first, so for example: "There were more than 300,000 applications for tickets, with 91,206 attending the match in the stadium..."

• "Afterwards, he blamed his new woollen jersey, saying that it was greasy." This could be improved I think: "Lewis later blamed his new wollen jersey, saying it was greasy."

• "Newspaper reports indicated that they were the better team..." Little unclear of who was the better team: Cardiff City or Darlington?

• "In the semi-finals Cardiff were drawn against Reading; with FA Cup semi-finals being held at neutral venues,[10] the match was played at Molineux Stadium in Wolverhampton. Reading had reached the semi-final for the first time in their history." This whole section could be worded better: "In the semi-finals Cardiff were drawn against Reading, who had reached the semi-final for the first time. FA Cup semi-finals were being held at neutral venues, so the match was played at Molineux Stadium in Wolverhampton."

Will add more later. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Kaiser Matias, I've addressed the points above so far. Let me know when you have more. Kosack (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Some more:

• "...also meeting First Division opposition with a tie against Sheffield United at Bramall Lane." Could be "also meeting a First Division opponent..." Furthermore, you note it was a tie in the prose, and that each team had 3 goals, but the summary on the side has a score of 3–2 for Arsenal. Am I just reading incorrectly, or is something not adding up?

• Fixed the first point. In British English, the tie is referring to the match rather than the result. For example, like it's use in this newspaper headline. Kosack (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• "The first as the result of a scramble which ended with Jimmy Brain heading the ball into the net for Arsenal." Change: "The first was the result of a scramble..."

• "...and two years earlier in 1925, they were defeated finalists." Simplify the latter half: "they were defeated in the final."

• "Arsenal manager Herbert Chapman held a press conference prior to the final on 21 April..." To avoid ambiguitity: "Chapman held a press conference on 21 April, prior to the final..." (it otherwise sounds like the final was on 21 April).

• "... as well as the officials; the referee William F. Bunnell from Preston, and the linesmen G.E. Watson from Kent and M. Brewitt from Lincoln." I'd switch the semi-colon to a colon.

• "...acquired the match ball after the game and donated it to the Church." By "the Church" was it any particular physical church, or a specific denomination as a whole? It sounds like the latter, but is a little unclear, and as Farquharson was Irish, it could be one of several different ones.

• It was likely his denomination but the ref doesn't support that unfortunately. Kosack (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• "...saying that the wool was greasy and allowed the ball to slip from his grip." Was there any reason why the wool would be greasy? Just from wear and tear of previous matches? Not that this has to go into the article, I'm more curious myself.

• I'm not entirely sure, perhaps a new Jersey would not initially absorb any moisture leaving it on the surface. Kosack (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• "Cardiff reached the FA Cup Final once more in 2018; where they lost by one goal to nil against Portsmouth." You can either replace the semi-colon with a comma, or just delete the "where". As it stands it doesn't work grammatically.

Other than that should be good. For someone who isn't too familiar with football, especially the history like this, I found it easy enough to follow along with, so that's a good sign. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias: Thanks again, I've addressed the points above and added comments where necessary. Let me know if there's anymore. Kosack (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Great, happy with the replies here, and with the way it looks now. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Source review: pass[edit]

• Experienced and trusted nominator, spotchecks not carried out.
• The link to ref #9 "'Darling of the Gods' Tom Farquharson, Irish footballing migrant" doesn't work; is it possible to find an archived version?
• Consider linking the newspapers where pages exist. Western Daily Press, for example.
• Ref #15 "Past Cup-Winners Disapear" is that your typo, or the sources?
• Really picky point: your long references have full-stops, could you include them in your short references too?
• Also, refs #19 and #20 use "Name (YYYY): p. xx" while otherwise the articles uses the more traditional "Name YYYY, p. xx".
• What makes 11v11.com a reliable source?

• The website is the official online presence of the Association of Football Statisticians. Kosack (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Ref #41 "Rothmans Football Yearbook" add editor details.
• Ref #60 "Herbert Chapman - Overview" needs to be a spaced endash, per our MOS, irrespective of the source formatting.

That's it, nothing major. Harrias ^talk 16:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Harrias:, thanks very much for taking a look. I've addressed all of the issues raised above and replied where necessary. Kosack (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

All good. Harrias ^talk 11:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Reading again now....

Curtis went on a run for Cardiff, who passed it forward near the box to Ferguson. = Cardiff didn't pass it forward..." Curtis went on a run for Cardiff before passing it forward near the box to Ferguson."?

Otherwise looking good on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Casliber: Thanks for taking a look, I've amended the point above. Kosack (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Lee Vilenski[edit]

• Taking a look now - looks pretty good from a scan. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Lede

• on 23 April 1927 at the Empire Stadium (the original Wembley Stadium). - Was this known as the Empire Stadium at the time. We should refer to it as that (otherwise it's a WP:RECENTISM issue). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, at the time it was known as Empire Stadium. Do you mean to remove the Wembley part? Kosack (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• The final was the showpiece match of English football's primary cup competition, the Football Association Challenge Cup (better known as the FA Cup). - I'd like this reworded. It feels weird linking to the FA in the name of the cup. Something like The final was the showpiece match of English football's primary cup competition, the Football Association Challenge Cup (FA Cup), organised by the Football Association.
• "The victory by Cardiff", can we define the score and that Cardiff won before this sentence? Otherwise it makes little sense. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• won by a team outside England - factually incorrect. Reword to won by a team based outside England. Plenty of teas have won the title outside of England, and in this case, Cardiff won the title in England. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• The sides - can we call them teams or clubs in the lede? "sides" is a little jargony for the second paragraph. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• It was the first FA Cup final broadcast on the radio - perhaps mention where/how it was broadcast. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• It was the first FA Cup final broadcast on the radio, which according to some sources was the origin of the phrase "back to square one". - huh? Without reading the article, this makes little sense. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Rest of article

• Sourcing looks good. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• Could we get a quick overview of the event before the route to the final (or, just before the Cardiff City bit)? The lede is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'm a little confused, do you mean to add more information about the earlier rounds to the lede, or to add a competition overview in the route to the final section? Kosack (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'll take a deeper look in after the above is sorted, but I couldn't see much. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Lee Vilenski: Thanks for taking a look Lee, I've addressed the issues you raised with a few comments. Let me know if there is anything else. Kosack (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Laser brain[edit]

I have only a few minutes this morning so I thought I'd dip into this from the perspective of an American who's relatively unfamiliar with football. I found the lead tough to parse:

• I know that Cardiff is in Wales, but are we prepared to make that assumption of our general readership? If not, the ponderous path is encountering "by a team based outside England" and having to go back, click the "Cardiff City" link which is actually an easter-egg link to Cardiff City F.C. and parse the lead for location... it's a bit messy.

• I've added a mention of Cardiff being from Wales ahead of the outside England sentence. Piping the club link is not really an easter-egg link though, this has been the standard way of displaying football club names on Wiki for a decade and has gone through FAC numerous times in the past. Kosack (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• The second paragraph is difficult to understand. They progressed through five rounds, but entered in the third round? Does that mean they made it to the eighth round? Or that they skipped the first two of a total of five rounds? If it's the latter, I wouldn't really say they "progressed through" those rounds.

