Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

For the criteria to become a featured article, see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.

For the similar process page for good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, Buidhe and Hog Farm—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}. Table of Contents – This page:

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC) Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR) Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 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: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Random featured article

How to nominate an article Nomination procedure Toolbox Analysis 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. Commenting, supporting and opposing 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

William Utermohlen

Nominator(s): Realmaxxver (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

This article is about William Utermohlen, who created self-portraits after he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1995. I have been expanding this article for five months now and in the past three there has been a successful GA review, the previous unsuccessful FAC and a peer review which has just been closed today. After all of that I am highly sure that this meets the FA criteria. Realmaxxver (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I would also like to say that there is a TFA blurb in the talk page of this page (For if this article gets promoted). Realmaxxver (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Tell All Your Friends

Nominator(s): dannymusiceditor ^oops 01:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Primary contributor: MusicforthePeople

Happy holidays, Wikipedia. This article is about the debut album by seminal emo band Taking Back Sunday, released in 2002. Although it received little radio support and charted very modestly, it sold at a steady pace, and became the band's best selling record. It became a gold record in America in 2009. In addition to its singles, it featured the emo staple "Cute Without the 'E' (Cut from the Team)" and the album was likened to Linkin Park's Hybrid Theory (2000) as an exemplary effort for its genre.

I am not the primary contributor to this article. That honor belongs to MusicforthePeople, who initially nominated this for good article status five years ago. As it turns out, I was the one who reviewed that nomination, but I have been mostly hands-off since then, with anything I've done being very minor. From the attitude I got earlier this year at the FAC talk page, I believe this should not be a problem.

MusicforthePeople and I are close colleagues, and we had a chat earlier this year about how both of us have so many good articles but neither of us can really take much credit for a Featured Article. They began making preparations to make this a featured article, but decided the process was not worth the hassle. I then offered if I could begin the process in their stead, and they accepted the offer. Me fulfilling this nomination and seeing it on the front page one day will be fulfillment of a dream seeing his work there. This will also be my first FA attempt in four years; my last attempts ended in failure, so hopefully I have learned from there. I appreciate any reviewers' time! dannymusiceditor ^oops 01:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• I'd link demo in the first instance in the lead and the article.

 Done

• I'd shorten the link for Long Island, New York hardcore scene to New York hardcore scene as the linked article is not specifically about Long Island.

 Done

• I have a question about this part, DeJoseph was unable to tour extensively because of personal issues. Do we know what these "personal issues" are? I'm only wondering as the current wording is rather vague.

If I recall correctly we attempted to investigate this issue at GAN but were unable to find anything further than what we've dug up. I will give it another look to see if anything has surfaced since that time. dannymusiceditor ^oops 20:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. If further information cannot be found, then "personal issues" is fine. It could be a case where this was not disclosed to the public (which is perfectly fine and probably the healthiest thing). Aoba47 (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• For this part, with Victory Records sales/A&R representative Angel Juarbe, I'd link A&R as some readers may be unfamiliar with this concept. I'd also say sales and A&R as the slash looks a little too informal in my opinion.

 Done

• In this part, quiet verse, loud bridge, big chorus, repeat, breakdown, chorus, ending, I'd also link bridge and chorus.

 Done

• Brand New, Thursday, and Saves the Day are linked twice in the article. I'd double-check that other items are not overlinked as well.

 Done

• In the "Touring" section, there is a sentence with four citations. I'd avoid that per WP:Citation overkill.

 Done

• I am uncertain about the current structure of the "Critical reception" section. It has a lot of great information and citations, but it does not have a clear sense of structure. It somewhat comes across as a list of critics and their opinions, and does not support the sentence from the lead (i.e. positive reviews mostly focused on the album's mix of music styles) as well as it could. This kind of section is difficult to write, and I'd recommend looking at the WP:Reception essay for advice. Again, all the information and citations are there.
• Since there is an entire sub-section on the album's influence and retrospective reviews, I'd include a brief part about that in the lead.

 Done

• I'm uncertain about the title of the "Accolades, influence and retrospective reviews" sub-section, specifically the "Accolades" part. It seems like that part is referencing how the album was placed on best-of lists, and while that is something worthy of including and is nice overall, that does not really fit my first impressions of accolades (which I associate more with awards like Grammy Awards, etc.).

I've switched this to "Best-of lists, influence and retrospective reviews" – is this better? MusicforthePeople (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

That seems like a clearer header to me, but I would also see what other reviewers say about it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I hope this review is helpful. I will look through the article again when all of my above comments have been addressed. Let me know if you have any questions, and have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! We will be sure to follow up on this. dannymusiceditor ^oops 20:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you. Take as much time as you need. Just so you know, it is discouraged to use the done template as it can slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. Aoba47 (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Noted. I will refrain from doing so in the future. dannymusiceditor ^oops 04:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response. I'd also remove the templates used above. Aoba47 (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Wisconsin Territorial Centennial half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

This article is about... Another of the 1936 commemoratives. This one mostly scandal-free, though not very popular. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh.Singh

• Suggesting to link Wisconsin in the lead (it is linked in the prose but not in the lead).
• "Its first governor, Henry Dodge, was sworn in on July 4, 1836" — I'm not sure, but our article says that he was in office from April 30, 1836.
• "by a subcommittee led by Colorado's Alva B. Adams." v. "each passed without debate or dissent" — footnote after reference or before reference? (of-course, just a suggestion)
• Badger is linked twice.
• "Cornelius Vermeule, an art historian ..." — our article calls him Cornelius Clarkson Vermeule III, since C. C. V. I and C. C. V. II also have Wikipedia articles.
• "box of Arm & Hammer baking soda" — two adjacent words linked together may cause confusion. More importantly, do we need a link to baking soda?
• I think that Vermeule quote is long enough to deserve a blockquote.
• "included 15 coins put aside" v. "no fewer than fifteen were issued" (emphasis mine) — I think we need consistency here
• "most were sold for $1.50 per coin" — would Template:inflation be helpful here?
• "MADISON, WISC". or rubber-stamped" — erroneous full-stop?
• "The deluxe edition of R. S. Yeoman's" — our article calls him Richard S. Yeoman

That is it. It is a pleasure reading this article. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Abdollah Mirza Qajar

Nominator(s): Amir Ghandi (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Abdollah Mirza Qajar, an Iranian prince of Qajar dynasty, son of Fath-Ali Shah Qajar and governor of the city of Zanjan. in his time, he built the Jameh Mosque of Zanjan, discovered the long lost tomb of Arghun, Ilkhan of Ilkhanate and had a meeting with James Edward Alexander a Scottish traveller. he however, eventually lost the governorship due to the complains from the peasants. he once tried to regain his power when his father died and the realm was left upon Abdollah's nephew, Mohammad Shah Qajar, but faild. since then he left the government jobs and spent time with scholars and writers in the capital Tehran until his death in 18 June 1846 which he foretold earlier.

The article has been through copy edit and peer review and i firmly believe it is ready to jump up the final phase. Amir Ghandi (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't repeat caption in alt text
  • Changed the caption
• File:Abdullah_Mirza_Dara.jpg needs a US tag, and can the summary be translated?
  • I'll translate the summary but how can i find the US tag, Original work tag as well?
    • I'd suggest figuring out where these works fall on the Hirtle chart. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Done
• File:Jemeh_mosque_Zanjan.jpg: as Iran does not have freedom of panorama, this will need a tag for the original work.
  • Done (I think?)

Nikkimaria (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Fakhr al-Din II

Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Fakhr al-Din II, one of a long line of Druze chiefs from the Ma'n dynasty who far exceeded his ancestors in ambition and achievement. He became the governor and tax farmer of Mount Lebanon, Galilee and their ports and eventually much of the western Levant in the early 17th century. In the complex politics of his time, he was both an efficient tax collector and enforcer for the Ottoman Empire and an unprecedentedly autonomous and enterprising rural chief. Eventually his power became too much for the Empire to bear and he was crushed. Fakhr al-Din reinvigorated the ports of Sidon, Beirut and Acre by opening them to European commerce after a centuries-long hiatus and inaugurated the lucrative Lebanese silk industry. His most lasting legacy was the symbiotic union of the Druze and Maronites under his watch, which led to the precursor entities of the modern Lebanese state. Al Ameer (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest presenting the family tree as a template rather than an image, to improve its accessibility and allow for inline citation

• Could you point me to a recommended template? While I agree, my feeling is that there's too many people in this tree to fit into a template. Alternatively, I could add a template, in addition to this more comprehensive chart, showing only the ancestors of Fakhr al-Din. Al Ameer (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• There are some options available at H:FT. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• File:Ferdinando_i_de'_medici_12.JPG: source link is dead, missing a US tag

• Could not find archived link. Replaced with better sourced image of same person, though in his older age: File:S Pulzone Fernando I de Medicis Uffizi 1590.jpg. Al Ameer (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• This one is also missing a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Added. Al Ameer (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• File:Emir_Fakhr_al-Din_and_Mustafa_Pasha,_Olfert_Dapper.png needs a US tag. Ditto File:Fakhr_al-Din_al-Maʿani,_Eugene_Roger.png, File:Emirs_Fakher_ad_din_II_%26_Bashir_II,_stamp.jpg

• US tags added for for all three. Al Ameer (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, you're referring to the PD-Art tag? This tag reflects that reproduction of 2D works does not garner a new copyright under US law, but it only applies if the original work is PD. There are some examples at commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag that may be helpful in showing that. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks Nikki. I added the PD-US tags, but did so incorrectly. Fixed now. Al Ameer (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• File:Boats_at_the_citadel_of_Sidon._Coloured_lithograph_by_Louis_Wellcome_V0049486.jpg: what is the copyright status of the original work?
• File:Emir_Fakhr_al-Dīn_Statue_in_Baʻaqlīn.jpg: as Lebanon does not have freedom of panorama, this will need a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Funk

• Another important one, marking my spot. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• "were commonly referred to in the sources as" What is meant by "the sources"? perhaps say "in contemporary sources"?

• Revised. Al Ameer (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Link musket?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Link Ottoman?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Link Porte. I see it is linked at second instead of first mention.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Ottoman efforts to tax and disarm the peasants of the Druze Mountain, who historically evaded taxes" Was there a religious angle to their persecution?

• Added more background, mostly stolen from 1585 Ottoman expedition against the Druze. Al Ameer (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Since he is denoted "II", I'd expect at least a footnote stating who "I" was, and their relation?

• Kind of complicated, Fakhr al-Din I explains in more detail. Added explanatory footnote here. Al Ameer (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Fakhr al-Din was careful to present himself as a Sunni before the government." But didn't everyone know he was Druze?

• Probably yes, but formally (officially) he presented himself as a Sunni. I have now added in the Origins section that Druze had to pretend being Sunni to obtain any official post so hopefully that adds more context to this. Al Ameer (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• "redoubt at the Krak des Chevaliers" Add "castle" for clarity?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Link Janissarie.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• "he relocated to the Palazzo Medici Riccardi" The article about the palace states it was only sold to the Riccardi family in 1659, so should it just be called "Palazzo Medici" here?

• Good point, revised. Al Ameer (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Link Spanish Hapsburgs?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Afterward, Fakhr al-Din was sent to Constantinople. There, he was imprisoned in Yedikule, while his two sons were sent to the Galatasaray." Needs citation.

• Added. Al Ameer (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• "while his two sons were sent to the Galatasaray." Were these his only remaining sons?

• Yes, mentioned now in the article. Al Ameer (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• State when the Sidon image is from?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• The very end of the article seems pretty empty, any imagery[1] that would be relevant there? Could show buildings he had built under "Building works" maybe?

• Moved the picture of the Deir al-Qamar palace to Building works. Unfortunately, the palace in Beirut is no longer extant, and we have no images of the palace or the caravanserais of Sidon that he commissioned. We have images of Ma'nid constructions in Tyre but they were not necessarily built by Fakhr al-Din. May reintroduce them to article in a limited way (I relocated this section to Ma'n dynasty#Architectural works and legacy prior to the FAC). There is a good picture of the Khan al-Franj in Sidon, but this was not built by the Ma'ns, even though they are erroneously credited with it in popular narrative. Al Ameer (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• This Commons image[2] seems amusing, if we could find the original. It seems to be here:[3] And the book (Histoire des Druses, peuple du Liban) on archive.org also has an image of a wife[4], of his camp[5] and other interesting things. I can upload the images if they're useful, seems some of them are already on Commons but will questionable sourcing. FunkMonk (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding that first picture showing the sheikh with the pipe, this is actually a real sketch of Muhammad Turabay, the Bedouin chief and Ottoman governor of Lajjun in north Palestine. See the article cited here by Chehab, Hafez, which is devoted to the artistic representations of Fakhr al-Din. As for the wife, while this is an 18th-century artistic representation (not a sketch of his actual wife), I have no issue including it in the article. Same for the military camp. They are both useful illustrations in my opinion. I do not think we should include the pipe-smoking sheikh since this has been proven to be someone else entirely. Would you please upload them (wife and camp) or correct the sourcing information of their existing images (assuming they are from the same source)? Al Ameer (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, that's odd with the pipe pictures. I've uploaded the wife[6] (the version of it here[7]identifies her by name, not sure if it's reliable, don't know much French so can't determine what the book's text says beyond the caption), but it appears the camp image unfortunately isn't folded out in the archive.org scan, I'll see if I can find it elsewhere. It also appears that this image on Commons that is said to be him[8] is also from that book, but actually shows a Druze cavalryman:[9] Not sure what the context is in the book or if it's useful here, but it seems the caption on Commons should be changed at least. FunkMonk (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Seems the camp image is also plagiarised, from here[10], so probably not of use. Unless the emir mentioned is our subject, which should be doubtful? FunkMonk (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Look at that, good find. I might want to upload it for the Turabay dynasty article since they were grand princes, so-to-speak, of the Bedouin in Mount Carmel, the Jezreel Valley and around Jenin until 1697. The image was "issued" in 1717, but King Louis XIV reigned from 1643 to 1715. Very likely that this sketch dates between 1643 and 1697. The Turabays did maintain low-level diplomatic relations with the French and did not have Bedouin successors. Al Ameer (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Tell me if you need help with that, seems the version I linked is plastered with watermarks, should be possible to find a clean version. FunkMonk (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I probably will. Also, I just noticed your comments on the wife picture, I will look into it further and probably add it to the Marriages and children section. Al Ameer (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Usually, genealogical trees are placed at the end of the article, but not sure if there are really any conventions.

• I will stick to the norm. Would it be redundant then to include the thumbnail image of the family tree in Early life with a caption link to the interactive chart? Al Ameer (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't personally think it could hurt, but is there much room left there? FunkMonk (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I guess not, will leave it out. Al Ameer (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• "and another large mulberry grove in nearby Hisah" Funny, a lot of my Lebanese family lives there, never saw it mentioned in an article (I created the village's article), hehe.

• That’s great—always nice to come across my own folks' home-villages mentioned in a history article. I will add the mulberry grove fact to Hisah as well. Al Ameer (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Cool! FunkMonk (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Link Venetian at first instead of second mention.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• Link mulberry tree?

• Done. Any point to adding this picture of a silkworm on a mulberry branch (File:Silkworm mulberry tree zetarra marugatze arbolean3.JPG) to the Economic policies section? The relevance would be that Fakhr al-Din stimulated the silk industry in Mount Lebanon, including planting thousands of mulberry trees. Al Ameer (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Seems a bit tangential, unless it was from the area? Here is an old picture of silk worms in Lebanon eating mulberry leaves[11], perhaps it would be more relevant. FunkMonk (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Man I've been looking for a picture like this. Was planning on a 'silk industry in Mt Lebanon' article. I added the picture here, and will use it in the article I'm planning if I ever get back to it. Al Ameer (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Nice! FunkMonk (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Show one of the structures mentioned under Fortifications and troops?

• Added picture of Subayba, one of his most strategic forts. Let me know if this is sufficient or if we should add one of his Sidon forts too.Al Ameer (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks good! FunkMonk (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Fakhr al-Din also had a white concubine" White seems a bit of an odd term to use for the context, what does the source say? Any nationality? Or say European?

• Odd choice indeed, but this was the author's description. I would have changed it to European (was not uncommon for powerful Ottomans to have Balkan concubines), but “white” could also mean Circassian from the Caucasus (which was not uncommon either). If Caucasus could be considered European, then will change it. Otherwise, might be better to just write 'concubine'. Al Ameer (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Probably just keep as is, then. FunkMonk (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Will do. Al Ameer (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Link Janbulad family to Jumblatt under Assessment?

• The Janbulads referred to here are the Kurdish clan of the Azaz/Kilis area. I will link Ali Janbulad#Family background until there is a separate article on the Kurdish Janbulads. The Jumblatts of the Chouf have been described by 19th-century local Lebanese historians as descendants of the Janbulads, and the family itself seems to claim it, but this is by no means certain and perhaps only a later legend. I have a few RS to work from and will expand on this subject in the Jumblatts article this week or next since you have brought it up. As of now, it would be a stretch to link them here. Perhaps after I add that material, it will make sense to plug in the Legacy section that the Jumblatts, perhaps the most powerful Druze faction of the Mountain and a major political player in local politics since the 17th–18th century, first settled there under the auspices of Fakhr al-Din's rule. Al Ameer (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, good to get that cleared up. FunkMonk (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• "who may have it as his" May have had it?

• Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• "erroneously calls calls him "Yusuf"" Double call.

• Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support - looks great to me now, again nice to see some significant non-Western figures at FAC, and this one hit close to home too. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, as always, for being thorough and helpful FunkMonk. I enjoyed learning about this important chapter in Lebanese and Levantine history. —Al Ameer (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft Eisenhower movement

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

This article is about how General Dwight D. Eisenhower was persuaded by both the Democratic and Republican Party to contest the presidency. We won't see that today! Both in the 1948 and 1952 presidential election: politicians, news organizations, columnist, composers, and many citizens campaigned to "Draft Eisenhower". And "Ike" (nickname of Eisenhower, because you can't remember that long name!) refused all requests to enter politics. The Draft movement failed in 1948, but the upset victory of Harry S. Truman made many Republicans to again campaign for Eisenhower in 1952. Democrats to tried to persuade him, saying that he can win only as a Democrat. Senator Paul Douglas even suggested both parties to nominate Eisenhower with different vice-presidential running mates. The famous "I like Ike" campaign slogan was associated with this movement. Eisenhower at-last agreed to contest Republican primaries, and won few of them despite never actively campaigning himself. He was elected president as a Republican, and served two terms.

This is currently a Military history A-class article. Also, it was reviewed for GA by A. C. Santacruz, and was copy-edited by late Twofingered Typist. I have tried to keep the article comprehensive, but concise. I added many things related to the "Draft movement", and separate article about the Republican primaries/vice-presidential selection exist. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by ExcellentWheatFarmer

• "Several politicians, including New York Representative W. Sterling Cole, voiced their opposition to the nomination of Eisenhower or any other military leader for the presidency." - Why did they oppose this? Also, what is the significance of Cole's opinion specifically?
  • Rephrased the first part of the sentence. The reason on Cole's opposition to this was mainly based on the fact that he didn't wanted any military leader to run. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
• "In 1951, more Republican politicians announced their support for Eisenhower, while Democrats continued to assure him he could win the presidency only as a Democrat." -> "In 1951, more Republican politicians announced their support for Eisenhower, while Democrats continued to assure him he could only win the presidency as a Democrat."
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
• "Eisenhower replied in the affirmative" Odd wording here - change it to just "Eisenhower agreed".
  • Better, done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
• What is the relevance of George VI's state funeral? Either elaborate on its significance or remove it.
  • There is no major relevance here, agreeing that it is bit trivial, I removed its mention. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
• "On June 4, he made his first political speech in his hometown of Abilene, Kansas." About what?
  • Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
• Is there any more information on the 1956 Draft movements that could be added in the Aftermath and legacy section? It's a bit short as of now.
  • Added a bit. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
• All images seem well-captioned and are all free to use!

@ExcellentWheatFarmer – Thanks for your comments. I tried to address all. Let me know if anything else is required. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• I can't see much else that needs doing, so I'm gonna Support this right now. I'll let you know if anything changes! ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by TheTechnician27

Upon a first reading, I could find few issues or questions outside of what ExcellentWheatFarmer already mentioned. The trivial nitpicks I did have I cleaned up. I'll go through the 'Works cited' and try to find full text versions for the sake of reader accessibility and give a tentative Support prior to a second reading. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by ErnestKrause

Support. This is a straightforward article which has already been copy edited 2-3 times and speaks to the important issue of why it took seven years for Eisenhower to make it to the Presidency when he had achieved such large popularity as General of the Allied Forces which defeated National Socialism in 1945. Although I will offer some optional comments, the article is already highly refined due to the number of copy editors who have done previous reviews of this article. Supporting this as a important part of Eisenhower's biography covering his career on the way to his White House years. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Optional comments:

(1) Background section: "MacArthur in Washington..." to "MacArthur both in Washington, D.C. and the Philippines."

Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

(2) Background: "Field marshall Lord Montgomery..." to caps for title "Field Marshall...".

Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

(3) Both main sections: Currently both sections use popular quotes for titles, though optionally they could emphasize one of the main themes of this article which is that the Democratic Party was unsuccessful in convincing Eisenhower to run in 1948 whereas the Republican Party was successful in convincing Eisenhower to run in 1952. Optionally, could this be used to give explicit emphasis in the section titles, for example, "Unsuccessful Democratic phase in 1948" and "Successful Republican phase in 1952".

I this we are fine as it is. It wasn't that just Democrats convinced him in 1948 and Republicans in 1952. Both Democrats and Republicans persuaded him in both 1948 and 1952 (just that Democratic movement was stronger in 1948, and Republican movement was successful in 1952). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

(4) "Eisenhower boom" section: "Eisenhower told" to "Eisenhower was told that since George Washington's presidency, the office of president had..."

I think that would change the meaning ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Article is supported. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for you review and support! Much appreciated! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Image and source review

All images appear to be properly licenced, placed and have ALT text.

I didn't do any thorough spot-checks. The way sources #40 and #41 are used bother me - the sentence as a whole implies that the re-emergence of the Draft Eisenhower movement is due to Truman's low approval ratings, but neither of the sources explicitly says so. Also, the sentence supported by sources #88 and #89 strongly implies that there were other "draft X" movements but #89 explicitly says otherwise.

I note that Stephen E. Ambrose is used as a source and the article we have on them has a criticism section about his characterization of Eisenhower. The sources appear to be consistently formatted and have the necessary information. I am fine with the use of contemporary newspapers here, it doesn't look like they are used for evaluative claims.

To sum it up, the images are fine but the way some sources are used gives me a bit of worry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus – Thanks for taking the image and source review. As for source #40 and #41, I have rephrased it to make sure everything in the article is said in the sources. As for sources #88 and #89, yes, there are other draft movement which were compared with Draft Eisenhower movement, or Draft Eisenhower movement was referenced in them. I am not entirely sure why this says that: "A real presidential draft movement hasn’t happened since 1952, when Republicans urged Eisenhower to get into the race.", as another source says that 1992 Draft Perot movement was compared with Draft Eisenhower movement. Have added that in the article. I don't think there should be an issue in citing Stephen E. Ambrose. Despite the criticism part, I think what more important here is that Ambrose was an American historian and professor of history at UNO. And I don't think I have cited any part from Ambrose's book which expressed his opinion, just facts and evaluative claims are cited. Does that answers your concerns. Let me know of there is anything else I can do. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

That's mostly it. I stress though that I didn't do a thorough source review, so if someone else finds more source-text incongruities my findings here shouldn't be held against theirs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• While it's great to describe USMA class of 1915 as the class the stars fell on, I might also mention the year in the sentence.

• Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• "rose to five-star general in the United States Army" that's awfully late in the day to mention that Eisenhower was in the US Army.

• Removed the mention (as it is quite well understood that he must be in U.S. Army). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• "All of Truman's efforts to persuade him failed.[17] " you haven't mentioned any such efforts.

• Changes to "Truman's efforts&; – the efforts are mentioned in the previous sentence: "President Harry S. Truman considered him..." and "Truman even agreed to run as Eisenhower's vice-presidential nominee" (really can't imagine president agreeing to be vp) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• "In January 1948, few Republican politicians from New Hampshire entered a group of delegates pledged to Eisenhower in the primary contest." Should this be "a few Republican ..."?

• Yes, done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Later that month, Eisenhower told that since George Washington's presidency, the office of president "historically and properly fallen only to aspirants", and repeated that he had no political ambition.[19]"There's a need for a "has" somewhere in there.

• Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Strom Thurmond" perhaps "Governor Strom Thurmond of South Carolina"

• Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• The timeline for the Nixon nomination as Vice President seems a bit muddled. From what I recall from my research on the subject, no real thought was given to who would be Ike's running mate until after he defeated Taft at the convention, and he didn't know he was expected to pick a running mate, and more or less left it for an ad-hoc committee of advisors and Republican notables to decide.

• Yeah, shifted the mention of Nixon's nomination after RNC. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Republican politicians argued that they can lose the election without Eisenhower as their presidential nominee." Should "can" be "could"?

• Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, @Wehwalt! I think I addressed them all. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot, Wehwalt! And may I mention (if I haven't already) that your work on American history/politics and virtually any other topic is among the finest I have seen on Wikipedia! Thanks again! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

I went through this at PR and was pleasantly surprised at how little I found to pick at, and so have nothing further to add other than my support. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your support and your help during the peer review!! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Frozen II

Nominator(s): Wingwatchers (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This article is about an animated musical fantasy film by The Walt Disney Company. The article has just had a throughout copyedit, and thanks to editors who had made efforts in the process.Wingwatchers (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Gerald Waldo Luis

Weird that the other candidates get at least one comment, but this doesn't. If you'd like to, I'm opening a film peer review that is still empty. No pressure though :) After all my comments are resolved, I'll support this FAC. I'll also do a source review if nobody does so by the time comments are resolved. GeraldWL 15:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis. All done except "Is there a possibility the citations in the "Attributed to multiple references" notes can be used in prose?" Wingwatchers (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Kurniawati comment still not resolved, it seems. Also, mind explaining why the Release subsection is titled "Context"? GeraldWL 05:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed; the use of context also appears in the article The Empire Strikes Back. I am not the one merged the sections, but I guess the use here is fairly accurate. Wingwatchers (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The Empire Strikes Back uses the Context subsection to describe the conditions of the film's release time period, as well as Fox's ambitions, whilst here there's none of that. GeraldWL 16:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Changed to " Theaters and Home Media" Wingwatchers (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I've made several changes to the article, thought you might wanna review that. Once there's no more issues I'll support this FAC. GeraldWL 17:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I found no issue with your changes. Wingwatchers (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Aight, then that's a support. Good job with the article! GeraldWL 03:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 03:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

=====Lead and infobox===== The alt text merely just describes what's in the image, not what the image is. The caption does that job. Because of that, I suggest removing the "Frozen II theatrical poster showing" part of the poster alt FA infoox generally don't have citations. I think you can put information about the cinematographers in "Animation" and put the citation there; the editor bit belongs well in "Development". Also if you're to follow this suggestion, I also suggest removing the "layout" and "lighting" as it's too specific for an infobox Box office citations are already covered in "Box office", so that should not be in the infobox. I think you can cover the budget in "Conception" I think linking reindeer and snowman is WP:OVERLINK. Otherwise lead looks neat Plot Suggest linking treaty "Anna then becomes the queen of Arendelle" --> "Anna then becomes Queen of Arendelle" Themes Concerning paragraphs 4 to 6, this section I think should be retitled "Themes and analysis" "The Northuldra dam reflects recent Sámi history." I think "recent" would be an outdated word as time passes; as of now it's 40 years ago. I think the word can be removed The multiple images must have alt text For the Kurniawati citation, I don't think the journal name can be translated, and since the article itself isn't in Indonesian it mustn't have the

September 2019 events in the U.S. repo market

Nominator(s): JBchrch talk 19:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a sudden and unexpected problem that affected a critical channel of the world’s financial plumbing one beautiful morning. This channel is called the "overnight repo market" and it involves big institutions trading $1 trillion per day. On September 17, 2019, it clogged up, and no one—from the Wall Street big shots to the Fed’s mathematicians—understood why. This is their story. JBchrch talk 19:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Image review licensing looks OK (t · c) buidhe 22:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• Other issues: The article has too many short, stubby paragraphs. (t · c) buidhe 22:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Attempted to fix [12]. Let me know if the problem persists. JBchrch talk 23:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Kavyansh.Singh

Completely non-expert review

• "On the morning of September 17, 2019" — Well, morning where? Mention the time zone

• Added "morning (ET)". Is it sufficient?

• "overnight repurchase agreements" — Try to avoid linking two adjacent works. In this case, do we need a link to Overnight market?

• Not really, in fact it would probably be slightly confusing. Removed.

• 'Secured Overnight Financing Rate' and 'Effective Federal Funds Rate' are not repeated in the lead. Do we need to define their acronyms?

• The acronyms are used in the graph on the right and in its caption. I could write Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) and Effective Federal Funds Rate (EFFR) in the caption, but it would make it significantly longer. What do you think?

• It is fine in that case. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Federal Reserve over-linked in the lead.

• Fixed.

• "Subsequently, economists identified" → "Economists later identified"

• Fixed.

• "Other contributing factors have been" → "Other contributing factors have also been"

• Done

• "takes place "overnight"" — Why is it quoted

• Because the term is used in a very specific technical meaning, and I wanted to draw the reader's attention to that. CMOS 17 § 7.57 is sort of lukewarm about doing this though, so I'm open to removing them if you feel like it's clear from the context that the word is used in an unusual way.

• I'm not sure that using quotation marks is appropriate for emphasis, especially on Wikipedia. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Removed. JBchrch talk 20:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• "to as “repos”" — Why is it quoted (MOS:QUOTEPOV says quoting single-words may imply doubt)? Moreover, if it has to be quoted, the curly quoted needs to be fixed (“ to ")

• Removed, since the "referred to as" already serves the purposes of the quotation marks.

• "First, the borrower sells her securities to the lender and receives cash in exchange." — I am not asking to change anything, but am curious about the usage of 'her'. Better would be a gender-neutral term term like 'their'. Same in the next sentence. That being said, I don't have strong feelings towards any pronouns you use here.

• I considered using the singular they, but I found that it affected the clarity of the sentence, especially since loans involving multiple lenders are extremely prevalent in investment banking. CMOS 17 § 5.255 outlines a number of techniques to achieve gender neutrality, but I don't think anyone of them would really work here. Accordingly, I prefer using "he" or "she"—and since all the finance books, articles and case studies have been using masculine pronouns for the last 200 years, "she" mixes things up a bit 🙃.

• Seems reasonable, but I'll be interested to hear what other reviewers think ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• "in this market... could quickly" — add a non-breaking space before the ellipsis

• Done

• "the Bank of New York Mellon, provides" — our article calls it just BNY Mellon. Suggesting to use the common name.

• Done

• Link Hedge fund

• Done

• "According to Frederic Mishkin and Stanley Eakins," — who are these both individuals? economists? specify

• Done

• ""federal funds have nothing to do with the federal ..." — if this quote is taken from their book, then it should be specified like: "In their 2015 book, economists Frederic Mishkin and Stanley Eakins wrote that ..."

• I'm having a little trouble with this. Since Mishkin is an economist and Eakins is a finance professor (there is no shorter term for non-economist finance profs to the best of my knowledge), the sentence is already slightly longer, per the previous comment. If we want to identify the book with precision, we would have to say that it's the "8th global edition" or the "2015 global edition" of their textbook. If we try to add this information to the text, I feel like it's really starting to affect the readability of the sentence and the clarity of the information. Let me know what you think.

• Fine. I think having a citation at the end of the sentence linking to the book is enough for curious readers. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• "component of the U.S. monetary policy" — 'U.S. monetary policy' is a redirect link to Monetary policy of the United States. Better surpass the redirect and directly link it to the latter link.

• Done

• 'EFFR' should be defined in the lead as well

• I've attempted something here. Is it better?

• Sorry, I wasn't clear (and partly wrong here ...) I wanted you to change "The measure of the interest rate on federal funds is the Effective Federal Funds Rate, which is" to "The measure of the interest rate on federal funds is the Effective Federal Funds Rate (EFFR), which is" (added acronym as well as liked) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Gotcha—done. JBchrch talk 04:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "were considered to be quite stable." — by whom?

• Removed, as both sources state it as fact, and so can we.

• "2—2.25%" – should be en-dash (–)

• Done

• "On the morning of Tuesday, September 17," — same as the lead; morning in which time zone? Also check through the entire article.

• Fixed with "(ET)". If I mention it at the top of #Reponse by the Federal Reserve, I take it that it's not necessary to mention it again each time I mention a time?

• More important question: why do we need to mention 'morning', 'afternoon' every time. Will removing them cause any harm? (sorry if I am missing something here, but again, this is a completely non-expert review ) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• No problem, I don't think you're missing anything important due to your "non-expertise" :). I have now removed the mention in the lead, as it was mainly a stylistic choice to introduce the subject and add a bit of drama, but clearly that was creating more problems. In #Event, the important thing is that readers should get the timeline of how the day of September 17 played out. The problem is that my sources only mention the "morning" and "afternoon" without giving specific times. I could try to see if I can find an access to the Thompson Reuters Tick History database which would give me precise hours for the moment of the spike (6 AM? 7:30 AM?) and allow me to introduce a bit of variety in the wording. Do you think that it would be helpful? JBchrch talk 20:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• If you can find appropriate sources, then no issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (or New York Fed) — (1) Federal Reserve Bank of New York is already linked before (2) we need to mention 'New York Fed' on Federal Reserve Bank of New York's previous instance?

• I wanted to relink it and introduce the abbreviation here because the NY Fed is only mentioned as a brief aside in the #The repo market section, whereas here it takes the center stage. What do you think?

• Well, this approach might work, but there is no harm in specifying 'New York Fed' on Federal Reserve Bank of New York's previous instance – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Would you mind clarifying this? Should the I say the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (or New York Fed) two times, first in #The repo market and then again in #Response by the Federal Reserve? JBchrch talk 04:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'd prefer just in the #The repo market section. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "At 9 AM," — Add a non-breaking space between 9 and AM. Same for "8:15 AM" and other instances.

• Done

• "New York Fed’s" — Fix the curly quote mark.

• Done

• "the Federal Open Market Committee" — "Federal Open Market Committee" is already linked before.

• Removed

• "was borrowed from the New York Fed by market participants." v. "All three operations were fully subscribed." (i.e. article needs to be consistent whether footnote would be after the references or before the references)

• Fixed, moved before

• " “sustained smooth functioning” " — the curly quoted needs to be fixed (“ to ")

• Done

• "First, quarterly" → "First, the quarterly"

• I'm not sure about this one. Could you please confirm? Both of my sources use a very similar terminology and omit the "the".

• Was just a suggestion, no issues if you disagree. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• ""[a] substantial share of ..." — the prose doesn't makes it clear who said this quote

• Fixed

• "The temporary cash shortage is nevertheless insufficient" — suggesting to remove 'nevertheless'

• I would prefer to keep it in if that's ok for you, as removing it would make the transition slightly abrupt IMO.

• "and mortgage-backed securities" — linked again.

• The first time, the link is through the "MBS" acronym ("Agency MBS"). I am concerned that a reader wanting to go Mortgage-backed security would not find it. An alternative would be to spell out the first occurrence of the term ("Agency mortgage-backed securities"), but these securities are widely called "Agency MBS", and I wanted to preserve that. Let me know what you think.

• Our article calls it "Mortgage-backed security"; how about writing it as "Agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS)" on the first instance, and using MBS thereafter. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• I decided to just dump the abbreviation, and use "mortgage-backed security" throughout. Accordingly, removed the second wikilink. JBchrch talk 18:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "According to JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon," → "According to Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase,"

• Done

• "Indeed, some economists" — Suggesting to remove 'Indeed' (in my opinion, it makes it appear like a news-article than an encyclopedia article)

• Done

• " "even small changes in the supply ..." — the prose doesn't makes it clear who said this quote

• The problem is that adding "according to Sam Schulhofer-Wohl" sort of makes it seem as if it's his opinion, when it's just him describing an uncontroversial fact. Since WP:MOS#Attribution doesn't mandate in-text attribution in these circumstances, could we leave it as it is?

• Yes. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Do we need footnote [b]?

• I felt that "All three operations were fully subscribed", while the technically correct terminology, is pretty much obscure financial jargon to most readers, and that we could help them out a little.

• Fine, but I'll suggest to remove "In other words" from the footnote (in my opinion, makes it a bit un-encyclopedic/informal. Also, add a citation in the footnote [b]. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Since we have to introduce the sentence, I changed "in other words" to "which means". Does that work? I don't really have a citation for footnote b, it's just the plain meaning of what the Fed source means by "subscribed", stripped of its jargon. What I will try to do is try to find a source that explains what "subscription" means in a financial context (which might be a dictionary). JBchrch talk 20:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Works for me. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Done, with Template:Cite OED. JBchrch talk 18:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "According to Afonso et al." — suggesting to use Template:harvnb to directly link it to the work. Same with footnote [d]

• To the best of my knowledge, harvnb returns an author-date format, and its usage outside of a reference (<ref></ref>) is deprecated. Maybe there's something that I'm not aware of but, based on what I know, the only way to implement this suggestion would be through an anchor.

• Yeah, anchor would work. I wanted it something like this. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• That's done. JBchrch talk 18:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Inconsistency in sources listing "The Wall Street Journal" v. "Wall Street Journal".

• Fixed.

• "p. 452-453", "p. 6-7", "p. 302-303", "p. 18-20", etc. — there are a lot of instances of the same. (1) the dashes needs to be en-dashes (–) (2) I have no strong feelings, but page ranges should use 'pp.' instead of 'p.'. That being said, all we still need in consistency. Wikipedia doesn't mandate a paricular style.

• Fixed the dashes. Not a fan of the "pp." notation, so I prefer to keep "p." if that's ok.

• Some sources have the publisher/media outlet linked, some not (needs to be consistent)

• Fixed, with the caveat that Central Banking does not have a wiki article.

• I think that it is okay as long as it is consistent. We don't (and shouldn't) mandate a citation style. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Kavyansh.Singh Would you mind explaining the change from the "work" parameter to the "publisher" parameter [13]? It resulted in Reuters and Bloomberg not being italicized. JBchrch talk 18:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Sure. I made that change with the intention to remove the italics from those works, as even the titles of our Wikipedia articles of Reuters and Bloomberg News are not italicized. Any outstanding source formatting issues would likely be fixed during the source review of this nomination. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Washington, DC" → "Washington, D.C."

• Done

• Suggesting to format the ISBNs using this tool

• Done

• Just a question: What is more commonly used, "U.S. repo market" or "United States repo market"?

• "U.S. repo market" is most commonly used, and it would be surprising to read "United States" or "American" outside of vulgarization texts. See e.g. the first sentence here, which refers to the "U.S. money market". Here and here we find "US this" and "US that" all over. Beyond the scope of this article, I found usage of "U.S. repo market" here and here. There may be some WP:SSF about this, but I thought it was the most reasonable title. I should also note that in a lot of publications—news and scholarly alike—, the U.S. repo market is designated just as "the repo market", without specifying "U.S." (by contrast to other markets, which are designated as "the European repo market" etc.).

Except these minor issues, the article is an interesting one. Nice work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Very well indeed – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your thorough review and your comments. Let me know if I understood your suggestions correctly and your thoughts on the few points that need to be worked out. Thanks again! JBchrch talk 05:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch – Have left a few replies above. Thanks to you for writing this article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I support this nomination for promotion as a featured article. The few comments/nitpicks above don't effect my support. Thanks for your work here! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot @Kavyansh.Singh! I'm not forgetting that there are still comments above that need to be addressed, and I'll make sure to do that later or this week-end (for the ones that require me to find sources). JBchrch talk 17:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Nice topic, Recusing to review. I will do a little light copy editing as I go. If you don't like or don't understand a change, could you flag that up here?

• Multiple P/pp errors in the References section. Eg cites 6, 7, ... 54, 55.
• Sources: Armour et al - first name for Davies?

• Fixed. Suprised I didn't catch it before. JBchrch talk 21:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• "which injected $75 billion in liquidity in the repo markets". Suggest 'which injected $75 billion in liquidity into the repo markets'.

• Done. JBchrch talk 21:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• "a temporary shortage in the level of cash available". Does "in the level" add anything?

• Nope it doesn't. Removed. JBchrch talk 23:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• "exacerbated by the declining level of reserves". Delete "the".

• Done. JBchrch talk 23:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Other contributing factors have also been suggested by economists and observers." Delete "also". (Implicit in "Other".)

• Removed. It had been added per the review above, but I agree that it's not a necessity. JBchrch talk 22:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• "BNY Mellon". "When an abbreviation will be used in an article, first introduce it using the full expression".

• I initially wrote "Bank of New York Mellon" but the review above suggested that I use the COMMONNAME "BNY Mellon" as established by our article. Maybe a compromise could be "This segment is called "tri-party" because a third party, the bank BNY Mellon..."? JBchrch talk 21:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

If that is the common name, then fine. But yes, giving a reader an in line idea of what something is is usually good.

That's done.