• As members of the top division, Cardiff and Arsenal did not enter until the third round. They then won five further rounds to reach the final. I've reworded this to hopefully be clearer now. Kosack (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Additional trains were put on to transport Cardiff's fans to Wembley" This is a pretty jarring transition from the previous paragraph.

• Reworded. Kosack (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• "each team had opportunities to score" What's considered an opportunity to score in football? I'm familiar with concepts like shots-on-goal in ice hockey or red-zone in American football that are quantifiable but what are we saying here?

  I've removed that if it's too nondescript. Kosack (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm hope to read the rest tonight but thus far this doesn't strike me as a particularly accessible article to a general audience. --Laser brain (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Laser Brain, I've made attempts to rectify the issues above. Kosack (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll go through the rest soon. I'm not too concerned about the quality of writing, but I'll mention anything else I find that comes across as needing more context or explanation. --Laser brain (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

A few additional comments—I feel this is almost ready:

• "In the fifth round, Cardiff were drawn away against Bolton Wanderers" I presume this means they were considered to be the "away" team for the purpose of the match, but I think this is too much jargon. Similarly, "Arsenal were drawn away in the third round" and so on. Is there something we can wikilink? Or explain the significance?

• I couldn't find any obvious link unfortunately, I've reworded instead to avoid it. Kosack (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• You've sometimes written "half time" and "half-time" - Fixed
• "First a header by Brain, then another by Buchan which the goalkeeper could only clear after it had crossed the line." This isn't a complete sentence. - Reworded

Provisional support pending the few last items. --Laser brain (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Laser brain: Thanks for taking a look, I've addressed the comments above. Let me know if you're happy with the changes. Kosack (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Looks good—happy to support now. Interesting article! --Laser brain (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Island of stability[edit]

Nominator(s): ComplexRational (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the theoretical island of stability, a hypothetical set of superheavy nuclides (isotopes of the heaviest known chemical elements) that may be longer-lived than those currently known. This concept has guided research in the field of nuclear physics for decades, with various calculations corroborating predictions and numerous experiments designed to seek these nuclides. Although the island itself has not yet been discovered, experimental evidence strongly suggests its existence and that we are approaching the "shores".

After almost a year of work, a GAN in April passed by HaEr48, and a peer review in July-November by R8R (who contributed to the featured articles dubnium and tennessine, which partly lie within the same scope), I feel that this article is ready to be considered for featured status. Based on the reviews, I believe that it is complete and understandable despite the technical subject. All feedback necessary to complete the home stretch is welcome, so thank you in advance. Cheers, ComplexRational (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Support by R8R[edit]

I first encountered the article at the peer review. At first glance, I liked the article very much and it only improved since then. I gave many comments during the review at PR and now that they are resolved, I believe the article is in a very good shape. I'll be happy to support its promotion but I'd like to give the article one last glance before then.--R8R (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC) My comments have been addressed, I am happy to support.--R8R (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Note a is better off split into two, with the "other observationally stable nuclides can be unstable" part better placed in a separate note after "252 nuclides are observed to be stable (having never been observed to decay)";

Split done.

• "by Yuri Oganessian et al. at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna, Russia" -- I previously recommended to use nationality and profession when first referring to a person to avoid any questions, even if just for a couple of seconds. In this case, that would be "Russian physicist Yuri Oganessian," but I don't think that a repetition of "Russian ... Russia" within a sentence could sound good. Will you be okay with "at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna, Russia, by Yuri Oganessian et al."?

Done, but I reworded it to avoid having et al. at the end of the sentence.

• "IUPAC defines the limit of nuclear existence at a half-life of 10⁻¹⁴ seconds" -- we haven't had this acronym so far, it's better to simply spell it out;

Done.

• "Heiner Meldner" -- I was about to suggest the usual nationality-profession introduction, but then I saw that the name had already been introduced. I think it would be better to refer to the man simply by his last name then;

Done.

• "Amnon Marinov" -- here, the rule is to be applied;

Done.

• "A 2018 study" -- it would be great to attribute that study to someone.

Now attributed to both the institution and first author.

There's no major issue that I was able to find.--R8R (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

All fixed, with slight modifications and adjustments for flow. ComplexRational (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

The sources appear to be comprehensive and scholarly, meeting the FA criteria for quality/reliability. All links to sources are working, and formats appear consistent and MoS-compliant. The one issue I have is with problems of verification; in a number of cases, where the source document is quite lengthy, page numbers are either not given, are too wide to be useful, or in the odd case, incomprehensible. Here are a few examples:

• Ref 1: No p. refs given – the source has 30 pages
• Ref 2: The page range as presented is hard to decipher. I take it to mean "1250013-1 – 1250013-20", a 20-page range.
• Ref 17: page given as 03002, which is not a page number in this multi-page document
• Ref 18: No p. ref given – source has 40 pages
• Ref 19: Page no. 14201 is inspecific.

That's as far as I checked, but I imagine there are further examples – in fact, I jumped ahead and looked up the "Perspectives" document from the 2016 NUSTAR meeting (Ref 75). The document is 48 pages long, no p. refs provided. Specific page references, or short p. ranges, are essential for verification purposes.

I rechecked the references and adjusted the page ranges for as many as I could find, including all five examples above.

However, some are not as easy to verify because the page numbers in the open-access version (e.g. arXiv) may not be identical to the journal publication. I hope this is sufficient (those will also most likely be the pages checked by those interested in verifying). ComplexRational (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I have since fixed or specified a few additional instances. ComplexRational (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise, congratulations on a well-sourced and well-presented article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Do you have any further comments or questions pertaining to sources? After these initial comments, I rechecked and made small corrections to as many refs as I could find; I now await additional feedback. ComplexRational (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources now fine-no further issues. Good work. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. ComplexRational (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by HaEr48 (Support)[edit]

I reviewed this article at GAR and I'm happy that now it's at FAC after a peer review and a lot of improvements. I want to thank the nominator and authors in advance for working on this topic. My review will be mostly from clarity and comprehensibility to a non-specialist audience. I'm not an expert so feel free to point out of I'm missing something obvious.

• The first sentence reads "In nuclear physics, the island of stability is a predicted set of superheavy nuclides that may have considerably longer half-lives than known superheavy nuclides": I think "nuclide" is a rather hard word for a lay person - is it possible to explain the concept using a different word, or to gloss a short definition in this sentence.

I substituted it with the more commonly used isotope, but there isn't much more that I can/should do in the lead than linking these terms.

• Is isotope a synonym for nuclide, or is it interchangeable in the context of the first paragraph?

Almost, but not quite. Nuclide can refer to any combination of protons and neutrons (e.g. superheavy nuclides), whereas isotopes are variants of a predetermined element with different numbers of neutrons (e.g. isotopes of hassium). When originally writing and reviewing, I did my best to ensure that their uses are precise; they should not be blindly interchanged, but they can be if the appropriate

• • Thank you for the explanation. HaEr48 (talk)
• the predicted closed neutron shell at N = 184: can something be linked here to improve comprehensibility? "Shell"? "Neutron shell"? "Closed neutron shell"?