• "Contrary to repos, however, federal funds are unsecured." I suspect this is USEng. It may be more universally understandable as 'Unlike repos, however, federal funds are unsecured.' And does "however" add anything?

• Fixed as suggested. JBchrch talk 21:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• "On the morning (ET)". ET in full at first mention.
• "a sudden and unexpected hike"." I am not sure how general the use of "hike" is. Suggest 'increase'.

• Done. JBchrch talk 22:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• "9 AM". "Twelve-hour clock times are written in one of two forms: 11:15 a.m. and 2:30 p.m., or 11:15 am and 2:30 pm. Include a non-breaking space."
• You suddenly introduce Agency securities and Agency mortgage-backed securities without explaining what they are. And why the initial "A"?
• "immediately returned to numbers closer to the Federal Reserve's target range." What does "numbers" add to this?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for accepting to review @Gog the Mild! Just a note that I might be less responsive than I would like to be until Wednesday, due to to COVID-related disruption. JBchrch talk 15:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem.

• "... seemed to stem from a temporary increase in the demand for cash and, at the same time, a temporary decline in the supply of cash ..." It may be me, but I am not seeing what "at the time" means in this context.

• I am trying to underline that both the increase in the demand and the decline in the supply happened simultaneously. Would replacing "at the same time" with "simultaneously" be an improvement? JBchrch talk 22:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Yep. Maybe '... seemed to stem from a temporary increase in the demand for cash and a simultaneous temporary decline in its supply ...'?

• "The temporary cash shortage is insufficient to explain the size of the movements observed in September 2019. Accordingly, the effects of ...". Perhaps getting a little unencyclopedic? Maybe 'The temporary cash shortage is nevertheless insufficient to explain the intensity of the movements observed. The effects of ...' or similar?
• Seven uses of "however". Are all of them helpful to the reader?
• "The tri-party segment's reliance on established relationships between market participants". How or why might this have been a cause?
• "A general decrease in the amount of repo lending performed by money market funds". "performed seems an odd word; is their a more felicitous one?

That is it on a first run through. A great little article. Hopefully the first of many similar to appear here. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Tito–Stalin split

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This article is about political conflict between the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. The conflict was framed in ideological terms by the Yugoslav leadership and led the country to formulate an independent foreign policy. The break with the USSR also meant a political and ideological conflict with the Soviet Bloc, resulting in perception of threat of military invasion by the Soviet forces and their allies as well as wide-ranging purges of actual or perceived political opponents. Tomobe03 (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Steve Smith

On a first read, this is excellent, albeit dense. I think it may be possible to edit the prose to make it a little bit more accessible to people like me whose familiarity with the subject basically boils down to the fact that there was a split. I'll do a detailed review of prose within the next couple of days; for now, I offer the following comments with respect to images and sources:

• All images are appropriate, with appropriate captions, and properly tagged as being free. I consider criterion #3 a pass.
• All sources appear to be high quality academic sources, except where basic factual information is being cited, in which case the sources are suitably reliable for that purpose. I have not yet delved deeply enough into the article to determine whether all claims are properly sourced, but the sources used are certainly appropriate.
• There is some inconsistency as to whether publishers are wikilinked in the "References" section; most are, but Lexington Books and Stanford University Press are not; is there a reason for this?
• There is also inconsistency as to whether publishers are linked only the first time they appear, or on all occasions. For example, University of California Press is wikilinked both times it appears, while Oxford University Press is wikilinked only on its first occurrence. Meanwhile, MIT Press is wikilinked only on its second occurrence. These are obviously exceedingly minor quibbles, but should probably be addressed.

As indicated, I will delve more deeply into the text, to review the rest of the criteria, within the next couple of days, but my reaction at this point is that I am very likely to support in something very like its present form. Steve Smith (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for thaking this up. I've wikilinked all publishers now (except where no wiki article exists) for consistency.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Steve Smith It's been almost a week, are you still planning to review the article? (t · c) buidhe 23:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by PM

Placeholder. My neck of the woods, although post-war. Looking forward to reviewing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Peacemaker67 Still planning to review? (t · c) buidhe 21:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Yep, have been busy in RW. Will take a look in the next few days. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• drop the comma from "under Josip Broz Tito and Joseph Stalin, respectively"
• suggest "that also involved Albania and Bulgaria; the friction also related to the communist insurgency in Greece, which Tito's Yugoslavia supported and the Soviet Union secretly opposed."
• suggest avoiding the "which... which" by going with "within the Albanian political leadership. This exacerbated tensions with the Soviet Union, which made efforts to slow down Yugoslav–Albanian integration."

Background

• the whole "Tito–Stalin conflict during World War II" subsection needs more sources. All but one citation is to Banac 1988, and while Banac is fine as a source, it is mainly about the split itself, not what happened in WWII, and some of the material in this subsection has an "unique" perspective and needs to be balanced with other sources that are specifically about the WWII period. Ramet 3Y pp. 142 & 152 would be useful, also Roberts pp. 41-48, Tomasevich 1969 pp. 80-81 and Pavlowitch 2008 p. 83. There is also material in Tomasevich 1975 and 2001. Areas that need to be addressed include:

• "new Communist organisation independent of the KPJ in the NDH" - never heard of that before, needs at least one corroborating source
• "the party's new organisational structure and territory of operation were adjusted to account for annexation of Yugoslav territories by Bulgaria" - there is contrasting info in other sources
• "Tito informed the Comintern and Stalin about his plans for an uprising against the Axis occupation" the USSR actually called on communists in eastern Europe to revolt (after Barbarossa began)
• the symbols bit is overstated, as is the democratic liberties bit and the fighting to restore the king. The KPJ adopted a "popular front" approach in 1935.
• the USSR and Britain and their pressure on Tito to fall-in behind DM needs to be mentioned
• the whole para about AVNOJ seems one-sided. There are a range of views about what went on then between the USSR and Yugoslavia over AVNOJ, they need to be reflected in the article

I'll just wait for this aspect to be addressed before I go on with the rest. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 thanks for the input, I appreciate it very much. I'll get back to you as soon as I have a look at the suggested sources and whatever can be found on the other issues you raised.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the second map, and see MOS:COLOUR
  • I have scaled the map to match the one in the lede in terms of its size.
  • As regards colours, and font selection in the map, I'd say the font appears to be quite tiny unless the file is viewed in full size and selection of the colours does not seem to help. The file uploaded at the commons was originally essentially black and white - actually the second uploaded version added colour and made minor changes in lines drawn on the map - apparently that was a completely new image and not a "version" of the old. Do you think the original map would be better suited here in terms of MOS:COLOUR and, if so, is there a way to use the old version? (T)
    • What do you mean by changes to lines?
      • For some reason the boundary line around Pula Zone A exclave (at the tip of the peninsula) is drawn slightly differently. In the later versions of the image the northern part of that line traces around the "Zone A" label, while in the original one it does not. In this respect the original B/W version is more true to the source offered. (T)
        • Er..is there a source that supports the change? If no, that's a problem quite apart from the accessibility issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
          • You're right. I don't think there is one. Actually the original upload is also problematic because the red line was added later over the dotted (Morgan) line rendering the key useless. I swapped the map now (and updated its sourcing info at the Commons) because the original one is relevant for the Morgan Line only which became obsolete in 1947 with establishment of the FTT. (T)
    • For the second map, the Zone A/B coloration is fine since there is also labelling; as you note the font size is an issue, as is the coloration of the lines in the legend. The original map addresses the second problem by using different line formatting (dashed, dotted) instead of colour. If you wanted to use the original instead of the second, it should be fairly straightforward to upload. For the first map, not sure if additional labelling could be added? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Oh, I see now. A colour blind person might not distinguish between the line coloration in the 2nd map and shading of various groups of countries in the 1st. Let me see what could be done to remedy this and I'll get back to you shortly. (T)
• File:JStalin_Secretary_general_CCCP_1942.jpg: which of the Russian rationales is believed to apply here?
  • No idea really. Swapped image. (T)
• File:Goli_otok_zatvor.jpg: where is that specific licensing coming from? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I took a closer look at the licencing and it appears the uploader added a third-party photo and pasted a copy of e-mail correspondence seeking permission from purported author for use. I've swapped the image for a photo of the island viewed from the mainland shore just to be on the safe side. (T)

Nikkimaria thanks for the comments. I'm not entirely certain what are you aiming at specifically re MOS:COLOUR, so please let me know if you meant something else. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria I swapped both maps: the lede map for a clickable one where I tried to address the MOS:COLOURS concerns (and omitted the 1960s Albania split as irrelevant for this topic), and the FTT map with a different one dealing with the FTT specifically instead of Morgan Line. Could you have a look at these just to check if those are fine?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The first is fine, the second could use a more descriptive caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

John Hugill

Nominator(s): Steve Smith (talk) 09:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

In 1935, a radio evangelist became premier of Alberta based on his promises to end the Great Depression using unproven—some would say crackpot—monetary theories. As his Attorney General, he selected a man who viewed the implementation of those theories as unconstitutional. It went predictably.

This is on the short side for a featured biography, at about 2,000 words of readable prose. However, Hugill's notability comes primarily from his time as Attorney General, which lasted less than two years. With that in mind, I think this article is sufficiently comprehensive; I hope that you will find that it satisfies the other criteria as well. Steve Smith (talk) 09:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Image review all the images need US public domain tags (possibly {{PD-1996}}, but only if the image was in the public domain in Canada on 1 January 1996) (t · c) buidhe 10:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • All three images were, and I have added that tag to each; thank you. Steve Smith (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• Date of Death - I noticed there was no date of death in the article. The date of death in the obituary in the Calgary Herald is January 13, 1971 via Google Newspapers (to the right of the highlighted article. An article was published on January 15th by the Canadian Press in the Edmonton Journal when he died via Google Newspapers. Caddyshack01 (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I was about to point that out. Leaving out a detail like that makes me hesitant to review the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's not source-able to secondary sources. However, for a detail like that, I think a primary source is fine, and I'll throw that in there later tonight; thanks, Caddyshack. Steve Smith (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Cedar Hill Yard

Nominator(s): Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Cedar Hill Yard, a railroad yard located in my home state of Connecticut, in the cities of New Haven, North Haven, and Hamden. From 1920 into the 1960s, it was one one of the largest railroad yards on the planet with over 2,000 acres of facilities, and handled 3,000 or more railroad cars each day. It has declined in importance and size with the rise of trucking and the general departure of most industry from New England, but today it is still by far the largest railroad yard in the state of Connecticut. Cedar Hill Yard was my first successful GAN, and an article I have overseen from its creation to this point. I will also note this is my first FAC nomination, though I have participated in a few FAC reviews previously. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Image review: Hirtle stuff is awful, but images are all correctly licensed and verified to be public domain or own work. No NFCC images in the article so no need to worry about checking against the criteria. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from GhostRiver

Watch this space — GhostRiver 16:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Per MOS:CONFORM, if "humps" is the standard definition, then it shouldn't be in quotes; it can be as is or in italics

  Quotes removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Link World War II in lede

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comma after "Albany, New York" per MOS:GEOCOMMA

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• in turn went bankrupt itself confusing/redundant

  Reworded. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Link first instance of New Haven in the body

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Not sure why the acronym for the NYNH&H reailroad is given in parentheses next to the full name in the lede but not the body

  I've changed it to state that the railroad was commonly known simply as "The New Haven" to avoid confusion with the city of New Haven. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• tensions with labor reached a breaking point this phrase kind of hits you out of nowhere because we didn't know before that there were any tensions

  Reworded, and a 1 sentence paragraph merged as well in this section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• When possible, try not to have one-sentence paragraphs

  I believe I got all of them now, except for the one sentence introducing the table in the 1950 to 1969 section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

(still working)

@GhostRiver: Are you planning on continuing your review soon? I don't mean to pester you, but it has been more than a week. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Trainsandotherthings Apologies. Grading papers, etc. has made my desire to critique other people's things very low. The rest of my review follows. — GhostRiver 04:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• as soon as they understood the situation what situation?

  I've reworded this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Freight congestion was so bad that it was delaying" -> "The severity of the freight congestion was enough to delay"

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "for constructing" -> either "for the purposes of constructing" or "in order to construct"

  Reworded as "in order to construct". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "$172,057,522" -> "172 million" per MOS:UNCERTAINTY

  I've cut back the significant figures on all instances of price conversions for inflation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "no less than" -> "no fewer than"

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "and was at a good location"

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• {[tq|resulting in the hills needed to allow cars to be moved by gravity for classification}} awkward syntax

  Reworded. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "7 steam shovels" -> "seven steam shovels" per MOS:NUMERAL

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Add (ICC) in parentheses after Interstate Commerce Commission is mentioned, since it's referred to by its acronym later

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comma after "Springfield, Massachusetts" per MOS:GEOCOMMA

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "$30,143,411" -> "30 million" per MOS:UNCERTAINTY

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "35%" -> "35 percent" per MOS:PERCENT

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Springfield, Massachusetts should be linked in the second paragraph of the 1920 to 1950 subhead and delinked in the fifth

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• I do not love the table where it currently is in the 1950 to 1969 section, feels like a MOS:USEPROSE violation

  This is a tough one. Initially, the table was in its own section, but per comments at the peer review before I nominated this for FAC, I moved it into the section where it is now. Technically I could convey the same information in prose, but I'm not sure that would really be an improvement, there would be a lot of repeated text; this is why I initially made a table. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• 1958 would also be the last profitable year for operations at Cedar Hill Yard for many years, ironically thanks to significant business that year hauling concrete to be used to build highways in the region Not quite a run-on, but reads like one

  I added a semicolon, and also shortened the sentence. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comma after "March 28, 1960" per MOS:DATECOMMA

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Per MOS:OVERLINK, do not link "New York" in "New York governor Malcolm Wilson", but Governor of New York can be piped to "New York governor"

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comma after "Albany, New York" per MOS:GEOCOMMA

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Delink Springfield MA in the Penn Central takes over subhead

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comma after "The company was merged into Conrail in 1976"

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "$13,643,860" -> "$13.6 million" per MOS:UNCERTAINTY

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "just 4 months" -> "just four months" per MOS:NUMERAL

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "August of 1976" -> "August 1976" per MOS:BADDATE

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Swap the parenthetical and the non-parenthetical in "TOFC (Trailer On FlatCar)"

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "37%" -> "37 percent" per MOS:PERCENT

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "2 years into" -> "two years into" per MOS:NUMERAL

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• In 1978, Conrail was joined in the yard by Amtrak, the national passenger rail operator formed by the United States Congress in 1971. Construction of this sentence makes it seem as if Conrail was joined by Amtrak in 1971, even though 1978 is explicitly stated earlier

  I changed the wording from "in 1971" to "earlier that decade" to attempt to resolve this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "October of 1981" -> "October 1981" per MOS:BADDATE

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "illegal dumping of the mercury" -> "illegally disposing the mercury"

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk)

• Comma after "April 17, 1991" per MOS:DATECOMMA

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "for the loading, unloading, and transfer"

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Delink "bulk cargo" in "Cedar Hill Yard today", linked above

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Combine paragraphs on Amtrak & Providence and Worcester Railroads

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Rename "Cedar Hill Yard today" section "Present day" in line with other transit articles

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "NYC" -> "New York City"

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Sentence at the very end of "Future" needs a citation

  I've elected to remove it, as I don't specifically have a source saying "there is no car float service", it simply has not been reintroduced as of now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Future" -> "Future plans"

  Assuming you meant renaming the subheader, this is done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@GhostRiver:I believe I've responded to all your comments now; there's a few that need some clarification, when you get a chance. Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Powder House Island

Nominator(s): jp×g 06:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

This article is about an island that simply couldn't stop exploding. When I first created it, it was a tiny little geostub with a funny name, but when I got access to better sources, I figured out that there was a whole litany of historical drama centering on it. I even managed to find some halfway-decent images. I have never made a featured article nomination before, so I'm not quite sure what to expect, but hopefully the explosion isn't audible from Cleveland. jp×g 06:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Images are freely licensed. I fixed some of the licensing on Commons. (t · c) buidhe 08:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Quick comments from Sdkb

Hi JPxG! Skimming the article, here are some initial thoughts:

• Okay, so first, on the infobox image. I sympathize that the availability isn't really something we have much control over, but still, that grainy satellite photo is...not ideal. My practical suggestion would be to, first, reach out to the nailhed blog author or anyone else who's taken a photo of the island and see if they're willing to release the license. If that fails, try posting at the Michigan WikiProject page and place {{Requested image}} on the talk page here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Sad: I went through a whole trove of images on Commons, found nothing, looked for higher resolution aerial/satellite photos in the public domain, found nothing, et cetera. I've messaged Nailhed, and I'll see if he has anything to say about it or if he's interested in releasing photos at all (I sure hope so, since he has taken thousands of photos of all kinds of great stuff around Michigan). Otherwise, I dunno -- I do have a good camera and some good lenses, but none of them have quite the range necessary to be useful here. I may find myself in Michigan at some point in the next year or so, in which case I have a lot of photos to take. Else, I think it may be possible to use a survey map or something (or scale down the image display in the infobox). In the meantime, I've left a message on the WikiProject talk page. jp×g 21:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• For the 2016 aerial photo, consider using {{Overlay}} to identify where the island actually is. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Unknown: I'll have to figure that out (I think I experimented a little with image maps and overlays when I originally put that panorama in there, but gave up). jp×g 10:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb and JPxG: I have tried my hand at {{overlay}}—how does it look? (Incidentally, I had added image notes to it on Commons a few days ago, but it doesn't seem those are easily convertible in any way.) eviolite (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks good! The only tweak I'd suggest is maybe giving Powder House Island a different color to help it be even more easily identified. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: done by changing all the other ones to black, though feel free to change if you think a different color looks better. eviolite (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this owns. In fact, the illustrativeness makes me wonder if I shouldn't just use a larger crop of the original image (which is File:Amherstburg, Ontario (21711771721).jpg); I'd cropped it small to make it easier to find the island, but if there's an image overlay, I can also include Trenton, Lake Erie, etc. jp×g 00:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Previous version was 1:3 aspect ratio, here is a version that's cropped to 3:5 (same width), but shows Trenton and Lake Erie. I don't know if it would be too tall, but it might be worth considering. jp×g 00:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I have put both versions of the overlay panorama here, what do you all think? jp×g 02:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• For the lead, if there's something more standard to give the sizes of the explosions than the window shattering/audibility distance, that'd be preferable. Was there a TNT equivalent estimate or anything? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Done: per the court documents, the 1906 explosion comprised 20 tons of dynamite. According to TNT equivalent, the relative effectiveness of dynamite is 1.25 (i.e. the explosion was equivalent to 25 tons of TNT); the table in that article, however, is uncited. It's also unclear what type of dynamite was being used (the 1.25 figure is for Nobel's ratio of 75% NG and 23% diatomaceous earth, but they were manufacturing it themselves, so I have no reason to believe they were getting it spot-on). jp×g 20:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• For the Livingstone Channel construction image, I'd suggest minor cropping to remove the border—images on WP already have borders through the software. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• I had it open in CropTool to do this, but then saw Buidhe already had. What do ya know. jp×g 10:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Date format isn't consistent in refs. I'd suggest adding {{use mdy dates}} (and {{use American English}} while you're at it) since this is a U.S. article. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

All date formats have been unified. I hate mdy dates, but if it's necessary, I will change to them. jp×g 22:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• In ref 30, fix the all caps title. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. jp×g 22:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• The blog post in the external links doesn't really give a sense of what it is. Consider adding something other than a linked title. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I must admit I'm not familiar with best practices on formatting "external links" sections, and I've been unable to find many good examples. What would be a good way to do this? jp×g 21:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest "Island Hopping" from Nailhed, an urban exploration blog, which tells readers what to expect at the link. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

There we go. jp×g 00:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• For the last paragraph of the lead, "uninhabited" I believe means that no one lives there, which has always been the case. I think we mean "unused" instead. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. jp×g 20:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• as of 2015, the island was owned by the State of Michigan. It is currently managed by the Department of Natural Resources' Wildlife Division This is a little funky. If the island's ownership is unstable enough that it needs to be qualified with a date, then use the {{As of}} template and don't say "currently" for the management (see MOS:CURRENT). On the other hand, if it's fairly stable (and I think you could make a good case for that), then just say "The island is currently owned by the State of Michigan and managed by the Department...". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Copyedited a little, which I think looks better in this regard. jp×g 20:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• For the infobox, you should mention the river somewhere, perhaps in the location field. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Also for the infobox, the island's construction date and the entity that built it are key pieces of info that should appear. It doesn't currently look like {{Infobox islands}} can handle this, so you might want to open a discussion there asking for those fields to be added. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested on talk page. jp×g 21:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

That's all for now. This is certainly a niche topic, but it's always amazing how much information there ends up being when you dig hard enough, and this is testament to that. Best of luck with this nomination! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

All right, I'll get to it. I have never done one of these before -- the typical way people do it with GA reviews is to just leave responses to each bulletpoint under the bulletpoint, so I'll do that here as well (let me know if you'd prefer I leave them all below in one block). The stuff I haven't responded to, I'll get to in the morning. jp×g 10:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

I will take a look later. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@JPxG: Sorry, I seem to have forgotten about this. Surprisingly no one said anything so I just didn't realize for two weeks.

Lead:

• , in southeast Michigan. - Is it worth mentioning the country, especially given its proximity to Canada?
• It was constructed in the late 1880s by the Dunbar & Sullivan Company in a successful attempt to circumvent an 1880 court order forbidding the company from storing explosives on nearby Fox Island during their dredging of the Livingstone Channel. - I would suggest splitting this into two sentences. I get what it's saying but this currently reads as unwieldy to me.
• What is the area of the island?
• In 1906, 20 short tons (18,000 kg) of the island's dynamite exploded - I'd also reword this sentence, given that "In 1906" and "20 short tons" are numerals that are very close together. However, I recognize it may be a little hard to rephrase this.
• owned by the State of Michigan. - State government of Michigan?
• Department of Natural Resources' - I presume state government (as opposed to the national government), right?

Geography

• Powder House Island is in Wayne County, and is contained within Grosse Ile Township - In general it may be useful to mention the state once more in the body. Which leads me to this point: currently, the comma is unnecessary since the second half of the sentence isn't a standalone clause, but if you added "Michigan" after "Wayne County" (i.e. "Powder House Island is in Wayne County, Michigan, and is contained...", then it's no longer unnecessary.
• Its coordinates are 42°06′26″N 83°08′09″W[1]; - I don't think you need to cite the exact coordinates inline unless it's particularly controversial. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure we need the coordinates in the prose at all; if the coordinates do need to be cited, they should go after the semicolon.
• closer to Lake Erie than to Lake St. Clair, - Which are relatively to the south and north, respectively?
• and around 200 ft (0.04 mi; 60 m) from the water border with Canada - In this case, I'd definitely include the fact that the island is in the U.S.
• Bois Blanc Island - Still in Michigan? I presume the other islands to the north, west, and south are also in Michigan, but I'm asking since the border with Ontario is to the east.
• (and takes around five minutes to traverse on foot) - This parenthetical is unwieldy in its current location. Perhaps this should be moved to after the description of the dimensions. (On a side note, it takes less than a minute for me to go 200 feet, but that's irrelevant here.)
• gave its elevation - Above sea level?

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Trainsandotherthings

Lead

• "Southeast Michigan" in the first sentence of the lead should be capitalized, as it is a proper name (at least, that's how it is handled at Southeast Michigan).

More comments to come soon. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

This one is kind of interesting. I don't think there is a lot of consensus on it being a proper place name (in the decades I lived there, anyone who said it just meant the southeastern part of the state). Some fairly heavy-hitting RSes have it lowercase (the State of Michigan, as well as the two papers of record, the Detroit News and the Free Press). With local news channels it's kind of uncertain: Channel 4 has it uppercase, Channel 2 seems to alternate, Channel 7 has it lowercase. But capitalizing it seems to be a minority position (frankly, I think Southeast Michigan may need to be corrected, but that's neither here nor there). jp×g 20:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• "to its east, across the Livingstone Channel," This is the start of a new sentence, so "To" should be capitalized.
• "In March 1880, an injunction was issued in the case of Walter Crane v. Charles F. Dunbar et al." What court was this injunction filed in?
• "Hercules powder" is not a commonly used term. I suggest adding a wikilink to Hercules powder which redirects to Hercules Inc.
• "...the new site was only a couple hundred yards away." Does the mention of yards here merit a conversion to metric?
• "Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals" can be wikilinked.
• "eventually it became known as "Powder House Island"" Can you be more specific about when the name changed?
• "Two men were injured; Henry Rogers and Theodore Perry had just left the island" I recommend moving the men's names into the first part of this sentence. Having them after the semicolon makes it a bit confusing as to if "two men" is in fact referring to Rogers and Perry, or referring to someone else.
• "court proceedings concerning the lawsuit (Henderson v. Sullivan) related to the explosion, state that it took place on July 26, 1906," The comma after explosion can be deleted.

That's all I have at the moment, I'll take a second look once you've reviewed these comments. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Edits have been made, except for a couple. Firstly, I'm not sure about offering a conversion for "a couple hundred yards", because with the lack of precision it would end up being something silly like "a couple hundred yards (a couple hundred meters)". I can't think of a better way to phrase that. Secondly, the name change -- I could not find any concrete sources on that. People just used the two interchangeably for a while; the 1907 court case says "Powder House Island", and it appears on the 1906 USGS map as "Powder House Island" (both of which seem to be fairly official contexts), and by far the predominant name is "Powder House Island". On the other hand, Wayne County's parcel records in 2021 say "DYNAMITE ISLAND". Thirdly, I don't know how relevant this is, but I am not sure about what jurisdiction the Wayne County chancery court fell under in 1880 (whether it was a separate entity to the circuit court or whether it was a subordinate department). jp×g 21:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Newspaper references are inconsistent about including or not including location of publication. Ref 16, for example, does not include the city the newspaper is published, while refs 35 and 36 do. This should be standardized, with either all or none of the newspaper references including the location of publication parameter. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Mini scule

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

A tiny Malagasy frog that first attracted my attention back when it was described in 2019, and here we are two years later with the article at FAC (pretty much only because of the scientific name). AryKun (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Images are all licensed and sourced properly. CC-BY-4 confirmed. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• I would merge the two extremely short paragraphs in the Distribution section

Done.

• "the author of the article in which it is described recommend that it be" - I suspect that author (singular) should actually be authors (plural) and I think the verb should be in the past tene

Changed.

• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

2000–01 Gillingham F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

After five (hopefully soon to be six) successful nominations, here is a seventh season from the history of English football club Gillingham F.C. for your consideration. In this season the team finally entered the promised land of the second tier of English football for the first time in the club's 107-year history. Happy days....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

• "FA Cup and Football League Cup. In the FA Cup the team " reads a bit clunky, can we not describe their progress at the same time as their participation?
• "over at FA Premier League team Leicester City" why was the situation vacant?
• "ahead of the first game of" first competitive game?
• New kit, no mention of socks...
• You use FA in FA Premier League on the first use but drop FA afterwards, why?
• BBC Source says the goal was scored after two minutes...
• "suffering a serious injury" any idea what the nature of the injury was? And six weeks doesn't feel like a "serious" one to me, but perhaps I'm old school (like broken legs, ACL etc)...
• "defeating Wolverhampton Wanderers 1–0 " home or away?
• "then lost to Grimsby Town" could say "lost at Grimsby Town"?
• Maybe I'm being picky but it would be nice to get a sense of the home/away-ness in the prose which seems to be absent, having to wait mostly to the results table.
• As per a previous review (not of mine), could add a quote or two here, like Hessenthaler saying he was "pleased it was only" a 3-0 loss to Fulham for instance.
• "score at all in the next" no need for "at all".
• "after suffering an injury" again, any word on the nature of it?
• "during the season.[29] During the match" repetitive.
• "all ended in draws" -> "were all drawn"?
• Lots of overlinking in this section, Palace, Grimsby, Huddersfield, Sheff Utd, Wimbledon, Tranmere, Scunthorpe, Barnsley, Norwich, relegation, Blackburn.
• "Wednesday; Asaba scored ... Gillingham; he was transferred ..." too many clauses (I know it's nearly Xmas).
• "scored one goal" scored once would suffice.
• "The next two games, however" - against?
• Any controversy in the season? Any sendings off?
• "Football League Third Division final table, positions 10–16[56]" third?
• "played AFC Bournemouth of " contextualise when this happened.
• "of the Third Division. In front" overlinked.
• "As Bartram and Hope were in the" > "As they were" (it's unambiguous).
• "club's youth team. Of the youth team players" repetitive. And to some non-English readers, that may be confusing, why are youth team players getting a game for the first team?
• "being relegated in 2005" overlinked.

That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: - many thanks for your review. I've addressed most of the points and should hopefully be able to finish the rest later. I want to check my programmes from that season for more specific details of Paul Shaw's two injuries (which I can't seem to find in any other source) and I didn't have time on my lunch break to dig them out from under a pile of Christmas presents hidden in the same cupboard :-D -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: - all now addressed, I think :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy that my concerns have been addressed. Offer for source review if no-one else gets there first... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations

I've Just Seen a Face

Nominator(s): Tkbrett (✉) 15:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a song by the Beatles, composed by Paul McCartney and credited to Lennon–McCartney. It first appeared in August 1965 on the album Help!, and most people today know it from there, but its first release in North America came as the opening track of Rubber Soul. Tkbrett (✉) 15:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Therapyisgood

• of the December 1965 → "on the December 1965"

• Thanks for the comments, Therapyisgood. Both "of" and "on" sound fine to my ear, but I'm not especially confident in these sorts of subtleties, so I've changed it per your suggestion.

• The composition fuses several different styles and is difficult to categorise → "According to musicologist Alan W. Pollack, the composition ..."

• Changed.

• A lot of the notes are unnecessary in my opinion, providing unnecessary detail. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• To be specific: I think notes 1, 2, 4, 8, and maybe 9 are purely excess. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• I've cut note 9, with Greg Kot's other comparisons, but I find the other notes helpful. In particular, I think notes 1 and 2 detail information that a reader would end up having to research on their own if not supplied in the note, something I think is especially true of note 2. Note 4 adds to the comments of John Kruth and the various authors in the first part of the sentence; in my research, I've found that the three songs being recorded on the same day is one of the most discussed aspects of its recording. Lastly, for note 8, I think it is important because it discusses how folk rock enthusiasts reacted to the album immediately after a discussion of how the opening track reinforced perceptions of album as folk/folk rock. Tkbrett (✉) 17:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• "The recording fuses country and western with several musical genres" - this reads like C&W is not itself a musical genre, so should probably be "The recording fuses country and western with several other musical genres"

• Fixed.

• ""I've Just Seen a Face" is the key of A major" => ""I've Just Seen a Face" is in the key of A major"

• Fixed.

• "Beginning in a minor key" - earlier you said it was in A major? Does that mean it's only mostly in A major?

• The song begins slightly away from the home key, which ties in with Pollack's comparison of the intro to "Help!" I've reworded that part to clarify the situation.

• "Music critic Richie Unterberger writes the song has" => "Music critic Richie Unterberger writes that the song has"

• Fixed.

• "McCartney later described the them" - "the them"?

• Fixed.

• "He judges the song the "most romantic [ever]"" - the literal most romantic song of all time? Or just by the Beatles?

• The former. This is what he writes: "This edition of Rubber Soul didn't even have the same songs – it began with 'Drive My Car' instead of 'I've Just Seen a Face.' But Rubber Soul became my favorite record – I couldn't even decide which version I loved more, since 'Drive My Car' was the funniest song ever, while 'I've Just Seen a Face' was the most romantic, except almost as funny as 'Drive My Car.'"

• " He has played the song live on several other occasions, including it in the setlist of his 1991 UK "Surprise Gigs" tour, his 2004 Summer Tour and the 2011–12 On the Run tour, and was included" => " He has played the song live on several other occasions, including it in the setlist of his 1991 UK "Surprise Gigs" tour, his 2004 Summer Tour and the 2011–12 On the Run tour, and it was included"

• Fixed.

• "Produced by Rothchild and co-produced by Peter K. Siegel" - who's Rothchild?

• Paul A. Rothchild. Fixed.

• "writing its use of a pedal steel guitar" => "writing that its use of a pedal steel guitar"

• Fixed.

• "Kruth suggests the finished recording" => "Kruth suggests that the finished recording"

• Fixed.

• That's what I got on a first pass..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks very much ChrisTheDude. Tkbrett (✉) 17:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

Although I am currently taking an extended break from Wikipedia (for both reviews and my own projects), I still feel obligated to review this FAC since I participated in the first one. As I have said there, I have very little knowledge of the Beatles, but I have a much firmer grasp on song articles both in the FAC/FA context and Wikipedia as a whole. I hope my comments are helpful:

• This is a nitpick, but the infobox uses country & western while the lead and the article use country and western. I would be consistent with one way or the other to avoid any confusion.

• I did it to save space in the infobox, but have used "country and western" everywhere else since that's what the sources use. Changed "&" to "and".

• The quote box in the "Release" section is rather narrow and at least in my browser, cuts into the next section. I believe it would be helpful to make it somewhat wider to avoid that.

• I bumped up the width from 25 to 30%.

Other than those points, the article looks good to me. I supported the first FAC, although I understood the opposition as this article has to balance out a large amount of coverage, which is understandable given the attention the Beatles had and continue to receive. I usually work on much, much more obscure songs so I have never run into this challenge myself lol. I am glad that discussions took place on the article's talk page after the first FAC. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Aoba47, it's very kind of you to return from your Wiki-break for this nomination. Tkbrett (✉) 13:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

An overarching article for a period of the Hundred Years' War where a lot happened - little of it to French benefit. Much of it became known as the English King's annus mirabilis. Francophile readers may wish to look away. This article attempts to summarise a number other articles, set them in context and fill the gaps between them. No doubt I have done all of these imperfectly and I look forward to your pointing out the specifics of this to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Image review—pass no licensing issues found. Some maps could be scaled up for increased readability (t · c) buidhe 13:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

Just booking my place. More anon. Looking forward to this. Tim riley talk 16:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a substantial (and excellent) article, and I shall need more than one go at commenting on it. First go:

• Lead

• "commenced an offensive" – "commenced" is a bit refained. Perhaps began, launched or started?

Done.

• "counterattacked Derby's forces" – the OED hyphenates "counter-attack"

Done.

• Gascon campaign

• "tie down most of the weak French garrisons in the region" – ambiguous: did they fail to tie down the strong ones or were all the garrisons weak?

Is a response of "yes" acceptable? Fixed.

• Derby's offensive
  • "defeating them in a running battle" – this is very properly blue-linked to the article on the battle, but though I have often seen the phrase "running battle" I'm not actually sure how such a battle is to be distinguished from a non-running one, and would be glad of an explanation in the text or as a note.

I shall need to see how the sources describe it.

Rewritten, to be a little less summary but hopefully a lot more readily imagined.

• "Within days of the battle, Bergerac fell" – unexpected AmE-style comma

As you will be aware, I have little truck with the silly fashion for inserting a comma after any mention of time, but in this case it seems necessary for the flow; I find it impossible to read, much less speak, the sentence without pausing there - hence the comma. Is that just me?

That's the nice thing about BrE: commas like this are neither compulsory nor taboo, and if you feel one helps the flow here I'm not going to complain. Tim riley talk 20:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• "several strongpoints on the way" – the OED makes "strong points" two separate words. Occurs again later in the text.

Done.

• Crécy campaign

• "many ships deserted. They also captured" – perhaps "the English also captured" rather than the deserting ships doing so?

Ah! Fixed. ("The fleet also ...")

• Battle of Crécy

• "These charges were disordered due to their impromptu nature" – "due to" is not accepted in the Queen's English as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to". "Because of" would be better.

I know this, but I can't help myself. Fixed.

I am enjoying reviewing this article. More tomorrow, I hope. – Tim riley talk 19:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Second and concluding lot of comments

• Battle of Crécy

• "disordered due to their impromptu nature" – another "due to" used as a compound preposition.

• Fall of Calais

• "In late-April" – not sure this wants a hyphen

Gah! Removed.

• Aftermath

• "England had lost all of its territory in France" – we don't need the "of" surely?

Removed

• "Calais was finally lost following the 1558 siege of Calais." – the repetition of Calais is rather an anticlimactic end to your narrative. Would "… the 1558 siege of the town" suffice?

It would. Thank you.

• Notes

• You seem to have two conflicting methods of citing these four notes: the first two cite Sumption inline; the second two cite Sumption and Lambert in the Citations section. Best be consistent, I think.

How odd. I had missed that. Now fixed.

That's my lot. All very minor quibbles. – Tim riley talk 13:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed Tim, for helping to translate this into English from whatever argot I write in. All done, I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

An excellent article, as we have come to expect from this source. Clearly meets all the FA criteria in my view, and I support its elevation to FA. Tim riley talk 20:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pending

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• Can't see issues with the ccitations section
• I think I understand your location naming logic? Could you briefly clarify? Also why "Conn.", seems out of nowhere to abbreviate
• Recommend OCLC for Fowler, see here
• Why "Fowler, Kenneth" vs "Fowler, Kenneth Alan"?
• Should probably be "Penguin Books" in Rodger
• Is there a reason for both "Boydell & Brewer" and "Boydell Press"? I think the latter was merged in the 70s, so unless you're using books from then, they should all presumably be the former?
• Also Rodgers is the only time you have just "Woodbridge" for the location (as opposed to "Woodbridge, Suffolk")
• You author-link Omrod twice, but don't do so for other repeated authors in the biblio
• It should probably be clarified that the dnb source is from the Edward III article. Perhaps "Edward III: Crécy and Calais, 1346–1347"? Or alternatively you could just have it be "Edward III" and then for the short foot note do "loc=Crécy and Calais, 1346–1347".
• Fowler, Kenneth (1961) seems to need an account for the link, so maybe a url-access= parameter for it?
• Hardy link is dead for me, there is an archive available ([https://web.archive.org/web/20210626012324/http://1.droppdf.com/files/wLXco/robert-hardy-longbow.pdf, which I recommend adding to the citation

Reliability

• No issues, all from established publishers or authors. The dissertation is a PhD so should be usable

Verifiability

• 57 – good
• 68 – good
• 73 – good
• 74 – good
• Given the above and nominators experience, I see no reason for further spot checks. Aza24 (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Robert Howard Hodgkin

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Robert Howard Hodgkin is best known not for what he accomplished during his career, but for what came at its end. After spending more than a generation writing it, he placed one of the first histories of Anglo-Saxons into the hands of both general and academic readers. Two years later (and five days into retirement), he reemerged to take on the role of provost at Queen's College, Oxford, after the previous officeholder died in a plane crash. In his second retirement, Hodgkin produced his second book: a six-century history of the college. And so did Hodgkin—son of a banker-cum-historian, father-in-law of a Nobel winner, uncle of another—etch his name in the annals of his family's so-called "Quaker dynasty."

This article was created in 2017; a green circle graced its top right corner two years later, following a review by J Milburn. Since then, and thanks in large part to an obscure but comprehensive book on Hodgkin, the article has been expanded nearly threefold. It is now ready for its turn here. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 17:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

Some minor points about the prose:

• Lead

• "historian of modern history" – the repetition of historian/history is infelicitous. And are the Anglo-Saxons regarded as "modern history"? (Question asked from the standpoint of my complete ignorance.)

• Good point, completely missed that. I've deleted the "of modern history". According to the relevant article, modern history began well after the time of the Anglo-Saxons. This is explained, I think, because while Hodgkin taught modern history, his research into Anglo-Saxon England reflected more of a side interest; a number of reminiscences of him mention how his work on the Anglo-Saxons was mostly a rumor before his book was published. (e.g., Hodgkin et al. 1955, p. 66: "As undergraduates, most of his pupils knew little of his private studies and historical work. There were rumours of 'the Anglo-Saxons' being in the background, but for us they were very much in the background, and became part of the legendary activities which pupils associate with dons. When his History of the Anglo-Saxons appeared we realised how much more there had been in the background than we had dreamed.") --Usernameunique (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Hodgkin was the son … Hodgkin matriculated … Hodgkin volunteered" – a pronoun or two might relieve the repetitions of the name.

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• "ultimately led to him being forced to leave the Society of Friends" – is it painfully pedantic to observe that this fused participle ought to be "his being" – a gerund with the possessive?

• Nope, fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• "In 1904, he was made a fellow, in 1910 a tutor, and from 1928 to 1934 he held the post of" – the AmE-style comma after a date is becoming regrettably common in English usage, but if you must use it, oughtn't it to be used three times in this sentence, for the sake of consistency?

• I prefer no year-following commas to three of them, so removed it. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• "B. H. Streeter fell ill, then resumed teaching" – it's asking a bit much of "then" to press it into service as a conjunction in formal English.

• Reworded, but what's wrong with using "then"? --Usernameunique (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Most of us, I think, use words like "then" and "so" as conjunctions in informal speech, but in encyclopaedic prose it is better, in my view, to stick to traditionally recognised conjunctions, adding "and" or "but" or suchlike before a "then" or a "so". I am, however, an old codger and younger editors may disagree with me. The latest edition of Fowler is fairly relaxed about "so" used as a conjunction, though it doesn't give "then" the nod. Tim riley talk 09:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• "for two significant works" – Gowers has these wise words on that adjective: This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large … it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?

• "important" it is. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Early life and education

• "In his first year at Bamburgh, Hodgkin's father became acquainted with Arthur Smith" – I don't think this says what you mean it to say. It was presumably RH's first year, and not his father's.

• Fixed: "In Hodgkin's first year at Bamburgh, his father..." --Usernameunique (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• "once per fortnight" – on the generally sound precept "prefer good English to bad Latin" it might be well to make this "once a fortnight".

• Done, though what makes "per fortnight" "bad Latin"? --Usernameunique (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Per diem" or "per mensem" is good Latin for daily or monthly; I don't, to be honest, know what the Latin for "fortnight" is but it certainly isn't "fortnight". (I've now looked it up and it seems to be "quindecim [dies]"). But why use Latin at all when a shorter, crisper English alternative is to hand? Tim riley talk 09:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Second Boer War

• "due to his military service" – In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.

• Changed to "because of". --Usernameunique (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Career

• "On May 19, 1904" – unexpected date format in a BrE article. Not wrong, by any means, but rather strange looking, and you use the more familiar form "On 6 August 1908" later on.

• Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• ""signpost[] the roads and tracks"" – not sure what the empty square brackets are for.

• They're to indicate an alteration. The source reads "His method as a tutor was thus suggestive rather than purely instructional, and, having signposted the roads and tracks, he would often leave his pupils to explore for themselves." --Usernameunique (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think I've ever run across that exact usage before. It makes perfect sense now you explain it, though I'm not sure how many of your readers will be familiar with the construction or understand its - dare I say? - significance?. Tim riley talk 09:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• First World War

• "watched the college population gradually dwindle as people were accepted for service" – men are undeniably "people" but the latter looks a bit odd in the context of an all-male college.

• Changed to "as its members were". I take your point, but its possible that there were female staff/faculty members who also left to serve, hence the initial use of the gender-neutral "people". --Usernameunique (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• "his four years of service was primarily spent" – plural subject with singular verb

• Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• "in coastal defense" – why use the American spelling rather than the English "defence"?

• Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Return to Queen's College

• "who joined Queens" – Queen's or Queens?

• Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Due in large part to the sabbatical" – another "due to" pressed into service as a compound preposition.

• Changed to "Owing in large part to". --Usernameunique (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Hodgkin had spent around two years looking for a retirement home, such that" – "such" seems strange here. For an adverbial use like this one might expect "so that".

• Reworded. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Provostship

• "who likely saw his office as a trusteeship" – although a plain "likely" in this sense is good AmE it is not good BrE. "Probably" is the idiomatic form. (Curiously, as The Guardian's style guide points out, when modified by an adverb, "likely" becomes normal English usage.)

• Changed. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• References

• Ref 35 is in need of first aid.

Those are my few comments on the prose. The content looks fine to me: well and widely referenced, balanced and easily comprehensible. – Tim riley talk 15:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim riley. I always enjoy your reviews, not least because I inevitably walk away having learned something. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me to meet all the criteria. It is well written, well and widely sourced, balanced, and, I suppose, as well illustrated as possible (though couldn't a picture of Queen's be found? It wouldn't tell the reader all that much about Hodgkin, admittedly, but would break up the prose; I do not press the point). I look forward to seeing the article featured on our front page. Tim riley talk 15:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Wehwalt

• "In 1894, meanwhile, Hodgkin and his sisters Lily and Ellen were taken by their father to Italy, where they spent time in Milan, Florence, Rome, Naples, Ravenna, and Vienna.[19]" This makes it sound like Vienna is in Italy.

• Good point, fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• " Saint Petersburg before travelling down the Volga and exploring the Caucasus," Would it be preferable to say "up the Volga" as they were going upstream?

• Changed to "along the Volga". --Usernameunique (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Can it be made clearer why he was not called upon to serve in South Africa if he joined the service in 1900? Was this regiment eligible to serve outside the UK?

• I've been able to find next to no details of his Second Boer War service, except that it forced him to leave the Quakers. Given how he seemed to have plenty of time to pursue his other interests, however, it may have been something more akin to his time with the Ilmington Home Guard than to his World War I service. Some searching (1; 2), however, suggests that not many from the 1st Volunteer Battalion Northumberland Fusiliers went to South Africa, and of those who did, most or all volunteered to do so. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• I know the Volunteer Force were not required to serve outside the UK before the Army was reorganised in 1907. It may be that what he served in formed part of that. Our article on his regiment mentions volunteer battalions, and I note a V.B. in what you wrote.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• " and (from 1917 to 1919[48])" I have the vague impression that footnotes are to go outside of parentheses.

• I would think inside, since the citation supports only the material inside the parentheses, but am happy to be proven incorrect. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Bradmore Road is linked on second usage.

• Took out the first mention of Bradmore Road. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Does Oliver Franks need a second link in the final paragraph?

• Nope, removed. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Wehwalt. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Support--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Source review

I didn't do a thorough spot check except for some of the sources cited in the bibliography. Source #107 says that Betty was 11 not 12 as the article claims and I am not sure what information #112 supports in the sentence cited to it. Is #101 a reliable source?

It seems like the sources are reasonably formatted - save for Ferry 2014 which has no page numbers, and Magoun 1954 which JSTOR has 1952 - and have the necessary information. Andy Croft is being used as a source for some lightweight claims but are they a reliable source?

Is it just me or are there more sources about his book than about him? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed age of Betty Hodgkin. She was 11 years and 11 months (per Wolfers, she was born on 8 October 1915 and died on 8 September 1927).
• Source #112 (namely footnote 17 therein) supports the fact that the poem was about Betty Hodgkin, which is not obvious from the face of the poem.
• The above two are the only sources for which Croft is used. The first is backed up by Wolfers (who has the specific dates), and the second is I think reliable given that Swingler was the specific subject of Croft's research, and the source is being used simply to identify the subject of Swinger's poem.
• #101 doesn't support any information in the article, it's just a nice link to follow for someone looking to see what the house looks like.
• Ferry 2014 is a placeholder—I'm trying to get my hands on the physical book, but have just seen the Google Books version so far, which (as it's formatted from the e-reader version) doesn't have page numbers.
• I'm not seeing where JSTOR lists Magoun as 1952; JSTOR 2853872 gives it as January 1954.
• There are definitely a lot of reviews cited—pretty much every review I could get my hands on. But Hodgkin et al. 1955 is a 99-page book with information on Hodgkin by 19 separate people, and there are a number of works on Hodgkin's family members (e.g., Wolfers's 2007 book on Thomas Lionel Hodgkin) which contain a lot of information on him as well.

Thanks for taking a look, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

ROBERT HOWARD HODGKIN, A History of the Anglo-Saxons. Third edition. Oxford University Press, 1952. Two volumes. Vol. I: pp. [xxxiil+[1I, 381i; Vol. II: pp. xii, 383-796, with plates, figures, and maps. Cloth. is the part of the JSTOR that says 1952. The reason why I wonder about the reviews is because if the book is better known/more frequently described than the author, an article about the book seems to be warranted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, the book is from 1952, but the review is from 1954. The book could no doubt sustain its own article—it probably meets both criteria 1 and 4 of the notability standards for books—but that is a project for another day. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Mike Christie

• "Following preparatory and boarding school": if you're not going to name them, I don't see the point of saying this in the lead -- of course he had schooling before college.

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• "a role he would reprise": "role" seems the wrong word for a military career.

• Changed to "which he would rejoin during the First World War". --Usernameunique (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Is there a possible link for "pro-provost"? I'd never heard the term. A Google search gave me a very specific definition for UCL's pro-provost but I doubt that's what this means. Later in the lead you describe him as provost, rather than pro-provost, so I wonder if the term just means interim provost.

  I'm not sure what pro-provost would link to, although I've added a clarifying citation to the statutes of the college. Pro-provost appears to be a temporary role, bringing with it the powers of the provost, used only when the provost is unable to exercise his duties. According to the 1877 statutes of the college, "The Provost shall be required to reside in the College seven calendar months at least in each year, whereof seven weeks at least shall be in each Term ...: Provided that in case of the Provost's sickness, or for any other urgent cause, it shall be lawful for the Visitor to dispense with the Provost's residence for such a period as the case may appear to the Visitor to require: Provided also, that if the Visitor dispenses with the Provost's residence for a period of one or more Terms, of if the Provost being resident shall be through sickness temporarily incapable of performing his duties for one or more Terms, the Provost and fellows may nominate one of the Fellows to act as Pro-Provost, who shall during the absence or sickness of the Provost perform the functions and exercise the powers of the Provost." While Edward Armstrong was pro-provost for well more than a decade (1911–1927), this appears to have been a special circumstance, and not one that the college was keen on. Per Armstrong's obituary, this occurred because "Dr. Magrath in 1911 resigned his functions as Provost, though not the title". And per the article on Magrath, "Having been reclusive for the last ten years of his provostship, seen only by the servant that brought him his meals, Magrath's refusal to participate in college affairs led the college to seek to get rid of him". --Usernameunique (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps a footnote then? Saying something like "The college's statutes allowed for a pro-provost to be appointed, to act as provost when the holder of the position was unable to perform their duties", and cited to the statute? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Added a footnote. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• I would suggest moving at least some of the contents of note 1 into the body text, since you later quote his sister referring to him as Robin, without explanation.

• I'm not sure there's an elegant way to work it in, particularly since the attribution ("Per his wife") would introduce yet another person (not to mention one from much later) into a paragraph already filled with names. But "[note 1]" is fairly noticeable already, and the nickname "Robin" is given in bold in the lead. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'd avoid using "matriculated" for entering Repton -- I think most people who even know the word think it refers only to entering university, so as you phrase it it sounds like Repton is a college.

• Changed to "enrolled". --Usernameunique (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• "one sister speculated, was possibly": seems redundant to have both "speculated" and "possibly".

• Changed "speculated" to "wrote". --Usernameunique (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• "at the end of 1893, the family sold Benwell Dene": the article on Benwell Dene says it was donated, not sold; just checking that your source specifically says it was sold.

  I'd noticed that discrepancy too, especially as some sources also say it was donated. But the source used is both close to Thomas Hodgkin (it's largely a book of his letters), and specifically says the house was sold. It's possible the considerable grounds were donated (they became a park), or that the house was sold cheaply, given the intended use. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Struck; your source is much better than the one in the article on the house. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "was proxime for the Stanhope essay prize": suggest glossing "proxime".

• Now "In 1899, Hodgkin was proxime, or runner-up, for the Stanhope essay prize". --Usernameunique (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• "For years, Hodgkin spent vacations working at the history of Anglo-Saxon England": since this is the first mention in the body, I would avoid "the"; perhaps "working on a history" or "writing a history".

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Hodgkin and his wife were then only a month removed from the death of their daughter": since we haven't mentioned any children at all to this point, I would mention the death before giving the information about the sabbatical.

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Hodgkin finished his first major work, A History of the Anglo-Saxons, in 1933": we've mentioned the book earlier in this section so I think it would be natural to make the connection here. Something like this might work" "Hodgkin finished the book he had been working on for so long in 1933: titled A History of the Anglo-Saxons, it was his first major work", though I'm sure that could be improved.

• Changed to "Owing in large part to the sabbatical, Hodgkin finally finished A History of the Anglo-Saxons, his first major work, in 1933". --Usernameunique (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Much of the first two years was spent with committees, guests, and socialising": suggest "and in socialising".
  • "in socialising" sounds off to me, though I've now read it and "with socialising" so many times that both just sound weird. Tim riley, do you have any thoughts on this? --Usernameunique (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Grammatically the sentence is fine as it stands. Adding "in" before socialising would be fine too, but you'd need to change "committees, guests" to "committees and guests", I think. Whether the acquisition of "in" is worth a repeated "and" is for you to say. Tim riley talk 08:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Tim riley. I think I'd prefer to stick with it as is. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

        Tim, what I was concerned about was that it implies "was spent with socialising", which isn't a construction I've ever seen used -- it would normally be "it was spent in socialising". Are you saying that "with socialising" is acceptable in British English, or that the construction doesn't require parallel application of the preposition to each of the terms in the list? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

        What sounds most correct to me (AmE) is "was spent socialising". This construction adding with does not seem correct to me. I would rephrase: "was spent socialising, with guests, or in committees". (t · c) buidhe 21:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

        buidhe's wording looks good to me. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

That's everything I can see. All minor points, and I look forward to supporting once they are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Mike Christie. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Mike Christie, further comments addressed. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Support. A fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

American transportation in the Siegfried Line campaign

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

This article takes up where American logistics in the Northern France campaign leaves off, covering the period from September 1944 to January 1945. The volume of material was considerable, so I split the article into two parts; one about transportation, and one about supply. In this phase, the American armies remained largely static through September and October for lack of supplies, particularly ammunition. Initially this was because the rapid advance across France and Belgium created lengthy supply lines; the rehabilitation of railways could not keep pace, and the use of motor transport was a stopgap that caused longer term problems. Then, as the weather deteriorated, the beaches became unusable, and the lack of port capacity became a problem because the ports in Brittany that had been intended to supply the American forces had not been captured. Shipping piled up offshore, unable to discharge, and the resulting shortage of ships threatened the entire Allied war effort. This article has recently passed an A-class review, with source and image reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Iazyges

• Recently reviewed this at A-Class; happy to support as featured quality. User:Iazyges

Comments from Trainsandotherthings

I will try to keep these organized by section. They may arrive out of order though.
Shipping

• This section is quite long to not have any subheaders. I recommend adding some here, if possible.
  

  There is no consensus on when a section becomes too long. (WP:MILMOS#SECTLEN) I will consider adding subsections. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Railways

• This section is quite long, if possible, can you divide it into subsections?

  I will consider this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• "These were manufactured at Differdange in Luxembourg, and after it was liberated it began producing steel beams for the Allies." When was Differdange liberated? I believe this merits a brief mention to give some context.

• On 10 September 1944. I will add this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I will add more comments soon. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

General comments

• Having read more of the article, I find that I agree with the points raised by GraemeLeggett. I additionally am of the opinion that the sections on the individual ports are too long, and need to be condensed. With approximately 72 kb of readable prose, this article is at a length where a split could seriously be considered, per WP:SIZERULE. The ports section is disproportionate to the rest of the article in size, and there are some paragraphs that I feel would be more at home on the articles for the individual ports themselves, or even a separate article on English Channel ports in the Siegfried Line campaign, or English Channel ports in the Western Allied offensive 1944-1945, although I know that's getting very niche.

  Yes, it would be. I'm regretting splitting it in the first place. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• I find that there's not a clear narrative or order here, the article seems to jump around with dates and times. There's a lot of information here, and it's well written, but the article needs a clearer focus and better organization to improve its readability. When I first saw this article, I expected it to tell the story of transportation throughout the campaign, with the article written in chronological order and closely linked to the progression of the campaign, but that is not the case at present. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• One possible solution is to reorganize the article to go by month, instead of being divided by mode of transportation. Covering periods between specific events in the campaign might also be a solution. For instance, there could be a section about the consequences of the Ardennes offensive and how it complicated transportation, which is right now buried within the ports and railways sections. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  The article is organised on a topical basis. This is normal fior logistics articles. The sections are arranged in geographical order, so it logically proceeds from the ships to the ports, to the railways, roads and barges, moving closer to the front. A chronological organisation would be incomprehensible, as the rehabiltaion of the ports and the development of the different transportation systems proceeded in parallel. But each subsection is arranged in chronological order. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• I am reluctantly going to Oppose this FAC at this time, pending a response to my concerns, as well as those below. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

  I am striking my oppose for now, but this article is not yet at a state in which I could support it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by GraemeLeggett

1. The article does not deliver a narrative. It starts with an introduction, then describes the various ways supplies are moved but doesn't wrap up the tale. It also doesn't - to me - do a good job of relating the logistics to the military operations they were supplying.

   In particular, it seems to have failed to get across the fact that operations were stalled from September to November while they got the logistics in order. It is in the map but I think it was lost from the narrative when the article was divided. I will rework this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

2. There is only a single map and yet much of the text is describing moving things from one location to another - places that may be obscure or even if the name is known the spacial relationship may be uncertain to the average reader.

   I think I can find some more maps. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

3. Variety of language - having just read the article, the word "hauled" has lost all meaning

   I will address this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

4. The conversion of tonnage looks iffy in places (a function of the rounding function?) but that might just be me - that said Deadweight tonnage needs explanation.

   Usually the problem with tons is the different types. Feel free to point out specifics where you think the rounding might be weird, as it can be tweaked. Deadweight tonnage has been linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

   In "Shipping" 3rd paragraph we get the odd-looking "the allocation to Overlord would be reduced to 250,000 deadweight tons (250,000 deadweight tonnes)" a few sentences later we get "50,000 deadweight tons (51,000 deadweight tonnes)" - which gives the impression of different precision, though the same template is used. It probably doesn't help that there isn't an abbreviation for DWT so every conversion takes about a third of the line width. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

1. Rounding does seem odd. Adjusted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

It may be easy to fix the technical requirements I mention but still seems to fall short in those narrative/comprehension respects. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

1. Seems to rely a lot on the US military sources and per FA Criteria 1.c ("representative survey of the relevant literature") has there been any consideration of what historians outside the US military wrote (particularly where the US and their logistic operations overlap - eg the shared ports) or some higher level critical opinion on the logistics relating to the campaign in the round from general writers covering the particular period.

   The article also uses van Crevald and Dick as sources. I assure you that it is a comprehensive survey of the literature; only about a half dozen or so historians specialise in military logistics (and I'm one of them). Dick is very recent, and a British historian, but he's fairly critical of the Americans. I will add a bit more from Dick to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

   Specialists can get too deep into the subject. What do the "generalists" think of logistics performance and its effects (or not) on the course of the campaign? GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

   The campaign is not well covered. Most writing by operational historians is about the Normandy campaign and the Battle of the Bulge. (Operations Market Garden is well covered, but outside the scope of this article; it is covered in the companion British article.) There is much less interest in the period between, and even less in the 1945 fighting. They write a lot about the crisis that brought the US forces to a halt in September, but are much less concerned about the subject of this article, which is all about how those problems were resolved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Just for clarification - no I don't think this is FA yet. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, but these are the comments that are sought from reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Also

1. Fails WP:Accessibility on alt text for images. I'd never used the tool listed in the sidebar at top before - it's quite useful GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

   Note though that alt text is not a requirement at FAC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

   But accessibility is part of the Manual of Style and Featured Articles are supposed to be the best that Wikipedia delivers.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

   Yes. It is regrettable that the FAC requirements and the MOS sometimes conflict. The problem is that much editing of the latter is by editors with no experience in featured article writing. However, I didn't say I wouldn't do it, just that it is not required. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Featured article criteria specifically says "2. It follows the style guidelines...". This is briefly touched on here Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive85#FA/FL_review_visual_and_accessibility_checks. I'm not claiming the high ground when it comes to putting them in myself (stones and glass houses and all that). GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

George Floyd (American football)

Nominator(s): Therapyisgood (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is about... George Floyd, the American football player turned educator. He played for the New York Jets for several years in the 1980s, until a third knee injury forced him to retire. He set several records at Eastern Kentucky University, some of which still stand today. All the comments from the first FAC have been addressed, save converting from imperial to metric throughout the article, which I'm still trying to get a consensus on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League. Hopefully a consensus can arise so this can be a featured article. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hatnote discussion

• I won't be !voting one way or the other on this, but I don't think the discussion on a hatnote has been fully settled. Fundamentally, hatnotes are warranted any time a reader might reasonably be confused, and the pageview data seems to indicate plenty of that. There's a massive WP:PRIMARYTOPIC disparity, and there's the fact that the other Floyd did play football. Looking at it another way, if this ever became the TFA, I would be utterly unsurprised if we got a comment along the lines of "why don't we mention how he died?" All that points to a common sense need for a hatnote. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: can you review the article as well? Therapyisgood (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, no; I'm not particularly interested in sports articles. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Driveby comment from AryKun

• Noticed that both the images are missing alt text. AryKun (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Added, thanks. Therapyisgood (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Kavyansh.Singh

Completely non-expert review. Let me know if I am wrong anywhere:

• "Jets' 1982 season" — Since "1982 season" is linked to 1982 New York Jets season, I think that "Jets'" should be piped inside the link.
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• "1985 NFL preseason" — in this case, 1985 should be piped out of the link, since it is linked to just NFL preseason
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• "into the College Football Hall of Fame, EKU's Hall of Fame, and Hernando High School's Hall of Fame." — can we rephrase so we don't have to repeat "Hall of Fame" three times?
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• "game against Inverness Citrus" — our article calls it "Citrus High School"
  • Source says Inverness Citrus, it probably changed names. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• There is inconsistency in writing numbers. Most of the numbers above nine are spelled, but "68 tackles", "72-yard", "63 tackles, seven TFLs ", etc. are not.
  • Believe I've caught all these. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• As we link Sophomore, shouldn't we link Junior (education) in "As a junior in high school, Flowd ..."?
  • Linked on first use. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise, I feel the prose fine and easy enough for me to understand. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC) @Kavyansh.Singh: comments responded to, thanks. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the responses/changes. I Support the article for its promotion as a featured article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Leaning oppose. There are some prose issues, which I've listed below. I don't see any way to avoid a high density of sports jargon in an article like this, but that means you have to take extra care to make it comprehensible with no sports background. The high number of abbreviations (DPOW, EKU, OVC, TTT, GC, TFL) makes it harder to read too, though I can see why you introduce them. I would suggest trying to get a review from someone who writes sports FAs but is not particularly familiar with American football. The Rambling Man, would you be able to take a look at this?

• "Floyd was named to The Tampa Tribune's honorific all-area football team in all three of his varsity years, the first player to do so": "honorific" is the wrong word here; it means an honour that has few or no associated duties. And "to do so" is not right either: the verb structure for a phrase like that has to parallel the first part of the sentence, but we don't have a verb of doing -- instead there's the passive "was named".
  • Cut "honorific". Changed to "At Hernando, Floyd was named to The Tampa Tribune's all-area football team in all three of his varsity years, the first player to be so named." Hopefully that's right. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
• "where he won the 1979 NCAA Division I-AA football championship with the Colonels": not really a prose issue, but I'd suggest cutting "with the Colonels"; you haven't said it's the nickname for EKU and it doesn't add anything for the reader.
  • Cut. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
• "Floyd holds or ties for five records": would be better as something like "Floyd is the holder or joint holder of"
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
• "In a game against North Marion High School": a new paragraph so we don't know if this is the junior or senior season.
  • Added. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
• "Floyd became the first player named to the TTT's team during all three varsity seasons": "the" is redundant (the first T in TTT stands for "the"); and is this statement true of all schools or just Hernando? And as a non-native I'm not clear what a "varsity season" is.
  • Removed "the". Linked "varsity". Clarified "of any high school". Therapyisgood (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
• What is "class 3A"? A link might be enough, depending on what the explanation is.
  • A school classification, linked and explained. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• "Floyd wanted to play college football for the University of Georgia as a senior, but instead attended Eastern Kentucky University (EKU) of the Ohio Valley Conference (OVC)." It took me a second to realize that "senior" here referred to when Floyd was a high school senior. And you don't give any explanation; was he turned down by Georgia? Or did he change his mind?
  • Presumably he changed his mind, but there's nothing in the sources to say so. Added "as a senior" with a link above. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
• "He served as captain of the Leopards' defensive unit": if "the Leopards" is the nickname for the Hernando team, you need to say that somewhere. Ditto for the EKU Colonels in the next section -- something like "Floyd's first start for the Colonels (the nickname for the EKU sports teams)" would do. And you don't say that this was as a freshman, which as an outsider I would think is relevant -- presumably not every college footbal player gets a start on the team as a freshman?
  • Added freshman. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I mention "Hernando Leopards" on first use in the second sentence under the "Early life" section and "EKU Colonels" in the first sentence under "Collegiate career". Therapyisgood (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• "Before the 1980 season": I had to go back through the previous paragraph to figure out that this was his junior year; the only dates you give prior to this are that 1975 is his high school sophomore year, and that they won the 1979 I-AA championship. Another date wouldn't hurt somewhere in that time period to nail down the seasons a bit more.
  • Added year. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• "Floyd appeared at both safety spots." I don't know what this means.
  • Explained. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
• "Floyd tried out to become the Jets' punt returner": "tried out to become" is clumsy.
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
• 'On August 12, Filip Bondy of the New York Daily News stated Floyd had the defensive backfield reserve spot "wrapped up".' Why are we including this? I don't know what "defensive backfield reserve spot" means, but in any case the very next sentence says he changed positions, so why does it matter what a journalist thought, particularly as it appears he got it wrong?
  • The journalist was not wrong, the defensive backfield includes cornerback. "Defensive backfield" is the link, "reserve spot" just means he was not a starter. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I could link defensive backfield in the article, but it just redirects to defensive back. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• "Floyd recovered a fumble and made a few "All-Pro hits", according to an article in the TTT.": not sure this is worth mentioning -- we're talking about a Jets game, and this is presumably his hometown paper covering a local boy, so would be expected to be positive. Is the source just a game report that makes no mention of Floyd's origin?
  • Cut. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

TRM

Per Mike above, I'd be more than happy to take a look at this article with a view to ensuring it's accessible to both sports and non-sports (especially non-American football) readers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• "attended Hernando High School. At Hernando" repetitive. Perhaps merge with "where"?
  • Reworked. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• "named to ... so named" is jarringly repetitive.
  • Reworked. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• "NCAA Division I-AA football championship" say what??
  • Linked. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• "starting free safety before the 1975 season" which sport, which "season"?
  • added. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• "on offense as a halfback. On offense" repetitive.
  • Reworded. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• "primarily in blocking situations" could this not be "primarily for blocking"?
  • I believe there is a difference. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• "he had an interception" don't people "make" interceptions?
  • I believe they're interchangeable. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• "three varsity seasons.[15][16][17] After the season" repetitive.
  • Reworded. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• "second-team Class 3A all-state squad" say what??
  • Added a note, does that help? Therapyisgood (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• "he made nine interceptions in a single season," which season, isn't this better described above in the actual season he did it?
  • Moved around. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Tackle for loss needs to be fixed as the redirect points to a non-existent heading. Wouldn't this be better included in the glossary of terms?
  • Fixed redirect. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• "and started every game" this seems odd to be tagged on at the end, it would make more sense to me if it was "He started every game and ..."
  • Changed per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• "returned an interception one hundred yards and scored a touchdown; the one hundred yard return tied a conference record" repetitive, why not "returned an interception one hundred yards, tying a conference record, and scored a touchdown"?
  • Changed per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Right, that takes me to "Floyd shared OVC DPOW...", lunch calls, more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Duriavenator

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

This is the first FAC about a megalosaurid, one of the few major groups of carnivorous dinosaurs that have not yet been represented at FAC. This particular animal was long thought to be the same as Megalosaurus itself (the first named dinosaur, and historically very important), though was much later recognised as distinct, and that's the gist of the story here. The entire literature has been summarised, and there were some nice free images available. FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Image review
  • File:Megalosaurus display.JPG isn't the display copyrighted?

The fossils themselves can't be copyrighted, as for the imagery on the wall behind, most of it is from the 19th century, and I think it would fall under de minimis anyway, as they're not the focus of the photo by any means. But this is of course debatable. In any case, only the drawing on the far right is recent enough to be copyrighted, and it is partially cropped out and covered by bones, which again, could indicate de minimis. FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• • Other images look OK for licensing
• The "Description" section is quite long. Would it be possible to separate into subsections for increased readability? (t · c) buidhe 23:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Could be possible to divide it into sections about the upper and lower jaw, I'll have a look tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Made two subsections. FunkMonk (talk) 08:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

this name means "the West" or "western". - strictly speaking it's the epithet that means western not the binomial as such....

Oh yeah, I removed the word "specific name" from the intro on request at the GAN, but now re-added it for clarity. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Later researchers doubted whether the species belonged in Megalosaurus - I'd write either, "Later researchers questioned/pondered/deliberated/queried whether the species belonged in Megalosaurus" or "Later researchers doubted the species belonged in Megalosaurus" (i.e. doubting is not questioning but naysaying)

Said questioned. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

If you can, avoid having both paras of lead start with "Duriavenator..."

Tried with "Estimated to have been 5–7 m (16–23 ft) long and weighed 1 t (2,200 lb), Duriavenator has been described as a medium-sized theropod." FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

That works Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

why is freestone in quotation marks

One source did this, not sure why, so removed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

... it would have been massively constructed - odd use of "constructed" - I'd say "built" but I'd not use "constructed" in the same way...

That was how the source put it, but changed to built. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

more later looks pretty good otherwise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, all should now be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Cas Liber ? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

It's marked as support in the section header. There is one indicated future review further below. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

HF - support

Recusing to review. Hog Farm _Talk 14:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• I see the infobox gives a range of 169.1-168.7 mya, while the body just says about 168 mya, is the infobox figure false precision?

Not sure what that's based on, just changed to 168. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• "surface of the maxilla adheres to the counterpart slab" - is there a way to link or gloss counterpart slab?

Linked to Compression fossil, which is not a perfect match, but covers some of the same ground. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Cast of the holotype dentary, showing the long teeth at the front, YM (left) and an isolated tooth, NHM (right)" - this caption is a bit confusing. Does this indication some sort of specimen number? It's not clear what YM and NHM mean here

It's just abbreviations of museum names mentioned in full in earlier captions. Those abbreviations are parts of the specimen numbers too, so in a sense you're right, but I'm not sure it is needed to write the names in full again? FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• What are Mortimer's credentials for the theropod database?

Mortimer has been at least co-author of some peer-reviewed dinosaur articles, and their database website has also been cited in such articles:[14] I believe it would count as an expert source, per WP:SPS. Furthermore, this information isn't covered in any peer-reviewed papers, which tend to completely ignore unppublished names, so that they are not inadvertently published. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ditto with Tracy L. Ford

Same as above:[15] FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Carrano/Benson/Sampson - any way to make that page range a bit more specific, range given is almost 90 pages

Specified to the three pages used. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• " Holtz Jr., Thomas R. (2000). "A new phylogeny of the carnivorous dinosaurs". Gaia: 5–61." - any chance for volume/issue numbers here?

Added volume. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Holtz Jr., Thomas R. (2012). Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages. New York: Random House. p. 92]. ISBN 978-0-375-82419-7." - I can't tell if the bracket after p. 92 is spurious or if there's a missing bracket somewhere else (My childhood copy of the 2007 edition is somewhere in my parents attic, seeing it here makes me want to dig it out when I visit for Christmas)

Removed, it was a remnant of when the citation included a link to an online version of the book which seemed illegal. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Do any of the sources perchance indicate how they estimate length/size? I image they estimated based on a comparison of head size to that of similar, more complete, specimens, but it would be nice if that could get spelled out.

Paul makes a general statement about his methodology, not about this particular taxon. But I've added "(size estimates of incompletely known dinosaurs are extrapolated from better known relatives)". FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Good work here, I found this one quite interesting. Hog Farm _Talk 04:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, answers above. Holtz's book still holds up, I believe I got it for Christmas too! FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from LittleLazyLass

Just reserving a spot here to make sure this doesn't close without me; I'm swamped in exam prep for the next week, but sometime later than the 16th I'll be giving this a look through. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 23:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Source review

• #1: Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society can take a link.

Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• #2: As can Cassell & Company Limited. I'd also capitalize the "C" in "Company" and the "L" in "Limited". And the name of the chapter being cited can also be added.

Did both. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• #3: Volume/issue number?

Not sure how to get this info, or if it even exists. Neither volume or issue is mentioned in the sources that cite it, and I can't see the front page (I was sent the specific article at WP:RX)... FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• #4: Zootaxa can take a link.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• #5: Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, too.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• #6: And Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. Also, suggest using the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• #7: Is this Palaeontology? If so, it can be linked.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• #8: Friedrich von Huene can take a link. Any other authors that have articles?

I prefer to avoid linking authors in citations because 99% of the time they're just duplinks of names already mentioned and linked in the main text. Also, it looks odd when citations by the same author is linked multiple times. Is it necessary? If there is no guideline that encourages this, I'd prefer not (it is also very tedious work). Same goes for similar suggestions below. But note I spelled out full names this time, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• #9: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences can be linked. Alick Walker, too.

Linked journal, but would like to discuss linking of author names as per above. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• #10: What makes this wall of text reliable?

Here's what I said to HF about this above: Mortimer has been at least co-author of some peer-reviewed dinosaur articles, and their database website has also been cited in such articles:[16] I believe it would count as an expert source, per WP:SPS. Furthermore, this information isn't covered in any peer-reviewed papers, which tend to completely ignore unppublished names, so that they are not inadvertently published. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• #11: What makes this reliable?

Same as above:[17] FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• #12: David B. Norman can take a link.

Linked in the article, which I think suffices. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• #13: Gregory S. Paul and Simon & Schuster.

Linked publisher. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• #14: University of California Press. Why "Berkeley chapter" instead of "Berkeley" (compare with refs #16 & #30)? Are there subsequent editions, that make the "1st ed." necessary"? Suggest using the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter. Any authors/editors with articles?

Added amp, "chapter" was a mistake, was adding the chapter parameter but forgot to finish it, it seems, now fixed hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• #15: Thomas R. Holtz Jr. And if this is GAIA, it can take a link.

Linked the journal. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• #16: University of California Press and The Dinosauria can take links. "2 ed." should be "2nd ed." Suggest using the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter. Any authors/editors with articles (besides Holtz Jr., who can be linked again)?

Added amp and added nd, but refrained from doing duplinks. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• #17: Journal of the Geological Society and Darren Naish can take links.

Linked the journal. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• #18: Palaeontology can take a link. What about the authors? Suggest using the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter.

Added the amp parameter. Why duplink journals in citations, though? FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• #19: November 6, 2012, not just 2012. Smithsonian Magazine can take a link. Is the publisher "Smithsonian Magazine", or Smithsonian Institution? Riley Black could, perhaps, stand a red link, although looks like there's some history there.

Added date and linked Smithsonian Institution. Not sure if Riley Black will turn blue again, so I think it can wait in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• #20: Palaeontology can take a link.

Avoided as duplink. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• #21: Holtz Jr. can take another link. 12 January 2012, not 2011. What is this thing?

It's an online appendix to the book that is currently ref 27. It basically has some additional size estimates and other odds and end, should count as self published by a topic expert. I've changed the date and the too specific title (what it was called from where I copied it from). FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• #22: Princeton University Press can take a link, and a location. Gregory S. Paul can take a link. Should be "2nd ed.", not "Second ed." Needs an en dash, not a hyphen.

Linked publisher, added nd, and en dash. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• #23: ISBN should be hyphenated.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• #24: Acta Palaeontologica Polonica and Octávio Mateus can take links. Suggest using the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter.

Linked journal, added amp, and added strangely missing page numbers. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• #25: Palaeontologia Electronica can take a link. Suggest using the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter.

Linked and amped, added missing page numbers (the html version has no pages). FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• #26: Suggest using the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter.

Added amp. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• #27: Holtz Jr. and Random House can take links.

Linked Random House, but would like discussion of the author names. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• #28: Elsevier Science can take a link and location.

Changed to Cambridge University Press, seems only the online version is Elsevier. Added location. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• #29: Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie - Abhandlungen can take a link. Any of the authors, too? Suggest using the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter.

Added amp and journal link. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• #30: Suggest using the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter. Can any authors/editors take a link? Should be "2nd ed.", not "2 ed." University of California Press and The Dinosauria can take links.

Added amp and 2nd, but the rest would be dulinks it seems. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

This version looked at. FunkMonk, one or two (or three dozen) comments above, but they're all minor. The one more significant comment is that a lot of sources are cited without any indication of what the relevant page(s) are. If someone wants to check out source #51, which of the 57 pages should they be looking at? I would normally use pin cites (i.e., separate "References" and "Bibliography" sections, like in The Colossus of Rhodes (Dalí)), but here it make more sense to use the style of cite that looks like "ARTICLE TEXT.^[15]:24–26". --Usernameunique (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that probably comes back to the old discussion about whether journal articles need more specific page ranges, I think there is an upper limit to what should be accepted, and in some of these cases only some of the pages are needed, so I've substantially cut the one you mentioned (I guess you meant #15?) and some others. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

All responded to now, did most, except the duplink issues. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Pali-Aike volcanic field

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a volcanic field in southernmost Argentina and Chile, which was active until the last few thousands of years. It features numerous lakes - including Laguna Potrok Aike where paleoclimatic research has been carried out - and caves, which were inhabited by the earliest people of the region. Editorial note: I've been sparing with archeological and paleoclimatological details in this article as it's mainly about the volcanic aspects. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Some images are missing alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria:I think I got them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Opabinia

• Any chance of a map, other than clicking through the coordinates link?
• The top image is pretty, but it's a little hard to see the texture at thumbnail size. The lead is fairly short and you're not constrained by infobox width, so displaying the image wider seems like a good use of space.

  Added an infobox with a map. I figure one might add an El Tatio like map instead, if people prefer that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  You mean like this one? No preference for me, I like either one. It took me a surprisingly long time on first look to realize just how far south this was. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• I know nothing about volcanoes, so it's not surprising I think the lead is a little jargon-heavy. Brief explanations of some of the relevant terms would help, especially readers on mobile who can't use popups to get a quick look at a linked term. Particularly "...pyroclastic cones, scoria cones, maars and associated lava flows. These vents..." - so all those are types of vents? Or they form at/as a result of vents?

  Added some footnotes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Humans have lived there for thousands of years, does anyone live there now? Later in the article sheep farming is mentioned, is it anyone's residence or just a farm area? Even though the article is not focused on human habitation, I think that material is a little thin overall, and it's not clear if that's lack of sources or an editorial choice. Even brief mention of which indigenous groups lived in the area (whoever spoke Tehuelche?) would be useful. Down in the human history section there's some passive voice (eg "...were used as red pigments") but not who did those things. Is that known?

  As far as I know the area is currently uninhabited, although people do come there. The dearth of archaeological information is a bit an editorial choice - this is an article about the volcano rather than its caves and archeological information could quickly overwhelm the article if I were to cover it comprehensively. Incidentally, I looked at some of the sources discussing pigments and lithics and didn't find much discussion on who used them, only the implications for the first peopling of the Americas. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  Seems like some of what I was thinking of is actually covered in Fell Cave now that I've looked at it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• The size of the field isn't mentioned till the "Local" section. The lead is pretty short and has room to be expanded with a few more details like this - eg size and number of vents, proximity of cities, current human activities in the area, presence of the national park.

  Added it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Consider splitting up the body into smaller sections with more specific headers. Again thinking of reading on mobile, where you don't get a nested TOC and only have the top-level headers to decide which sections to read. Currently there's "Geology and structure" followed by "Geology", which doesn't say much about what's in those sections or what's different about them.

  That section needed a better name, which I've done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Consider moving that first paragraph of the "Regional" section to its own section. This is the only part that's primarily about where this place is in relation to human activities (border locations, cities, roads, etc) rather than geological features.

  Done, but I wonder if there is a better name for "Human geography" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm sure it makes sense to a volcano expert, but to me the current organization and sectioning of the material is hard to follow. What's covered in the "Local" section feels like the basics about what it's like now, but to get there you first have to get through the "Regional" section's second paragraph that covers how it was formed - except we go back to the formation/history again at the beginning of "Geology". I don't know enough about the topic to relate these two sections; the Geology section says volcanism was only possible after "lateral spreading", but is that the same thing as the hypotheses about slab windows or slab rollback mentioned earlier? You might consider moving some paragraphs around to organize either chronologically, or by grouping the material about the current place first ("Local" and "Composition" sections) followed by the historical material on its formation and geologic record. Placing "Eruptive history" after climate also seems unexpected - this seems like a continuation of the geology material and doesn't depend on having read about climate and vegetation.

  I admit that this structure is mainly derived from Calabozos and Cerro Azul (Chile volcano) and isn't really anything special. I've moved the climate section down and swapped around "regional" and "local". I do have the slight objection that since the volcanic field isn't extinct and the geological processes still ongoing, that part needs to be part of the geology and not presented as if it were history. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  FWIW I don't get the sense from the current organization that it's not ongoing (more the opposite, in the next bullet, though that's cleaned up now :) I did have a related question, though - the eruptive history section says "The volcano was rated Argentina's 18th (out of 38) most dangerous volcano". But isn't a field multiple volcanoes? Is it a specific one that's potentially active, or is the ranking of groups? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

  No, just loose usage of "volcano" which I've replaced with "volcanic field". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Some of the text is written in the present tense and if you're skimming it gives the impression of current activity, which I don't think is the case - eg "The vents are origins of lava flows, which sometimes breach the vents."

  Yeah, that sentence and some others were oddballs; I've changed the tense. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Given that windstreak is a redlink and they're apparently uncommon on Earth, I think we need a clearer description in the article. Especially since googling the term does turn up the Mars features, but also a whole bunch of irrelevant stuff like businesses and social media accounts using that name.

  Footnoted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• What does "strongly primitive magma signature" mean?