Done – I did not originally do this because the link points to nuclear shell model, which is linked directly not much further down.

• confer additional stability towards fission, while also leading to longer half-lives towards alpha decay: Do "stability" and "longer half-lives" mean different things here? Or could we also more briefly say: "confer additional stability towards fission and alpha decay"?

Done – For the lead, a merge is suitable; I have done that. Later sections deal with the finer points.

• the successful synthesis of superheavy elements up to oganesson (Z = 118) in recent years : can we put a number for "recent years"? Since 2000? Since 2010? To make sure that the article won't be stale 20 years from now.

Not done – I'm open to ideas, but a few wordings I tried were quite clunky. Most discoveries were from the late 1960s onward, though no new element has been synthesized in the last 10 years; years are too precise, decades are clunky, and the "late (latter half of the) 20th century" is inaccurate.

• "Nevertheless, the successful synthesis of superheavy elements up to oganesson (Z = 118) in recent years demonstrates … " I assume the reason these synthesized elements don't count as the "island of stability" is because the lower number of neutrons. Is it possible to mention the maximum range of N that have been synthesized?

Partly done – This is correct, so I added the maximum number of neutrons reached (177), but the nuclide with both Z = 118 and N = 177 has not definitively been synthesized (the two heaviest known are Z = 117, N = 177 and Z = 118, N = 176). Does the current wording present this ambiguity?

How about something like: "the successful synthesis of superheavy nuclides up to atomic number 118 (oganesson) and up to 177 neutrons"? I'll defer to you regarding which is better. HaEr48 (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Introduction: Just to start, I want to say I like how the basic terms are laid out here
• while the approximately 3300 known nuclides: You haven't described what a nuclide is

Done – Added link and parenthetical definition as a (species of) atomic nucleus.

• with stability generally decreasing in heavier elements: If being "stable" is defined (in the same paragraph) as "never been observed to decay", what does it mean for stability to be "decreasing"? Isn't it just a yes or no attribute? Or if there is a definition of stability outside the yes or no question, please include it in this intro

It's not exactly a boolean quality, so I added a parenthetical definition relating stability to half-lives. I also added another footnote to clarify the meaning of decreasing stability.

• "The lower the barrier and the masses of the constituents": What "constituents" are we talking about here? The nucleons?

This refers to fragments into which a nucleus can fission. I reworded and linked this.

• In heavier nuclei, larger numbers of neutrons are needed to reduce repulsion and confer additional stability: Is this because neutrons are also involved in strong force? If so, suggest explicitly mentioning

Partly done – I noted that neutrons are uncharged (thus they do not repel other particles), but explicitly mentioning this here is not really necessary. The links should be sufficient; the strong force indeed affects neutrons just as it affects protons.

• " an upper limit was estimated around element 104" do we know who estimated this?

Not done – The source describes it as a view of the scientific community at the time, not an individual's or a group's theory.

• "and later, it seemed that element 108 might be the limit" Do we know the year of this estimate?

Yes, we do – I added from the source: it's around early 1960s, but no exact date is given.

More to come as I am still reading. HaEr48 (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@HaEr48: I reviewed these first points, and made several changes. I feel that most of this does provide extra context, but a few details are too off-topic, so I believe that short parenthetical definitions combined with links should be sufficient. I await your additional feedback. Cheers, ComplexRational (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• "The possible existence of superheavy elements with atomic numbers well beyond that of uranium" : why is uranium used as the comparison ? e.g. as opposed to the last element of actinides (according to the definition given in Superheavy element, actinides are the limit of "superheavy elements").

Done – I noted why this is relevant – until 1940, U was the heaviest known element.

• "In the late 1960s, more sophisticated shell models by American physicist William Myers and Polish physicist Władysław Świątecki, and by German physicist Heiner Meldner, taking into account Coulomb repulsion, changed the prediction for the next proton magic number from 126 to 114" …
  • why is Myers and Świątecki grouped in one clause but Meldner is mentioned in a different clause? Shouldn't it be "by Myers, Świątecki, and Meldner" in one clause?
  • does "taking into account Coulomb repulsion" belong to the more sophisticated model or to the prediction change?
  • Who proposed the prediction change?
  • Maybe this sentence can be split which would probably clarify my questions above?

The tricky part is introducing Myers and Świątecki who are of different nationalities but were co-authors, and distinguishing their work from Meldner's independent work. Does the rewording answer any of your questions?

• " led to the emergence of the macroscopic-microscopic method which takes into consideration…" Do we know what the method is for? Is it a modelling method? Prediction method?

Done – It's a nuclear mass model.

• any nuclei reachable via such fusion-evaporation reactions: but "fusion-evaporation reactions" hasn't been explained before.

Done in response to the point below.

• I feel like a brief description of the strategy of these experiments should be added in/around the paragraph #2 of "Discoveries", so that readers have context when you explain the problems with these experiments

Done.

• "resulting in the synthesis of only a few short-lived atoms of the heaviest elements in each experiment" if these few short-lived atom could not be detected, how did we know that this was the case?

In the 1970s (the focal period of this paragraph), the decay properties of these elements were not yet known. I changed 'would' to 'might' in previous sentence to emphasize that this was speculative; we now know that they are short-lived but still detectable.

• "Despite these failures, new superheavy elements were synthesized every few years in various laboratories through light-ion bombardment and cold fusion reactions." I don't understand this. If we're saying the searches failed, how come the superheavy elements did get synthesized? Or, should it start with "eventually" rather than "despite these failures"?

I distinguished unsuccessful searches for long-lived nuclei (far beyond what was then known) and simultaneous discovery of shorter-lived nuclei of elements with lower Z. I hope it is easier to follow now.

• Link "light-ion bombardment" and "cold fusion reactions"?

Partly done – I found a suitable link for the former, but the only reference for the latter is a disambiguation page entry. As it is distinct from cold fusion (theorized to occur at room temperature), I might have to label this with a note instead of linking. How does this sound?

Addendum: in response to an earlier comment, there is now some more context for cold fusion.

If you could label it with a note it would be great, but given that context was given in the preceding passage I think it's optional now. HaEr48 (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• "Deformed nuclei" section: if heavy nuclei are always deformed, and this shifts the magic numbers, why does the original magic numbers and the island of stability around N=184 still matter?

Done – I explicitly mentioned now that the island of stability is a phenomenon in spherical nuclei; the distinction between spherical and deformed, and their respective roles, should be a bit clearer now.

It is a bit clearer, but I still don't fully understand. Are these heavier nuclei sometimes spherical or sometimes deformed? Does it depend on something? To me, this sentence "superheavy elements do not have perfectly spherical nuclei" seems to imply that they're always deformed, and that would mean the spherical numbers would not matter anymore. But this is not the case, so what am I missing? HaEr48 (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Still more to come. HaEr48 (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I still am working on the other comments (fusion-evaporation and a few more historical details); I have to recheck the sources and compile something. Before (or even while) reading the rest of the article, could you please let me know if I have answered your questions, or if some comments need further attention? ComplexRational (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I have addressed all of the above comments; I'm ready to continue. ComplexRational (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: Thank you so much for your response. Most of them clarified the questions that I have, for a few of them I just have some follow up comments that I marked in blue. I'll continue with the rest. HaEr48 (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Paragraph #3 of "Predicted decay properties": May I suggest adding one or two introductory sentences about beta decay and what it means to atomic number and number of neutron. I know probably anyone learned it at one point in high school or uni, but IMO a refresher wouldn't hurt here and will help understanding what follows.