  Yuck. The habit of sources to use the term "primitive" and "evolved" without any explanation is annoying; I've removed it completely as I can't find a good explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  Primitive magma (effectively primitive mantle) is a magma composition thought to reflect the composition of the mantle right after the formation of the Earth and is inferred from studies on chondrite meteorites. Conversely, evolved magma is magma that has changed from this initial primitive composition. This differentiation is usually a result of fractional crystallization. Such magmas will characteristically have lower MgO and/or higher SiO2 relative to primitive magmas. Maxim_(talk) 19:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Maxim:Sorry for being unclear: The problem isn't so much that I don't know what a primitive magma is, but rather that I don't have a source at hand. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• There's only one note, and it's about a fairly small point that seems like it could be integrated into the text without much trouble. With its own top-level section for this single sentence, it ends up disproportionately prominent, rather than the small side point that was presumably intended.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Do you have any numbers on temperature, precipitation, etc to add to the descriptions in the climate section? "Mild winters" and "close to Antarctica" together seem surprising. Is it mild as in "you'll need a light jacket" or "well, at least it's not Antarctica"?

  OK, this one has a source problem: Zolitschka 2006 mentions the Rio Gallegos records but also says Both mean annual temperature and annual precipitation for

the Potrok Aike meteorological station are 30–40% lower than the weather station in the coastal city of Rı ́o Gallegos. but does not mention what the Potrok Aike records are. This one does have some of these records but they are pretty incomplete and not summarized. The National Meteorological Service has apparently no records for Potrok Aike and this one lacks them too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• The phrasing "Present-day animal species on the Chilean side include..." makes it sound like the critters don't have passports and can't cross the border. Guessing this is a source issue? Maybe something like "Animal species present in the Chilean national park" or whatever makes sense to explain the source of the information.

  Yes, source issue. Thanks for that rewrite; it's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• "The vegetation is not free of human influences" - by this point in the article we know the place has been inhabited for a long time, would it be expected to be "free of human influences"? Just seems like a odd way to put it.

  Rewrote this a bit. I think that unlike say for the Maori there isn't much research on the environmental impact of early humans here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• "archeological artifacts such as obsidian" - presumably something made from obsidian? What does it mean to say use was limited? (Especially, does that mean humans didn't use their obsidian objects much, or they mostly got them from somewhere else, or the record is poor?)

  I've recast this sentence and expanded it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Category:Volcanic fields has 84 pages in it (did you write most of them? :p) - anything specific about Espenberg volcanic field that makes it an interesting see-also link? Looks like a lot of those articles are about areas closer to this one.

  That's because of they have very large maars - probably better to cover that inside the article, though? (I believe I wrote/expanded about half of the articles in Category:Volcanic fields) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  The lead mentions xenoliths and one specific maar as notable features - are large/lots of maars also noteworthy? It would be interesting to include, but I think you could also just put a note after the see also entry along the lines of "...another volcanic field with large maars" or something. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

  Xenoliths are pretty common so nothing special. I added the explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Why are the full bibliography entries in a section titled "External links"?

  Retitled. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the length, mostly small stuff on the theme of "I know nothing about volcanoes". Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis:Mostly done, thanks for going into detail though we sweat the small stuff at FA(C). For the record, this article is skimpy on paleoclimatic information (Laguna Potrok Aike has yielded a lot of such information) and archeological one (ditto for Cueva Fell and pals) because it's focused on volcanism and covering these in the full detail would likely overwhelm the article - I'd estimate that a full coverage of both would likely triple the length of the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Had a re-read and I support now, with one small nitpick that there's still one reference to "the primitiveness of the magmas" which needs some kind of context - a note or link (is this the same as primitive mantle?). Otherwise looks good to me! Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, upon rechecking the book Maxim mentioned in an email it seems like there is a vagueish definition of "primitive", which I've now footnoted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Maxim

• I made a handful of minor edits (typo fixes and similar).
• Who is the target audience of the article? My best guesses would be either (a) a layman looking to learn more by following a link from elsewhere or (b) a geologist at any level (undergraduate and upward). In the latter case, it may not be entirely comprehensive. For example, I don't think the article doesn't really go about geological significance of Pali-Aike. For example, some points that D'Orazio et al. (2000) note in their introduction that I don't think are reflected in the article:
  • Pali-Aike is located in an unusual geological setting, as it's near two different types of plate boundaries
  • There is some significance to Pali-Aike when it comes to answering broader geological questions (e.g. evolutionary model for southernmost South America, significance of continental alkaline basalts in a back-arc setting).
  • There's considerable number of citations to this paper (and other works by D'Orazio), particularly with relevance to alkaline basalts, which is suggests there is some geological "unusualness" at Pali-Aike that's not really emphasized here.
• That said, I'm interested in hearing back about the target audience. I would say it's more targeted to the layman right now, and targeting more towards geologist would need to restructure the article to emphasize the tectonic and geochemical significance of the volcanic field. Right now, I think those aspects are not treated as thoroughly, as opposed to, for example, a descriptive approach towards certain geomorphological features (as in the geography & structure section). Maxim_(talk) 15:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Maxim:It is primarily aimed at laypeople, although I think I can accomodate some of that stuff from that source. I admit that from the other sources I get the impression that back-arc volcanic fields often are a little "special" so the significance of this one might have passed over my head. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  Could it cater for both laypeople and geologists? For example could you make the lead easier (maybe by integrating the footnotes) and add more info for geologists into the body? Not sure what other reviewers think but a fourth para in the lead would be OK I guess Chidgk1 (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

  It could (but not by integrating the footnotes; they would just jumble the text. The footnotes are a compromise between adding an explanation and not having the explanation distract readers) and I've expanded some of the geological information on slab windows and why Pali-Aike is a volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Coord notes

No supports after 3 weeks. May be archived in the future if there is not progress towards promotion. (t · c) buidhe 20:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis and Maxim:. Also, buidhe I take it is fine to ping the people who worked on my past FACses? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is fine to hit up anyone for reviews assuming you ask for a review (as opposed to support). (t · c) buidhe 20:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Done for all of them who partook in my last two FACses. Wrote something slightly different for Femkemilene because of the topic of our last conversation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to give it a re-read from the top this weekend, but got wrapped up in end-of-year stuff at work. Give me till Friday? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Chidgk1

• the location map is useful - you could also consider adding a larger scale map

  Replaced it with a larger scale map; I am not sure how to embed multiple ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• add a diagram to show how the field is formed - I am confused about where the 4 plates are and how a "back arc" can still be active - maybe because the subducted part is at such a shallow angle? Pretty sure I can't support without a diagram.

  Added a map of the plates. I don't think there is a graphical depiction of how the field arose, let alone one out of copyright. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for fixing the other stuff so quickly but I am still confused by the text about how the field arose. I think the first step should be to crop the map so it only shows the 4 plates involved. Then rewrite the text in terms of those plates - at the moment it is not clear how the "Deseado and Magallanes-Fagnano faults" are involved. And I think the Chile Rise and the Peru-Chile Trench should be labelled on the plate map. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

  Put a request for these changes Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

  Great - so while we await that can I ask how much each fault influences the volcanoes? And does "lateral spreading" mean one of the faults got wider so spread further north? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

  Is the name of the penisula important or instead of "since moved northward towards the Taitao Peninsula" could we say "since moved northward along the coast"? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

  The latter ("since moved northward along the coast") works. As far as I can tell, the Deseado and Magallanes-Fagnano fault systems are too far south of Pali-Aike to influence volcanism, but the extensional tectonics may stretch that far north. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

  So pretty much all the volcanism in the field in geologically recent times is because of the "Peru-Chile Trench", but the Chile Rise caused some in the past? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

  The Chile Ridge article has some diagrams but I still don't understand slab window. Do we need to understand "slab window"? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

  No, the point is precisely that while most volcanoes there are due to the trench, Pali-Aike isn't or only indirectly. Regarding "slab window" there is File:Slab window cross-section.png but I wonder where the information comes from, Candyyeung168? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Decades ago in geography class at school we learnt about plates and volcanoes due to subduction but nothing about back-arcs, triple points, slab windows or anything complicated. Could you explain in simple high school language how Pali-Aike was formed and what keeps it active? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  When the downgoing plate splits apart in the mantle - along a seam parallel to the trench - and a gap opens up, this is called a "slab window". Mantle located beneath the gap can ascend through this gap and if there are weaknesses in the crust above the window, magma can ascend to the surface. Î've put in a "Cause of volcanism" section, does it make this clearer? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yes thanks useful section - I am beginning to understand. But the flashback in time sentence starting "8-6 million years ago ..." is still confusing me - why do we jump back in time rather than describing chronologically? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Because it would be out of sequence with the content - you'd end up with a discussion on slab windows, then one about tectonic regimen, then slab windows again. Perhaps that's a price worth paying, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• translate titles of foreign language cites to trans-title parameter

  Done but I am not sure that I translated "marcha blanca" correctly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• maybe don't use "province" in second sentence as reader not sure some special geological meaning - if special geological meaning link - would "group" or "line" be right?

  Went for "family", as the other two terms imply a small extent or a linear distribution, respectively. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• "underground components of now-eroded volcanic edifices" - would "formerly underground components of now-eroded volcanoes" be better?

  Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• "does "emplaced" have some special meaning?

  No, it just means "volcanic activity put it there". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• "rugose" is a very rare word - could we just say "wrinkled"?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know Spanish but might "The actual Andean volcanic arc ...." be a mistranslation? Should it be "The current Andean volcanic arc ..."? I mean has this field moved east from the Andes?

  No, that's correct. The Andean volcanic arc does not include every single volcano in the region, even if many people mistakenly include Pali-Aike in it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Words linked in the lead can be linked again on first occurrence of similar word in the body text - like "paleoclimatological"

  I am not sure that this is strictly necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Chidgk1 (talk) 12:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh

• "over a Jurassic basin"; "atop Tertiary sediments"; "Antarctic Plate subducts"; etc. — try to avoid linking two adjacent words

  Done, but couldn't get a good separation for "Patagonian back-arc", "Antarctic Plate subducts" and "ultramafic xenoliths". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "about 467" — I'd have written it as "approximately 467"

  Dine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Unusually for Argentine volcanoes, Pali-Aike volcanoes are fairly close to urban areas" — volcanoes are close to urban areas or urban areas are close to volcanoes. I'd assume that urban areas were formed long after the volcanoes.

  Picked the first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• The lead says that Rio Gallegos is within 23 kilometres of the volcanic field, but the prose says that it is within 23–30 kilometres ...

  Rewrote this one; two sources disagree on the exact distance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Gay and Philippi hills" — single term, or they are two separate hills? same with "Fell and Negro"

  Two separate hills; I am not sure how to make this clear. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  No issues, I got confused as the article doesn't follow Oxford comma, but as it is consistent, no issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• " 8 kilometres (5.0 mi)." — why ".0"? We have "(93 mi)", "(14 mi)", but they don't have a decimal.

  Solved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Some serious over-linking here: lava flows, pyroclastic cone, Maars, magma, Tertiary, Peru-Chile Trench, Austral Volcanic Zone, Antarctic Plate, Chile Rise, Peru-Chile Trench, Magallanes-Fagnano faults, etc., etc., all are over-linked. If you don't already have, I recommend adding User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js to your commons.js page.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Laguna Potrok Aike" — our article calls it just "Potrok Aike"

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Windstreaks are an uncommon occurrence on Earth; they are much more common on Mars." — important to mention?

  Yes, because that's a somewhat unique trait of this volcanic field that has been highlighted by sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Patagonia is a region where four tectonic plates, the" → "Patagonia is a region where four tectonic plates: the"

  I don't think that would be correct grammar, as it'd be lacking a verb afterwards. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "for so-called "cratonic" Patagonian" — either missing full-stop, or accidental capitalization

  No, it's correct; Patagonian as an attribute is capitalized here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "8-6 million years ago," — that should be en-dash

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Peru-Chile Trench", "Potassium-argon dating", etc. — shouldn't that be en-dash

  I think so and I've done so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "millimetres per year" v. "in/year" (emphasis mine in both)

  Sorry, but I don't see them? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  one has "per year" and second has "/year". Choose either one of those. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, that. Seems like something that Template:Convert does; I don't see a fix on its documentation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• A lot of words are linked in #Climate, vegetation and fauna, but I doubt whether there is any way to avoid this

  Yeah, I don't think it would be practical to unlink here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Pali Aike National Park" v. "Pali-Aike National Park" (emphasis mine) — consistency needed

  Standardized. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

That is on a quick read. Sorry, but aside these inconsistencies and over-linking, as a causal reader, I found the article a bit difficult for me to understand. There are many technical terms, even in the lead, which, while linked, doesn't really help the reader. Can we simplify it? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Done to here. I've footnoted many of the technical terms but it will be difficult to dispense with them altogether, as many cannot be readily replaced with synonyms w/o either including inaccuracies or distracting people with an explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks better, will take another look in a day or two. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Will do one, either today or tomorrow. Recusing as coordinator. Hog Farm _Talk 15:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

So sorry I'm not now getting to this - was way busier this weekend than expected.

• ""Xenolith". Dictionary of Geotourism. Springer: 695–695. 2020. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-2538-0_2806." - I may be reading this wrong, but is 695-695 indicating that only p. 695 is being cited? If so, why the range?
• "Structural Basin". Dictionary of Geotourism. Springer: 589–589. 2020. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-2538-0_2362." - same comment as for above one

  Both done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• " Brož, Petr (2021). "Pyroclastic Cone". Encyclopedia of Planetary Landforms. Springer. pp. 1–6. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-9213-9_283-1. ISBN 978-1-4614-9213-9." - only getting the preview to this source but it seems to be giving a date of 2014?

  The link says 2015, for the record. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Cañón-Tapia, Edgardo (1 October 2021)" - Link Earth-Science Reviews

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Rodriguez, J. A. P.; Zimbelman, J. R.; Kargel, J. S.; Tanaka, K. L.; Yamamoto, A.; Sasaki, S. (1 March 2008). "The Pali Aike Windstreak Field, Southern Patagonia, Argentina". Lunar and Planetary Science Conference. 39 (1391): 1518. Bibcode:2008LPI....39.1518R." - Link publisher of Lunar and Planetary Science Conference

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Some of the book sources seem to include the location and the publisher, others only the publisher, recommend standardization

  Standardized to not using locations except for conferences. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Recommend going through and linking publishers - examples include Tectonophysics (journal), Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, etc.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, all sources are reliable.

Hog Farm _Talk 21:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Battle of St. Charles

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 19:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

After a Union army gets bogged down without a supply line in northern Arkansas, a mixed navy and army force moves upriver to resupply them. During a brief action with Confederate fortifications on the bluffs above the river, a stray shot hits one of the Union ships in the boiler, horrifically killing or injuring almost everyone aboard with scalding steam. The Confederates are flushed out, but low water levels keep the ships from successfully resupplying the Union army in northern Arkansas, which eventually extricates itself on its own. Hog Farm _Talk 19:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the battlefield map. There's also a MOS:COLOUR issue with that map - the two line shades are quite close, and there are multiple regions that have a colour that could be called "green"
  • I've got no way of fixing the MOS:COLOR issue, so I've swapped it out with a photograph of the battlefield itself
    • The new image is fine license-wise, but less useful - maybe try Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Placed a request there. Hog Farm _Talk 05:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
        • @Nikkimaria: - An improved version of the map has been added in, is this one better? Hog Farm _Talk 17:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
          • Better, but could the caption be expanded to better explain what the different areas are? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
            • Done. Hog Farm _Talk 21:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
              • Is "red circle" meant to refer to that button-like thing by St Charles, or the larger red shape? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
                • Specified "red circle within the yellow zone", the layers of color detail on this map are hard for me to describe in words. Hog Farm _Talk 04:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Alt text added, @Nikkimaria: Hog Farm _Talk 05:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Query by WereSpielChequers

Nicely written. Have you considered breaking Battle_of_St._Charles#Kilty_moves_up_the_White into two sections, Union and Confederate actions in the lead up to the battle? In the current format the second paragraph starts "meanwhile", but then talks of dates preceding the first paragraph. ϢereSpielChequers 15:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: - Thanks for taking a look at this! I've generally rejigged that region of the article to have one section for Union movements, and the other for the Confederates. Hog Farm _Talk 07:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Hog Farm, "Fry demanded that the remaining Union sailors aboard to surrender" reads awkwardly to me, I was thinking of removing the "to" but hesitated as this might for all I know be an American English thing. however wouldn't "Fry offered the remaining Union sailors aboard the chance to surrender" be a more normal phrasing for this situation? Afterall they were combatants who hadn't hoist a white flag, and he wasn't in a position to know that he was firing at a boat full of dead and dying men.

I've removed the "to", as it was an error. I've also tried to clarify in the text that it was fairly obvious the ship was a wreck, with scalded men on the decks and steam billowing out of all orifices. The source does refer to Fry's statement as a demand. Also clarified that Fry's firing order was to shoot at those trying to swim away in the river Hog Farm _Talk 18:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

That's better. Firing at men who are swimming from a wreck is clearly worse than firing at a damged ship that hasn't surrendered. ϢereSpielChequers 20:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it might be worth mentioning that unusually for US Civil War actions the dead of both sides are listed on the memorial. ϢereSpielChequers 10:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Added (sorry it took so long to get to this) Hog Farm _Talk 04:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

" those that were armed had only single-shot pistols that had already been emptied at Mound City's survivors." Such guns take a little time to reload, but had this all happened so quickly that people couldn't reload? ϢereSpielChequers 20:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Per the Barnhart source, there hadn't been time to reload, so clarified using that. Hog Farm _Talk 04:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "to attack the works on land". Most readers won't understand "works". Maybe stick with 'fortifications'? And elsewhere in the text.
  • Done, using a variety of synonyms
• "A small offensive across the Little Red on May 27 was successful, but lack of supplies forced Curtis to withdraw back across both rivers". What is the second river?
  • The White and the Little Red. Clarified
• Any chance of what an "ironclad" and a "timberclad" were? Maybe "steamboat" and "ram" too. Even a brief operational history of the river war 1861-1862?
  • I've footnoted an explanation of ironclad vs timberclad. I would assume that what a ram was should be fairly obvious based on the name. Steamboat I'm not sure about - My guess is that it's a pretty widely-known term in the United States, not sure how well known elsewhere. I've added a brief synopsis of the general bit of river warfare relevant to here - mainly the Union push down the river and capturing beyond Memphis.
• A campaign box with a single article in it strikes me as less than useful.
  • Thought so, too - see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_18#Template:Campaignbox_Quantrill's_Raid_into_Kansas from back when that campaignbox only had the Lawrence Massacre link. I'm not entirely a fan of how the ACW campaignboxes are often organized Don't get me started on Template:Campaignbox Operations North of Boston Mountains - if you can come up with a reason why Battle of Kirksville and Battle of Old Fort Wayne are grouped together, you're doing better than I am. Hog Farm _Talk 19:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• "and a third piece". Piece of what?
  • Clarified it as "artillery piece", is this still too much jargon?
• Link sharpshooters.
  • Done
• Could we have an in line explanation of steam drum? Given the role it plays.
  • This was harder to find a decent source for that I expected, but done
• "Fry had the lower battery abandoned and its guns spiked". Maybe put the events into chronological order.
  • Done
• Battery is duplinked.
  • Fixed
• Maybe an in line explanation of "spiked", as it crops up several times.
  • Done

That's all from me. Nice one. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: - Sorry it took me so long here. I've tried to implement almost everything, although the synopsis of the river warfare going on can almost certainly be done better - I was having trouble coming up with where to put it. Hog Farm _Talk 05:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Funk

• Marking my spot. At first glance, Memphis is duplinked. FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Good catch. Removed the second link. Hog Farm _Talk 05:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• Link more terms and names in image captions?
  • I've linked the St. Louis and the White River. I've also linked the places within the pushpin map, although the way the map works you have to click on the red dot instead of the name.
• Add "killed" after "c. 160" under union casualties for clarity? It is a bit ambiguous now because the confederacy casualties are broken down in categories.
  • It's killed and wounded combined, as the sources don't make a good breakdown for the Union losses, so I've specified that it's c. 160 killed and wounded
• Perhaps the first map need a caption? At first glance at the article, I'm not really sure what to focus on in the map, so some direction would be nice.
  • I've added one, does it make the purpose of the map sufficiently clear?

Yep. FunkMonk (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• "some of the Union soldiers were murdered while attempting to surrender." Murdered seems a little strong in the context of war, executed? Or what does the source say?
  • Source uses the word "murdered", I've also clarified that the killings involved wounded men as well. (Many at the time would have considered this an atrocity due to the Victorian-era general law of war)
• "it was to actually transport the supplies that would go to Curtis." Why "actually"?
  • Not sure. Removed
• Since the last part of the article looks a bit empty, perhaps show the monument for the battle?
  • @Nikkimaria: - Even though there's no FOP in the United States, surely File:St. Charles Battle Monument, 2 of 4.JPG would be fine because the sculpture should be PD via being placed in 1919? Hog Farm _Talk 21:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Yep, just needs tagging for that. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
      • @Nikkimaria: - Is there a specific underlying work tag, or will just the standard published prior to 1925 tag suffice? Hog Farm _Talk 05:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
        • The latter, with a source on the image description page confirming publication date. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
          • @FunkMonk: - This is done now. Thanks for the review! Hog Farm _Talk 05:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• The shooting of the fleeing wounded men seems pretty horrific, was there any consequences to this other than just imprisonment?
  • Not really. Fry talked his way out of trouble and was later exchanged (he was incidentally executed by the Spanish after the war for an unrelated incident involving a revolution in Cuba)
• Support - everything looks neat to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• Given the different casualty counts reported in text, how did you decide on the specific figures in the infobox?
  • I've removed these from the infobox. For the Confederates - the 29 + Fry captured isn't really debated, and the 8 killed is corroborated both by Christ's statement and the burial of the dead (Hindman's statement can be ignored here, as the officially reported numbers for battles in this war were often wrong, especially given that Hindman wasn't even present at this battle). Kennedy doesn't give specific details, but with her number of ~40, there's not enough room for 30 captured + 8 dead + Christ's number of 24 wounded. For the Union, sources mainly focus on the loss solely on Mound City, so there's not much to compare to Kennedy's statement of ~160. Hog Farm _Talk 21:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• FN1: perhaps it's a date formatting issue, but I don't think that date matches the source?
  • Appears to have been a typographic error of 12/13 instead of 12/03
• Given Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_168#historynet.com, what makes HistoryNet a high-quality reliable source?
  • This is actually a copy of a piece originally published in the Civil War Times, a respected and long-running magazine in this area. In the linked discussion, Carrite points to a list of magazines related to historynet that are reliable, and CWT is one of them. (historynet.com and CWT both seem to be owned now by Weider, so this isn't a COPYLINK issue, either). The author Barnhart has been repeatedly published in sources such as CWT and America's Civil War on the topic of naval actions in the American Civil War. I think this particular piece is usable for the subject at hand. Hog Farm _Talk 21:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• How are you ordering Sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Assuming that's a reference to Shea being listed above McPherson; I've corrected that

@Nikkimaria: - Are these sourcing-related items okay, or do I need to make additional changes here? For spot-checking purposes, I can provide scans for all the print sources except Shea 1994, which is back at the library. Hog Farm _Talk 19:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

These look fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Fearless (Taylor Swift album)

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Ignore this part if you do not care about pop culture—POV: it's 2009 and you turn on the radio. After some electronic Gaga-esque songs, you hear acoustic guitars and mandolins? It is so cheesy, but you can't resist the adrenaline rush of the refrain, "Romeo take me somewhere we can be alone," and you begin singing along. One night you tune in for the VMAs because pop culture is fun. Some moderately attractive blonde girl is speaking, and out-of-nowhere Kanye West snatches her mic and says, "Yo Taylor, I'll let you finish but—" Oh, snap, grab your popcorn fast. But your attention is now wholly on that blonde girl: Taylor Swift. You realise she is the author of that cheesy guitar-mandolin-whatever tune. Damn it, you listen to the whole album, and you find the songs insanely catchy with beefy hooks that engrave in your brain.

Main point: this article is about the 2008 album by Taylor Swift when she was a country music goody-two-cowboy-boots. Although it contains skippable cookie-cutters and Swift's below average vocals, it offers a mildly pleasant listen. After an extensive GAN and a thorough copyedit, I nominate this article for FAC candidacy, believing it satisfies the criteria. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Source Review by Guerillero (pass)

• @TheSandDoctor, HĐ, FrB.TG, and IndianBio: If the Swifties who have written an FA about her work in the past think this is close, I will do the source review --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Guerillero: Thanks for the ping. Go ahead. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Why are these high quality reliable sources?

• https://www.musicomh.com/reviews/albums/taylor-swift-fearless
  • One of Metacritic's critic sites [18], was mentioned in the Independent and Daily Telegraph as one of the music review sites among BBC and The Quietus [19] [20]. Ippantekina (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

    Perfect, withdrawn --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• http://www.countryaircheck.com/pdf_publication/Issue_106%20-%20Sept.%208,%202008.pdf
  • A Nashville-based trade magazine. According to their About Us, the founder had had 23 years as an industry insider for Radio & Records, specifying in country music. Their board members include members of the Country Music Association, and the Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum. Ippantekina (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

    Thank you! Withdrawn--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• https://www.songwriteruniverse.com/taylorswift123.htm
• https://web.archive.org/web/20110929103301/http://www.unratedmagazine.com/Document.cfm?Page=Articles%2Findex.cfm&Article_ID=495
• https://web.archive.org/web/20110724085733/http://www.insidevandy.com/drupal/node/3322
  • These three links are interviews with Swift. The first two are independent webzines, and the last is a student magazine. They are not reliable for musical criticism, but in the context of reviews, they are acceptable. Ippantekina (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• https://web.archive.org/web/20091220121726/http://blog.gactv.com/blog/2009/12/17/taylor-swift-%E2%80%9Cfearless%E2%80%9D-ly-sets-a-new-precedent
  • A news site by GAC Family. Ippantekina (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I am still uncomfortable with this one. Is it possible to replace it? --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes, I replaced it with the Spencer book ref. Ippantekina (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• • It is more or less a blog and the author seems to have done little other work --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

    • • I replaced it with the Spencer book ref. Ippantekina (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

You cover the popular press, but there is little mention of academic work. What did you do to make sure that this article is comprehensive? --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Much of the material I found through Google Scholar are either self-published sources (dissertations, theses) or re-published news articles. I used the Wikipedia Library Platform but most sources discuss Swift's career in general. The most comprehensive one I have found so far is the Spencer book which discusses much of the album's conception and recording. Regarding the album's content and impact, the popular press is comprehensive enough to give readers how significant this album is. Trusted music critics such as Jody Rosen or Jon Pareles are, I believe, on par with academic sources. Ippantekina (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• The source review is a pass. Ready for spot checks --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from TheSandDoctor

Overall I think that this is okay, but have one point here:

• Can we define what the ""Triple Crown" of country music" is? I linked to Academy_of_Country_Music_Awards#Triple-Crown_Award as it was the only thing I could find, but she isn't listed there? We need to confirm this and define (or link to) whatever it is because, as it stands, I have absolutely no idea what this is talking about.

Otherwise I think it looks okay. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• • I tried to figure out what Billboard means by "Triple Crown" but it is not the same as the Triple Crown Award by the ACM. Since Billboard is the only source discussing this type of "Triple Crown" (three top prizes for a country album by the ACM, CMA, and Grammys), I removed it as it is potentially UNDUE. Ippantekina (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: Thank you for removing that. I support this nomination. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support. Ippantekina (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Image and media review (pass)

Unfortunately, I will not be able to do a full prose review of the article, but I will look through the images and media. Apologies for that. My comments are below:

• File:Taylor Swift - Fearless.png: The cover has a completed WP:FUR, appropriate WP:ALT text, and a clear purpose in the article.
• File:Colbie Caillat playing in Paradiso, Amsterdam 03.jpg: The image has a clear purpose in the article since it is situated next to information about Caillat and Swift. It also has clear ALT text. The source link is active and the licensing seems clear to me.
• File:FifteenSample.ogg: I am uncertain if this audio sample is entirely necessary. I've been told to keep non-free media to a minimal and only to use it for instances where it illustrates a point that cannot be conveyed through the prose alone. The audio sample is currently being used to discuss a common theme through the album's lyrics, and I believe readers can understand that just by reading the prose.
• File:You Belong with Me by Taylor Swift.ogg: By comparison to the above, this audio sample has a clearer purpose as readers may not be familiar with these genres and sounds so it adds a better understanding to the topic that cannot be accomplished with just prose. The WP:FUR is complete. For the timed text, I'd recommend adding text for the instrumental part (something as simple as instrumental would work) as I honestly thought the timed text was just not working when I first listened to it.
• File:Taylor Swift at 2009 MTV VMA's 2.jpg: The source link works and I trust the licensing. It has clear ALT text and a clear purpose in the article.
• File:Taylor Swift Fearless Tour 03.jpg: The source link works and I trust the licensing. It has clear ALT text and a clear purpose in the article. It is a good image choice as it fits the space allotted without crossing over into the other section headings (at least in my view of the article).

My only real issue is with the "Fifteen" audio sample. It's a great song, but I do not see a strong rationale for its inclusion. I have a minor suggestion for the "You Belong with Me" audio sample, but it is super, super nitpick-y. I hope this is helpful, and have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the image review. I have tweaked the TimedText to "You Belong with Me". I believe a sample for "Fifteen" should be included because many critics singled out that song in Fearless album reviews. A 21-second sample does not do justice to the very intricate narrative, but a glimpse of it, through this sample, is pretty sufficient (the opening line "Abigail gave everything she had to a boy who changed his mind" is pretty striking, don't you think?) Ippantekina (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the instrumental part to "You Belong with Me". I am still somewhat on the fence with "Fifteen". I do not think lyrics alone is a great rationale, but I can see how an audio sample would help readers to better understand how these themes are explored and performed in the song rather than by just reading it. For that reason, the audio sample works for me. This FAC passes my source and media review. Best of luck with the FAC! Taylor Swift is very well represented on Wikipedia because of editors like you. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your image/file review. Should other editors deem the "Fifteen" rationale too weak, I shall remove it. Ippantekina (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Aoba on the "Fifteen" sample. The FUR implies that it is used mostly for its lyrics, which is replaceable with text and therefore fails WP:NFCC#1. (t · c) buidhe 05:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I was uncertain if I was being overly harsh with my comments. Aoba47 (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I added a review from Jody Rosen which is quite significant. Though it does not reappear in the prose, I believe it justifies its inclusion here. @Aoba47: @Buidhe: I removed the "Fifteen" sample and included another for "The Way I Loved You". I believe its use is justified by the critical discussion on its sound and instrumentation. Ippantekina (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Apologies for the delay in my response. I am not convinced "The Way I Loved You" sample works for this article. The caption is about this specific song, when it would be more ideal to have a sample that would better illustrate something that is more representative of the album as a whole. For instance, I could see a sample for "White Horse" and "You're Not Sorry" to better illustrate this point, "a more balladic production also feature pop hooks", but that is just a suggestion. I also preferred the "Exemplifying Fearless's sound," part of the original "You Belong with Me" caption as that was what really solidified its purpose in the article for me. I am pinging @Buidhe: to get their opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• Pinging @Ippantekina: in case they missed my response. Aoba47 (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the ping. I removed the bit "Exemplifying Fearless's sound" because it comes off as OR. I believe any cut on this album can be used to demonstrate the pop hooks, but "The Way I Loved You" works specifically because Perone's commentary links it to a genre (seemingly) disparate to country, plus the guitar in the sample is close to what Perone described, unlike a sample of "White Horse" or "You're Not Sorry", which, if used to demonstrate the pop hooks, is rather vague. Ippantekina (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Ippantekina: My issue with both audio samples is they are about the individual songs and are not being used to represent something about the album as a whole. If "Exemplifying Fearless's sound" is not supported by citations, it should not be in the caption, but that was the part that justified its inclusion the most to me. Unless Perone contrasts grunge and country, that comparison could also fall into OR. The "White Horse" or "You're Not Sorry" part was only a suggestion, and I agree that it's weak, but upon further review, neither audio sample has a particularly strong rationale for an album article, and seem more geared to a song article instead. Apologies for the double ping @Buidhe:. Just wanted to get their opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  The way the NFCC is written is to err on the side of non-inclusion of non-free content if we can't find a strong justification for why it's important to reader understanding. I mean, any of our readers can just go over to youtube to listen to the music so I don't see any audio files as essential in this case. (t · c) buidhe 16:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for the response. From my experience, I've always been told to only use audio samples in album articles if they somehow represent something about the album as a whole (such as genre, instruments, etc. that would benefit from sound rather than just prose alone). I think audio samples can be helpful, but I believe a stronger case would be necessary here for both. I think it is possible though. Aoba47 (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree readers can go directly to YouTube to find music, but as a reader I do expect an album article to contain one or two samples to get a rough idea of what the album sounds like/talks about (this is my personal viewpoint, I am uncertain what other readers expect in samples in an album article). Because this album is consistent throughout, as discussed in the prose, any sample could work to represent the album's sound, but if two samples are too much, I shall cut it down to one. Ippantekina (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

My issue is not the amount of audio samples, but the rationale for them. Neither of them are used to represent something about the album as a whole. I appreciate (and frankly prefer) audio sample(s) in articles for albums and songs. I have used two audio samples in album articles before. It's just the rationale here that needs further work. 02:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I understand. As I said because this album is consistent throughout, any song could work, so no specific song really stands out. Ippantekina (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd look for instances when critics point out a specific song when discussing larger trends on the album. I'd imagine given the coverage on the album, that critics have done something similar to this, such as discussing a genre that recurs through the album, certain instruments, or even the way Swift sings. However, if you cannot find instances of this, I'd remove both audio samples (which I agree would be less than ideal). Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Then both would qualify per your descriptions because the samples features electric guitars in the bridge - which critics highlighted as a major point of the Fearless songs (intertwined with dynamic electric guitar and strings in the build-up; a dramatic bridge that recurs on each track. The captions only mention what is said about the tracks, but they do give an insight into the album's sound as discussed. Ippantekina (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• That sounds like a good idea to me. To be clear, I was never against having audio samples in this article. The point about the electric guitars in the bridge is good and would justify an audio sample in my opinion. It would not be necessary to have two audio samples to illustrate this point though, but you could look for a different rationale for the second one. Aoba47 (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Revised. Thank you for your comments. Ippantekina (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• It's still not quite there yet. The caption does not clearly define that "The Way I Loved You" has these country music instruments and electric guitars. The first sentence seems more like a general one just added to the caption, and it is not clearly related to the song. I would go for the following or something similar: James E. Perone commented that the distorted electric guitars in "The Way I Loved You" were influenced by grunge. According to critics, songs throughout Fearless also feature electrical guitars and have influences from genres other than country music. I think that would more clearly define how "The Way I Loved You" is being used to say something about the album as the whole (i.e. it represents how the album uses these electrical guitars and genres outside of country music). Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• That's a good idea. I revised the caption per your suggestion. Ippantekina (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. Thank you for your patience. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hurricanehink

Just some minor notes:

• ”and has sold twelve million copies sold worldwide.” - as of?
• ”The album won Album of the Year” - I suggest “Fearless won Album of the Year” to avoid saying album twice in such close succession.
• ”Released on October 24, 2006, it was the longest-charting album on the US Billboard 200 of the 2000s.” - I suggest linking 2000s to the decade, so it’s a bit clearer you’re referring to the decade, and presumably not the ongoing millennium.
• ”"The Best Day" is Fearless's most understated track, featuring a stripped-down production accompanied by guitar strums.” - most understated feels a bit POV to me. Maybe just “The Best Day features stripped down production…”?
• Ah Kanyegate. Good way of mentioning it without going into too much detail.
• ”This made Fearless the first album since Bruce Springsteen's Born in the U.S.A. (1984) to have five top-ten hits with none reaching number one.” - that seems important enough to be in plain text and not a note, IMO, but no biggie.

These comments are all fairly small. Having read the article with a critical lens, I wanted to find something to oppose the article’s candidacy over, but my comments are quibbles, and I’m sure quite easy to fix/address. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and comments. I have addressed them all except the final one; I believe the section should prioritise Fearless alone, that's why I left the Bruce Springsteen comparison in the note. Ippantekina (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

That's fair! Thanks for the quick reply. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

Article meets my standards for a featured article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your support! Ippantekina (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

• Out of curiosity, is it known when in 2007 Taylor started recording this album? If not, then I'd just go with "2007–2008" for the infobox as it looks awkward and incomplete to only use a month for one of these years in the range and not the other.
• In the lead, starting three consecutive sentences with "the" feels repetitive
• No need to link commonly recognized terms like "CD", "imagery", "music critics", "re-recording", "record producer", "promotional single", "singles", "lead single", "download", and "streaming" per WP:OVERLINK

• Some links are helpful IMO; linking music critics to music journalism, for example, differentiates the modern critic from the classical "critic" (in a more academic sense). "Streaming" is a relatively new phenomenon and some older (whoops) readers may not be well informed. Ditto "re-recording" (thanks to Swift this is gaining traction) and "imagery" (I have seen this word being incorrectly used). Otherwise I will remove the other links. Ippantekina (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced linking critics is so beneficial. People probably know what types of reviewers are meant. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• The use of "formulaic" from "the formulaic production" carries a negative connotation, so I'd rework that bit
• I don't recommend altering quotes as you've done with "best first date that [she hadn't] been on yet"; it feels like a deceptive presentation. Just go with what the source actually says, which is "best first date that I haven't been on yet".
• Even though it's clear what you're trying to do with "the romantic themes of Taylor Swift, Swift chose to write songs", using her surname twice in such quick succession doesn't read very well.
• "She started recording the album as soon as she finished touring with George Strait."..... When exactly was that? Some digging might be needed when the given link doesn't specify.
• "the original's tragic conclusion with a happy ending" is blatant POV. Yes, I know what the intent was, but that's not a valid excuse to defy Wikipedia's neutrality policy.

• What part exactly? The drama is (rightfully) a tragedy, so I am assuming you are talking about the "happy ending" part. If Swift herself said it was a happy ending, I do not think this is POV. Ippantekina (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Likewise, "has a crossover appeal" is biased phrasing.

• If virtually all critics agreed that it has a crossover appeal, I do not think this is a problem. Ippantekina (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Commercial performance" feels rather US-centric and problematically neglects to mention anything for non-English speaking nations aside from Japan and Singapore. You'll need to expand it, preferably with some non-American sales figures too that aren't just worldwide. Also, simply saying "see Taylor Swift singles discography" within a note for chart peaks feels lazy.
• "acknowledged" from "acknowledged the songs were well-written" should be changed to avoid treating an opinion like a fact. Same goes for "praised Fearless's crossover appeal" as well as "noted that Swift's weak vocals" and "acknowledged her songwriting skills".
• "proved her capability of becoming a pop star" feels like puffery
• Is anything better than "The Music Network" available for sales in Australia (which would be a good thing to add into commercial performance)? While definitely not the worst publication I can think of, it's not the strongest either and isn't affiliated with ARIA (the most authoritative source for Australian music statistics).

• If I cannot find an alternative, I will remove it. Ippantekina (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• That last paragraph talking about re-recordings doesn't feel like it fits under "Legacy". I'd recommend moving most of it to "Writing and production", and new peaks can go into "Commercial performance".

• Because the two are separate albums, I believe putting it into the main prose is confusing. I am thinking of renaming "Legacy" to "Aftermath and legacy". Ippantekina (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• In the references, don't italicize MTV News, AllMusic, Yahoo! Music, CMT News, Metacritic, CBS News, CNN, or indies.ca.

• Per WP:MOSTITLE (in the notes): "Do not abuse incorrect template parameters (e.g. by putting the work title in |publisher= or |via=) in an attempt to avoid italicizing digital sources." Sources like MTV News, CBS News or CNN are news sources so I italicise them. I am not sure about italicising AllMusic or Metacritic though. Ippantekina (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• You can use the "agency" parameter to avoid misusing italics for the publications I listed. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

That's all from me. I just made one minor change here and don't think this is too far off from being FA material. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I have responded to some above, and will proceed to work on the article within a few days. Ippantekina (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful Parliament

Nominator(s): ——Serial 18:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

A return to FAC after a year away. Where does it go, etc. But here's a thing that was brought to GA by the thorough review of T. Riley, of this parish, and should be ready for the next stage. Another—if slightly later—medieval parliament—the King wanted money, both lords and commons refused until he got rid of a few scroungers, he refused, and all hell burst out. Hey, parliament was nearly invited for dinner and poisoned by the King, how's that for a healthy political relationship? All comments, criticisms welcome; around table, we'll chew the cud. ——Serial 18:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Check caption grammar - full sentences should end in periods, others should not

• Done

• Suggest adding alt text

• Added

• File:Richard_II_of_England.jpg: source link is dead; is there a reason to have both life+70 and life+100?

• Westminster abbey changed its file name...re-sourced. Removed PD-old, left PD-US and PD-art.

• File:ThomasWoodstock.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Ditto, the above, re-pointed link. Thanks Nikkimaria, hope this finds you well. ——Serial 19:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Coord note So far this FAC has not attracted much review or any supports. If it does not get more attention in the next few days it is likely to be archived. (t · c) buidhe 00:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Goodness, is it that time already? Where does the time go? Recusing to review.