Done.

• "at an abundance of 10⁻¹² relative to lead,[53] although [several factors] may inhibit their production in r-process nucleosynthesis: "
  • Does the 10^-12 predicted abundance already take into account those inhibiting factors, or does the value need to be adjusted even lower to account for it?

Done – It's explicitly 10⁻¹² in the source, but I rearranged this paragraph to make this less ambiguous.

• • Can we have a sense of how small this abundance is, e.g. can it reach the earth and be detected by experiment?

Done – I noted that the source mentions a possibility of detection in cosmic rays.

• neutron-induced or beta-delayed fission will become the primary reaction channels: do we have appropriate links for "neutron-induced" and "beta-delayed"? Maybe what a "neutron-induced fission" means can be inferred from what it sounds like, but not sure about beta-delayed. If no link exists, maybe short definition in parenthesis?

Done – No article or section links exist, so I added a short definition.

• a 2013 experiment, a group of Russian physicists led by Aleksandr Bagulya.. Curious that we know that there are exactly 3 nuclei, but we don't know their atomic numbers. Is there a simple explanation for we know the amount but not the atomic number. If it is simple, suggest adding the explanation in text.
  • how is it possible to know the age of individual nuclei? (but maybe this is outside the scope of the article)

Not done – Not really within the scope of the article; it is partially explained how we know the number (but that too is borderline irrelevant to this article), but not why the other values are so uncertain.

• it may be useful to describe in "Synthesis problems" briefly what "cross sections" means or what the value imply, e.g. in the first place when you mention "this reaction has low cross sections" you could add something like "therefore lowering the expected yield" (or whatever is more appropriate)

Done – but in an earlier section where the term is first mentioned.

• What do you think about renaming the "Synthesis problems" section into "Possible syntheses and their problems"? Because the section also describe the possible strategies for synthesis rather than just the problems. I'll defer to you though

Done – I like it better this way actually.

• may also undergo electron capture in addition to alpha decay: might it be a good idea to add "(turning a proton into a neutron)" after "electron capture"? To explicitly say what it means for neutron:proton ratio.

Done.

• higher neutron flux (~1000 times greater) : 1000 times greater than what?

Done – The comparison was to current reactors.

• properties of superheavy nuclei near the beta-stability line remain unexplored: what does "unexplored" mean here? Not yet observed?

Done – I rewrote the ending of this paragraph to explicitly state that no such nuclei are known and their properties are not consistently predicted.

• a shift away from mass equilibrium in the products: Is there a link for "mass equilbrium"?

Not done – No link available; the term is used in RS but I can't find a mention anywhere on WP.

Follow up – What does it mean then? Is it possible to add a short definition or note? HaEr48 (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Done – Not sure if this is ideal, but I expanded the parenthetical content to clarify. ComplexRational (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• " weaker proton shell or subshell closures" AFAIK we haven't mentioned subshell before. Is it possible to add a link?

Removed – I don't need to even mention subshells here; the sources mainly describe them as weaker shell closures anyway.

• What does "unbound" mean in "unbound resonance"? Clicking the link for Resonance (particle physics) does not help.

Removed – This wording was not great to begin with, so I rewrote these two sentences.

• heavier nuclei would lie beyond a fission threshold: is it possible to explain what "fission threshold" mean here? Limit before fission happens too rapidly?

Done – Does the short addition in that sentence explain it? (It is indeed a limit before fission happens too rapidly.)

Yes, that helps, thanks. HaEr48 (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• a greater binding energy per baryon: greater than what?

Done – Greater than that of nuclear matter; I added a mention of this, but it is implied in the next clause.

• Can we include the source of data used in File:Island of Stability.svg? (either in commons or in captions)

Not done – I can't track the source down, and the author is inactive. Would it then be necessary to remove this image from the article?

• What's the difference between the left and right diagram in File:Next proton shell.svg ?

Partly done – I added a superficial distinction, namely that it depends on the model and energy levels within. A fuller explanation would require careful extraction from the source, and similar captions for the same image (e.g. in unbinilium) use technical terms that would not be understandable to the average reader, even with links.

Follow up – it still isn't obvious why there are two from reading the caption. May I suggest moving the superficial explanation to the first sentence, e.g. "Diagram showing energy levels of known and predicted proton shells (left and right show two different models)" or something like that. We just need to explain why there are two without delving into the detailed explanation. 14:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Done – This is simple and clear enough, thank you. ComplexRational (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• In File:Nuclear chart from KTUY model.png, I think it's useful to note that no color means short-lived isotopes. Otherwise I don't know what visual shape to look for regarding "Regions of increased stability are visible around ... "

Done.

I'm done with reading now. I'll probably still make small suggestions here and there as I re-read it. Thank you so much for your work in this excellent article. HaEr48 (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback, HaEr48, and thank you again for emphasizing the importance of general readability. I addressed everything I could; this involved rewriting a few sentences and adding a few additional references, and I removed a few weaker bits that were better presentable in another way. Please take another look to ensure that no bits are missing, and that the prose still reads well top-to-bottom after this overhaul. ComplexRational (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional comments (stuff I forgot to write before, rather than new issues after the overhaul):

• "Many physicists believe that the half-lives of these nuclei are relatively short, on the order of minutes or days. Some theoretical calculations indicate that their half-lives may be long, on the order of 100 years, or possibly as long as 10⁹ years.": Do we know which one of these opposing predictions are more commonly accepted?

Not really. While most of the more recent sources give values on the order of 100-1000 years, they are not all in agreement and no one is universally accepted. I think it's better (and more neutral) to leave it as is.

• 30 orders of magnitude greater than those of nuclei unaffected by the shell closure: just for my own understanding, this means 10^30 greater, correct?

Yes, that's correct. To make it clear for everyone, I linked orders of magnitude (time) at its first occurrence further up the page.

• "For example, the neutron-deficient isotope ²⁸⁴Fl (with N = 170) undergoes fission with a half-life of 2.5 milliseconds, and is thought to be one of the most neutron-deficient nuclides stabilized by shell effects." I don't get which property this is an example of. The previous sentence is about neutron shell closure increasing fission half-lives, but this example seems to be about a nuclide without filled neutron shell and with short half-lives?

It's an example for comparison: in this paragraph, nuclides at the shell closure, moving further away (where half-lives decrease), and finally beyond the point that fission barriers vanish completely. Also note that the cited source makes almost this exact statement; I feel its described implications makes it worthy of inclusion.

• "one of the most neutron-deficient nuclides stabilized by shell effects": is the stabilization (despite the neutron deficiency) because of the number of protons?

It's mostly the effects of the neutron shell closure (less so the proton shell closure); I made note of this.

I'm still rereading the rest. But so far it looks great. HaEr48 (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I made one change to address the last two bullet points; I hope the meaning is more straightforward now. ComplexRational (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC).