• "was an English parliamentary session" → 'was a session of the English Parliament'?
• "the King's need for money, it quickly refocussed on pressing for the reform of King Richard II's administration". Perhaps the full name at first mention, and "the King's" at second?
• "with which to invade France himself." I realise this is the lead, but consider unpacking this a little. 'to fund an army with which to ...' or 'to raise an army in order to ...' or similar maybe.
• "as he would have expected". What does this mean? If 'as he expected', why not say so?
• "houses of the Lords and Commons". You know better than me on these things, but I would have expected 'houses of Lords and Commons' or 'houses of the Lords and the Commons', not a mix.
• "who had benefited—unfairly— ..." It may be me, but who had unfairly benefited' reads better to my eye.
• "unfairly—from the King's unwarranted". Does "unfairly" and "unwarranted" not restate the same thing

Yes. Dropped unwarranted completely; technically, no patronage was unwarranted, as the distribution thereof was one of the king's primary duties (R2's real problem was the limited number of recipients of his patronage and the jealousies that inevitably raised.)

• "They demanded the earl's impeachment". "the earl" → de la Pole'.
• "sent two lords instead". In what way were these not a delegation?

Absolutely! Clarified that the king wanted a commons delegation, hence their sending lords.

• "was restricted to appointing a royal council". I don't think "restricted" is the word you want here.
• "to receive his choice of counsel". I am unsure what this means. 'to receive counsel from those of his own choosing'? (If so, you already seem to cover it with "and appoint his own ministers".
• "as to" → 'on'.

Good spot. This has enabled me to merge the two sentences into one shorter one.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for looking in Gog the Mild: I've actioned all your points ([21]), but have only replied to those I felt need explanation, if that's OK. Thanks again! ——Serial 18:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense. I shall have a look through your changes and comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

That all looks good. Onward, ever onward.

• "but had been growing in unpopularity". Maybe 'but his unpopularity had been growing'.

Check.

• "they observed with dull eyes". Nice, but what does it mean?

Ah!

• "In spite of these setbacks, parliament faced requests from the King for increased subsidies to pay for the war despite the lack of success." "In spite of these setbacks ... despite the lack of success."?

Right, dropped the duplication.

• "particularly de la Pole, the Chancellor". Is there a link for chancellor?

Ineed! Linked.

• "De la Pole has been described as a "staunch loyalist," ". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.

Named the historian, another one for WP:WIR I guess...

• "and had been elevated to the peerage as Earl of Suffolk only the previous year". Might it be of interest to give the position or station he was elevated from?

From bugger all  :) the de la Poles were the archetypal parvenus; I've added a couple of sources noting he was the first to be so.

• "Expeditionary Force". Why the upper case initials?

BEF I guess, but l/c now.

• "the immediate cause of the parliament as it was both exorbitantly expensive". This reads as if the parliament was ...

Check.

• "the King urgently needed funds to defend both the border with Scotland and the kingdom itself from both Scottish border raids and a French invasion,[13] and the absence of Gaunt probably added to the sense of panic." 1. "the sense" → 'a sense' as this is its first mention. (You may wish to expand on it though.) 2. "the kingdom itself". Delete "itself". (What else would it be?) 3. "both" is used twice; maybe tweak? 4. "defend both the border with Scotland and ... from ... Scottish border raids". Are both needed? 5. In what sense is defending "the border with Scotland" different from defending "the kingdom"? (The use of "both" suggests that there is some.)

Think I've attended to this bundle of tings Gog-utilised your phrasing suggestions, and also aded a bit about the sense of panic, with cool stuff from Wm Walsingham. Bloody Londoners!

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again Gog the Mild, actioned with this edit, see what you think. ——Serial 19:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

That all looks good.

• "attempted to limit him from elevating". Suggest "limit" → 'prevent'.

  Check.

• "that there was "an atmosphere of political crisis" was apparent to all." "was ... was". Maybe 'an atmosphere of political crisis was apparent to all.'?

  Check.

• "No successes had been achieved since the previous parliament"> Is this a reference to military successes?

  Yes; the source is slightly ambiguous (there hadn't been any political victories either! But we should keep it simple of course.)

• "His victory freed then gave him the time"?

  "His victory now gave him the time and resources".

• "and it was that invasion". Suggest "invasion" → 'army'.

  Check.

• "the Commons themselves came before the King in the House of Lords." I actually don't know what this means!

  It means I can't spell out that the King sat with the lords rather than the commons. In other news, it's pretty irrelevant, so I swapped it for more relevant stuff about de la Pole's speech (and ergo Richard's intended policies).

• "four fifteenths and two tenths". This needs explaining. Preferably in line, but at least in a note.

  Right: defined it as a "tax of movable goods" inline, added a footnote to explain more broadly.

• "appoint his councillors in parliament". What does this mean?

  Hopefully clarified (now under parliamentary oversight)

• "occultus rumor". A footnoted translation?

  Done.

• "The Lords spoke "eloquently, if fictitiously" to the King". I don't understand the "ficticiously" bit. Do you mean thy lied?

  Sir Humphrey looks pained. "We don't don't use language like that, Minister; rather, the precise correlation between the information you communicated and the facts, insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated, is such as to cause epistemological problems, of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear..."

  They didn't so much lie, as make things up! Hopefully now clarified.

• "the statute by which Edward [II] had been adjudged". Background needed. (Maybe something like 'In 1347 Edward II had been forced to abdicate under threat of having his son disinherited.')
• "a masterly piece of bad timing" which was "extraordinarily ill-judged". "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Why are you quoting anyway, rather than paraphrasing into Wikipedia's voice?

  All things being equal, I'd quite like to keep the quotes, if only to show that scholars don't just think it was a bad idea, but a really bad idea; but it involves naming three people, which is... convoluted, to say the least. H'mm.

I can't help you on that one. If you wish to keep the quotations (and I don't see why; what's wrong with 'or, as modern historians have suggested, a poorly-timed misjudgement' or similar?) I think that you are going to end with a clunky sentence.

• "PROME". "When an abbreviation will be used in an article, first introduce it using the full expression:"

  Done.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again Gog the Mild, and also for the minor copy edits you've been quietly doing en passant, always appreciated. See what you think of the latest series of edits? Cheers, ——Serial 18:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• "The King soon overturned these judgments; not only was de la Pole soon set free". "soon ... soon".

  Removed one.

• "gather together and consolidate". Synonyms?

  "consolidate and expand"?

• "More, he wanted an explicit condemnation of those he held responsible". Held responsible for what?

  For his current predicament?! Clarified who though.

• Is there a link for "attesting"?

  Then to Attestation clause we go!

• "although Saul argues that Tresilian's subsequent loyalty to the King indicates that it was Tresilian who drafted the questions, thereby turning a political controversy into a legal dispute." I am not following how "Tresilian's subsequent loyalty to the King indicat[ing] that it was Tresilian who drafted the questions" turned "a political controversy into a legal dispute". Surely it was Richard who did that?

  I think I overly condensed that to the point where the narrative suffered; I've split the sentence into three and expanded them slightly.

• "Chaucer was probably personally affected by the goings-on of the parliament". Could we specify which one?

  Yep, this one.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this Gog! ——Serial 16:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Optional: consider running notes 7 and 8 together.

  Good iea; swapped around, they fit together neatly. ——Serial 14:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

And that's all I have. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Gog, I appreciate the thorough review! Interestingly, this article has renewed my interest in all things Hundred Years War-related, so I'm off to mooch around. All the best! ——Serial 14:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Excellent. Personally I think I am coming to the end of my current run on the HYW. I am working to get Battle of Poitiers and its associated campaign to FA and then intend to take a break to work on other things. I may well come back to it, but 26 FAs on the Conflicts of Edward III seems sufficient for now. What you considering for your next? (Merciless Parliament? (I have Battle of Radcot Bridge under consideration.)) Gog the Mild (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It's funny you should mention Radcot Bridge; obviously, I glanced at it in the course of this article, and it's so bloody awful, my fingers got itchy there and then. Three lines on the battle and two massive quotes?! Incredible! As it happens, I have some sources, so. ——Serial 15:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable and are correctly formatted. 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. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Gog, this section must be overtime  :) ——Serial 15:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

I hadn't spotted this FAC until a kind Wiki-colleague drew it to my attention today. I'll be back with comments a.s.a.p. once I've given the article a proper re-reading. Tim riley talk 14:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tim riley, thanks for looking in; apologies for not pinging you in the blurb, but, the (great!) GA review was ages ago, of course, and you've moved on, etc. But, cheers!—and hoping this finds you well. ——Serial 18:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

First points from a quick canter through for typos etc: these four words need attention, I think:

• advisors (AmE rather than BrE advisers)
• targetted (double t not wanted)
• chronice (missing letter?)
• KIng (upper case I needs to be lower case)

More anon. Tim riley talk 19:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

A few minor points on the prose:

• single -v- double quotes – I am no expert on the MoS, but I am fairly sure all your single quotes such as those in the epithet 'wonderful' … supposedly 'ancient law' and so on should all be double.

  Thanks, caught.

• "they observed with dull eyes" – curious choice of adjective; presumably it means they observed without pleasure, or some such.

  Yes, I know what you mean—I think it was probably watching patronage due to them (as they believed) getting wasted on parvenus.

• "The King was also unpopular due to his choice of advisors" – In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.

  Gone for the latter, thanks!

• "to all intents and purposes" – rather to my surprise, neither Fowler nor Gowers condemns this phrase as a cliché, but I think it is best left for parliamentary draughtsmen and avoided in everyday prose. The Penguin Dictionary of Clichés says it has been a cliché since the middle of the 19th century.

  I replaced it with 'effectively'?

• "summoned the royal council … decided to summon a parliament" – better to avoid the repetition – perhaps "convened" or something of the sort the first time?

  Excellent, thanks.

• "the King was planning on having the parliamentary group arrested" – "planning on having" seems slangy to me, as well as less concise than the normal English "planning to have".

  Done.

• "Also dismissed alongside de la Pole were the Treasurer, the Bishop of Durham, and the Keeper of the Privy Seal Walter Skirlaw" – problems with the head-count here. I imagine the Treasurer and the Bishop of Durham were the same person, but it isn't quite plain. And you put a comma after Treasurer but not after Seal. For clarity, I suggest parenthetic dashes: "Also dismissed alongside de la Pole were the Treasurer – the Bishop of Durham – and the Keeper of the Privy Seal – Walter Skirlaw". Rather a blunt instrument, but it removes the ambiguity.

• Done, but do you think, being parenthetical, the sentence should close on a single dash? (Almost, unclosed, if you know what I mean.)

• It's fine as it is, I'd say – or will be once you have gone either for spaced en-dashes or for unspaced em-dashes as the MoS bids us. Tim riley talk 20:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• "In what modern historians have suggested was a poorly-timed misjudgement" – can one have a well-timed misjudgement? Looks a bit odd, though your meaning is clear enough.

  Canged it to political misjudgement.

• "However, notes PROME" – PROME should be introduced and glossed here, at first mention, rather than later, as at present.

  Thought I'd caught that already!

• "Although the epithet 'wonderful' is often applied to this parliament … it actually applied to the later … 1388 assembly" – if that is so, one wonders why it is used for this article instead of one on the 1388 parliament to which you say it actually applies.

  Yes, quite. This is rather tricky; Perroy's exact phrase is:But this Parliament of October 1386, usually known as 'marvelous'—the epithet mirabilis in the text of a chronicler favourable to the party in fact applies to the assembly in the spring of 1388. He's slightly opaque. I think he means that contemporaries referred to the 1386 session as marvellous and that of 1388 as "mirabilis", but a misreading of a chronicle has led subsequent generations to ascribe the latter description to the former. Does this make sense? If you agree, I'll add something like this instead.

• I can't, of course, presume to comment on the historical facts, but if I were writing the sentence in question I think I'd fudge the issue, on these sort of lines: Although the epithet 'wonderful' is widely applied to this parliament … the term was originally coined to refer to the later … 1388 assembly"

I hope these comments are useful. I have no problems with the content of the article, which seems well and widely sourced, balanced and clear. Not being familiar with the subject I cannot comment on how comprehensive the article is, but I have no reason to think it may not be. – Tim riley talk 18:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for your review Tim riley—there's a couple of points I'd like your further advice on, or confirmation of, but yet again, thanks to you, I've learned more on the nuances of my mother tongue than Leyton Comp ever managed... although that might not be difficult! ;) Thanks again! ——Serial 18:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• A couple of afterthoughts from another dip into the article: first, "focused" is better spelled with one "s" (though the OED somewhat grudgingly allows the double "ss"); and secondly, capitalisation – an ever-present bugbear – might need a bit of polishing: does "Regency Council" need caps, and even if it does, then does "Council" in the next sentence do so? And I have my doubts about the capital R in Royal prerogative in the relevant section heading. Tim riley talk 20:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

David Berman (musician)

Nominator(s): DMT Biscuit (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

He wrote sad songs and got paid by the tear. They’re motel masterpieces about dream attacks and beer drinking robots. His mother named him after a king and he was the son of “possibly the most evil man in America”. In 2003, he was hospitalised for approaching death; shined out in the wild kindness; and left this world behind on the back of a black camel. Here's hoping he gets that Pulitzer for the "frontline series 'Iowa Jima' published in the 2022 A.D. Pittsburgh Daily Humanoid," his words. DMT Biscuit (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Image licensing looks ok. I'm not sure about the non-free media and will let someone else evaluate that (t · c) buidhe 21:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from blz 2049

Hi DMT! Having skimmed the article as a whole and explored a few crannies in detail, I'm already hugely impressed by the scope, depth, sophistication, and sensitivity of the article, which is immensely deserved for a subject like Berman. I've already started with some direct edits to the article; please let me know if there are any issues with these edits. I have three initial, intertwined, article-wide comments:

• Lots of long sentences here—there are semicolons and em dashes galore; I even found a sentence that had both a semicolon and an em dash. I'd advise curbing these wherever possible in favor of more bite-size sentences.
• Implementation of the Harvard-style citations with {{sfn}} and {{sfnm}} looks OK throughout, but the cites are often bundled together in ways that make it difficult to quickly ascertain which source(s) contributed which bit(s) of info within a given sentence. This can be particularly unclear when a footnote attached to a direct quote provides a range of sources. For example, in the "Poetry" section, nine sources are cited within a single footnote for a list of eight distinct qualities critics have found in both Berman's poetry and his lyrics. But are all nine sources in unanimous agreement about all eight items...? There should be eight footnotes here splitting out exactly who said what.
• In the case of some complicated-yet-necessary multi-source footnotes, I'd also recommend using the |nps= parameter to provide a brief snippet quote indicating what exact language is backing up what portion of a particular claim and how. This is especially useful when each source supports a certain phrase of a sentence but not the rest, or where sources say the same thing in a different way that may be worth clarifying to avoid confusion or disagreement. For instance, if one critic describes Berman's poetry as "direct" while another said "blunt", both words would reasonably support a claim that critics have found a quality of "directness" in his poetry, but without a parenthetical quote in the cite a reader may find it slightly more tedious to try to pinpoint where the second critic's article says anything about the poetry being "direct" at all (⌘-F would be no help).
  Here's an example from one of my articles to show you what I mean; each of the three sources provided some of the information I needed, but each was missing necessary components, too, and I wanted to clarify for future reference (and my own future sanity). Plus here's a second example that's more quotation-heavy. Plus plus, here's some example code for you to try (the weird manual HTML space thing   seems necessary to force the first "ps" space, fwiw):

{{Sfnm|1a1=Smith|1y=1998|1ps= {{nowrap|("[t]ogehter")}}|2a1=Jones|2y=1998|2ps= ("forever").}}

These two comments are intertwined in the sense that breaking up long sentences should also generally make it easier to use more precise citation. More clarity in citations also makes it easier to later revise/split/combine sentences. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 13:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Blz 2049: thank you for these comments and the relevant examples. They're the type of in-depth assessment befit for here. I intend to fulfil them but should perhaps explain their predication. The article is somewhat of a chimera; despite his acclaim and pithy prose, Berman has received little academic - or otherwise in-depth - attention. To be properly comprehensive I've essentially had to glue together ephemera.

With regards to the long sentences, that's more a matter of personal viewpoint. My, admittedly idiosyncratic, style favours citations to be as intrusive as possible; invisible, if I had my way. Previously there were sequences of 8 plus citations. It was far from great. But I very much see the value in your suggestions. DMT Biscuit (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Blz 2049: I believe I have done all the relevant copyediting. If there' other areas you wish to flag up feel free to say. DMT Biscuit (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I gotchu—I'm 100% on the same page that minimal footnotes with Harvard-style citations is vastly preferable to stacking a mess of footnotes like "^{[84][1][7][75][76][63][33][39][3]}". Like you, I've written on some (relatively) obscure subjects that required creative stitching among sources when no single source standing alone quite gets to some big essential obvious point, so I understand the practical difficulties you're working within (and, I have to say, you've done a phenomenal job aggregating the extant source material and assembling it into a meaningful overall package). I should also maybe clarify for the record that, from what I've seen so far, my issue was not so much about any improper synthesis, but about the much smaller issue of the convenience of verification—not even capital-V Verifiability as such, more so clarity and the ease for a reviewer/reader while navigating the text and sources—plus my own personal sense of how to enhance the utility of citations in some cases. This is mainly important for direct quotes if attribution is not made clear by the text itself, but beyond that it becomes more a matter of personal preference. The revisions you've made on this front look excellent and are pretty much exactly what I had in mind, btw, so kudos for that.

I also am not feeling too harshly about the long sentence thing, fwiw. I myself am addicted to semicolons, em dashes, even parenthetical remarks (see, for instance, this comment). If anything, my advice there reflects my long-term observation that others have improved on my sentences by chopping them down to size. Popcornfud's influence has probably improved my writing technique more than that of any English teacher from high school onward, so shouts out.

I came across two potentially interesting sources; you may have already come across yourself, but I figured I would highlight them just in case given the relative dearth of material. I haven't read through these in any great detail yet, but I figure you'd have the better perspective on what can be gleaned from these. If nothing else, these might make sense as entries in a "Further reading" section.

• Rooney, Kathy (Spring 2003). "Interview with David Berman". Beacon Street Review. 16 (2): 90–97. ISSN 1535-6639. Archived from the original on November 24, 2021. Retrieved November 24, 2021 – via KathleenRooney.com.

• This literary journal is extinct but it can be found cited in academic bibliographies ([22], [23]), so it's legit. Might be a worthwhile "Further reading" if nothing else, though I bet there'll be some decent insight and/or info in there. Shouts out to Kathleen for providing the scan.

• Loucks, Jonathan (2006). "Play Aggression: My Own David Berman". Kitchen Sink (13): 90–97. ISSN 2642-5262. Archived from the original on July 14, 2006. Retrieved November 24, 2021.CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)

• Another extinct and obscure journal, but at least one serious literary academic bibliography recognizes it so I say it's legit. The author even provided their unabridged interview transcript; haven't read that either, but it's not impossible there's some worthy nugget of info that got cut from the full article.

@Blz 2049: Thanks for finding these sources, they certainly eluded me. The first, as you said, seems reputable enough and I have cited; feel free to inspect such additions. It's worth mentioning that Kathleen Rooney even has her own article. Is she Harold Bloom? No, but she's got some credentials. I'd recommend a read. Trademark humour from Berman and some sadly prescient material.

The second one fares less well. The bibliography you linked returns to the above article; so, it is a scattered interview banished to obscurity written by a then-student. Best not. Thanks, all the same. How did you even find these? Skilled sleuthing. DMT Biscuit (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Whoops, I goofed on that bibliographic link; fixed now. Even so, if that second source isn't useful that's fine. Honestly nice that one of those panned out. Wish I could retrace my steps and explain how I find things like that beyond saying I enter a meditative fugue state and commune directly with the Internet Archive itself. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 11:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Blz 2049: Funny, you'd mention the archive; found a nice profile there by Plan B. The founder, and writer of the relevant article, Everett True, has some respectable credentials, in my opinion. Free to inspect my additions. DMT Biscuit (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

More comments:

• As I noted in an edit summary, it'd be a good idea to unpack Robert Bingham's connection to Berman in more tangible terms, particularly his role as Berman's publisher (and indeed, as a person who evidently established a company to publish Berman's poetry). Right now it's not clear why Bingham's death should be singled out, but it easily could be. Their friendship and working relationship would be worth highlighting regardless of whether Bingham had died.

I added a sentence about Bingham being the founder of Open City. If you think there could be more, just say.

• This is a minor point, but be sure whenever you have square brackets next to quotation marks to use {{nowrap}} like so: {{nowrap|"[e]xample}} quote phrase". This keeps the quotation mark glued to the bracket, otherwise they split at the end of a line of text, resulting in an awkward dangling quotation mark. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 02:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Yep, done all these. DMT Biscuit (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Berman's discography entails not merely his contributions to Silver Jews and Purple Mountains, but also (as you note throughout the article) several noteworthy guest appearances/production credits/etc. AllMusic provides a decent place to start here, though again many (if not all?) of his notable credits are already mentioned throughout the article body. These miscellaneous credits aren't so extensive that they necessitate an entire separate "David Berman discography" article, but since there is no separate article there probably should be some more detailed listing of his "solo" (i.e. non-SJ, non-PM) recording credits in the discography section.

• Hi @Blz 2049:. I don't necessarily object to this addition but I am somewhat unsure of how to approach it. The allmusic list is dubious, given it goes as far back as 1979 with no distinction. Should I just list the credits already mentioned? DMT Biscuit (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Lots of responsive and new comments; I've broken it into sections to make it all easier to process, lol. Apologies for the extreme infodump.

Discography

I'm thinking it could look something like David Bowie discography § Guest appearances, which handles credits both for individual tracks and across entire albums within a single table in a coherent way. I'd probably title it "Other contributions" though as it encompasses both "guest appearances" along with production & songwriting. It should be strictly Berman-only—non-SJs, non-PMs. As far as what to include/exclude, I've included some notes below, including comments on what potential additions to the article body text based on what I found: I'd say anything already mentioned in the article body should be included there, like his production credit for Yonatan Gat's Universalists. (Incidentally, I was really pleased to learn from your article that Berman produced a whole album for Gat, who I saw perform once or twice around 2016–17. I knew little about him but he and his band are an exceptional live act; "Escorpião" is so thrilling.) His two tracks with the Avalanches (both noted in the Wildflower article) should be there, and would probably be worth noting in the article body. A few details that stand out and make this feel noteworthy: the collab happened during his "hiatus"; "Avalances × Berman" strikes me at first blush like an unlikely (albeit welcome) collaboration; and based on the Wildflower article, at least one of the tracks features Berman reading from his poetry, which seems like an interesting overlap between his lives as literary figure and recording artist. Also, per Bomb, Jennifer Herrema of Royal Trux was the connect between Avalanches and DCB. Will Oldham/Bonnie "P." Billy: This was surprisingly difficult to pin down, but per this Domino Records press release (or the album's track-by-track credits, as relayed secondhand by Discogs), Berman had two credits on Sings Greatest Palace Music: as a "vocal coach" on the recording of "New Partner", and as a backing vocalist on "No More Workhorse Blues"; tantalizingly, Domino notes the latter (first recorded for 1994's Days in the Wake) is a "song inspired by Berman", though I didn't find much else about this. The rerecording of the latter song with Berman's vocals was also issued as a single, the credits for which are on AllMusic, and fwiw it charted at #12 on the UK Independent Singles Chart (source: Anon. (October 30, 2004). "The Official UK Singles Chart". Music Week (43): 24–25. EBSCOhost 14966778.). Berman and Oldham issued a novelty 7-inch record called "Sea Note Presents Mr. Jews...The Search for the Elusive Silver Palace Record". I don't find it worth including, as it's not even clear Berman (or Oldham) had any direct involvement in its creation: their music is sampled to provide goofy answers to a goofy faux interview. Vocals on "Can You Whoop It" from The Dexateens' album Singlewide (2009), per Nashville Scene (the credit is also evident via AllMusic, tho they were not specific as to the track). OK to omit his "liner notes" for My Morning Jacket's Acoustic Citsuoca EP (2004), which appear to be just a quote. Besides, doesn't seem like Berman cared much for My Morning Jacket. I think the discography subsection can and should include Berman's original lyrical/co-songwriting contributions to other artists. These are distinct from other artists covering songs credited as written Berman, which shows up a few times in the AllMusic discography. This also does not count times when Berman gets a songwriting credit because an artist quotes or uses Berman's old lines, as happened on the Avalanches' We Will Always Love You; you could include those credits if you'd like, but they don't seem as essential. Rather, what I'm referring to here are times when Berman, whether formally credited or not, contributed new lines to another artists's song. Royal Trux – "Granny Grunt" and "(Have You Met) Horror James?", from Thank You (1995), with formal songwriting credits Neil Hagerty describes the nature of Berman's input to WFMU. Herrema refers to Berman's contributions as a "collaboration" in an interview at Flaunt. She also notes "We Are Real" from American Water is about his relationship with the Royal Trux duo, which she evidently only learned after his death. Matt Thorne confirms Berman wrote a song about his friendship with Royal Trux (without naming it), and says DCB "thought they were the best band of the nineties and wanted to be them." I think it's worth noting, somewhere, Berman's friendship with and admiration for Royal Trux. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced Hang the DJ is high quality enough. If you inspect the credited author/editor you'll find he's the Publishing Director at Faber & Faber, who "has a great personal passion for music." Seems less academic/authoritative and more vanity publishing/pet project. DMT Biscuit (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC) Will Oldham – "Apocalypse, No!" (also spelled "Apocolypse, No!"), from Joya (1997), uncredited Will Oldham on Bonnie "Prince" Billy (2012), p. 126; "'Apocolypse, No!' began as a single line that David Berman had written on the wall of our house in Charlottesville, when we were supposed to be making a Silver Palace record." Oldham wrote: "The beginning came from D. C. Berman, the rest rushed out in an effort to describe some parts of our complicated dynamic." Oldham, Will (2018). "Apocalypse, No!". Songs of Love and Horror: Collected Lyrics of Will Oldham. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. p. 12. ISBN 978-0-393-65120-1. That's probably a wrap on that; other stray Silver Jews tracks and appearances would belong with a Silver Jews discography, not a Berman discography. Expanded the discography.

Silver Palace

Regarding that "Silver Palace" novelty record mentioned in the previous section: the possibility of a "Silver Palace" collab intrigued me—was it just a joke, was it more serious? Here's what I found: Fizz magazine, November 1994: "I'm going to do another project with Will Oldham (of the Palace Brothers) that's going to be called the Silver Palace." CMJ New Music Monthly, June 1998: "Berman and Will Oldham lived in town [i.e., Charlottesville], working on a new Silver Palace project, which unfortunately hasn't seen release yet." Nashville Scene, April 11, 2002: "At present, he's working on a new book of poetry, preparing a reprint of his first poetry collection, Actual Air, and about to start working with Will Oldham on the collaborative Silver Palace project." Frequency magazine, undated: "No, I don't think anything is going to come out of it [Silver Palace]{{tq|. It seems like a good idea but at a certain point, the reality of a collaboration is always more disappointing than you want it to be. I can't think of any collaborations that were any better than the people who collaborated's individual work. I don't think think it would mix very well. But it was a good idea." Berman to Brooklyn Rail, 2005: {{tq|"Will and I have been friends since a summer in '95 when he came to the town I lived in (Charlottesville) and rented a house and we set out to make a Silver Palace record. Nothing got recorded that summer but we've been close ever since."} GQ, 2018: noted that Oldham's upcoming record Songs of Love and Horror would include "one seriously deep cut from an unfinished collaboration with Silver Jews founder David Berman". Not clear which song it's supposed to be, and whichever one it is, it'd be an Oldham original without any Berman co-writing credit. Based on all of the above, Brooklyn Rail provides enough to say that Berman and Oldham cohabitated for a time and had long considered a collaboration under the name Silver Palace, which was never realized. I've added material from Brooklyn Rail (2005): "a close friendship between Oldham and Berman arose at this time and the two conceptualized a collaborative project, entitled Silver Palace."

Other random findings:

I found a decently big trove of articles/interviews archived on a fanpage. Some are already used in the article, but many are older print or web sources that are no longer accessible on the live web. Internet Archive has earlier version of the same fanpage collection at its original address. Unfortunately I've only skimmed a few of the articles above, but I was intrigued by "Poetic Groans & Musical Apprehensions" (note: linking to an archived version because its formatting is more readable). It's an article/interview by Robert L. Doerschuk published sometime in early 2000 for AllMusic Zine, a poorly preserved (but evidently legit) endeavor by the folks at AllMusic. From what I can tell, it was AMG's short-lived stab at a sub-site more akin to the web-publishing model of Pitchfork (fka Pitchfork Media at that time), tho the Zine seems to have only lasted from late 1999 to early 2000. The original URL for the Silver Jews article is dead, natch, and regrettably is also missing from the Internet Archive. It seems web traffic issues for the early allmusic.com are partly to blame for the extremely spotty preservation; only the barest hints of the Zine survive, like a promo on the homepage, a well-populated masthead, or a partial article index. Anyway, "tears in the rain" and all that. Here's yet more archived fanpage ephemera via The Reef hosted at virginia.edu. This one interestingly notes Berman contributed some short fiction to The Baffler; the latter link also has some old articles. A pretty remarkable encyclopedic overview of Berman-as-poet, with an in-depth literary analysis of his poem "Snow", can be found at: Dorsch, Kristen A., ed. (2019). "Snow". Poetry for Students. Poetry for Students. 60. Farmington Hills, Michigan: Gale. pp. 213–231. ISBN 978-1-4103-6554-5. ISSN 1094-7019. Gale CX3670300024. Very good for the Actual Air air - less so here, tertiary and all that. I don't think we have to crack out the Marxist critique just yet. Let that be the foley of AFD. At PoetryFoundation.org, Cathy Park Hong's wry comment re Berman's Silver Jews Resignation Letter—"I guess one can interpret his decision to turn to muckraking as some serious Oedipal revenge shit"—could serve to provide a little of the "read[ing] between the lines" on this issue that Ceoil suggested, in so far as it's a muted skeptical reaction that doesn't take Berman's moral crusading against his father 100% at face value (I'm watching Succession right now and am reminded somewhat of a father–son relationship in that show). That point aside, Hong also echoes a claim made in Poetry for Students: Berman's poetry has been considered an unusually accessible starting point when teaching poetry to college students with no interest in poetry. Hi @Blz 2049: In the Brooklyn Rail article you linked - good find - Berman actually makes reference to Oedipus, tangentially referring it back to his own experience. Given this and the Oedipal description, I'm sure others made, do you think an image of Oedipus in early life or influences would work? Possible caption: Referencing his experience of reinforced empathy via substantial reading, Berman referenced Oedipus as an example of a character who should do the same to others.[citation] His long-standing conflict with his father has been called Oedipal.DMT Biscuit (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC) Per Houston Press, there was a stage production of Actual Air by Infernal Bridegroom Productions. Strikes me that there's more than enough for an Actual Air article, and while that's neither here nor there w/r/t this FAC I wonder if you've considered it. I've worked on some poetry-related articles and that seems to me like a fun project. I've considered bringing it to FAC. Doesn't seem to be extraneous, maybe one day. There's other article I'm presently interested in right now. Came across a June 2021 Uncut article about Oldham & Matt Sweeney's Superwolves collab; has some asides on Oldham's early encounters with Berman and the impact of Berman's death. Not essential, but there's at least one good Oldham quote re: Berman's death that may have utility, if not here, then probably elsewhere (e.g. there's no Superwolves article yet). Berman makes stray comments on the Silver Jews' last show in an archived blog post at Nashville Scene. Per Poets.org, a planned second collection of Berman's poetry may have once had the working title Richard Simmons 1950–?. 1998 MTV article – some useful info re American Water and Actual Air, but probably for those specific articles. Two comments that are non-FAC-essential, more to do with the way Wikipedia is stitched together, but probably worth raising now: This one crossed my mind a few times now while navigating Berman-related pages: would it not make more sense to have a {{David Berman}} template, rather than {{Silver Jews}}? No doubt Silver Jews is a "band" in its own right, but it's also widely seen as Berman's vehicle first and foremost. A David Berman template could also include Purple Mountains, plus related links to e.g. Actual Air, Richard Berman (lawyer), etc. Band membership list for Silver Jews could be retained in a manner à la {{Elvis Costello}} for the Attractions. Has there ever been a proposal to move David Berman (musician) → David Berman and David Berman → David Berman (disambiguation)? Seems like there's a more than decent case to do so under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Last but not least, here's a totally inessential blog piece of no reliability and trivial merit, but just for fun it gives an unusual behind-the-curtain read on Berman's character. Personally I'm shocked and scandalized to learn that David apparently really, passionately loathed Can. No action item here whatsoever, just thought this was mildly interesting. What are the chances: in one of the interviews you linked he mentioned his disdain for Can. I suppose we have all that one or two bands we just don't get. For more of his perplexing music taste. Sometimes Twitter is nice. DMT Biscuit (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Phew. Let me know what you think about any of the above at your convenience. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 02:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@DMT Biscuit: @Buidhe: (for doing the first part of the file review): Quick note, a few days ago I uploaded four new Berman-related images to Commons:

• David Berman (signature).png
• David Berman (1984–85 yearbook photo - 1).jpg
• David Berman (1984–85 yearbook photo - 2).jpg
• David Berman (1984–85 yearbook photo - 3).jpg

I've already added the signature to the page, but I figure DMT Biscuit should choose which of the three photos to use in the "Early life" section based on his editorial judgment/preference.

@Blz 2049: Wow, this is really going above and beyond the order. Thanks. I've elected to use the first photo. As endearing as heartthrob and Got Milk Berman are, the first is just more fitting for an encyclopedia. DMT Biscuit (talk) 09:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll recuse myself from doing any file review for this FAC, but I can summarize the contents and copyright statuses to streamline the process for another reviewer. All of these images are sourced from Berman's 1985 yearbook, a complete digital copy of which is available via Classmates.com (with a subscription). The signature is public domain because most American signature are ineligible for copyright and thus public domain; nothing about Berman's simple signature rises above the threshold of originality required to establish copyright. The yearbook photos of Berman entered the public domain because the yearbook was first published in the US between January 1, 1978–March 1, 1989, without a valid copyright notice (this can be verified if necessary by inspecting the complete scan at Classmates.com), and copyright on the yearbook was not subsequently registered within five years. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 02:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm confirming that the images listed above are in the public domain and can be used as desired in the article. (t · c) buidhe 03:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Ceoil

Have had this on my watchlist since before DMT's impressive expansion. Catching up now, with more comments to follow:

• Lead: In 2009, he announced his withdrawal from music in a public letter expressing his opposition to his father - that's what he said, maybe can we contextualize and read between the lines more.

• @Ceoil: Berman had expressed a dislike/debt to his father during preceding years. Is that what you have in mind?

• No, more that there were another reasons for the breakdown, but blamed his father (who he had know was a world class prick for years presumably) but blamed him as the trigger in this instance. It does seem like deflection, something he later said, once, to excuse....if not solid and admitted a few times, would leave the claim out of the lead. Ceoil (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Removed the claim from the lead. DMT Biscuit (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Why does the biblo list two works when the lead says that Actual Air was his only published vol of poetry.

• The Portable February is a book of cartoons. It's a pretty minor release so I feel it doesn't warrant a mention in the lead

• Critics are not always right. For eg, there is a contradiction here..."his register was baritone and he would concurrently sing and speak. Reviewing Starlite Walker for The Guardian, Jonathan Romney described Berman's approach as "whiny, archetypally slackerish" with "vaguely country inflections". Maybe distinguish between his early and late career singing voices? Ceoil (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• I don't necessarily think this is a contradiction; his register would still be baritone then. He only enunciated it differently, correlating with the country presence in his work. It's also a matter of perception, which the article should strive to reflect.

• I disagree: most would read whiny as in high pitched and scratchy, as in Neil Young like, which contradicts baritone. Needs clarification. Ceoil (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• I've changed the clause to subjective: identified, described so forth.

• Re live "symbotic" performances with Cassie'; can you attribute the claim

• The claim was based upon Malitz (2019); removed.

• from the same passage, what does "incisive gestures" even mean Ceoil (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• "[he made] gestures with his arms that accentuate the punchiness and the hard consonants of the sing-a-long verses" - Chen (2019)

• Berman publicly announced, for the first time, that his father was the lobbyist Richard Berman - say when

• Same time as he announced the end of the band. DMT Biscuit (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Leaning support Ceoil (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  Support with enthusiasm and the disclaimer that am a long time fan. I echo BLZ's claim above that the article is sensitivity written, aptly for the subject. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The Empire Strikes Back

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is about The Empire Strikes Back, which modern critics argue is the best film in the Star Wars film series. A conflicting reception at first its legacy is now one of setting new standards in blockbuster trilogies and advancing an overarching narrative. This is a former featured article from a very long time ago, in a galaxy very far away, and now it's back with a vengeance for modern audiences to enjoy once again. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• The article in its current form was copy-edited by Twofingered Typist who concluded his work on November 3, 2021, and sadly passed away on November 19. I didn't know him personally but he has copyedited quite a few articles I've worked on for this FA project and this statement is to preserve in perpetuity his contributions to helping elevate this article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D

I'll probably post a full review, but first some random comments:

• Watch out for excessive detail. For instance:
  • " at a cost of about $250,000", " the instruments included oboes, piccolos, pianos, and harps" (the LSO doesn't work for free and has lots of instruments, so this is unremarkable)
  • the last para of the 'Commencement in Norway' section is full of unimportant facts
  • "While filming Vader's entrance, the snow troopers preceding Prowse tripped over the polystyrene ice, and the stuntman behind him stood on his cape, breaking it off, causing Prowse to collapse onto the snow troopers" - trivia
• "the second unit remained through March to film explosions, incidental footage, and battle scenes featuring thirty-five mountain rescue skiers as extras; their work was compensated with a donation to the Norwegian Red Cross." - surely the crew were paid? Or were they working as a donation? Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

A lot of the article discusses the budget of the film and the massive inflation it goes through, so I thought the cost of the music was an interesting addition to it. The instruments mentioned are specifically to note what was involved in the score, for example it doesn't mention guitars. I don't know if that is a full list of the instruments involved it's just what I've found.

I can rewrite it a bit if you'd prefer but per the previous reply, it's in essence discussing things which contributed to massive delays and budget increases because of the extreme cold and technical issues and then they returned with damaged footage anyway.