• Support I think this article meets the FA criteria. It is certainly well-written, well-referenced and well-researched. I am not an expert in the area but the explanation appears coherent as well as consistent with the limited things I know about the topic. I have done all I could above to suggest changes that can make the article more accessible without being dumbed down too much, and I am happy with the nominator's responses. Thank you for this amazing work. HaEr48 (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....

• Nuclides with a magic number of each are referred to as "doubly magic" and are more stable than nearby nuclides as a result of greater binding energies. - would adding a couple of examples here help?

Done – I added three fairly well-known examples.

• Does having "Z=" and "A=" add any extra meaning over saying "Atomic number of..." and "Atomic mass of" ? I feel the latter is more accessible.

After introducing these symbols and their meaning in § Introduction, I feel the text flows better with these symbols. This is the wording used in many of the sources, and I envision that writing this out every time could be rather clunky without making their meaning clearer.

That's cool. It's a long time since I have looked at material on this topic, and if that's the way it's presented and understandable then I am persuaded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise impresses as comprehensive and prose does best job as possible straddling accessibility vs accuracy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Casliber: Thank you for your review; it was indeed helpful. ComplexRational (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia[edit]

The lead of this article was absolutely a pleasure to read ... I did not have time to delve much further, but did quickly notice a few minor things ...

• he is credited with the first usage of the term "superheavy element" in a 1958 paper published alongside Frederick Werner ... alongside ? Can't it just be with ?

Done

• the diagram in the lead took me some time to sort ... I finally figured out that the boxes referenced in the caption were the tiny things that look like grid lines, I think? If that is correct, is there a way to make that more clear?

The one thing I found I could clarify is that all nuclei (not only the predicted ones) are shaded. I'm not sure if there's anything cleared than "boxed", though.

• Do another check for WP:NBSP (see my samples).

Done — I hope I got them all.

Sorry, that's all I had time for, very nice work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Thank you for these comments. I hope my answers are satisfactory. ComplexRational (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Good enough! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Spot check for paraphrasing[edit]

The top match from Earwig’s copyvio detector turns up nothing of concern: [5].

The two sources I spotchecked reveal careful re-phrasing in the author's own words; these spotchecks do not turn up copyvio/close paraphrasing issues. Some of the text, though, is well above my pay grade, so I ask @R8R, Double sharp, and ComplexRational: to check these samples (below) for source--> text conformity:

• 1. Karpov 2012, [6]

• Article: The shell closure at N = 184 is predicted to result in longer partial half-lives for alpha decay and spontaneous fission.

• Source: The fully microscopic approaches predict the proton shell closure at Z = 120,14 Z = 126,15 or Z = 114,120,126 (see Ref. 16) depending on the chosen nucleon–nucleon interaction in meson field theory. The neutron magic number N = 184 is almost firmly predicted by different theoretical models.

• Article: In the center of the island, there may be competition between alpha decay and spontaneous fission, though the exact ratio is strongly model dependent.

• Source: Above my pay grade, asking others to provide the supporting text.

@SandyGeorgia: Here is the source text, from page 15:

Finally, the most stable nuclei (which should be β-stable) undergo α-decay or/and SF. This consideration of the decay modes sequence is rather natural and model independent. It explains the area of β⁺-decay found here. However, the size of this area depends on the nuclear masses and nuclear structure.

ComplexRational (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Article: … the nuclide 306Ubb is still predicted to have a short half-life with respect to alpha decay.

• Search of source does not produce 306Ubb; asking others to produce supporting text.

This was attributed to the depiction of ³⁰⁶Ubb in the charts on p. 12 as outside the 1 µs "boundary" – this value is significant as it demarcates the current limits of detection (as mentioned in the article). I added another source that more explicitly predicts a short half-life for this nucleus (a table entry on p. 53 of the pdf), but it should be noted that exact predictions vary considerably among different sources. ComplexRational (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• 2. Bernis 1977, [7]

• Article: In the late 1960s, more sophisticated shell models were formulated by American physicist William Myers and Polish physicist Władysław Świątecki, and independently by German physicist Heiner Meldner. With these models, taking into account Coulomb repulsion, Meldner predicted that the next proton magic number may be 114 instead of 126.[31] ... Myers and Świątecki also proposed that some superheavy nuclei would be longer-lived as a consequence of higher fission barriers. Further improvements in the nuclear shell model by Soviet physicist Vilen Strutinsky led to the emergence of the macroscopic-microscopic method, a nuclear mass model that takes into consideration both smooth trends characteristic of the liquid drop model and local fluctuations such as shell effects. This approach enabled Swedish physicist Sven Nilsson et al., as well as other groups, to make the first detailed calculations of the stability of nuclei within the island.[31] With the emergence of this model, Strutinsky, Nilsson, and other groups argued for the existence of the doubly magic nuclide 298Fl (Z = 114, N = 184), rather than 310Ubh (Z = 126, N = 184) which was predicted to be doubly magic as early as 1957.[31]

• Source: The modern widespread interest in superheavy elements began in Berkeley in 1965 as a result of two independent developments.1 The first of these was the estimate by Myers and Swiatecki that the fission barrier of a superheavy nucleus should be several MeV high, and the second was the suggestion by Meldner that the next closed proton shell after 82 is 114. It had always been assumed before, in analogy with the case for neutrons, that 126 would be the next closed proton shell. … The repulsive Coulomb force, which becomes increasingly important for heavier nuclei, is responsible for shifting the proton shell closure from 126 to 114.

• Source: In 1966 Strutinsky developed an improved method for calculating the potential energy of a nucleus as a function of its shape,4 and he and his co-workers used this method to calculate the fission barriers of several superheavy nuclei. 5 … Strutinsky's method is a two-part approach, with the smooth trends of the potential energy taken from a macroscopic model and the local fluctuations from a microscopic model. A macroscopic approach such as the liquid-drop model describes quantitatively such smooth trends of the nuclear potential energy but not the local fluctuations, whereas a microscopic approach, such as the single-particle model, describes the local fluctuations but not the smooth trends. So, why not synthesize the two? This combined macroscopicmicroscopic method should then hopefully reproduce both the smooth trends and the local fluctuations. This method is described in detail in Ref. 3.

• Source: Subsequently, Nilsson and his co-workers applied Strutinsky's method to a modified harmonic-oscillator single-particle potential to make the first systematic survey of the expected stability of superheavy nuclei.6 Since then, several other groups have made detailed calculations with improved computational techniques and with improved single-particle potentials. The status of such calculations is reviewed in Refs. 3 and 7.

• Source: As early as 1957, for example, Scharff-Goldhaber2 had suggested the possibility of another region of relative stability at the doubly magic nucleus U~126.

I recommend that a physics editor spotcheck a few more sources for source --> text conformity, but I do not believe any additional paraphrasing checks are warranted-- skilled writer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb, Ruslik0, and MaoGo: I am pinging the three of you I know from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Members. Happy New Year, and Felicidades para el 2020, MaoGo! This Featured article candidate has cleared most of its hurdles, but needs a wee bit of help to bring it over the line to Featured article. It is customary to do an extra-rigorous review on first-time FAC nominators, to make sure that the text accurately represents the sources, and that there are no copyvio or close paraphrasing issues. (Subsequent nominations from the same writers don't need to be so rigorously checked.)

I have checked already for copyvio and feel confident to say there is no such problem in the writing here. I have spotchecked a few of the online sources, as you can see just above the post here, but a bit more spotchecking to make sure that the article text accurately reflects the sources is needed.

If any of you have just a few moments to spare, I think you will enjoy the article, and it shouldn't take too much effort to pick a few random samples from the sources and make sure that source-to-text integrity is there. Thanks (and saludos!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Further spotcheck on hard print sources[edit]

Setting this section up to continue. ComplexRational, my plan then, is to randomly select some text cited to sources to which I have no access, and ask you to provide quoted text from the source supporting the text in the article. Are there any of the hard-print sources that you do not have at hand (having, for example, returned them to a library) so I can avoid those? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: did you see my question above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed it earlier. I do not have the books by Emsley, Podgorsak, Satake, or Ebbing, so best we avoid those. Most of the other references are linked, so I either have them downloaded or can find another copy at the original source. ComplexRational (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: did you see my samples below? I need for you to fill in the text from the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I'll get them later today – I won't have much time until this evening to do a thorough analysis. ComplexRational (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Here are three random samples; if you can add the supporting text please. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Done. ComplexRational (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Hoffman 2000, p. 426

• Article says: Because the produced nuclei underwent alpha decay rather than fission, and the half-lives were several orders of magnitude longer than predicted, this event was seen as a "textbook example" of a decay chain characteristic of the island of stability, providing strong evidence for the existence of the island of stability in this region.
• Source says (unabridged): Thus, at long last, more than 30 years after predictions of the Island of Superheavy Elements in the mid-60s, we have, indeed, reached and even gone beyond the "magic" region around Z = 114 and N = 184! When this book was finished, just before Glenn Seaborg left for the Boston ACS meeting, where he suffered his terrible stroke on 24 August 1998, we assumed that all that was left to do was the final proofreading. Then came this fantastic climax to the search for the superheavy elements, a search that had been a prime goal for a large number of scientists, especially for Glenn. We only regret that he is not here to witness it with us.

It began in January 1999 with an alert that a Dubna/LLNL collaboration working at Dubna had observed a single decay chain in the bombardment of 244Pu with 48Ca that they felt could only be attributed to element 114! A first glance at their findings seemed to indicate that, indeed, they had made the long-awaited discovery. Their reported chain of three α-emitters, 30-s, 9.71-MeV ²⁸⁹114 decaying to 15-min, 8.67-MeV ²⁸⁵112 decaying to 1.6-min, 8.83-MeV ²⁸¹110 decaying to 17-min ²⁷⁷108 which spontaneously fissioned, was a textbook example of what was expected for a SHE decay.

No paraphrasing problem, but which numbers am I looking at to back the "several orders of magnitude longer than predicted"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the "minutes" are supposed to be the evidence given that the mean halflife of e.g known Copernicium isotopes is far less than a second, although if it is that it probably needs an explainer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

This also references a statement from Oganessian, 1999: The lifetimes of the new isotopes, in particular ²⁸⁵112 and ²⁸¹110, appear to be approximately 10⁶ times longer than those of the known nuclei ²⁷⁷112 and ²⁷³110. I added this second inline citation. ComplexRational (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Blatt, J. M.; Weisskopf, V. F. (2012). Theoretical nuclear physics. Dover Publications. pp. 7–9.

• Article says: If a nucleus can be split into two parts that have a lower total energy (a consequence of the mass defect resulting from greater binding energy), it is unstable. The nucleus can hold together for a finite time because there is a potential barrier opposing the split, but this barrier can be crossed by quantum tunneling. The lower the barrier and the masses of the fragments, the greater the probability per unit time of a split.
• Source says (abridged): Some nuclei are unstable against a split into two (or more) parts. Such instability occurs if the binding energy of a nucleus A is smaller than the sum of the binding energies of the two separated parts B and C. Then arises the question how the two parts B and C can hold together, even temporarily, to form the nucleus A.

If the two constituents B and C are brought together from infinite distance, the potential energy increases, mainly because of the Coulomb repulsion between two positive charges.

If the energy reaches a point higher than E_∞, but lower than the highest point of the curve, the nucleus A is unstable with respect to the split into B and C; the two parts B and C are held together temporarily by a potential barrier and form an unstable nucleus A.

The probability II (per unit time for the penetration) decreases with an increase in the height of the barrier and with an increase in the masses of the penetrating parts.

Nicely boiled down to two sentences! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Sarriguren, P. (2019). "Microscopic calculations of weak decays in superheavy nuclei". Physical Review C. 100 (1): 014309–1—014309–12.

• Article says: The possible role of beta decay is highly uncertain, as some isotopes of these elements (such as 290Fl and 293Mc) are predicted to have shorter partial half-lives for alpha decay; this would reduce competition and result in alpha decay remaining the dominant decay channel, unless additional stability towards alpha decay exists in superdeformed isomers of these nuclides.
• Source says (unabridged): Thus, T_α half-lives of the order of 10 s are expected in ²⁹⁰Fl, from 1 to 10 s in ²⁹³Mc, from 0.1 to 1 s in ²⁹⁴Lv, and from 0.01 to 1 s in ²⁹⁵Ts. These values are always lower than the corresponding T_β⁺/EC half-lives, and therefore β⁺/EC would be much slower than α decay in these nuclei, not competing with them. Only the β⁺/EC from superdeformed shapes with T_β⁺/EC half-lives around 10-100 s could have a chance to compete with α decay.

• Help me understand that "The role ... is highly uncertain" is not editorializing? Since the content is over my head, need a hand here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  The source is basically saying that beta decay may not play a role as some sources predict, but that some isomers may indeed be capable of such decay if the partial half-lives are comparable. In my opinion, this combined with a few short bits elsewhere resolves to "highly uncertain". ComplexRational (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  I believe it might be a way to paraphrase "would be", but it probably needs a rework. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

What exactly may need a rework? ComplexRational (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

To the Coords, I think we have ourselves here an editor with an astonishing ability to paraphrase technical concepts, and no evidence of even the slightest close paraphrasing or copyvio issue. It is unfortunate that we have not found a single topic expert (who had not previously worked on the article) to weigh in here (which means I can't support, because I only support articles that I thoroughly understand), but I think we should not hold up this nomination waiting for independent editors from the Physics Project to show up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: Comments? ComplexRational (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Double sharp[edit]

I gave the article a read through. It's an excellent read and there's nothing that jumps out to me at the moment, so you have my support too! Double sharp (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Coord notes[edit]

Hi ComplexRational, a couple more things:

• There are several duplicate links in the article so pls rationalise -- you can install and run this tool to highlight the dups.

Done.

• More importantly, I gather this will be your first FA if successful so as well as the source review conducted above I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing; if one of the reviewers above would like to undertake, that's great, otherwise you can request the check at the top of WT:FAC.

Requested here.