The Vader's entrance part is just a fun anecdote about filming for me personally, the idea that Kershner wanted the characters to have grand entrances and someone stepped on Vader's cape and they all went flying. I can move it to the Special effects of The Empire Strikes Back if you'd prefer as I'd like to keep it in some form. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It's meant to be the skiers who were paid in a donation. I've reworded it a bit.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, here's my full review. In short, the article is in great shape, except for one section:

• "Lucas considered replacing producer Gary Kurtz with Howard Kazanjian because of issues that arose when Kurtz had not fulfilled his role while filming Star Wars, but Kurtz convinced him otherwise" - this is beating around the bush a bit. Say what Kurtz didn't do.
• "Mayhew fell ill from wearing a wool suit in 90 °F (32 °C) heat" - where was this? (given that the article up to this point has stressed how cold conditions at the studio were)
• "This was a rare feat; only 10% of films typically achieved this figure" - surely few films tried to hit the figure though as they had much lower budgets though? The previous material in this section notes that the studio was very confident the film would be a hit, so this seems out of place.
• The 'Critical response' section is over long and heavy going - it is unclear who all these critics are, and we don't need anywhere near as much about their views given the article has very good sections providing thematic analysis of the film and how perceptions of it have developed. The quality of the prose is notably inferior to the previous sections, which are very well written and enjoyable to read. I'd suggest a major revamp of this section to simplify and shorten it.
• "Arnold wrote it is an irreplaceable connecting work, but lacked Star Wars's self-contained narrative and asked audiences to wait two years for a resolution." - this sentence is pretty clunky
• "was critical that" - also clunky
• Sentences like "Critics were consistent in their praise for the Yoda character as both a performance and a technical achievement" need a reference that says that 'critics were consistent' or similar, not a bunch of examples of this.
• "Although Arnold praised Kershner's direction, others believed that Lucas' oversight was obvious because Kershner's influence in his other films was not evident." - this is unclear
• "and groundbreaking piece of cinema" - it's not clear how the film was 'groundbreaking'?
• " is now considered as arguably the best film" - is the 'arguably' needed here? This feels unnecessary. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll have to look up what Kurtz's issues were, it doesn't mention specifics in the book, bear with me. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It was on the Han torture room scene because of the steam, I've elaborated a bit. It gets a bit confusing because I've obviously had to move a lot of content to the special effects page. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Removed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Working reception section for comments 4-8.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Working for more detailed sources. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Removed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

OK Nick-D, I think I've addressed all these. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Support I still don't love the 'Critical response' section (still a bit too long and much too US-centric), but I think that my comments are sufficiently addressed given the strength of the rest of the article: nice work. Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Crit reception sections are the bane of my existence, especially for older films like this. The reviews that are available are mainly US and they barely mention things like the cast, it's all comparisons to the first film so there isn't much info to work with unfortunately. Thanks for your support. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Pamzeis

I'll probably want to give this a review but haven't got the time at the moment. Ping me if I don't leave comments by Sunday. Pamzeis (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Pamzeis Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's not screw this up:

• "its realistic expressions and" — "realistic expressions" is WP:VOICE
• "In case the film had failed" — not entirely sure which film the article is referring to
• "Fox had the right of refusal for a sequel. ... Fox had already given Lucas controlling interest in the series' merchandising" — I'm kind of confused because the article implied earlier on that Lucas did not sell the film to Fox
• "replacing producer Gary Kurtz with ... that arose when Kurtz had ... but Kurtz convinced him otherwise" — Kurtz's (last) name is dropped three times in this sentence. Try to reduce it
• "accident after filming Star Wars, (Lucas told Hamill his character would have been replaced if he had died), and" — this seems kinda awkward, probably because the sentence in brackets is a full sentence
• "embraced their interesting ideas" — "interesting" is WP:VOICE and doesn't add anything IMO
• "improve his Star Wars performance" — can this be more specific? Did Ford act badly in the original film and want to act better? Did fans dislike him leading to him want to improve his popularity?
• "According to Fisher, Williams struggled to remember his lines during filming." — not sure why this bit is relevant

That brings me to #Filming. I've made a few tweaks myself; feel free to revert anything you disagree with. Pamzeis (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for doing another review Pamzeis on these long articles. I've done all of these apart from the one about Ford. In the source he literally just says "I had no difficulty deciding I would do part two. In fact, I was happy to do it again because I thought I could do it better. I also felt iI had a moral obligation." Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

More comments:

• "103 days of filming two days later" — per MOS:NUM, be consistent with figures vs spelled-out numbers
• "Including crew and special effects teams, around 700 people worked on Empire." — I don't see the point of the first part of the sentence because crew and special effects teams would obviously work on the film
• "Adjusted for inflation, the North American box office is equivalent to $920.8 million, making it the thirteenth highest-grossing film ever adjusted for inflation." — repetitive
• "His realistic expressions impressed" — WP:VOICE

Not a lot. That brings me to #Thematic analysis. Pamzeis (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Pamzeis I think I have fixed these, thanks again. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Tim Robey wrote that" — who is he? His name just seems to come out of nowhere
• "Brandon Katz described Yoda" — same as above
• "described Luke's journey ... with Luke serving ... to lure Luke toward" — Three instances of Luke in this sentence...
• I feel like #Duality and evil spends too much time discussing the film's plot: the three of the first paragraph's seven and two to four of the third paragraph's seven. Can this be trimmed?
• "Luke's impatience to leave for Bespin exemplifies his lack of growth to this point." — I feel like this should be attributed
• "because it is easy to understand good and evil" — seems like WP:VOICE
• "one of the more famous lines of improvised" — in comparison to what...?
• "the bold unresolved ending" — this bit isn't really obviously attributed the Empire magazine
• Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, can the citation titles be consistently formatted in either sentence case or title case following MOS:5LETTER?
• The second book cited has inconsistent cite formatting with the others (that being, it uses a 10-digit ISBN unlike the other 13-digit ISBN ones) Pamzeis (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

OK Pamzeis, I think I've addressed all of these. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Friendly neighbourhood pinger-man Pamzeis Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. I will finish giving the article another look by Sunday. Pamzeis (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Support. Pamzeis (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for another detailed review Pamzeis! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from 👨x🐱

Been a while since I have review an FA. This looks bigger than the Star Wars' Empire itself, but here's a couple of comments so far:

• Inconsistent citing: Why are three New York Times pieces cited the Harvard way, but others are full references?
• A lot of sections are filled with cite bundles that make the article unreadable. I would do what I and Cat's Tuxedo do and place the cite bundles into notes.

👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 16:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

What are you considering too many bundles, so I know what to look for? The difference in the NYT references is that some are the website and some are the physical paper. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I get the NY Times thing now. As for the cite bundles, it's not the cite bundles themselves or that there are too much of them. In fact, I encourage them as much as possible so that the highest verification of details and opinions is there. It's just we have to make the prose readable at the same time; see the reception sections for Bubsy 3D (recently passed to GA) and Wetrix to see what I mean. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 00:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi HumanxAnthro, I've attacked some of the more egregious examples, not sure where to draw the line so I stuck to anything with >4 references. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd draw it at three, though that's a good limit too 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 22:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, done HumanxAnthro Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Awesome. Ping me if I forget to comment more on this review in the coming weeks. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 17:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

HumanxAnthro Pinging as requested Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

HumanxAnthro Checking if you got the ping? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I did, don't worry. I'm onto it. ;) 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 22:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Image Review

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

• Missing ALTs for File:Leigh Brackett 1941.JPG and File:Lawrence Kasdan by Gage Skidmore.jpg
• File:Jokolen.jpg: Suggest a bit more descriptive alt: A top-down photo of the Hardangerjøkulen glacier (a vast snowy plain) in Finse, Norway.
• File:David Prowse at Mountain-Con III in 2007 (cropped).png and File:James Earl Jones (8516667383).jpg need alts.
• File:Theempirestrikesback-logo2.svg: Suggest a bit descriptive alt: The logo for The Empire Strikes Back. The movie title has been stylised for the logo.
• File:Kennedy Center seen from the Potomac River, June 2010.jpg: Suggest a bit more descriptive alt: The Kennedy Center (a low-rise white building) as seen from the Potomac River.
• File:Fan Expo 2015 - Darth Vader & Yoda (21580250840).jpg. Alt can be: Fans at a convention dressed as Darth Vader (left) and Yoda (right). (if you want, you can be a bit more descriptive with their clothing and physical description).

Sorry for being a bit too nitpicky, but just wanted a bit more descriptive alts for accessibility.
May the Force be with you. Another happy landing. ZKang123 (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Nothing nitpicky here and thanks for suggesting alternatives ZKang123. All done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

There are still missing ALTs for the following: File:Leigh Brackett 1941.JPG, File:Lawrence Kasdan by Gage Skidmore.jpg, File:David Prowse at Mountain-Con III in 2007 (cropped).png and File:James Earl Jones (8516667383).jpg --ZKang123 (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Does alt footer not work? That's what I've been using. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Changed to alt1 and alt2 Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok looks good. Another happy landing. Farewell, my friend. May the Force be with you. ZKang123 (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

And also with you. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Funk

• This looks massive, so could probably use a review more, so marking my spot. FunkMonk (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • FunkMonk Still planning to review? (t · c) buidhe 10:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, should begin soonish, just finished the other reviews I had started. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Frank Oz (voice) as Yoda" And puppeteer, no?
• I wonder if the head-shots used of the actors, crew, etc. should be closer to how they appeared in the film (time wise)?
• "Hamill recounted being told she might be Leia, which he found disappointing." I'm not sure what this means. That his character would be replaced by Leia? Could be made clearer.
• "Lucas included elements such as Han's debt to Jabba" Wasn't this already established by the script for the first film, considering the scene where Han talks to Jabba about his debt was already filmed but cut by then (of course, included in the special edition)?
• "all reprised their Star Wars' roles" Not sure the possessive apostrophe is needed here.
• Link African-American and Armenian?
• "Clive Revill provided the character's voice while Marjorie Eaton physically portrayed the Emperor in test footage. The footage proved unsatisfactory, and Elaine Baker wearing a mask, with chimpanzee eyes superimposed over her face, replaced her." Any explanations for these unconventional choices? Always baffled me.

I can't do anything about the photos, the earliest one is like 2001 for Harrison Ford and it's not a particularly clear photo of his face, but I've done the rest of these FunkMonk. The Jabba's debt thing, it doesn't mention anything about hte original film, just that he revived the idea from the treatment as it had not been in the first draft. So it's possible Jabba just wasn't going to be brought up again in hte sequel until they were brainstorming and the New Hope mention was just for that film.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• The Yoda puppeteer point was in regard to the cast section, where Oz is only credited for the voice.
• "Hamill and Fisher were on location, although Fisher only wanted to observe." What is meant by this? She didn't want to to film, or she just wasn't scheduled to film? If the latter, doesn't seem like only observing was her choice. Maybe "she was only there to observe"?
• Footnote a could need a citation.
• "causing Prowse to collapse onto the snow troopers" Collapse seems very strong, "fall"? Especially since you use that term again in the following paragraph for Fisher's illness.
• "dendritic salt, mixed with magnesium sulfate" Link these substances.
• Isn't tauntaun one word and not capitalised?[24] You now say "Taun Taun".
• "700 people had worked on Empire." This is one of the only places where you abbreviate the title like that. Why not just say "the film" or similar to avoid confusion?
• It would seem fitting to use this photo of Hamill at a press conference[25] for the movie somewhere?

Done all but the "700 people" one FunkMonk. Do you mean abbreviating the title to Empire? It's used quite a lot through the article not infrequently. It's even used in the lead. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "and a Lucas-modified version in February 1997" Seems odd phrasing instead of just mentioning and linking the special editions?
• "and the Clive Revill/Elaine Baker Emperor was replaced by Ian McDiarmid who had performed the role since Return of the Jedi (1983)" But wasn't this only done for the much later DVD release? Now it's written as if it was part of the original special edition.
• "The original, unaltered version became officially unavailable beyond this point." Beyond what point? There is at least one official DVD release where the original versions were included as extras.
• Some of the films had additional changes on Disney+, is that not the case with this one?

Done FunkMonk, sorry for taking a while to reply. There is no mention of any changes to Empire on Disney+, just the addition of "Maklunkey" to A New Hope. Empire, in general, seems to be the least modified of the three original films. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Great Western Railway War Memorial

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is part of two lose series that have been on my back burner for a while (railway company war memorials and Charles Sargeant Jagger's war memorials). It follows on from my previous nominations of Jagger's works, the Royal Artillery Memorial and Portsmouth War Memorial. I've been working on it on and off for a couple of years but only recently got round to giving it a full overhaul when I had a bit of time on my hands and wanted a project I could complete without having to buy any more books (I already have a bookcase full of material on war memorials!). It's not a very long article becuase the subject seems to have been overlooked in favour of larger, outdoor works, but I hope the bibliography shows that that is not for want of research, and I think it contains everything that can be expected. As always, I'm eager to hear any constructive criticism. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Of course. Done.

Comments by Thryduulf

• Such was the size of the crowd that the GWR built viewing stands across two platforms and the tracks in between them. This feels too detailed for the lead and is also contradicted by the railway company built a stand on platforms and 2 and 3, and moved wagons into the tracks between the platforms in the history section. Were the stands built across the tracks or not?
  • I think it's relevant to the lead that there was such a crowd that accommodations had to be made. I've clarified in the body that there were stands on the wagons and it was one continuous crowd.
• The GWR was also responsible for running a train to remove the Austrian ambassador. More detail please - where was he being removed from and to? Why were they being removed? Why was a special train needed, and why the GWR? Some of this would probably be better provided by a link to where this information is elsewhere, if it's anywhere, an offline reference that may or may not include this information is not helpful in this case.
  • I don't think any more detail would be relevant here. The aim here is to provide a brief overview of the GWR's activities in the war as background to the memorial. We don't have an article on the Great Western Railway in the First World War or even anything similar, and the coverage of WWI in the main GWR article is two sentences so we don't have anywhere useful we can point readers.
    • I see your point, but the current sentence jars me out of the narrative with a "wait, what!?". As Extraordinary Wit suggests, toning down the language and adding a destination will resolve that. If you don't want to do that then remove it all together. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Hmm. Having slept on it, I think it's venturing off topic, and it's distracting (there could be an article to be had there, there's definitely enough sources for an article on the GWR in WWI, but neither is within the scope of this article) so I've removed it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• the GWR ran ambulance trains and ... and ... too many "and"s.
  • Reworded.
• the modern successor to the GWR suggest linking this to Great Western Railway (train operating company)
  • Not sure this is helpful or necessary; the casual reader doesn't need to know about the modern TOC to understand the article, and introducing a second GWR is likely to cause confusion.
    • What I'm suggesting is "the modern successor to the GWR", providing a bit of relevant context for those who don't know or aren't sure what organisation you are referring to. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I see your point, I just don't think it matters. Those of us who already have a detailed knowledge of 21st century UK railway operations already know where that article is, and those who don't and just came to read about a statue probably don't care. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• but it explicitly include in the grade I listing change to "but it is explicitly included..." Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed. @Thryduulf: thank you for having a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Extraordinary Writ

Looks to be in good shape. A few nitpicks below:

• Comissioning – typo
  • Fixed.
• The GWR considered several schemes... – this sentence would probably flow a bit better if you split it into two.
  • Done.
• During the Covid-19 pandemic – our article has COVID in all caps (and I would too), although that's certainly not a hill I'm going to die on.
  • Not the hill I'd choose to die on either. I think I prefer it in sentence case because it's not an acronym where each letter corresponds to a word so it feels a bit SHOUTY, but if there's a consensus or a MoS subsection that says I'm wrong I'll concede the point.
• Gloucesterhsire – typo
  • Fixed.
• a train to remove the Austrian ambassador – "remove" to me connotes some sort of involuntary expulsion, which (to Thryduulf's point above) really makes the reader curious. I see the source uses "return"; perhaps something like "a train to transport the Austrian ambassador back to ____" would be best.
  • I've removed this. See my response to Chris above for rationale.
• its ships – perhaps link Great Western Railway ships?
  • Might be helpful. Done.

More soon. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ, thanks for your comments. I'm back at work and on early earlies for the next couple of days so it might take me a day or two to act on any further comments. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Have you considered using Template:Inflation to auto-convert sums like £5,625 to their present values?
  • I've considered it. I just don't think the output is meaningful or useful. Maybe not apples and oranges, but it feels a bit like comparing apples and pears when you consider the changes in purchasing power over the course of a century.
• The GWR chose Jagger to design... – I'm a bit confused by this sentence. What was Blomfield recommending Jagger for? How (if at all) was "the government" connected to the memorial?
  • Clarified.
• To give such a large crowd... – this sentence is long and complex; it might be more readable if you split it up. The same is true for the following sentence (The ceremony began....
  • I've broken these up a bit.
• MOS:TIME seems to insist that times be spaced, so "10:45 am" and not "10:45am"
  • We can probably dispense with the "am" and leave it in 24-hour format.
• Several of your footnotes cite Gibbins, but the name used in the bibliography is Gittins.
  • Fixed.

That's about all I have for you. Sincere apologies for the delay: time just got away from me! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ no apology necessary, though it took me a few days to get back to you! Thank you for your attention to detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Support on prose. Good work, as always: there wasn't much to nitpick here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis

A railway I remember my boyfriend mentioned, made an Oooo sound when seeing this FAC. Here we go.

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 01:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

=====Lead and infobox===== "who were killed in the conflict." Link World War I in "the conflict". I think that would be an Easter egg and not particularly helpful to the reader. It's not necessary to link every topic solely because the article exists. Oh God sorry for this bit. I think this point was a mistake. Link Archbishop of Canterbury. This one is helpful. Done. "British Army's postal service"-- link either History of the British Army postal service#The Volunteer Movement and formation of Army Post Office Corps (1868–82). I don't think this is necessary in the lead. "Covid-19" must be capitalized. Must? Do you have a source or a MoS link for "must"? I'm going to capitalise it, but because most of the style guides I've found online advocate "COVID" rather than "Covid". Yeah there's no particular MOS for that, however the title case version is a sort of colloquial version. Most formal sources use "COVID-19", even if there are formal sources that use title case the capitalised is the most encouraged. Infobox looks good. Background Link History of rail transport in Great Britain in "Britain's largest railway company", per the lead of Great Western Railway article. That would be an Easter egg again, and contrary to the MoS (and thus the featured article criteria) Link ambulance train. That one might be helpful. Done. "As well as manpower, the GWR gave up the majority of its ships for military use." I'd suggest moving the "as well as manpower" to the end of the sentence, as putting it in the front makes it confusing; putting it in the end I think makes it more straightforward. The previous sentence discusses manpower, which is why this one begins the way it does. "Thomas Tait"-- add the "S." and link Thomas S. Tait. Done. Link Royal Artillery Memorial and Realism (arts) in the image caption. Done for the RA memorial. Always nice when I can cross-reference another of my FAs. "Realism" I feel is plain enough English that a link isn't necessary. Reasonable objection to the latter. And I mean, who doesn't like cross-referencing another of their FAs? (Not saying I have an FA but I guess I'd love to cross-reference) Commisionning "The Great Western established a war memorial committee"-- is this referring to the GWR? If so it must be referred to as "The GWR" for consistency. From the context, it couldn't possibly be referring to anything else, and we don't have to be repetitive in the name of consistency. I disagree. At the Background sec, it is already abbreviated as GWR, so readers expect for it to be continuously referred to as GWR. If all of a sudden there's the word "Great Western" there might be two possibilities: either this is GWR, or another Great Western. There shouldn't be that type of confusion. As far as I see, this shouldn't count as repetition. It's common practice, when writing about historical railway companies, to drop "Railway" from the company name when the context is clear. cf. Midland Railway War Memorial, where "Midland" is used extensively in preference to "MR". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC) Well, not exactly. One thing I'd like to note from the Midland memorial article is that the abbreviation is not given, and that it has been chosen for the article to only refer to the subject as Midland Railway. That article is consistent in referral. But here, because an abbreviation is already given, it should be referred to with that abbreviation throughout. GeraldWL 01:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC) There is no requirement to refer to something by an abbreviation every time it's mentioned simply because the abbreviation is introduced in the beginning. From the context, "Great Western" couldn't mean anything else. Look at Great Western. From the context, we're clearly not talking about mountains in Sri Lanka or the USA, or towns in Australia. Most of the other entities on that page are either named after the railway company or created long after it. As I said, it's very common practice to drop "railway" from the name of a railway company once it's been established which company we're talking about. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC) I don't think it's a "It couldn't mean anything else, so it's fine if we just use Great Western" issue. MOS:ABBR has stated explicitly, "Maintaining a consistent abbreviation style will allow Wikipedia to be read, written, edited, and navigated more easily by readers and editors alike. The style should always be consistent within a page." Why putting the GWR abbreviation when it's gonna be used here anyway? It just looks weird for me that other places use "GWR" but here it's "Great Western". It's almost as if you could be suggesting there's another kind of Great Western. I think changing that to GWR can help make the article tidier, in a way. GeraldWL 01:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC) Midnight update: Although at this point, if you still disagree with this point it's totally fine; it doesn't harm the article to a degree and I'll let it pass. GeraldWL 16:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC) "on the approach to Paddington"-- Paddington station? If so it must be a "London Paddington station" and link. It couldn't really be anything else, but I added "station" just to be sure. "The railway company authorised a budget of £5,625"-- link £. That would be contrary to WP:OVERLINK. But does it though? MOS:OL does not specify currency, and I've seen plenty of GAs and FAs that link to currencies. Most English speakers understand what GBP is, and the history of the currency isn't relevant to a war memorial. What they're more likely to want is a conversion but that changes so frequently that it would be impossible for Wikipedia to keep up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC) I don't think a conversion is needed, since UK is English-speaking and ENWP is, well, English. Also speaking of which: the budget bit was referenced to Lambert (short ref), but there's no "Lambert" source in the Bibliography seemingly. Is there a mistake here? GeraldWL 16:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC) Well spotted Gerald Waldo Luis. Must have forgotten to add the full reference to Lambert. Added now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC) Design "The GWR began commemorations for its war dead"-- is "war dead" an actual phrase? Does it mean casualties? If so, I'd prefer to change it to "war casualties". Yes, it's an actual phrase, and commonly used in such contexts. Got it, apologies ESL guy here. Unlink Thomas S Tait here; it should be at the background section. Done. "The second inscription was added after the Second World War"-- link Second World War. That would be overlinking; most readers know what WWII is. "20th-century British art"-- link 20th-century art and British art. Also overlinking. History "Army Post Office Corps"-- link History of the British Army postal service#The Volunteer Movement and formation of Army Post Office Corps (1868–82). Not necessary. BFPO is linked right next to it. The history is there if anyone wants to explore the history of the British Army's postal service. "Queen"-- link Queen of the United Kingdom. Overlinking. "Great Western memorial"-- remove "Great Western" per consistency. This is necessary because the previous paragraph discusses a different memorial. "GWR war memorial"-- same thing above. Rephrased. Capitalize "Covid-19". Done. References Should it be Citations first, then Bibliography? Because almost all articles I've seen using this style puts Citations first. But if it's normal then no problem. It's the format used in almost all my 31 FAs and it's not normally a problem. I think the works/publishers should be linked per consistency with ref22, 12, and 30; it'll be weird if one ref is linked but the other isn't. I used to link publishers and people objected to that. Now I tend not to bother. Refs 12 and 22 are generated by templates so there's not much I can do about those; 23 and 30 the work is linked (mainly because it's relevant to the subject and not necessarily well known) but not the publisher. I think that's as consistent as I can be unless I don't link anything. Understandable. Personally I've linked to publishers for ages and people have never objected to that. But it does no harm, so I'll let that pass.

Other than that, nice article. Comprehensive and detailed, using RS-es. If my comments are resolved, I'll support this. GeraldWL 02:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: I haven't been able to enact all your suggestion for reasons given above, but thank you for taking the time to read the article and leave a review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the responses! I've responded to them back; you would want to see those in the Commissioning part. GeraldWL 05:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: replies inline above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

And with all that resolved, I'm happy to support this article. GeraldWL 01:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• "on a polished granite plinth and Portland stone surround": I read this to mean that the memorial is on the surround; surely the surround is the arch within which the soldier stands?
  • Clarified.

    Could we make it "...plinth, within a Portland stone surround"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

    • Sure. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Such was the size of the crowd that the GWR built viewing stands across two platforms and the tracks in between them": Again I misread this: I took the first half of the sentence to mean that the GWR was responding to the size of the crowd that turned up. Just making it "expected size" would prevent that.
  • Done.
• "encouraging people to write to a letter": looks like editing debris?
  • Fixed.
• I think the last sentence of the lead should make clear that this is in reference to Armistice Day.
  • Good point. Done.
• "the railway was forced to implement controls": can we get a word or two more of explanation? Maybe "the railway was forced to limit the rate of enlistment", if that's what they did?
  • Added half a sentence; see what you think.
• "The railway company authorised a budget of £5,625 though the completed memorial came in around £1,000 under budget": can we avoid the repetition of "budget"?
  • Tightened.
• "a conclusion with which academics Gill Abousnnouga and David Machin concurred": you might move "with" to after "concurred" here; neither is wrong but I think the latter reads a little more fluently.
  • I was taught that it was poor form to end a sentence on a preposition.

    Struck -- I guess I'm on the other side of that debate, but it's OK the way you have it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I had a quick look for newspaper articles about the dedication in 1922, and found a short piece in the Observer on newspapers.com. About the only thing it contains that you don't already have is that GWR's General Manager, F.J.C. Pole, laid a wreath on behalf of GWR's staff. If you think it's worth including and if you don't have access I can clip the article for you. Otherwise there are just the minor points listed above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

That would be Felix Pole. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Believe I've addressed all your comments, Mike. Yes please to that snippet from The Observer. It's a nice little detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Mostly struck above; I will get you that article shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The clipping is here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Added. Thank you! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Support. Looks good, as usual. Harry, if you don't have newspapers.com access and are interested in getting similar clippings for other memorial (or other) articles you work on, I'd be happy to clip what I can find for you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Will do soon. Hog Farm _Talk 18:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

So sorry I'm just now getting to this - had some crazy stuff come up over the weekend.

• A handful of harv/sfn errors - I think you'll need to add |ref=none to King, Black, Matthews, and Pullinger, based on the citation style you're using for the others
• Sources look reliable enough
• Are Gibbins and Gittins suppose to be the same source? Only a Gittins in listed in the bibliography
• "and moved to RAF Northolt in 2007 when the army unit responsible for it relocated" - not finding this detail in the cited source?

Looking good, pending the items above. Hog Farm _Talk 05:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Hog Farm, no apology necessary. I wasn't available much over the weekend anyway. Believe I've fixed everything you mention. The old and new locations for the replica statue are both mentioned in the IWM source, but I've found another one that spells it out a bit more. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comments from KJP1

Harry, two quick comments. Although not mentioned in Pevsner, I have found it in a little book I've just obtained, The Immortals: London's finest statues. It doesn't actually have much that you've not already covered but I wonder if it might be included for completeness. Where I think it may be useful is the end of your Design section, in the discussion of Jagger's wartime experiences. Here, Blundell and Hudson have: "This memorial was created by someone who 'knew whereof he spoke'. Jagger was wounded at Gallipoli in 1915, and again on the Western Front in 1918, when he was awarded the MC." See what you think. You can find the full details for the book, here, and the page=16. My other quick observation is that, although the WWII rededication is mentioned in the Design section, it's not covered in the History section. I think there should be a mention of it in the latter. Perhaps a slight rejig/trim of the wording in the former section could avoid repetition. KJP1 (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Harry ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Socrates Nelson

Nominator(s): TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The year is 1848. The California Gold Rush is on, and America expands westward. In its northwestern-most territory lies the fledgling logging village of Stillwater, Wisconsin Territory. Situated near the St. Croix, pioneer lumbermen send white pine from this wilderness down the river. Little did these pioneers know that this small town would become the epicenter of the creation of a new territory, known as "Minnesota" for the region's longest river. An ad hoc convention is formed in Stillwater to petition Congress for territorial independence, and among these men is Socrates Nelson.

Born in 1811 in Massachusetts, Nelson moved westward at the young age of 25 to prospect and sell furs. As an early settler of Stillwater, he became a general store owner, a log boom and lumber mill operator, a real estate speculator, and an incorporator of numerous businesses. He quickly became involved in local politics and, in 1848, co-authored a successful petition to Congress to make Minnesota its own territory. He soon also became a founding member of the Minnesota Historical Society, the Minnesota Democratic Party, and the Minnesota lodge of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, as well as a member of the University of Minnesota's first Board of Regents. In 1859, he became a one-term state senator, and in 1864, he voted for George B. McClellan as a delegate in the 1864 Democratic National Convention. In 1867, during his twilight months, he all but donated a block of land for what is now Minnesota's oldest standing courthouse – not out of generosity, but to spur development near (and, by proxy, sales of) lots he owned. Nelson died of tuberculosis in 1867 with an estate of over $100,000, and his death resulted in the closure of most of the city's businesses in observation.

I found this article through the 'Random article' function last December. It had thankfully been created by RFD, and I decided to expand it a bit; eventually, it became a passion project that got way out of hand. Sorry for the middle-school-tier book report; I just wanted a hook to grab your attention.

PS: I've spoken to the executive director of the Washington County Historical Society, and he has doubts to say the least that a picture of this subject exists. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Suggest adding alt text

• What sort of alt text? If I feel the captions are descriptive enough, should I add something like "See caption for more information"?

• Alt texts are designed for people who can't see the image, whether because of a visual impairment or because their device doesn't load images. Telling the former group to "see" the caption would not be helpful; if you feel the caption adequately conveys the contents of the image, "refer to caption" may be appropriate. See WP:ALT. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'd meant "see" as in the encyclopedic sense, but I agree that "refer" works better for sensitivity toward its target audience.

• @Nikkimaria: I added alt text to all of the images used in the article. Please let me know if you think it's too detailed, not detailed enough, etc. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Probably on the too-detailed side, but not going to fuss over it. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Don't use fixed px size

• Done.

• File:Stillwater,_Minnesota_-_15645910519.jpg: what's the copyright status of the plaque? Ditto File:Washington_County_Courthouse-Historic_Marker.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• 1) CC-BY-SA 2.0 from Flickr; 2) CC-BY-SA 2.0 from Flickr. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Those are for the photos. I'm asking about the plaques themselves. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: The plaque was erected August 26, 1948 by the Stillwater Territorial Centennial Committee, so the copyright of the plaque itself is technically unknown. The MTCC seemed to be working under the Minnesota State Bar Association. The marker was erected by the Minnesota Historical Society, and the MNHS took the picture and licensed it under CC-BY-SA 2.0. So literally no issues with the second one (the same people who erected it and would own the copyright uploaded a picture of it to Flickr under CC-BY-SA 2.0), and the first one seems to be at least fair use insofar as it's a) just large enough to be able to make out the text written thereupon and b) not replaceable by some other work. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Any way of determining status? If no, what would be the rationale for including as fair use? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• I suppose we could email the Minnesota Bar Association and ask them if they have any copyright on it; if not, then nobody should own the copyright, and the work would have lapsed into the public domain. If not, fair use rationale is as follows: image is small enough that much lower resolution would probably detract from readers' abilities to read parts of the text on the plaque (namely the bottom); image of the plaque commemorating the Stillwater convention is the only one of its kind; the use of this media contributes substantially to the article, as Socrates Nelson was at the center of the Stillwater convention – most importantly, he co-authored the petition to Congress. I've been in touch with Brent Peterson of the Washington County Historical Society and may be able to ask him if he thinks the plaque is copyrighted in any way. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: As it turns out, I didn't need to go through any of that rigamaroll (thankfully, I didn't). The MTCC was formed by the Minnesota Legislature, who appropriated $150,000 in funding. So the MTCC—this plaque included—was a state-funded endeavor. There should be no problem with the copyright of this plaque. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Typically in the US state works - as opposed to works by the federal government - are not in the public domain by default. I'm aware that there are some exceptions - does one apply here? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: Is "god, I hate how nebulous and confusing copyright law is" an exception? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• In all seriousness, though, I can't find any statute saying that public works are copyrighted beyond the fact that statutes are copyrighted. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
• Unfortunately not ;-). My reading of this page is that the Minnesota government asserts copyright over its eligible works. However, this particular work may be PD due to its age - do you happen to know if there was a copyright notice associated with the plaque? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: I agree with your interpretation. A requester can do whatever they want with it for personal use, but redistribution isn't allowed should the Minnesota government assert copyright. The MTCC erected the plaque on the centennial date of the Stillwater convention: August 26, 1948. So it's not old enough to be inherently in the public domain, but at the same time, I can find no copyright associated with the plaque. Also, since I just realized that I said "Stillwater Territorial Centennial Committee" before, I believe they were under the MTCC. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• See WP:HIRTLE - that age plus no copyright notice does give a path to PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Ayy. So would you say that all of the media check out copyright-wise? Like I said, I've found no notice whatsoever of copyright on the works of the Stillwater Territorial Centennial Committee, let alone this specific work. If so, I can add alt text and then move on to finish addressing Wehwalt's comments. If you'd like to read through as well and add feedback about the prose, I'd say it's worth it if you enjoy super obscure US history. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Since there is no visible copyright notice, you should use {{PD-US-no notice}}. I've taken the liberty of adding it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Spot-checks — Pass

Version reviewed — this

• Ref#2 — link — 5 instances
  1. Infobox children: "Emma A. Nelson" — OK
  2. "On September 22, 1848, Nelson and Betsey had two children – twins Emma A. and Ella Nelson – but Ella later died in infancy on October 23, 1849." — OK for first part. Rest is sourced to other references.
  3. "Months after the Panic began that August, Levi Churchill died in St. Louis on December 24, ceding his estate to Elizabeth" — OK
  4. "Demoralized by deflated land prices, Slaughter and Hancock forfeited their claim to the lots." — OK
  5. "Owing to development sparked by the courthouse, the lots began selling for sometimes upward of $1000 apiece" — Which part of the source cites this?

• @Kavyansh.Singh: "Father Michael Murphy paid the astronomical sum of $4,000 for three of the best lots in the city".

• Ref#4 — link — 1 instance
  1. "Infobox children: Hettie Carson (adopted)" — OK
• Ref#5 — link — 6 instances
  1. "Infobox education: Deerfield Academy" — OK
  2. "Nelson lived in nearby Greenfield and attended Deerfield Academy, taking a partial course before returning to his hometown to become a merchant." — OK
  3. "There, he met his future business partner Levi Churchill and his wife Elizabeth Marion Churchill (née Proctor)." — The source supports that Nelson met Churchill, but does not state that Nelson also met Elizabeth.

Bah. I hate it when I miss nagging little technicalities like this; fixed. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it was me being too nit-picky, but thanks for fixing it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• 1. "That same fall, Nelson took a steamboat farther north to the recently settled town of Stillwater and opened its first general store, known as Nelson's Warehouse," — OK
  2. "Note c: located near the St. Croix by the intersection of modern-day Nelson Street and South Main Street." — OK
  3. "With the Churchills remaining temporarily behind in St. Louis, the two parties would exchange goods through the Mississippi River – Nelson's furs for Churchill's merchandise." — OK
• Ref#8 — link — 1 instance
  1. "to Socrates Nelson and Dorothy Boyden," — OK
• Ref#15 — link — "Note a: but US census data from 1850 records her given name as 'Betsey D.'" — OK (for 'Betsey D')
• Ref#23 — link — 1 instance
  1. "and another calls both Nelson's and Walter R. Vail's the first" — OK
• Ref#33 — link — 1 instance
  1. "Nelson entered the lumber business in earnest on February 7, 1851, as one of the incorporators of the St. Croix Boom Company organized by the Minnesota Territorial Legislature." — OK for some part, rest supported by other sources.
• Ref#46 — link — 1 instance
  1. "and the Minnesota Western Railroad Company" — OK
• Ref#47 — link — 1 instance
  1. "In 1854, a stock company consisting of Nelson and others published Stillwater's first newspaper, the St. Croix Union – a Democratic-leaning, weekly periodical which was printed until 1857." — OK
• Ref#54 — link — 1 instance
  1. "In April 1867, hoping to spur development and drive demand for nearby lots they owned," — Perhaps, OK.
• Ref#63 — link — 1 instance
  1. "That fall, Nelson was appointed master in chancery for the county by Territorial Governor Henry Dodge." — OK
• Ref#79 — link — 1 instance
  1. "As part of the committee on railroads, Nelson co-authored a report with Lucius K. Stannard on February 4, 1860, recommending the expungement of Article IX Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution – known as the Loan Amendment – which was introduced in 1858 to expedite the development of railway infrastructure and authorized a total of up to $5 million (equivalent to $144,000,000 in 2020) in loans for railroad companies." — Perhaps, OK. But please break the sentence. Its a long one!

• Yeah, looking at it here, it's a complete mouthful; I'll break it up into two or three sentences. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Ref#88 — link — 1 instance
  1. "Reiner won the election held on November 6, 1860, defeating Nelson as part of a string of legislative gains for Minnesota's Republican Party." — OK
• Ref#97 — link — 1 instance
  1. "having been ill for several months and bedridden for several weeks." — OK
• Ref#100 — link — 2 instances
  1. "Four years later, Emma married attorney Fayette Marsh, a former engineer and chronic alcoholic who had studied law and moved to Stillwater to co-found a firm." — OK
  2. "before Emma died on November 23, 1880, at age 32 of what was described by her obituary as "a short but painful illness"." — OK for death date. The quote is from another source.

I review this article for GA, and also during the peer review. The spot-checks look very good. Clarification in needed on just few points. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing up everything. Pass for spot-checks. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the spot check! Your peer review helped me find some inaccuracies as well, so I think thanks to you, this article is now 100% factually supported by RSes. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• A one-paragraph lede seems rather short. Can it be expanded at all?

• Possibly, but I'd have to really brainstorm for that. The intro was originally created by RFD, drastically expanded by Howcheng in light of new information I'd gathered, and then expanded by me after more new information became available. It may require a complete rewrite to expand it to more than one paragraph, and I do really like how concisely it conveys the gist of the article right now. I could try drafting a rewrite and see if you think it's any better.

• @Wehwalt: Sorry for taking so long on this. I've expanded the lead out somewhat, but I did want to give you an example of an FA with a lead approximately the size of this one. The lead section for Socrates Nelson was 135 words long, while James A. Doonan – an article of approximately the same length – has 148. The lead for Socrates Nelson is now 201 words (I didn't mean to push it just over 200; that was a coincidence). Beyond this, I think I'm pushing it as far as lead length goes. Kavyansh.Singh and Nikkimaria, your thoughts as well? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• "as one of the incorporators of the St. Croix Boom Company organized by the Minnesota Territorial Legislature." I suspect the term is "chartered", not "organized".

• Easton (1909) describes it as "organized", so that's what I went with.

• " He would use it scarcely over the next ten years," Perhaps, "He would rarely operate it during the next ten years"

• I prefer "scarcely" simply because I think it conveys "very rarely" or "basically not at all". The text states he "operated [it] but a portion of one or two seasons for the next ten years". In essence, I think "scarcely" in its connotation more strongly conveys how rare something is compared to just "rarely". I did, however, change "use" to "operate", since that's more descriptive. However, this is another instance of my "would [do thing]" addiction (see farther down), so please tell me if you think that needs fixed.

• The 1857 real estate activity sounds like they were trying to create a townsite. If this is true, can it be more clearly stated?

• I couldn't find anything about them creating a townsite. Zion's Hill, where the lots were, borders entirely on Stillwater (if you look at the sketch used as media, you can see the hill), so I think they were just trying to expand Stillwater. It's just that nobody wanted to build on lots up there because the trek to the top of the hill was way out of the way. Nelson donated land for the courthouse to spur development of infrastructure that would make getting up there easier.

• "On January 27, 1867, during his twilight months," Twilight sounds a little too poetic. Is the fact that Nelson died soon after really relevant to this?

• "twilight years" is a common turn of phrase for somebody's final years alive; I don't think it meets the standard for MOS:EUPHEMISM or MOS:CLICHE. As far as relevance, I just like to occasionally keep readers grounded as to where they are in the person's life (like, for instance, the near-tautology "in 1839 on a prospecting tour at age 25"). I feel like doing this sparsely, while very slightly extraneous, helps keep readers better grounded than just "in 18xx this, then in 18xy that".

• While it's conventional to use "would" to indicate passage of time in the past, it isn't always necessary, as, for example, the account of the trustees under Nelson's will. I would change that to past tense.

• Done. I think I need some sort of rehab clinic for using "would [do thing]" in the past tense.

• "$1000" should be "$1,000", plus any others that may be similar.

• MOS:DIGITS states: "Numbers with exactly four digits left of the decimal point may optionally be grouped [...] with consistency within any given article." It's just a personal preference thing.

• You should make it clearer if the area around Stillwater was at one time part of the Wisconsin Territory, that it became part of the Minnesota Territory.

• I actually just realized that the only indication I gave was "St. Croix County, Wisconsin Territory"; I'll figure out a way to fit this in, since it's crucial context for unfamiliar readers.

• @Wehwalt: I tried with this one. The best I could come up with was: "On November 26, 1849, Nelson was elected to serve as treasurer for the newly formed Washington County, Minnesota Territory, into which Stillwater would later be incorporated [as the county seat]." (Bolded indicates new text; brackets indicate extraneous text that could still be added in.) I have a source for the new text, but it just feels long-winded to me. Your thoughts?

• I see his nomination for state senator. Can anything at all be said about the election?

• I don't recall seeing anything about this election specifically. There may be raw numbers I can find (and I think there are), but certainly nothing about debates or campaigning or anything. I'll be able to find these more easily in a couple days when I can get to my desktop and access the MNHS' newspaper collection.

@Wehwalt: Update: those numbers were for local elections, not the state senate. The numbers for the local elections are pretty much extraneous (we're talking a few dozen votes), and I can't seem to find anything for the 1858 election. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• There should be some mention of Minnesota statehood in the political narrative.

• As it turns out, our featured article on the History of Minnesota doesn't have a single mention of the Stillwater convention; I'll have to change that! As far as this article goes, I can say something like how he was elected in 1859, "three years after Minnesota was admitted as a state to the Union, but I'm really not sure how to fit it in super organically. Maybe "In 1858, two years after Minnesota was admitted to the Union, Nelson organized Baytown Township..."? The problem is that Nelson had literally nothing to do with statehood. If he'd served in the first state legislature instead of the second, it'd probably fit in more organically.

• Minnesota, I assume, at some point here went from two representatives per district to one. Can some brief mention of that be included between Nelson's two legislative elections?

• I actually have literally no idea why Minnesota went from 37 senators to 21. I can research this and get back to you.

• Several times, Nelson's estate is alluded to, and mentioned as continuing into the 20th century. Why?

• I could just address it up until November 1880. I just thought it was a noteworthy way to end 'Business ventures' — namely that Nelson's son-in-law basically squandered everything he'd built up through said ventures. I don't personally see it as distracting from or is extraneous to the overall article. As far as the 'Later life and death' mention, Nelson's estate is mentioned because of very severe disagreements between Nelson's wife and his son-in-law that are prominently discussed in Empson (2002).

That's all on first reading.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: I'll address these as best I can over the next couple days and see what you think. I know you said you didn't have much time for new commitments, so I appreciate you taking time to perform this analysis. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hi TheTechnician27, have you addressed all of Wehwalt's comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll just cut to the chase and Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Wehwalt. I appreciate the support, but I did want to let you know that I researched the part about the Minnesota Senate shrinking. I couldn't find anything, unfortunately, so if that changes your answer, then so be it. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This nomination has now been open for a while, with little sign of a consensus to promote beginning to form. Unless it attracts further reviewer attention over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Understood, Gog the Mild. Wehwalt, your thoughts on the new lead? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, I know it's not your responsibility to save a stagnant FAC review, but I really would like the article to be the best that it can, so I was wondering if you had any comments or concerns about the article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I am almost certainly not going to have time to do a proper review, but in passing:

• "University of Minnesota Board of regents". Either lower case b or upper case R.

• Done, and in doing so fixed an issue brought up by Kavyansh.

• The Bibliography and the Further reading should each be in alphabetical order of lead authors' surnames.

• Is it alright to leave them in chronological order? I can change this really easily; I just think chronological order is more intuitive. Just making sure before I change them.

See WP:GENREF "are usually sorted by the last name of the author or the editor." Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't familiar with GENREF; I'll have that fixed shortly. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Done now. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• The main article opens as if it were a continuation of the lead. It should be a stand alone coverage of the topic of which the lead is an independent summary.

• True; done. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• I've put this on the list for a full source review. (t · c) buidhe 01:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kavyansh.Singh

Note that I had reviewed this article at GAN and also during the peer review. Will look once again to find anything else which needs to be fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• "and was a member of the University of Minnesota Board of Regents before being elected to the senate" — Per MOS:SOB, try to avoid placing two links next to each. Will "and was a member of Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota before being elected to the senate" work?

• I'm not sure how compliant this is with SOB since they're still somewhat close, but I used "University of Minnesota's board of regents" to fix this.

• The length of the lead is just fine in my opinion but the lead should summarize the article. Currently, there is nothing from "Legacy" section. Just a line or so would suffice.

• True. Added information about the plaque on the courthouse and the Nelson School as organically as I could. Hopefully it flows well.

• "attended Deerfield Academy" → "attended the Deerfield Academy"?

• Our article on Deerfield Academy refers to it without a 'the', thus I followed the same convention.

• "(née Proctor)" → ({{nee|Proctor}})

• Neato. Didn't realize that was a template. Fixed.

• "In spring 1844," — MOS:SEASON discourages the use of seasons to refer to particular time of the year.

• "Fixed" all instances of this, but I think it makes the article very marginally worse, since ironically it removes precision. Still, guidelines are guidelines.

• "Nelson's estate was valued at over" — the word 'estate' has been used before unlinked.

• Come to think of it, I feel that was a WP:OVERLINK to begin with. Fixed.

• "He was on the University of Minnesota's first Board of Regents" — 'Board of Regents' linked in the lead, but not in the prose ...

• Fixed. Also gave a more specific wikilink.

• "wherein he voted for George B. McClellan." — the current linking makes it appear as WP:EGG.

• Hadn't seen this part of the MoS before. Fixed.

• "Nelson died of tuberculosis in Stillwater, Minnesota," — can removed 'Minnesota', already mentioned before.

• True enough. No idea why I felt the need to specify here. Fixed.

That is all from me. I think this was my sixth or seventh time reading the article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Should all be fixed now. Strangely, this review also helped me find a typo I made in the alt text, since it was right next to the word "spring". I really appreciate having another pair of eyes on the article, and I think you've easily done the most work in that regard. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27 – Thanks for your work on this article, and for resolving these comments. I support this article for promotion as a featured article. Any comments for Draft Eisenhower movement at its peer review page would be appreciated. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll have a look and probably do some minor copy-editing. I'll let you know if there are any moderate-sized issues to address. It may take a few days to get around to a full, proper review after a first reading, since I'm a bit busy this week. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Ping

Putting this here instead of their talk page so there's complete transparency. Kingsif, a GA reviewer, looked at this a while back and so is somewhat familiar with the article's subject. I was hoping that, should they have some spare time, they could look at the article and leave criticisms that could be resolved. I am not attempting to WP:CANVASS in any way with this; I want to a) keep the discussion alive and more importantly b) get the article to the best quality it can be within the span of the FAC review – while there are still eyes on the article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

Thank you for the invitation on my talk a while ago. I'll comment as I read, leaving the lead for last.

General

• I have a problem with women being called just by first name, - please try to avoid it. Sometimes it's necessary to distinguish, but there many ways to avoid constructions such as "Nelson and Betsey" which just read unfair (to me).
  • I would refer to them as "Socrates and Betsey", but convention has it that I can't use first names for the subject of the article. I can't exactly refer to Betsey Nelson by "Nelson", and calling her "Betsey Nelson" every time feels just a bit too verbose. I could refer to her as "Nelson's wife, Betsey" or "his wife Betsey" on occasions when they're in the same sentence together, but that frankly feels demeaning compared to just using a first name. As examples of this, the article Abraham Lincoln refers to Mary Todd as "Mary", John Adams refers to Abigail Smith as "Abigail", Grover Cleveland refers to Frances Folsom both as "Frances" and as "Frances Folsom" basically interchangeably, Calvin Coolidge refers to Grace Goodhue predominantly as "Grace", Rutherford B. Hayes refers to Lucy Ware Webb as "Lucy", Benjamin Harrison refers to Caroline Scott predominantly as "Caroline", etc. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton frequently refers to Bill Clinton as "Bill Clinton", and C.D. Howe refers to Alice Worcester predominantly by her married name. I think the former has less to do with any sort of double standard and more with the fact that Bill is a former POTUS, but it still reads to me as overly verbose. In effect, the only ways I see to avoid "Nelson and Betsey" are "Nelson and Betsey Nelson" (weird) and "Nelson and his wife, Betsey", which is needlessly giving the reader information they already know. As there's already plenty of FA precedent for referring to a subject's spouse by their first name, I really don't see it as unfair so much as a drawback of the fact that we're not allowed to call our subject by their first name to disambiguate between their spouses. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

    First: indenting. Please, when replying to an asterisk, repeat that asterisk. (There's an essay on top of User talk:Drmies). Secondly: thank you for going into much detail. You are probably a man ;) - There was a discussion on Talk:Josephine Butler, and following the reasoning, I worked hard on Clara Schumann to avoid calling her just Clara, - double hard because biographies do it. Please consider to use "the couple" sometimes, or find other ways. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'd prefer fewer commas, fewer brackets, and fewer clauses within hyphens. Due to American date format, sometimes there's a a comma after every word, which I find hard to read. No reason not to support in the end, just what I notice.
  • Since this is MDY, I can't really sacrifice those commas without losing precision. Regarding brackets (I assume you're refering to parens), outside of two exceptions, they're really only used for unit conversions and inflation. Regarding en-dashes, I tend to think they cut down on verbosity (while being distinct from commas), but I can take a look and see what can be rearranged to still flow naturally.

Infobox

• Do we need relatives without articles? ... a cemetery without article?
  • Up to you. My philosophy on infoboxes is that, in a climate where most people stop at the first couple lines of a Wikipedia article viewed from a search engine, let alone reading the article, having a robust infobox with plenty of information is more useful than ever for a lot of readers. I acknowledge that precedent is against me on this, so what I could do is remove 'Parents' and condense children down into '2 biological, 1 adopted' to make it better conform with other featured politics and government bios. Basically, I don't think having it there is hurting anything, but I don't have really strong opinions on it either.
    • It doesn't hurt, but also doesn't focus. If this man was the son or brother of someone famous, a reader might recognize, or link and see. Names with no apparent significance don't enlighten, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Done.
• can we have the Democratic party somewhere?
  • I'm a bit confused here. Nelson's affiliation with the Democratic Party is mentioned several times throughout the article.
    • Yes, but not in the infobox --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
      • It's between 'resting place' and 'spouse'. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
• please devote a sentence in prose to the adopted girl --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I actually really wanted to, but the only thing I could find on Carson are that mention in Folsom (1888) and this irrelevant mention in The Stillwater Messenger. It's clearly worth it to me to mention that Nelson adopted a daughter, but I have no idea where to mention her outside the infobox, since I have no idea where she fits in chronologically. Do you think "The Nelsons would also adopt a daughter, Hettie Carson" after noting the birth of Emma and Ella? I'm somewhat afraid to put it there, since while it's not time-specific, it could imply that he adopted Carson around that time, something I have no way to confirm or deny. Also, this gave me an idea, so I went ahead and changed "Nelson and Betsey" to "the Nelsons". I would've used "the couple" like you suggested, but unfortunately, the last couple mentioned in the prose was Nelson and Levi Churchill. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

TOC

• Isn't death part of later life, without mentioning?
  • I renamed it from 'Later life' to 'Later life and death' as Kavyansh pointed it out as an idea in a peer review. On the one hand, it does make the header longer, but on the other, it does immediately stick out to a reader who just wants to find out how a subject died. So I could go either way on this.

Early life

• This is much more substantial than the typical school and education, - perhaps a different header?
  • I could go for "Early life and Stillwater", or something to that effect. Frankly, I can't really think of another header besides that (which just reads weirdly) that isn't overly verbose.
• "Levi Churchill – married to Elizabeth Marion Churchill (née Proctor)" - probably no need to repeat "Churchill" for her?
  • Went ahead and changed this.
• "at a site – maintained for several years but since washed away – known as Nelson's Landing or Nelson's Point" - perhaps say known for first, then washed away?
  • Done. Let me know how you think it flows.
• "two children – twins Emma A. and Ella Nelson" - I'd say "twin girls, Emma A. and Ella".
  • Always a fan of reducing verbosity while maintaining detail. Done. I'll get around to the rest of these; I just like doing them in parts. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Business ventures

• "operated from 1853, the year which saw Nelson's departure from the mercantile business" - why let the year see? - Could be simply "... when Nelson departed from ..."
  • But how else am I going to to express my narrative flair? Nah, just kidding; done.
• "Robert F. Slaughter, half of which he deeded in turn to Hilary B. Hancock" - I'm not sure who "he" is here.
  • Didn't think of that. Done.
• "practical worthlessness" - what's that
  • Kavyansh asked as well, and I'm just going off what Donald Empson states in his report: "City lots became virtually worthless". Therefore, I don't have an exact figure; just that they were worth basically nothing. The Stillwater Democrat describes it as "land depreciated from fifty to seventy-five per cent", and Empson does remark that what was described here was "also true of Stillwater", so I could write "the value of the [...] land plummeted by 50 to 75%." However, the reason I don't have that included is because it feels too much like WP:SYNTH to me.
• "and as of 2021, the building is the longest-standing courthouse in Minnesota" - do we need the 2021 clause? ... it will be true until it collapses, no?
  • It will be. I only put that there because of convention that we date all "current" statements, but I'll be keeping a close enough eye on this that it being outdated shouldn't be any real issue for more than maybe a couple weeks at most should something happen to the courthouse
• I am not happy with what follows - tellings after his death - before he actually died.
  • Pretty much the only reason I do this is because it's relevant to his business affairs. However, I could move the post-mortem information back over to 'Later life and death'. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
    • (Having changed some more indents: may I ask once more to please reply to an asterisk by repeating that asterisk?) Yes, please consider moving what happened after his death to later, perhaps a new section - it's not really legacy, nor his life. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Legacy

• I'd distribute the three images over the article. Especially the courthouse pic would be good where that house is mentioned. The marker could just go to the courthouse article, as the print is too small to read the story.
  • So you're suggesting having the image of the courthouse under 'Business ventures' and the Nelson School under 'Legacy'? Unthinkable! (Actually, that's a really good idea. I'll change it, and you can let me know what you think.) TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

See also

• I'd not need that at all. Better link to the 2 items in context.
  • Done. I just removed "Economy of Minnesota" altogether, since it's frankly really lacking in any information about the early pine industry that would be relevant to those reading about Nelson. I put 'Territorial era of Minnesota' as a 'See also' atop 'Political career'. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

That's it for now, - thank you for an unusual article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• It really would be a weirdly obscure subject to have an FA about, wouldn't it? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  I love weirdly obscure subjects. I finished the formatting of replies, but otherwise am too tired now, - will hopefully get back to your replies and the lead after sleep, then my morning routine including a DYK article and a long watchlist (which I'll prune to 50.000 tomorrow, promised), then the article of the day (a recent death so can't wait), - patience please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  Back, Christine Haidegger on the Main page.

Lead

• "He was involved in the community of early Stillwater, being a founding member of the first Independent Order of Odd Fellows lodge in Minnesota as well one of the earliest members of the Minnesota Historical Society." - for me, it would be helpful to first read about his trade, business and politics, and then the fellows and society So Stillwater yes, perhaps "early community of Stillwater", perhaps with a start year, but the details much later?
  • I switched it to "early community", but I just feel like having the early community part flows better. I moved the 'early community' line below the 'As a businessman' one for a couple days, and every time I read it, it just felt very off. I feel like this order works best within the chronology of the overall article, even though some aspects of his business ventures are in 'Early life'. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• "before being elected to the senate. As a senator"- I suggest to close the previous sentence with a full stop and begin "He was elected to the Senate ..." + year
  • The reason I don't include the year he was elected to the Senate there is that I already state a paragraph beforehand that he "served one term as a Minnesota state senator from 1859 to 1861", rendering that redundant.
• "As a senator, he helped to repeal the Loan Amendment – intended to expedite the creation of railroad infrastructure – from the Minnesota Constitution." - how about first the link to the constitution, then the railroad purpose?
  • I'm not sure what you mean, sorry to say. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• I don't see the slightest reason to combine the Democratic convention and the land donation in one sentence, - I'd perhaps even begin a new paragraph for the latter.
  • Done.
• same - no connection - for his death and the plaque, better connect the plaque to the house. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Also done.

The questions where I didn't reply again are solved, for me. Thanks for the changes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for more action, I'm happy now and support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Homo antecessor

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the first identified human species to colonize Western Europe, part of my massive overhaul of prehistoric humans and allies. The only great ape FAs are Solo Man and orangutan   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Image review: pass (t · c) buidhe 00:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "recorded in the Spanish Sierra de Atapuerca from 1.2 to 0.8 million years ago during the Early Pleistocene". This needs rearranging. The species was not recorded a million years ago.

That's how I normally word it, since it's recorded in the fossil record during this time period   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• "supplanting the popular H. heidelbergensis in this function". popular sounds odd to me. Maybe "widely accepted"?

"more conventional"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• "merely an offshoot". This is POV. It is true that we think that fossils matter more if they are of direct ancestors of modern humans, but a Wikipedia article should not says so.

NPOV is for debated subject matter. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is by people for people   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  07:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• "they consequently only inhabited Iberia during warm periods". This is confused. Above you say that they have only been found in Iberia, here only in warm periods, below that they went to Iberia during cold periods. Surely they must have been in Iberia all the time as it is unlikely that they could have crossed the sea to refugia in Africa.

This is explained later in the Fire section. They only inhabited Iberia during warm periods and presumably fled southeast towards the Mediterranean during cold periods   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Iberia is a southern peninsula of Europe. They could only have fled north by land (not southeast as you say), which they would presumably not have done in a cold period. I only have access to the abstract of the source but it says that they probably lived on the Mediterranean coast during cold spells and recolonized Iberia via the Ebro valley (not river) when the climate warmed (not that they fled via the Ebro when it was cold as you say in the article). The implication seems to be that they died out in Iberia during cold periods and fresh groups migrated there during warm ones. This also seems to rule out the Happisburgh hominids being antecessor as it would be too cold for them there. You appear to be using sources which take different views of how cold adapted antecessor was without pointing out the contradiction.

I don't understand the contradiction with Happisburgh. They inhabited the English coastline during an interglacial as well, albeit a different stage of the interglacial. Sierra de Atapuerca is in northern Spain, if you follow the river to the mouth, you're going southeast towards the Mediterranean, so I'll re-add Mediterranean to make it clearer. I moved "(probably via the Ebro valley)" to the part about migrating in   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

1. The climate in Iberia at the height of the last ice age is described in [26] as 'temperate dry steppe'. Happisburgh is 1000 miles further north and it seems unlikely that the climate there in "the cooler beginning or end of an interglacial" would be better than in Spain during a glacial, so if they could stand Happisburgh they would not have needed to abandon inland Iberia. 2. I see that Atapuerca is at the north west end of the Ebro valley, but I was taking you to mean Iberia in general - presumably there must have been many other populations. I think it would be clearer to say that they migrated from the high inland plateaus to the coast without mentioning Ebro. 3. The Waalian interglacial dates to before antecessor. See [27]. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I changed it to "They may have followed water bodies while migrating, in the case of Sierra de Atapuerca, most likely the Ebro River." The source specifically says Waalian Interglacial. As for Happisburgh, they didn't necessarily have to stay in England all year long as Britain wasn't an island at the time. I can add more about Happisburgh if you'd like using [28], I wasn't sure how in depth I should go since the site is only associated with H. antecessor by chronology   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Migration looks fine to me now. The source for the Waalian is 2008 and may be out of date. The table I linked to above produced by the International Commission on Stratigraphy dates the Waalian to 1.6 to 1.4 million years ago. Happisburgh would have been cold even in summer during the transition to or from a glacial, but I see that you suggest above that antecessor was probably cold adapted, so maybe the high inland plateau was too dry during ice ages, not too cold. I do not think you need any more about Happisburgh as the association is merely based on the lack of any known alternative. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The source puts the end of the Waalian at 1.3 mya, and it's not like temperature plummets that much even after 100,000 years. The average temperature of Happisburgh today is warmer than what's predicted for Gran Dolina then   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

You say the source puts the end of the Waalian at 1.3 mya. Current thinking is a bit earlier but either way it is before the antecessor dates of 1.2 to 0.8 mya. Also all sources say the Waalian is north-west European, so it is not relevant to Iberia. We have to use our judgment what to quote from sources, not use them uncritically. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Well if you want to do it like that we can't mention any glacial period beyond northern Europe or the Alps, which is unhelpful. Like should we delete mention of the Eemian in Solo Man since it usually refers to northern Europe and not Indonesia?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Presumably the source explains why the Iberian Mediterranean coast could not have provided refugia? After all, Gorham's Cave is in Iberia, it is the southern most point in Europe and it was occupied by the Neanderthals. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

It's because I left out the word "inland". Oops   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• "was first explored for fossils by archaeologist Francisco Jordá Cerdá [es] in a short field trip to the region in 1966, who recovered a few animal fossils and stone tools". I think where he recovered would be grammatically better.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• "and found human remains 2 years later". Presumably additional archaic human fossils as you say they had been found two years earlier?

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• "This recovered nearly 100 specimens". Presumably human fossil bones but it would be helpful to says so.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• "were discovered in Happisburgh". No change needed, but is it known how the temperatures compared during warm periods in England and cold periods in Iberia? If they could survive at any time in northern England then surely they would have no trouble at any time in Iberia?

added to the Fire section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• "In 2001, French palaeoanthropologist Jean-Jacques Hublin postulated (without a formal analysis) the Gran Dolina remains and the contemporaneous Tighennif remains from Algeria (usually classified as Homo ergaster or Homo erectus, originally "Atlantanthropus mauritanicus") represent the same population". I think it should be "postulated...that", but the sentence has too many subclauses for easy reading.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• "In 2003, American palaeoanthropologist Chris Stringer echoed this concern." This raises several points. 1. Stringer is British. 2. "echoed this concern" is vague and unclear. I take it you mean that he agreed with Hublin, but you should say so. 3. You only cite the refutation of these views. I do not think this is valid. You should check and cite the original papers to be sure that they have not been misinterpreted.

I did, Stringer didn't say anything in specific, just acknowledged someone said H. antecessor =? H. mauritanicus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Stringer just included it in a list of the views on the subject. That is not echoing a concern. I would delete. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I included Stringer because Castro specifically accredits the usage of "H. mauritanicus" to only Hublin and Stringer, "Some authors have considered the possibility of combining the two samples in the same species: H. mauritanicus (Hublin 2001; Stringer 2003)."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Stringer wrote "Some workers prefer to lump the earlier records together and recognize only one widespread species, H. erectus2 (shown in a). Others recognize several species, with H. ergaster and H. antecessor (or H. mauritanicus) in the West, and H. erectus only in the Far East". You say "Chris Stringer echoed this concern". It was not a concern but a mention of one theory in a list of theories. Stringer did not echo a concern. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The validity of species names is a concern, so by saying H. antecessor =? H. mauritanicus he is echoing this concern. He could've just ignored Hublin entirely   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "because the type specimen was a child so the supposedly characteristic features could have disappeared with maturity". This is ungrammatical. I would delete "so".

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• "In 2013, anthropologist Sarah Freidline and colleagues suggested the modern humanlike face evolved independently several times among Homo." This is uncited.

oops   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• The stratigraphy and family tree diagrams are uncited.

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• "The facial anatomy of the 10 to 11.5 year old specimen" The child not the specimen is 10-11.5 years old.

what's the difference?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The specimen is about one million years old. I would replace "specimen" with "child". Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• "The facial anatomy of the 10 to 11.5 year old specimen ATD6-69 is strikingly similar to modern humans (as well as East Asian Middle Pleistocene archaic humans) as opposed to West Eurasian or African Middle Pleistocene archaic humans or Neanderthals". This is vague. Which archaic humans? Why the distinction between them and Neanderthals? Neanderthals were a species of archaic humans.

We see two sentences down "The most notable traits are a completely flat face and a curved zygomaticoalveolar crest (the bar of bone connecting the cheek to the part of the maxilla which holds the teeth)". Neanderthals are not Middle Pleistocene. Middle Pleistocene Western Eurasian and African specimens are conventionally assigned to H. heidelbergensis, but in Europe some people wanna classify certain populations as late H. erectus, and in Africa rhodesiensis, late ergaster, helmei, and recently bodoensis. This time period is called the "muddle in the middle" because there's no wide agreement on species classification, which I think is better discussed at Homo heidelbergensis. Sometimes I see authors not mentioning species names at all   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The Neanderthals were Middle Pleistocene, which ran from 770 to 126 thousand years ago. However, I accept that it is correct to refer to West Eurasian and African species without specifying since as you say there are several and no agreement. What is the position on East Asian? I only know of erectus. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

That's like calling H. sapiens Middle Pleistocene, technically true but when you just say the name you generally think of late-sapiens. The Middle Pleistocene of East Asia is even less resolved. I see some people wanting to lump them into heidelbergensis, but opponents don't offer an alternative. We know there were the Denisovans but we don't know what they looked like. Someone recently erected Homo longi and revived "H. daliensis" so now there's more names to argue over. Some fossils have been assigned to H. erectus with little debate, Nanking Man, Solo Man, Peking Man, etc. but certainly there're a lot of fossils that can't be comfortably classified into H. erectus.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Though, African Middle Pleistocene humans (the direct ancestors of modern humans) would later evolve this condition." This is ungrammatical.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• "The upper incisors are shovel-shaped (the tongue side is distinctly concave), characteristic of other Eurasian human populations." Maybe "a feature which is characteristic".

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• "An adult radius, ATD6-43, which could be male based on absolute size or female based on gracility, was estimated to have been 172.5 cm (5 ft 8 in) tall " A radius was 5' 8" tall?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• You say that the radius is "oddly long and straight for an archaic human" and explain it "as retention of the ancestral long-limbed tropical form". Isn't this a contradiction as retention of ancestral form would not be odd?

It's odd because it wasn't retained in contemporary or later archaic humans beyond Africa and southeast Asia   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe clearer if you said unlike other contemporary Eurasian archaic humans? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

"It is oddly long and straight for someone from so far north"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Like other archaic humans, the femur features". This is ungrammatical.

how?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

A femur is a bone, not a human. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• "The long trochlea caused a short neck of the talus." This is incomprehensible to a non-expert and the term are not linked.

glossed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• "In 2010, Castro and colleagues approximated ATD6-112, represented by a permanent upper and lower first molar, died between 5.3 and 6.6 years of age". "estimated that" would be better than "approximated".

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Dudley, will there be more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

More comments

• "The specimen ATD6-69 has an ectopic M3 (upper left third molar)". What does ectopic mean here. Can it be linked? It does not seem to be Ectopic enamel, which is the only dental use of the term I can find.

As it says in the next clause "where it erupted improperly"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

where implies location, not definiton. You need to clarify. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a perfectly valid use of where, like you could say "he has a disorder where his hip locks up when he stands up"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  08:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• [[Acheulean]] [[industry]] is MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Maybe [[Acheulean|Acheulean industry]].

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• "they were butchering humans for nutritional purposes (presumably under dire circumstances)". No change needed, but "under dire circumstances" seems to go against the other comments, and perhaps reflects researchers' unwillingness to accept evidence that any species of humans practised cannibalism as a matter of course for food. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

no, there's clear documented evidence of cannibalism. The main issue is ritual cannibalism, that is, if other human species were even capable of this level of thinking   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I am very much in two minds about this article. Dunkleosteus77 is doing excellent work bringing articles on Homo species up to a high standard, but in a few cases I think the use of sources is wrong and as the article is mainly based on ones I do not have access to I can only do very limited checking. There are two statements I am particularly concerned about.

1. A theory of Hublin is described and then it is stated that "Chris Stringer echoed this concern". This struck me as odd on two counts, firstly that Hublin had proposed a theory, not expressed a concern, and secondly that it did not sound like the way that Stringer would have expressed himself. As this is one of the few sources I have access to I checked it and found that Stringer just included Hublin's view in a list of theories without expressing an opinion on it. Dunkleosteus77 replied that "validity of species names is a concern". This is true but I do not think that a reader would take "Chris Stringer echoed this concern" in this sense, and FunkMonk took it as agreement with Hublin's theory. Dunkleosteus77 replied that Stringer had been rebutted, which is wrong. Stringer was not rebutted as he never supported Hublin.

2. A fossil of antecessor was found in layer TE9 and the article says "TE9 similarly indicates a generally warm climate, corresponding to the Waalian interglacial." The article dates antecessor as 1.2 to 0.8 million years ago. Some older sources date the Waalian as overlapping with this period but it is currently dated 1.6 to 1.4 million years ago. I queried the mention of the Waalian and Dunkleosteus77 replied "The source puts the end of the Waalian at 1.3 mya, and it's not like temperature plummets that much even after 100,000 years." I do not agree that it is correct to date a layer with antecessor to a period which ended at least 100,000 years earlier.

These are both relatively minor points, but in view of my limited access to sources I prefer at present to wait and see what other reviewers say. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps requesting a thorough spot-check would clear things up? FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

There's this source from 2017 says, "The earliest evidence of North Sea glaciation is Menapian (c. 1.2 Ma)", and the Menapian is the glacial period following the Waalian. Though it cites much older articles, it looks like even northern Europe didn't really start freezing over for a long time after the Waalian, so it's accurate to ascribe the warm climate to the Waalian. By even including "H. mauritanicus", Stringer is echoing Hublin's concern that antecessor is a junior synonym. Stringer could've just as easily chosen to include "H. cepranesis", but he didn't. Castro 2007 specifically calls out only these 2 publications, "other researchers have preferred to use the denomination H. mauritanicus (Hublin 2001; Stringer 2003). Furthermore, Hublin (2001) and Stringer (2003) have considered that the human fossils recovered from Aurora Stratum of the level TD6 in the Gran Dolina site of the Sierra de Atapuerca (Carbonell et al. 1995) could be also included in H. mauritanicus (considering the priority of the name assigned by Arambourg)."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

"North Sea glaciation". Attributing antecessor to the Waalian is not only the wrong period, it is the wrong area. The 2008 source says "This could tentatively correlate with the Waalian", unlike the definite statement in the article. This may have been considered valid by the authors in 2008, but Menapian and Waalian are north-west European stages and changes between warm and cool climates are not necessarily at the same time in diffferent areas. The Italian Mediterranean Marine stages are probably more relevant to Spain and antecessor falls in the Sicilian stage in this series. See [29]. As I have pointed out more than once, Hublin did not express a concern, he put forward a theory. Stringer wrote "Some workers prefer to lump the earlier records together and recognize only one widespread species, H. erectus. Others recognize several species, with H. ergaster and H. antecessor (or H. mauritanicus ) in the West, and H. erectus only in the Far East." He was just citing Hublin as a splitter as opposed to lumpers who see only one species across Eurasia. Castro's mischaracterisation of Stringer's comment is not relevant. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

You can't make valid taxonomic opinions on a specimen you didn't see yourself. I removed the Waalian since you feel very strongly about it. The Sierra de Atapuerca is not Mediterranean either, if you have a problem with using northern Europe then you can't use Mediterranean timelines Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Plenty of taxa have been named by authors who didn't examine the specimens first-hand, that is certainly not a criterion. It is preferred, yes, but there are no "rules" against it. FunkMonk (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

How would you rewrite the paragraph? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

You could refer to Calabrian as the worldwide stage but it is better just to delete Waalian as you have done. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

No, about Stringer Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I would delete the sentence about Stringer. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Funk

• I'll have a look soon. At first glance, limestone is duplinked. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Funk, just to let you know that this nomination is liable to time out if at least one more general review is not started. Hint! Gog the Mild (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I was waiting for Dudley as to not cover the same ground, but since he's gotten far, I'll begin soon. FunkMonk (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Link anatomical terms like maxilla, frontal bone, etc., in article body and image captions.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "(to see if the unit warrants further investigation)" Warranted?

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "The Sierra de Atapuerca had long been known to be abundant in fossil remains." State this is i Spain and in what region.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "described as a new species, Homo antecessor." Explain the meaning of the name in the paragraph about its naming. I see you explain it much further down, but the reader would expect to see it earlier.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "In 2007, a human molar was recovered from the nearby Sima del Elefante ("elephant pit") in layer TE9 ("trinchera elefante"), belonging to a 20–25 year old individual. This was also classified into H. antecessor." Why not just say "In 2007, a H. antecessor molar was recovered"?

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "have not even produced human fossils at all" Why is "even" and "at all" necessary? "have not produced" means the same, and is less wordy.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Any code cladogram?
• "so the original describers (Castro and colleagues)" Why not just keep it simple, "so in their original description, Castro and colleagues classified it as..."?

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Link words like stratigraphy, H. heielbergensis, and Neanderthal in article body. Words linked in the intro should be linked again in the article body.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "supplanting H. heielbergensis" Missing d.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "and found the Tighennif remains are much larger than" To be would look more natural.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Frido Welker is German or Dutch, not Danish. Seems he moved to Denmark for research purposes.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• The end of the classification section makes the status of the species unclear. Has it been suggested to be a subspecies of H. ergaster?

no, but most all human species are thought to descend from H. ergaster/erectus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "In 2013, anthropologist Sarah Freidline and colleagues" Missing nationality.
• You show a 2012 cladogram by Stringer, but you don't elaborate on the study in-text. It seems to contradict the earlier claim that he advocated for synonymy.

Stringer mentioned synonym in 2003 and was rebutted in 2007, so I don't see any contradiction if he supports antecessor in 2012   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

But none of that is stated clearly (rebuttal? And Stringer changing opinion?) in the article, so it seems it could benefit from some elaboration for each study. "Rebuttals" rarely lead to rival taxonomic researchers changing opinions, so that is significant in itself. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Stringer did not advocate synonym, he just included it in a list of theories without expressing an opinion, so he could not have been rebutted. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

At the least, I think the 2012 study should be summarised in-text, and it seems there is something that needs reinterpretation from the earlier studies. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Well I wouldn’t describe it as a rival taxonomic opinion, it’s just Hublin and Stringer said “someone should investigate this” and then someone did so that was that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but then Stringer's 2012 should still be covered in-text? FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

He's mainly giving a brief summary on archaic human introgression. What exactly are you looking for? The graphic is there because it's easy to understand and I can't really do chronospecies using wikitext cladograms   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You now only say "In 2003, British palaeoanthropologist Chris Stringer echoed this concern" What I'm looking for is an in-text sentence that states what his 2012 view was for contrast. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

He never mentions H. antecessor in-text, only in the picture. Again, the picture is only there for illustrative reasons   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  08:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm talking about stating the result of his cladogram in-text here, which is routinely done in articles that summarise classification history. For example "In 2012, Stringer published a cladogram showing antecessor as a distinct lineage" or similar. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Singling random people out in-text seems unnecessary just because a graphic is used, especially since everything from that source relevant to this article is in the caption. Like I also mentioned Hublin, should I try to find a more recent cladogram by him? Or maybe talk about one of Stringer's more recent cladograms instead?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

What is random about describing a newer study by a researcher you've already discussed? The way you've written the classification is as a chronological dialogue between studies. Therefore, it makes little sense to arbitrarily leave out one such study, especially when it contradicts something stated earlier, such as Stringer having a particular view. Now it looks like an oversight and inconsistency. If there are more studies that have been left out, by all means mention them in the text and their findings. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Basically every Homo cladogram since description includes antecessor, it would be impractical to discuss every single one of them Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• What is the holotype? Should be mentioned already where the naming is discussed, now it's only mentioned in passing further down.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Growth rate and pathology isn't really anatomy?

if all you have are bones, yeah they are, because you can only study them by seeing how the anatomy is altered. In the absence of blood cell count and the like, clinical pathology is impossible; all we have here is anatomical pathology   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• "would later evolve this condition." You haven't mentioned any condition. Say "evolve a similar morphology"?

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• "The facial anatomy of the 10 to 11.5 year old child ATD6-69" As this is the beginning of a new section, I think you could name the subject of the article, like "year old H. antecessor child ATD6-69" for clarity.

this isn't the first time ATD6-69 is being mentioned   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not the concern, it is just good to name the subject of the article at the beginning of a new section for context. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• "and the alveolar part (adjacent to the teeth) is completely vertical" And is that also modern human like? Doesn't say now.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• "a feature characteristic of other Eurasian human populations" Including modern humans?

yup   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

State it clearly, then. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• "the tongue side" I wonder if "inwards side" would be more understandable?

I think tongue and lip side make more sense   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Link and explain derived.

I did "like derived species, but retain... like more archaic species"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a link. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• "the cingulum (towards the base)" This doesn't describe what it is, only where.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• The bust doesn't make much sense where it is now by the torso section, since it shows a child, perhaps move it to growth rate, which doesn't have images?

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• "based on the correlation among modern Indian people" Why Indian people in particular?

that's the data the study had available to use. There's no real specific reason   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• "as this bone rarely ever fossilises for archaic humans." This is a bit oddly worded, as if the bone itself was not likely to fossilise, rather it is by chance? You could say this is just rarely found?

I assumed it was preservation bias because these bones are small and hollow and so would be too brittle to fossilize. Are you saying it's statistical bias?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

But what does the source say? If it's ambiguous, we should be too. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• The research section could have a list of what parts of the skeleton is known. I know they are mentioned here and there under anatomy, but it's not possible to get a brief overview there.

Needs response. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• "The sternum is narrow. The acromion (which extends over the shoulder joint) is small." And is this similar to modern humans or? It is hard to know what these descriptions mean without comparison to anything else.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• "and that the age of first molar eruption occurred at roughly this age" Redundancy, why not just "and that first molar eruption occurred at roughly this age"

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• "It is oddly long and straight for someone from so far north" Add "of this time" or similar.

this would include modern populations too   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Could the possible use of some of these stone tools be explained?

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Freezing temperatures could have been hit from November to March" Looks like the "been" is unnecessary.

I don't think so because you would say, "Freezing temperature were hit" so you have to say "could have been"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

In that case, the wording is a bit confusing, "reached" might be clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Only a very short part of the "fire" section is about fire, the overall theme of the section (over two thirds) seems to be response to the climate, and it should be renamed accordingly.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Sixteen species were recorded" Specify animal species. "Species" can refer to anything.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• "a mammoth" Which species?

Mammuthus sp.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Then add "of undetermined species". FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't an issue when I said "a lynx" or "rhinos", etc., why specifically mammoths?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

If you can state it for the others too, why not? Would be more consistent. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• "in two instances toothmarks overlapping cutmarks" Of what animals?"

unidentified   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

If that is stated specifically, mention it so it doesn't read like an omission. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Sima del Elefante site" What elephant does this name refer to?

I'm finding Proboscidea indet. from the youngest fossil-bearing unit p. 338  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

If these are thought to be distinct from the mammoths, it would be worth listing. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how this is relevant to this article since elephant bones aren't even in the H. antecessor unit   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Olive and oak are linked at second instead of first mentions.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• "There are no complete skull" Is this plural or singular?

skulls   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Where the human bones with cutmarks found along animal bones with cutmarks? Seems important to note if the case.

animal and human bones were all randomly mixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Should be stated clearly then. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

where?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Where the discovery is discussed, or taphonomy. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Do we have any photos of cannibalised specimens? There seem to be photos of two jaw fragments on Commons not used in the article at least.

they were probably all cannibalized   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

In that case, show them in the section? You haven't used images of these specimens[30][31], if one of them has specifically been mentioned as having been cannibalised, it could be used in that otherwise empty section. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

None of them really show the cut marks very well, like the holotype also is cut up but from the available photos it's impossible to see   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Would just be a good opportunity to show skeletal elements otherwise not shown now we do have available images of them. For example showing the upper jaw or what it is, and saying in the caption that it, like most of the other fossils, are thought to come from cannibalised individuals. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The hemimandible photo is already used in Anatomy, and I haven't read anything about cut marks on the Sima del Elefante remains (sorry when I said all I meant just the TD6 ones). I put it in Research history Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• "in the Spanish Sierra de Atapuerca" Add "site".

wouldn't say "in the Atapuerca Mountains site"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Just anything to identify what it is. It's article says "Archaeological site of Atapuerca", for example. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I just gave the English translation. I don't understand the issue, like it's mountains   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

To explain that it is a archaeological site, like its article does even in the title. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

"recorded in the Spanish Sierra de Atapuerca, a productive archaeological site..." Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• "in this function" It isn't really a function, but a position.

done

• "as merely an offshoot" Very subjective to say "merely".

at the end of the day, Wikipedia is by humans for humans   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It is a very loaded word and wouldn't be fit for a biography of a person either. If the source doesn't use it, we shouldn't either. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• "though these elements are known only from a juvenile specimen." The article body should specify this too.

the Skull section already starts off with "The facial anatomy of the 10 to 11.5 year old child ATD6-69"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

But you don't say it is the only such element known from the species, which is what I'm asking for. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• "which later becomes ubiquitous" Better to stay in past tense, like the surrounding text.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Dudley Miles: I open a lot of tabs (I know, I'm a bad person), and when I went to close all of them I discovered I still had the edit window opened which added a few more sentences to the Food section Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

This nomination has now been open for a month and while it has attracted a reasonable amount of attention it is showing little sign of a consensus for promotion forming. Unless this changes significently over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I've added some further responses above, and with some compliance, I should be able to support soon. Perhaps Dudley is at a similar stage. FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It's finals week for me, I'll try to address the comments over the weekend   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  08:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Should I try to find more reviewers? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Jim Lovell

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) and Balon Greyjoy (talk)

This article is about the second oldest living American astronaut after his Gemini 7 and Apollo 8 crew mate Frank Borman. He also flew the Gemini 12 mission with Buzz Aldrin, who is two years younger. Lovell was part of the Next Nine group of astronauts selected in 1962 that also included Neil Armstrong, and he was Armstrong's backup for the Apollo 11 mission. Today he is probably best known for his unsuccessful final mission, Apollo 13, which was made into the 1995 film Apollo 13, in which he appeared. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

I've made a number of hands-on edits, mostly minor grammatical and such.

• "Naval aviator" Our article on same says "naval aviator".

  De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Can more be said about the astronaut selection process Lovell passed? If I recall, Lovell describes it in some detail, including the interview.

  Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• "at Albrook Air Force Station in Panama" I might describe it as being in the Panama Canal Zone.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps something more can be said about Lovell's experience on Gemini 7? From what I recall, the flight was so long that in the final days they were uncomfortable and just counting down the time to the return to Earth.

  Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• What role, if any, did Lovell have in NASA's recovery from the Apollo 1 fire?

  Added a paragraph about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Is it worth mentioning that Lovell led the crew that spent two days in April 1968 in a CM in the Gulf of Mexico testing the effects of seawater on the CM?

  Added a paragraph about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps in the Apollo 13 mission material, a bit more about Lovell as an individual, perhaps mention he echoed Swigert's "Houston, we've had a problem" and his comment that NASA wouldn't be returning to the Moon for a while that got him into slight hot water.

  Added the former. Do you have a source for the latter? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• It's page 323 of the 1998 edition of Chaikin's book. On the chance you have different pagination, it's the episode described as April 16 at 3:21 am Houston time. I think Lovell talks about it in Lost Moon, too. There's brief discussion of it in the Lunar Flight Journal here (search for

"last lunar")--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, I retrieved Chaiken from the library, which is open again, and have added a paragraph about this too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hurricane Noah

• Two of his classmates were Pete Conrad and Wally Schirra, but Lovell graduated first in the class I think it would be better as "however," instead of "but".

  Dome editors dislike "however". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• He became McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II program manager. I believe this is missing an article after became.

  Sure. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Add a nonbreaking space to the infobox to keep Apollo 8 from going to two lines. Same thing with United States.

  It's a link, so this is included automatically. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  I added it in and fixed it. It actually doesn't occur for links automatically when there is a space. Noah^Talk 01:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• achieved Eagle Scout, the organization's highest level I think it would be more appropriate to say rank instead of level.

  Sure. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Upon his return to shore duty, he was reassigned to provide pilot transition training for the North American FJ-4 Fury, McDonnell F3H Demon and Vought F8U Crusader Serial comma.

  Seems okay to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  Most of the article uses the serial comma. If this is intended to be in American English, then the serial comma would be required. Noah^Talk 01:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Should be able to get the rest of the article from Gemini down tomorrow. Noah^Talk 02:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why you are using nautical miles instead of statute miles? Most readers do not understand the unit.