Pinging @R8R, HaEr48, Casliber, SandyGeorgia, and Double sharp: if any of them would like to assist with this spotcheck, in which case a separate review may not be required. ComplexRational (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

And thanks to you as well for these comments. ComplexRational (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I can do this ... perhaps today. I will spotcheck sources available online; if anyone else wants to spotcheck some that I cannot access online, that would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Pinged three more editors above; will do more if no one shows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Nothing yet AFAIK from them three (even though they have edited since then). Would you like to wait a bit longer, or should we just work through these examples ourselves? ComplexRational (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as I'm seeing everywhere, FAC just doesn't command the attention it once did :( Let's work through them ourselves. (I apologize that I am being torn many directions at the moment, with a potential arbcase looming, but please be patient with me as I have my hands full.) I will sometime today put up some samples, then, and if I need help verifying, ask you for same. Don't hesitate to ping me if I forget :( :( Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, perhaps those editors have pinging disabled? (Another reason I hate this darn newfangled pingie thingie :) Do you think it would be intrusive if I posted to their talk after I have pinged? Don't want to do something that might bring an angry reviewer to your FAC :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I would advise against it; I have seen them respond to pings before in other areas, so if echo indeed is working, it may seem like badgering. Thanks for asking, and don't rush (I've been quite busy myself and am actively doing two reviews outside FAC). ComplexRational (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

• All images appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

JJE[edit]

So, interesting topic, let's see if I can provide any useful comment (for disclosure, the nom of this article is working with me on Talk:Coropuna which is my own future nomination). I see that some of the sources in here aren't used in the article (aside from these which don't treat with nuclear physics, of course); I take that these aren't significant omissions? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that those not already in the article seem paywalled (i.e. I cannot read them), the abstracts suggest that they may be loosely related but are instead focused on the properties of nuclides intermediate between the stable "continent" and the island of stability. Maybe worth another article, but it doesn't fit with anything in this one, so I don't believe these omissions are significant. ComplexRational (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have some concerns about the copyright status of File:Even Z alpha decay chains.png, File:Nuclear chart from KTUY model.png, File:Superheavy decay modes predicted.png and File:Island of Stability derived from Zagrebaev.png as "selection and arrangement copyright" (the particular ways the diagrams are arranged, with particular colours, boxes etc.) might apply in such cases. Yes, the half lifes and decay modes of isotopes are not copyrightable but the way they were arranged into a diagram can very well be [8][9]; I'll see if the Commons copyright experts @Jameslwoodward, Elcobbola, and Clindberg: know anything about such images.
• File:Next proton shell.svg, it seems like it's not on slide 36.

Thanks for pointing that out. It was actually on slide 30; I fixed this in the file description. ComplexRational (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. A close call, I think. I would be inclined to say that they are not copyrightable -- as a rule graphs can be and are often drawn by computer rather than manually. These certainly could be drawn by computer. Choice of color is not, I think, enough to give a copyright. I'll be interested to see what my colleagues say. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I was also wondering about this – before uploading File:Nuclear chart from KTUY model.png, I discussed this with Double sharp who uploaded File:Superheavy decay modes predicted.png as PD for insufficient creativity. I would agree with this, as only raw data is depicted ("facts that were discovered"), which is not copyrightable. ComplexRational (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Utopes[edit]

I don't plan on reading through the whole article at this time, but I wanted to leave my cursory comments at the least. This article would highly benefit through the use of subheaders and paragraph breaks. This article is structured like an academic paper, and while there isn't anything wrong with that, it's not easily readable. The paragraphs are touching 12 sentences in just one paragraph, but this number is treating semicolons as though they were periods, because this number can be easily manipulated with punctuation insertion and removal. Basically, I would like to see more subheadings at current paragraph breaks, and see paragraph breaks in general for those with at least 9 sentences. While this wouldn't change the content, it makes the article much more consumable. (I understand that articles on technical subjects exist. However, even these are able to be separated into more refined subtopics and allow for easier navigation and readability.) Utopes (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Utopes: I added a few extra paragraph breaks, but they only really help when there is a clear transition of focus. Do you believe any more should be added? ComplexRational (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Good. A potential subheader could be warranted at "Predicted Decay Properties" but I'm not sure myself what to put in there. I added another paragraph break, but I'm satisfied with how the article has been split up. I'm still neutral about the FA aspect. Utopes (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Featured article reviews[edit]

Featured article review (FAR) Shortcuts WP:FAR WP:FARC This section is for the review and improvement of current featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. To contact the FAR coordinators for further questions, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

L. Ron Hubbard[edit]

Notified: User talk:MartinPoulter

I am nominating this featured article for review because it lacks inline citations (and those that it has are questionable with regard to reliability). It is suffers from weasel words and the prose is sub-standard for a contemporary FA. There were several unstruck valid opposes at the FAC. Graham Beards (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to be much more specific about your concerns:

• What citations do you think are missing?
• Which do you think are unreliable?
• What are the weasel words?
• Which prose do you think is unsatisfactory?

Without more specificity, I'm afraid there's not much for others to go on. Prioryman (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I think a review's a good idea given the age of the article, but it needs to be focused and specific. Prioryman (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I have indicated using the {{fact}} where I think additional citations are needed. With regard to the citations, (which are inconsistently formatted) what makes this, for example, a reliable source; [10]? There are also single sentence paragraphs and the prose flows badly in places. Graham Beards (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I see from the article history that it's had a lot of piecemeal edits over the years, so it's no wonder it's a bit choppy. I'm happy to have a go at fixing the problems you've highlighted; in particular I should be able to supply the citations you suggest.

Regarding the source you mention, I note that it's from a veteran journalist and author who has a particular expertise on Scientology (and his own Wikipedia article). Per WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Ortega certainly counts on both criteria (two books and multiple news articles). Prioryman (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Prioryman. I agree with your comments regarding Ortega - I had not heard of him before. The citations are the main issue IMHO, but the prose does need some attention. Graham Beards (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look at the prose too. I have some skills in that regard. :-) I probably won't be able to do it before the weekend though, due to other commitments. Prioryman (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

You are too modest. :-) There is no rush; this isn't FAC. Best wishes. Graham Beards (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Big Bang[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Physics

I am nominating this featured article for review because this was last reviewed for FA status in 2007 and our FA standards have acceleratedly expanded since then. The "Misconceptions" section is a mess and can stand to be better formatted. The "Overview" section, which might not even be needed, has a {{Refimprove}} tag on it; there are also many uncited paragraphs throughout the rest of the article. I raised these concerns on the talk page two weeks ago but little work has been done on the article since then and there was no response on the talk page. This is also a Level 3 Vital Article, making this even more important. Overall, I don't think that this represents Wikipedia's best work, although there isn't anything that can't be reasonably fixed in the course of an FAR. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson: Please go ahead and improve the article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Something that needs fixing is the lack of alt= on the images. This is needed for accessibility. I think that the overall size, number of sections and pictures is fine. But perhaps there could be some more tables, perhaps a Penrose diagram. Perhaps there is a suitable infobox exists for astronomical event, as it is not quite an object. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• The image which appears in the lead,
  

  Timeline of the metric expansion of space, where space, including hypothetical non-observable portions of the universe, is represented at each time by the circular sections. On the left, the dramatic expansion occurs in the inflationary epoch; and at the center, the expansion accelerates (artist's concept; not to scale).
  , is seriously misleading and deficient. No scale is given. The image makes it appear that the expansion suddenly slowed at the end of the inflationary period (which is false) and that the universe is only slightly larger now than it was then (also false). No doubt there are other errors in the details of the image. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• I have removed the "Overview" section and rearranged the content somewhat. However, I noticed that there's a large "Further Reading" list. Such lists are absent in the majority of Featured Articles, as generally speaking a source that belongs in a Further Reading list for most articles should be incorporated into a Featured Article to make the article as comprehensive as possible. There are of course exceptions, and this topic is certainly niche enough to have readings that would make good further reading while being too specialized for a general encyclopedia, but I wonder if someone who knows more about cosmology would be willing to check out these sources and see whether they can be incorporated into the article's prose. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• What exactly is the Beyond the Big Bang section supposed to talk about? It's title it extremely vague, and its prose is highly convoluted (at least for me, a layman). Is it trying to say hypotheses for the origin of the initial singularity? I'm sure the Misconceptions section could be merged into this one if that's the case   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I believe that it's about the limitations of the model and potential expansions on it (such as eternal inflation, brane cosmology, etc.), but the first paragraph doesn't seem to jibe well with it. I think that the first paragraph can be removed and each of the competing theories can be expanded to each have their own paragraph rather than a bullet point (subject to FRINGE, of course). I disagree that the Misconceptions should be merged into it, but I agree that both sections could stand to be greatly expanded. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I usually see this subject referred to as "Pre-big-bang cosmology", since it appears to be exploring the extended origins of the big bang event. Praemonitus (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have e-mailed Sean M. Carroll about this article and asked him to review it for its physics. I doubt that there's much wrong with the article in that respect (my major qualms are rather with presentation and prose), but I think it'd be nice to have a pair of expert eyes on it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Looking through the article I noticed that the value of Hubble's constant was given as measured by the WMAP but that no mention was made of the discrepancy between that value and the one provided by the cosmic microwave background as detailed here (admittedly not the best source, but hopefully it's adequate for what I'm saying). I don't think it's that terribly important for the article, but I think some mention of it could be made. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates[edit]

Folding@home[edit]

Review section[edit]

Notified: Jesse V., Six WikiProjects

Nominating this article because of the update tag the article has in its "Patterns of participation" section. Also nominating because of unsourced material in the article. GamerPro64 17:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Question How does the section update tag figure into the FAC? I don't see "out of date" as one of the criteria. Do featured articles in general have expiry dates? Thanks, --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • If the section needs updating, then it would mean that the article does not meet Criteria 1 of the Featured Article criteria, as it would not be comprehensive or well-researched. GamerPro64 19:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your explanation. The update tag was placed, without explanation, by a controversial user, FAMASFREENODE, who was blocked after just 208 edits. I would be inclined to remove such a tag as FUD that is unhelpful for improving the article. I suppose every FA goes out of date the moment an RS with new content is published on the subject, but without a substantial, concrete criticism, it is hard to address the problem short of a full literature review. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include some sentences requiring citations Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Keep as of now. FAR should be a collaborative process and I don't see much of anything happening here, not even a basic worklist or enumerated issues from the nominator. The controversial tag has been removed and the article seems to be in fine shape overall. --Laser brain (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead(II) nitrate[edit]

Notified: Wimvandorst, WikiProject Chemicals

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it was recently shortened by someone qualified to do so, but hasn't been reviewed since the major changes. I am particularly concerned by the shortness of the lead, whether the shortened article is now comprehensive, and the prose structure of short, stubby paragraphs. DrKay (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• The call for review is appropriate: the vandalism to the article is very much. The primary problem pointed out (too short lede) is already addressed, since re-instating the original 2008 is still fully correct now. But other parts of the article have been butchered as well, with an overall undue shortness. I'll give it a copy-edit to re-instate the original text, incorporating the genuine additions/improvements by a few hundred editors in the last 11 years. Wim van Dorst (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC).
• I'm just starting this review, but one of the questions I had was what language "plumb dulcis" is? I presume it's Latin, but the Classical Latin for "sweet lead" is "plumbum dulce". I know that seems somewhat minor, but it's what I picked up on. I'll see what else I can review at my earliest convenience. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Some minor vandalism reverts were easy. However, the major change is by dr Gans, of UoLeeds who is certainly knowledgeable enough about the topic. I asked on his talk page to comment on his major wikipedia changes, and am awaiting elucidation. We can always boldly revert to the version of early September 2019, but I rather co-operate on improvement. Wim van Dorst (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC).
• Although dr Gans is qualified as a inorganic chemist, the editing he does is merely deleting what he deems to be not pertaining to the primary content of the Lead(II) nitrate article. It means that information, targeted to non-scientifically trained readers, is deleted by him. My view is that this article should also cater to readers without a PhD in chemistry, and thus have more general information about aquaeous chemistry of the salt (which is special), and references to its historic use as pigments. How do other editors see this? Wim van Dorst (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC).
• In my opinion, this article is now less accessible to a non-expert. The edits, while in good faith, have left the article in a state where it no longer serves Wikipedia's audience and is more appropriate for a college chemistry student. I don't know if the answer is to restore the September 2019 and inspect the proposed changes individually, but that would be a start. --Laser brain (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
• I support Laser brain suggestion of reverting to the August or early September version. 20:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC).
• @DrKay and John M Wolfson: Do you also concur with LB's suggestion? If so, if that were implemented, what additional work would be needed? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• I support reversion to the September 2019 version; on first order it at least looks better with its longer structure and infobox images. Going off it there are still several statements that are uncited, which gives me pause. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wimvandorst, DrKay, Petergans, John M Wolfson, and Laser brain: Per this discussion I've restored the September 2019 version; please discuss what changes are required from that point. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The wholesale reversion is unacceptable, as it re-introduces material which actually does need to be deleted. I limit my comments here to the infobox: the picture of a white powder is unverifiable; The structure of the nitrate ion is misleading as the ion has 3-fold symmetry (what is shown is one canonical form of a resonance hybrid of 3 structures); the correct structure (at the right here) is shown in the picture in the section Structure so the other structures in the infobox are also redundant. My only other comment at this time is that the table of solubility belongs on a data page rather than being in a main article.

My wholesale edit was based on the principle that content has to be verifiable and non-trivial. I suggest reversion to my last edit and a discussion of possible amendments/reversions to that version on the article talk page. Petergans (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC) Petergans (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I see some edits I can make to the references and some other formatting; nothing major, but can I be pinged when a version to edit is decided on? Kees08 (Talk) 21:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and formatting. Some sentences require citations. Main problem is stalemate on preferred version. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Delist, as the article has once again been gutted and made less accessible. Large portions of cited text have been removed with vague edit summaries like "clean-up" and I don't know enough about the topic to examine the edits. I'm disappointed at the lack of discourse between SMEs here and ultimately the reader is the loser. --Laser brain (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• Delist. Not comprehensive: for example a brief search can bring up details that are entirely missing from the article, such as alternate name lead dinitrate, melting point of 470°C, and a clear depiction of the chemical structure. DrKay (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Backlog[edit]

• Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles § 2005 to June 2006 FAs without FAR