  Nautical miles was the old measurement used for orbits, and was used in the contemporary sources. (After the loss of a spacecraft due to unit confusion, NASA now uses metric only.) For the readers, metric conversions are provided. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• After the flight this was traced to the fact that they had an old type of laminate in the thrust chamber instead of the new type that had been developed to solve this problem. Comma after flight.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• By day thirteen a warning light was burning continuously and it was feared that the cells Comma after thirteen.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• However tests were carried out in St. Louis that demonstrated that Gemini 7's batteries could sustain it for the remainder of the flight. Comma after However.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Instead Aldrin, who had written his PhD on the rendezvous, Comma after instead.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• and aftwerwards it underwent a series of qualification tests Typo

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• On Christmas Eve the crew broadcast black-and-white television pictures of the lunar surface back to Earth. Comma after Eve.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• In 1999 the Lovell family Comma after 1999.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Link Duke of York.

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Link to Richard Nixon.

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

That should be it. Would you consider reviewing my article? Noah^Talk 01:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

• "the 1970 Apollo 13 lunar mission" this could be read as if there's e.g. a 1971 Apollo 13 lunar mission. Maybe "the Apollo 13 lunar mission in 1970".

  Changged as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Could link Mission control center for "mission control".

  Linked instead to Christopher C. Kraft Jr. Mission Control Center Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Also worth linking night fighter as it's jargon.

  Pravda? Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Class 20. His classmates ... the class" thrice class in quick succession.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• "He became the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II program manager." rather brief and without temporal context.

  Added temporal context. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Infobox mentions total duration in space of "29d 19h 03m", where is this referenced?

  Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Interestingly, his occupation in the infobox is listed as "Test pilot" yet that is not listed in the lead, where it says he's a retired "astronaut, naval aviator, and mechanical engineer".

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• "outbreak of the Korean War in 1950. To avoid this prospect..." doesn't flow right, "this prospect" appears to be the outbreak of the Korean War.

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Could link liquid-propellant rocket.

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• "while they ... While she" quickly repetitive.

  Re-worded. Midshipmen are not permitted to marry, so marriages immediately after graduation were common. Today, there are fewer early marriages, but Naval officers are more likely to be married than the US adult population. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• "NAS Pensacola " can we spell out NAS first time?

  Nah, spelt out in full instead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Especially as you subsequently have "at Naval Air Station Patuxent River"...
• "His classmates included Pete Conrad and Wally Schirra.[18] Conrad gave Lovell the nickname "Shaky" could we not reverse the order of Conrad and Schirra in the first sentence and then merge it with the second to avoid these two very short sentences?

  Good idea. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• "sets.[20][18]" ref order.

  Reversed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• "time John Young served " are we supposed to know who that is?

  Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Any need to have (USC) when you never actually use the initialism?

  None. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

That takes me to "NASA career", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• "NASA test pilot Warren J. North reduced" comma after North.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "finalists.[26][27] The finalists" repetitive.

  Concatenated sentences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "on September 14.[31] He became" merge.

  Moved the text around. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "announcement, but it was" why "but"?

  In comparison with the Mercury Seven. Tweaked wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "at the Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida and " overlinked and if you want to introduce it (i.e. "in Florida") suggest you do that on its first mention.

  Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "for Gemini 4.[43] This was" merge.

  Merged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "astronaut Deke Slayton.[43]" overlinked, and do you need to repeat his first name?

  Did a sweep through, removing all duplicate links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "a United States Air Force (USAF) officer" you've already used USAF before this point.

  Abbreviation defoined on first use. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "had a zippered hood" is this referenced?

  Added a bit about zippers to the main text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "the Gemini 6 mission" our article calls it 6A? Indeed you switch to 6A later...

  It became Gemini 6A on the second attempt. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "the Agena target vehicle that" overlinked.

  Did a sweep through, removing all duplicate links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Gemini 7 during the two weeks while Gemini 7 was in orbit.[48] The only change to Gemini 7's " bit "Gemini 7"-centric...

  Removed one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "eight were medical" what were the other 12?

  (Has a look at the list) Added a summary. The Gemini VII article should have listed them all, but it is a mess. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "was less exciting." according to?

  Grimwood and hacker. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Drums Along the Mohawk has a capital A in Along.

  Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

That takes me to "Gemini 12", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• (Previous) "... potential astronaut candidates..." overlinked.

  Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "On January 24, 1966, Lovell... " massive sentence, lots of run-ons and repeated phrases.

  Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• " (EVA). EVAs had" repetitive

  Joined sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Lovell asked him if he could change the oil too." I assume this is a joke, so it might be worth saying "jokingly" in front of asked.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "discarded some unneeded items" whaaaaat? He just chucked stuff out into space?

  Correct. Source [32] says: "Aldrin began the second standup EVA which included photography, additional experiments and the jettison of unused equipment." [33] (p. 377) says: "First, he just stood in the hatch, becoming acclimated. Then he cast loose a garbage bag." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "December 24 (Christmas Eve) " etc not sure why Christmas Eve/Day is relevant. This is about spaceflight, not Christianity.

  It is relevant because of the Apollo 8 Genesis reading Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Please be informed, there is a Santa Claus."[78]" I mean this is "funny" but who said that Santa lived on the Moon? He's in the north pole, everyone knows that. Or is it an American thing to think he lives/lived on the Moon?

  In American lore, Santa and his reindeer fly around the Moon. eg [34]

• "the right numbers" -> "the correct values".

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "computer keyboard" that's an Easter eggy link to computer, call it by it's piped link.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Image captions seem a bit hit-and-miss as to the consistency on full stops.

  Removed a couple of full stops. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "prime and backup crews, who trained together" this is very surprising to me. I thought the whole point was to separate the teams in totality. That's not a correct assumption then?

  There was no effect to separate them; prime and backup crews always worked closely together. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "We have a problem here" " comma after "here"?

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• I would put this seminal conversation into a quote box rather than single-sentence paragraphs in the middle of the prose.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "becoming CEO in 1975. He became" repetitive.

  Reworded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

That takes me to "Awards and decorations", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

PS I'll finish up tomorrow, sorry for the delay today. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• What makes anecdotes-spatiales.com a high quality RS? It looks like a self-published blogesque site to me.

  Replaced with a book reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• "by His Royal Highness the" do we need "His Royal Highness"??

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• "1966. It was " merge.

  Merged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• "in 1969. Lovell accepted" similar. This paragraph reads quite choppily to me, could use smoothing out as it's like reading a list of bullet points in prose form.

  Smoothed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Lovell was on " featured on? I mean it's pretty certain that Lovell's image appeared on hundreds magazines/newspapers etc, but I guess these two instances were proper features?

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Compare format of ref 11 with ref 116, e.g. linking, location etc, be consistent.

  Harmonised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 34, we don't normally do "double quotes".

  Changed to single quotes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 57 vs 62 format inconsistency.

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 67, what is Features?

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 67 vs 79, NASA format inconsistency.

  Harmonised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 80, you tend to put locations for printed newspapers, but not always. Be consistent.

  MOS:CITE requires "city of publication (if not included in name of newspaper) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Any reason why some URLs are archived and other aren't even though they're live?

  No idea how that happened. Removed archive URLs where site is live. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 90, NASA here instead of NASA elsewhere. Check throughout and be consistent.

  Should be consistent now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 91, you tend to link newspapers, but not consistently, suggest you do so here (and consider location too as this is a non-US work).

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 136, Boy Scouts... was italicised previously.

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 139 no access-/publication date?

  Added one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 148 no location information

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 150, TIME is just Time and can be linked.

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• I notice that The New York Times has no location information in any refs yet Los Angeles Times does (for instance) so I imagine for consistency all of these should.

  Removed from Los Angeles Times. As noted above, MOS conformance requires inconsistency. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 133 ISBN has no hyphenation while all those in the References section are hyphenated.

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

That's probably just about it on the first run. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Nice work, happy to support the nomination. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Harry

I've read the lead and had a couple of minor quibbles but I'll wait til you've addressed TRM's comments so we're not duplicating each other. Ping me when you're ready for me and I'll get to it as soon as I can. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• through the efforts of the crew and the Mission Control Center Is this really relevant in the lead of Lovell's biography?

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• which included future astronauts Pete Conrad and Wally Schirra Again, doesn't feel like an important detail for the lead

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• They had four children: Barbara, James, Susan, and Jeffrey I don't think we need the names of non-notable offspring

  We normally note children at least to the extent of whether they were daughters or sons, their names are widely sourced, and they do appear later. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Usually the top graduate was assigned to Flight Test on graduation, but Lovell was assigned to Electronics Test Is that a proper noun? Also, do we know why? Was it his choice?

  Yes, we do. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• and Conrad for refusing to take the second round of invasive medical tests not relevant to Lovell's biography

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• During which time future astronaut John Young served under him. relevance to Lovell? And during what time? This is a new sentence.

  Young appears later. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Borman rejected suggestions that Lovell and Stafford exchange places on the grounds that it was hazardous and likely to jeopardize the fourteen-day mission objective through loss of oxygen I had to read this several times and I'm still not quite sure what's going on. Why was this Borman's decision? Why was the suggestion made in the first place, and by whom? Switch which places? What was the hazard and how did it jeopardise the mission?

  Borman was the commander, so he was in charge of the mission. Try and imagine what was proposed. We have two Gemini spacecraft, each about the size of a car, moving through space in tandem. We tether them together with a nylon rope. All four astronauts don space suits, and we open the doors of both spacecraft, letting out the cabins' oxygen. Then Lovell makes his way across to Gemini 6A, making sure not to fall off and become orbiting space junk, and boards Gemini 6A. Stafford then does the same, moving to Gemini 7. Borman disconnects Lovell's oxygen hose on Gemini 7, and Lovell reels it in and has Schirra re-attach it on Gemini 6A. The process is then repeated for Stafford. Both spacecraft then close the doors and repressurize the cabin. What could possibly go wrong? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• White was laid to rest in the West Point Cemetery, with Lovell serving as a pallbearer the ", with" connector is ungrammatical. Suggest splitting the sentence or, better still, re-casting it to make Lovell the subject.

  HJ Mitchell you've mentioned this in "another place", could you link me to some style guides (even our own one) which suggests this construction is ungrammatical, just for my interest please? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  The Rambling Man, the best we have on-wiki that I can find is User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing (Tony cites the Chicago Manual of Style). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• This did not seem to bother Lovell, Duke regarded it as his worst experience comma splice

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• However, he accidentally erased some of the computer's memory "however" implies a contradiction but there isn't one here

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• There was one more change. Seven days before launch That entire paragraph seems off-topic for Lovell's biography as opposed to the article on Apollo 13.

  We need to introduce Swigert. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• The restaurant was sold to son and executive chef James ("Jay") in 2006.[117] The restaurant was put on the market for sale in February 2014,[118] and it closed in April 2015, with the property auctioned the same month. All feels off-topic. Beyond the point where the Lovell family were involved, it should suffice to say that it was sold and later closed.

  The family were involved with the closure and sale. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

That's it. Not much to criticise. I've seen Apollo 13 a few times but hadn't realised that Lovell was the captain! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Now you'll have top watch it again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Support. I'm happy with your responses, and I'll look out for Lovell next time I watch the film! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Image review—pass

No issues with licensing found. (t · c) buidhe 22:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Seeing as this one just needs a source review, I will contribute one. Hog Farm _Talk 19:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• - getting a 404 error, recommend archiving

  Which one? Checklinks isn't reporting any problems. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, looks like a CNTRL+V fail. It's " "Capt. James A. Lovell Visits with Wisconsin NROTC Midshipmen". United States Navy. January 3, 2017. Retrieved December 3, 2019.". Hog Farm _Talk 06:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  Restored from archive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• "As a college student, Gerlach had transferred from Wisconsin State Teachers College to the George Washington University in Washington, D.C., so she could be near him while he was at Annapolis" - how much of this does the public record link actually support? the other ref doesn't support all of it

  I don't have access to it; replaced with a reference to Lovell and Kluger. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• - "Evans, Ben. "'The Best All-Around Group': NASA's Astronauts of '62". AmericaSpace. Retrieved February 12, 2018." - Given that this is one of four refs just supporting the "New Nine" name for the group, I think this ref can go, as it appears to just be a middle-tier source in reliability.

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

More to come. Hog Farm _Talk 19:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Link Honourable Company of Air Pilots where it is used as a source

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• " "James A. Lovell". The Hall of Valor Project. Retrieved November 27, 2019." - is this valor.militarytimes.com source RS? I've never gotten a good answer for this question.

  Reputable publisher. Military Times is a well-known newspaper that specialises in US military news. The Hall of Valor is not crowd-sourced material, but reproduces the citations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Hintz, Martin (2000). Wisconsin Portraits: 55 People who Made a Difference. Big Earth Publishing. ISBN 978-0-915024-80-3. OCLC 44508414." - very obscure publisher, what makes this high-quality RS?

  I've added an additional source, from the Chicago Times, but Big Earth is neither obscure nor small [35] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• What makes " "Life Magazine cover: Jim Lovell". Oldlifemagazines.com. Archived from the original on November 29, 2011. Retrieved March 9, 2013." high-quality RS?

  It was a site that sold old Life magazines. Substituted a link to the issue via Google. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Other sources look okay for major formatting issues/reliability. Hog Farm _Talk 20:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Also: you have to put "recusing" in the edit history if you want the bot to credit you as a reviewer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Why are some books missing publisher locations? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Looks like an oversight. Added missing ones. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Nonmetal

Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

​​​​​​​​​​This is my third outing at FAC for this vital article. The subject matter is one half of the fundamental distinction made in chemistry between metals and nonmetals.

Following FAC #2:

• the lede has been trimmed down to four paragraphs;
• nine images, tables or quote boxes have been removed or integrated into the text; and
• ca. 150 minor edits have been made to improve the article.

Please note that addressing the nature of nonmetals necessitates a fair amount of descriptive, list-like content. Where feasible I've sought to avoid long, list-like sentences by instead using dot point lists or summary tables.

As suggested at FAC #2, here's my assessment against the FAC criteria.

Assessment

It is: well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard; That's been my aim. Each paragraph in the article addresses one idea, as flagged by its lead sentence. The logical flow of the article can then be grasped by reading only each first sentence. As requested at FAC #2, the article has been subject to a formal copy edit. I did this by starting at its end, and working back up to the start, making adjustments along the way. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; That's certainly the case. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; I doubt there's a more focused encyclopedic and citation supported survey of nonmetals anywhere. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; There's some variability in the literature as to which chemical elements are nonmetals. I've attempted to take a balanced approach to this question, and to make this consideration explicit in the article. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; It's certainly that. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing. To the best of my ability that's the case. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; Check. The lead focuses on only the most important ideas. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; Check. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required. Check. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. An image check was conducted and passed at FAC #2. The article has no new images. All images bar one have succinct captions. The exception is the "Periodic table extract" image which needs an extended caption in order to explain the features it (the image) is encapsulating. I've considered moving the bulk of the content of the caption into the text however I feel that to do so would make it harder to unpack the image. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. The number of endnotes has been criticised in past FAC's. Consistent with Help:Explanatory notes I generally use endnotes to elaborate items which would otherwise seem to make the main body text too detailed for the general reader. At the same time, the footnotes may appeal to the specialist reader. For a technical subject of this kind, I feel this is a good way of addressing FA criterion 1c, "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature." This is particularly the case for descriptive chemistry in which, unlike the laws of physics, there are always exceptions. Of the 66 endnotes, 40% belong to images or tables.

I thank numerous peer- and FAC-reviewers for previous feedback on the article. Sandbh (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Something in this nomination is preventing the other nominations at WP:FAC from displaying. Please fix this. Nick-D (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I removed a stray "noinclude": [36]. DanCherek (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Double sharp

It looks good to me now, on a first glance through. One thing I noticed in the glance is that there's a wrong symbol in File:PT blocks and 1st rows.png: seaborgium (106) should be Sg, but is written as Sb.

Sandbh comment: Thank you. Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll give it a full read-through later. Today I'm a bit busy, but tomorrow should be okay. :) Double sharp (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Note to self: first row anomaly is a significant redlink, but it's an important topic. I'll try to write an actual article there. Double sharp (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Or in the meantime before that happens, maybe link to Periodic table#Further manifestations of periodicity where it is discussed for now. Double sharp (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. And well found! Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

In the tables (Biological interaction, human life): toxicity of O and other things is kind of "the dose makes the poison", surely. If we speak about this kind of weird situation, then presumably also nitrogen is toxic, either via nitrogen narcosis, or even more simply because breathing any gas mixture without sufficient oxygen will kill you.

Sandbh comment: The endnote to that entry says:

"Breathing too much oxygen will poison the brain and can lead to death; 'as little as 100mg [of white phosphorus] may be a fatal dose for a human'; a 5mg dose of selenium will produce a highly toxic reaction"

For H, C, N, and S, they're referred to by Emsley as non-toxic. On toxicity, I had in mind chemistry-induced interactions rather than e.g. inert nitrogen dissolved in the blood. The same approach applies to the noble gases. Is that OK? For radon I've now added a comment that high-level exposure can result in lung cancer. Sandbh (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, for Rn it is not chemical toxicity either. But Emsley is certainly an RS for taking this line, so I think it's okay then. But I'd suggest for this reason to add a note that says that this is about chemical and radioactive toxicity, to avoid nitpicks like that. Double sharp (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. Sandbh (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I recall that there's some evidence that arsenic might be an essential trace element, but not sure how well that work has weathered. Double sharp (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Sandbh comment: For humans I wasn't able to find firm evidence that arsenic is an essential trace element. Sandbh (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, indeed I wasn't sure how well that result had panned out. That said, I think past suspicions about it are noteworthy enough that I'd suggest adding a note that says that while As has sometimes been suspected to be an essential trace element, there is no firm evidence that that is so. Double sharp (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. It's not often I get to use a ¶ :) Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Double sharp: I was wondering if you're now in a position to support, or otherwise, my nomination. No pressure, no obligation. Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder; well, I gave it a full read-through, so indeed, I'm happy to support now. It's an enjoyable read! Double sharp (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from YBG

1. § Top I have copyedited the lede, shortening it significantly. I don't believe any information has been removed.
2. § Definition and applicable elements I looked for a list or periodic table here but didn't find one. May I suggest a PT with groups 1 and 13-18 and a jagged line showing the omission of the center of the table. The cells could be colored with a monochrome color scheme and this caption:

   Periodic table extract showing the frequency that authors list elements as nonmetals

   [darker] Included by learly all authors (14)

   [dark] Also included by most authors (3)

   [medium] Also included by some authors (6)

   [pale] Metals never considered "nonmetals"

3. § Origin and use of the term

   Taxonomy chart This is much too small to be easily read. The earlier chart, which did not include gas/liquid/solid, was more readable, clearer, and to-the-point. And including such a taxonomic key essentially belies the statement that "no standard definition distinguishes nonmetals and metals".

4. § Honing the concept This section header is very weak. If a better one cannot be found, why not just eliminate it? Or better yet, move this text to between the "Properties" and "Physical" section headers. After all, this is a list of different properties that have been used to distinguish metals from nonmetals.
5. § Specific properties
6. § Physical It is curious that metals with larger atomic radii are more closely packed but nonmetals with smaller atomic radii are less closely packed. Is this correct? If so, there is no need to change anything here, it is a detail that belongs in a subsidiary article, not in this one.

   Packing efficiency chart is not very comprehensible. I am not sure this chart is needed, but it would be improved by showing the % sign in every cell to emphasize that the number is a percentage. Right-justifying each cell would allow a proportional font to be used and still retain the number alignment. Even better would be to convert this to a 3D graph of packing inefficiency - ie, 100%-efficiency, so the metals would be low and the inefficient nonmetals would form peaks. In any case, the nonmetal gases can be eliminated.

   Packing efficiency note - this does not belong to group 17, but to the whole chart. It should be moved to a chart title or to the caption.

7. § Subclasses:

   Subclass chart: This diagram is very complex, trying to show too much information, which must then be explained in an unweildy caption which is way too long despite the content that has been relegated to an explanatory footnote. Further, it displays the periodic table in an unusual form (H over F) buying a little space at the expense of an unnecessary paragraph. If you follow my suggestion of having a PT under § Definition and applicable elements, this chart can be greatly simplified with a very short caption:

   Periodic table extract showing metals, metalloids, and subclasses of nonmetals:

   [color1] Metals

   [color2] Metalloids

   [color3] Unclassified nonmetals

   [color4] Halogen nonmetals

   [color5] Noble gases

   Elements further from the stair-step line through the metalloids are more clearly metallic or nonmetalic; those along it are somewhat ambiguous. Because there is no universally accepted distinction between metals and nonmetals, this "dividing line between metals and nonmetals" is fuzzy at best.

   This makes for two charts, each with a clear purpose. Giving each chart a clear purpose eliminates the need for the offset groups. The only information omitted is that about the "strong" nonmetals, which can be eliminated or relegated to body text somewhere. It really doesn't seem to belong to a section about the four subclasses.

8. §§ Noble gases, Nonmetal halogens, Unclassified nonmetals, and Metalloids The "in periodic table terms" paragraphs seem IMO to be a well-sourced collection of information not needed in this overview article. The statements that "this subclass forms a bridge between the class to the left and the class to the right" seems to add very little. The statements "This subclass corresponds to the X subclass of metals" seems IMO to be placing unWP:DUE weight, over-emphasizing details beyond what the emphasis found in the literature. I think that all of these paragraphs could be beneficially removed with very little loss.
9. § Comparison The headers in these sections might benefit with mini-PT graphics showing the PT location of the elements in each category.

   Someone with less familiarity needs to weigh in on the use of element symbols here. On the one hand, using the symbols keeps the charts from having too many line wraps. Putting the symbols with the names in the title would go part way, but to me the best way would be to use {{abbr}} or even better wiki-link all of the abbreviations. I'm not sure how to balance between the overlinking problem and the helping the layman quickly translate from S to sulfur and Se to selenium.

I suggest that responses be included below with references to the numbers above. YBG (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the three periodic table remarks (in #2, #7): see my comments below. -DePiep (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Sandbh comments (1)

1. Thank you @YBG: The lead is looking resplendent.
2. I've now included such a periodic table extract. The caption explains why, in this case, H is located above F. Sandbh (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
3. I've added an upright scaling factor to make the image larger and clearer. How does the size look now? I've added a sentence referring to the delineation between metals and nonmetals an example, and a cite.
4. I've changed the header to "Criteria", so that the section name is now "Origin, use and criteria". The "Properties" section is now called "Specific properties".
5. NFA required
6. Yes, that is so. Regardless of radii, metallic bonding is conducive to centrosymmetrical packing whereas the covalent bonding in nonmetals is more directional in nature, resulting in less packing efficiency.
7. The image has been simplified and the caption trimmed. The note about H has been removed since the location of H is commented on in the earlier image showing the differing frequencies with which elements are classified as nonmetals. The note about "strong" nonmetals is retained to show there is a L-R progression in nonmetallic character across the non-noble nonmetals. Sandbh (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
8.  

   • The well-sourced "in periodic terms paragraphs" elaborate the traditional contrast between the group 1 metals and the halogens, for example:

   "…we focus mainly on the gross structure – the metals are here, the non-metals are there, and so on. Once they have grasped this, you can start to show that there’s some order to it. We talk about the Group 1 alkali metals and start to see that they’re all similar in some way. Then at the other extreme there are the…halogens. The idea that the table shows us how to group similar elements starts to come together in this way.”

   --- Niki Kaiser (2019), Notre Dame High School, Norwich, UK [37]
   

   • The article where this comes from is appropriately enough called Unwrapping the periodic table.
   • The statements about bridging subclasses are consistent with the left-to-right transition in metallic to nonmetallic character across the periodic table. For example, in the case of where the post-transition metals meet the metalloids, the associated quote shows that the notional dividing "line" between metals and nonmetals is more like a frontier territory occupied by ca. 15 metals and nonmetals.

9. The article has previously been criticised by FAC reviewers for having too many tables and images[38], and too much code.[39]

--- Sandbh (talk) 05:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Round 2 from YBG

• 1. Done
• 2a. The discussion of H's position in the PT might be good in an article about H or an article about the PT, but I don't think it belongs in an overview article about nonmetals. That distracting explanatory paragraph can be excised by using a PT extract with groups 1 and 13-18, with a jagged pinking shear cut-line between groups 1 and 13. This would greatly improve the visual appearance of the pic and eliminate the need for the distracting explanatory paragraph.
• 2b. There is too little contrast between the metals and metalloids. I suggest darkening the metalloid background color and using gray font color for the metals.
• 2c. Monochrome doesn't need to mean gray. You could use shades of yellow or green or pink if you wished.
• 2d. The symbols could be a bit larger, as could the group numbers. There is so much empty space around the symbol that you could easily do this while still reducing the size of the size of each cell and still leaving a respectable padding around the symbol. I suggest reducing the cells by 15-20% and increasing the font size by about 2 points. Doing this would mean that adding group 1 would add very little if any width to the graphic, and you could eliminate the distracting paragraph (see 2a). These ratios are just my guesses; when you try it out you will no doubt find the ideal proportions.
• 3. The increased size makes the chart legible, but that only makes the unnecessary complexity more obvious. Versions of this file from 7/9/2021 and before were much less cluttered. There is no need in the article to include the details about what specific characteristics for each state-of-matter distinguish metals from nonmetals.
• 4. Done This satisfies my original concerns. Thank you.
• 4a. There are a lot of redlinks in these sections. It doesn't sit well with me, but I'm not sure what the FA criteria have to say about this.
• 5. Done There was nothing to do here; I merely included the section header for context.
• 6. Done Thank you for the explanation
• 6a. Packing efficiency chart. Not addressed.
• 6b. Packing efficiency note. Not addressed.
• 7. Thank you for simplifying the chart, but there is still much that could be done.
• 7a. Please use the standard table with pinking shears and move H to its normal position. See comments above.
• 7b. The thick border and the comment about strong nonmetals makes the graphic too complex to be easily digested. I don't think this information is necessary in this article, but if you really think it is important, you can include it in body text.
• 7c. I would have kept the metal/nonmetal dividing line and removed the strong metal info, but now that I see the chart, I think that keeping both of these out makes for a much cleaner and clearer chart.
• 8. This article is primarily about nonmetals and only incidentally about periodic trends. The "in periodic table terms" paragraphs would do well in an article about periodic trends, but this article would be improved if they were removed.
• 9. I'm fine with keeping the symbols as they are. But before you reject using {{abbr}} (as H) or wikilinking (as H), I'd ask Materialscientist or someone else whether what he thinks about doing that.
• 10. New § Shared uses. This chart is unwieldy. I'm experimenting with a way of simplifying it and making it more comprehensible.

Thank you. YBG (talk) 06:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Sandbh (2)

Thanks ​ for your thoroughness, and methodical approach.

• 2. For H above F, I've followed the example of Jolly (1966), The Chemistry of the Non-metals, and Emsley (1971) The Inorganic Chemistry of the Non-metals, each of whom show H above F, in their lead periodic tables. The latter goes so far as writing, "H is generally placed at the head of group M7" (p. 20). In his best-selling book Nature's Building Blocks (2001, 2003, 2011) Emsley continued the practice of showing H above F.

A chemist would not bat an eyelid about H over F since depictions of that arrangement (as well as H over Li in group 1) have been ongoing for ca. 120 years.

The note is needed for the general reader to avoid confusion when they see the PT later on in the Complications section with H in group 1, not to mention He over Be!

Could you please further bear in mind that the PT in question is not in the lead (where H over F could otherwise raise some controversy).

Each periodic table extract is designed in the context of the accompanying sections.

As the focus of the article is not about the arrangement of the elements in the periodic table, I agree that differences of opinion as to the location of H are not relevant in the article, nor IMO, are they relevant here.

I've reduced the cell size in the image, increased the font size, and applied a new traffic light colour scheme. The font size now looks too big so I've reduced the image size. Sandbh (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• 3. The earlier version of this image was a work in progress. The finished work appears in the Origin, use, and criteria section. The criteria seen in it are contextually congruent. The complexity of the image is such that a child could follow each pathway, albeit they may not understand some of the big words. Its inclusion is consistent with FAC criteria 1B, comprehensive: "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" and 1C, well-researched: "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate".
• 4a. Redlinks are encouraged in articles, in order to encourage the creation of the corresponding new articles.
• 6. I've replaced the table and its code, with an image.
• 6a. The chart reflects a contrast between the centrosymmetrical structures of the metals and the directionally-distorted structures of the nonmetals. The difference goes to the heart of the atomic properties (nuclear charge, atomic radius, electronic configuration) that underpin the occurence of metallic or nonmetallic character. This is briefly addressed in the second paragraph of the Physical section. That is why it is needed, given FAC criteria 1B and 1C. The title shows the numbers are %s. I see no need for 21 redundant % signs. I've retained the fixed width font in order to provide some relief from the monotonous nature of the standard wp font. I've retained the nonmetal gases in order to provide context, especially for the general reader.
• 6b. The note has been merged into the single note occurring in the caption.
• 7. I've removed the thick line, and used alchemy-like symbols instead. As noted previously, this kind of thing is helpful IMO to break up any impression that the different subclasses are "crisp" in nature. The endnote explains much about this. I feel that this kind of graphic, which provides two perspectives, represents a richer and more nuanced approach to the subject matter. I further presume most people are capable of holding two ideas in their head at the same time. The other thing about nonmetals is that they are by nature mostly oxidizing agents i.e. they "invite" other elements to cough up their electrons, so that the nonmetals involved can get somewhere close to completing their own valence shells. Sandbh (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• 8. The focus of the article is on chemical elements with nonmetallic properties. These properties show periodicity and periodic trends, an understanding of which provides a shorthand way of grasping the nonmetals and their chemistry. Periodic trends go to the heart of chemistry rather then being incidental. Their inclusion is consistent with FAC criteria 1B, comprehensive: "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" and 1C, well-researched: "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate".
• 9. I'll await your advice.
• 10. Curious. The table has 2 columns, "Field" and "Elements", and 11 rows. This does not strike me as unwieldy. That said, I'll await your advice.

--- Sandbh (talk) 05:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Round 3 from YBG

• Previously Done: 1,4,5,6
• Done 2b/2c/2d (list freq chart: contrast/colors/symbol size) My preference would have been for shades of the same color, but stoplight colors are perfectly acceptable to me.
• 2a/7a You have now gained enough extra room to be able to include H in group 1 so that the layman reader only moderately familiar with the PT is not burdened with an unfamiliar PT that requires an explanatory comment.
• New 2e It might be nice to include a light gray "M" in the metal legend, like you have in the other PT extract
• 3 (taxonomy chart) If this were a true "basic taxonomy chart ... showing the hierarchical location of nonmetals", metal and nonmetal would only appear once each, directly underneath "element". Instead, what you have presented is an identification key showing how one identify a given substance as (among other things) a metallic element or a nonmetallic element. Yes, it is true that even a child could carefullly read it and understand it. But it is not visually comprehensible and it is clearly cluttered. And to top this all off, the definitiveness of this chart directly contradicts the statements elsewhere that there is no standard definition of "nonmetal" - or in the words of a previous version, no standard algorithm to identify a nonmetal. This chart actually presents such an algorithm. So which is it? Is there a definitive identification algorithm? Or is there no standard definition? If you accept that there is no standard definition, then perhaps this identification key is gives unWP:DUE emphasis on one particular definition.
• Not done but OK 4a (redlinks) OK by me; I just hope no other reviewers complain about the sea of red.
• 6a (packing efficiency chart) More comments to follow hopfully.
• Done 6b (packing efficiency note marker)
• Partly done but OK 7 Remaining issues are subsumed in 7x points
• 7b (strong NM) Waiting your change
• Done 7c (M/NM dividing line)
• New 7d Enlarge the group numbers like you did in the other chart
• New 7e Period numbers aren't necessary. If your point is to emphasize the lower periods, that is done quite well enough without the numbers. "lower period numbers" is synonymous with "nearer the top of the PT" which doesn't require a label.
• 8 (in PT terms) More comments to follow
• 9 Not done but OK (wikilinking symbols) I'm fine with whatever you've decided
• 10 (shared uses) To follow

YBG (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Sandbh (3)

• 2a/7a. The presentations are those depicted in the three sources cited, the first two of which focus specifically on nonmetals while the third is a trade publication aimed at general readers while also appealing to specialist readers. The note explains what's going on, unlike the three sources, and conveys the factually correct impression to the layperson that the periodic table is not carved in stone. This can be seen in periodic table variations occurring from textbook to textbook. That being so, the layperson is less likely to be discombobulated by the appearance of He over Be in the Complications periodic table.
• 2e. There is an M in the Subclasses PT extract to distinguish its white box from the other white box in the same legend. In the Definition and applicable elements PT extract there is only one white box hence there is no need for an M.
• 3. A taxonomy is a classification of something or a particular system of classification. There is no "true" basic taxonomy chart as such. If a child can read it and understand it does not follow that it "is not visually comprehensible" nor is it "cluttered" in the sense of "crowded so as to cause confusion." Nature has decided that the chemistry of the elements will involve numerous exceptions to general rules. Consequently some complexity is intrinsic to the field. The topic of how to write about nonmetals, and what to show in any extracts, given the lack of agreement on the term's precise coverage was previously discussed at some length during the peer review stage. That is why, among other things, there is no PT extract in the lead delineating nonmetals from metals, and why the article specifically refers to the delineation made in the chart as an example. In the end, the example is congruent with the metalloid FA. Flowing on from there, the following Criteria section notes the range of properties that have been used in attempts to refine the distinction between metals and nonmetals, and concludes with some philosophical views about this matter. The non-specificity of the delineation is a theme that runs through the article, as discussed at the peer review stage.Sandbh (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
• 6a. Awaiting your advice (Aya)
• 7b. Have you cleared the images from your browser's cache? This used to trip me up regularly.
• 7d. Done.
• 7e. The general reader may not be familiar with the fact that the rows are referred to as "periods". The following Physical properties table further refers to "Atomic radii (Å), periods 2 to 4 [n 38]"
• 8. Aya
• 10. Aya

--- Sandbh (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Round 4 by YBG

I've added a new category Not done but OK to indicate that I won't press the issue any further, though I would be glad to consider promoting these to Done if you make further changes and bring them to my attention.

• 1a (lede). I think there is still room for improvement; I'm including this here as a reminder to me.
• 2a/7a. (H/F vs pinking shears) Yes, the illustration is factually correct, yes it reflects literature, yes, the note makes it better than what is seen in the literature, but no, it is still an unnecessary barrier for the lay reader. I see no compelling reason why we should disregard what is best for the lay reader.
• 2e Not done but OK (M in metal legend in list frequency PT) As you are no longer using a monochrome scale, it is not absolutely necessary.
• 3 (taxonomy chart) You have not refuted my claim that this is an identification key and not a taxonomy chart. Taxonomy charts have only one path from the top to each term; Id keys may have multiple paths. I still maintain that this is visually cluttered and a distraction to the article and to the section that it intends to illustrate. The section would be better with no chart than with this chart. If you cannot find it in yourself to simplify the chart, I suggest that it should be removed.
• 7b (strong metals) The daggers look better than I expected. But using two sorts of daggers adds needless complexity. If I understand correctly, the strong metals include all the halogen nonmetals plus three unclassified nonmetals. This being the case, I suggest that you use a solid marker (☀ or ◆) with the same color as the halogen nonmetals, and then add a note like this:

  ☀ The halogen nonmetals and three unclassfied nonmetals (N, O, and S) are known for the high strength as oxidizing agents.

  If you decide to go down this path, you might consider changing the halogen color to optimize the appearance of the marker.

• 7d Partly done' (enlarged group numbers). It is slightly improved, if you can, a wee bit larger would be nice. But if not, you can consider it ok.
• 7e Not done but OK Though I'm not convinced, I'll not pursue this further.

Summary status:

• Done. Previously: 1, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4, 5, 6, 6b, 7c.
• Not done / Partly done but OK. Previously: 4a, 7, 9. Newly: 2e, 7d, 7e
• New discussion; awaiting Sandbh input: 2a/7a, 3, 7b
• No new discussion; awaiting YBG input: 1a, 6a, 8, 10

— YBG (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Note Please see the instructions here where it says "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." They also cause problems displaying the nominations lists. Graham Beards (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, I have replaced those templates. Any concerns about sectionllink? YBG (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Sandbh (4)

• 2a/7a. Thank you for the acknowledgements that, “the illustration is factually correct…it reflects literature…the note makes it better than what is seen in the literature.” I don’t accept it is an unnecessary barrier for the lay reader a significant number of whom by definition will have no idea that H above F is anything other than normal but for the explanatory note. These lay readers will come away better informed, which goes to the heart of what wp is about. Sandbh (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• 3. YGB, the article now refers to the image as a schematic. It may, at first blush, seem somewhat complex. That is an outcome of the well-recognised intrinsic complexity of chemistry. To address this, the caption now explains what the upper half and lower half of the schematic each represent. I trust even the general reader could follow this. The image is fully consistent with the accompanying text of the section, the structure of which I rearranged in order to bring the example of properties paragraph closer to the image.

As noted and disregarded, the inclusion of the image is consistent with FAC criteria 1B, comprehensive: "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" and 1C, well-researched: "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". Sandbh (talk) 07:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• 7b. I’ve adjusted and shortened the caption to make things clearer. I used a dagger and a double dagger given the traditional order of footnote symbols in English, after the asterisk, happens to be †, ‡. Sandbh (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• 7d. Will soon do.

—Sandbh (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Round 5 by YBG

• 2a/7a. I should have said it reflects a minority of the literature. I seem to be able to make no headway. I remain dissatisfied with these two charts.
• 3. My concern is not what the image is called, but in its clutter, which is not a mere matter of "first blush". This chart is a mess because it tries to cram too much into a single image. Thorough does not mean that one should cram as much information as possible into each graphic. Again, I seem to be unable to make any headway and so remain extremely dissatisfied with this graphic.
• 6a. I have changed to using a graph which I think illustrates things much better. Somehow the caption has disappeared. I think it would be better to use WP graph templates.
• 7b. I have further shortened the caption. I remain unconvinced that this chart requires daggers, much less daggers of two varieties.

The FAC criteria that an article "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" does not require that the article include every single tidbit and factoid about a subject, and it certainly does not require every graphic in the article to include every possible detail that could be included. YBG (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Sandbh (5)

YBG, it saddens me to hear of your extreme dissatisfaction. It seems to me that your priorities are 1. simplicity(?) and 2. knowledge(?) whereas my priority is to achieve both.

• 2a/7a. As disregarded, H over F appears in the best-selling mass-market book by Emsley, Nature’s Building Blocks. H over F is found in text books although, as noted in the caption, H over Li is more common. And I cited two nonmetal monographs showing H over F. Of course, in our PT article H should appear over Li, and it does, in the lead. Even here, as an FA, the lede PT in our PT article shows the quite rare 32-column form, and the less common arrangement of group 3 as Sc-Y-Lu-Lr. Evidently there can be other overriding considerations rather than what the majority of the literature says. Later in out PT article there is a discussion on the location of H, including over F; later in the nonmetal article H is indeed shown over Li. Given the focus of the PT article, H over Li is appropriate; given the focus of the nonmetal article, H over F, properly supported with citations, ought to be acceptable.

More generally, it saddens me that despite changes made to the article in an attempt to address the concerns; and attempts to explain my philosophy in this case; your position has remained resolutely focused on your original suggestion of introducing pinking shears. To my mind a pinking shears line would introduce unwarranted complexity for some general readers along the lines of if the nonmetals are shown occupying groups 13 to 18, why is H separated from its comrades by 12 groups? This would require a further annotation, caption note, or explanation which would defeat the purpose of eliminating the small caption note about H over F, and leave some general readers with the erroneous impression that H over Li is carved in stone. More cognitive dissonance would arise when they see He over Be later on in the article.

I’m not seeking to change your mind here only to acknowledge our differing philosophical approaches to the same thing. I don’t believe either of our approaches is better than the other. Indeed, if you had edited the nonmetal article up to FAC standard you would have applied your philosophy to the image. And that could be fine. In either case I expect there would be no inconsistencies so egregiously out of kilter with the FAC standards as to merit reservations.

• 3. Yes, I agree with you that it’s desirable, sort of, not to pack too much information into one image. I say “sort of” having regard to the 18-column periodic table in our FA PT article, which crams in a comparable amount of information yet is not criticised for being too cluttered.

In any event, streamlining of some of images in the nonmetal article occurred as a direct result of your feedback. That said, and as disregarded, chemistry is a little complicated, and the image reflects this. The image is also fully and congruously explained in the accompanying text, as changed by me in response to your feedback, not to mention the caption explaining the two halves of the image.

It again saddens me that despite changes made to the article in an attempt to address the concerns, and attempts to explain my philosophy, your position has remained resolutely focused on the original concern that the image was unclear, which has now evolved into being “cluttered”. I feel this is another philosophical difference between us, along the lines of one person’s clutter is another person’s treasure.

• 6a. Thank you for your bold edit! Could we agree to leave this item out of the FAC process and work on it offline, presuming to do so would not impact the FAC process? I have concerns about how much more room it takes; how much harder it is to see the horizontal, vertical, and diagonal trends seen in the previous p-block image; the use of an ampersand in the title; the lack of an explanatory caption; and the needless clutter of twenty-one separate percentage signs. While the article is not about periodic trends these are important aspects of the chemistry of the nonmetals. In the interim could you correct the spelling of gasses to gases?

@YBG: I've boldly updated the original image, using fewer colours, so as to bring things up to a higher level. Grid-lines have been added to for a more PT feel. The caption is quite short and simply refers to the overall difference between metals and nonmetal. Values for the gaseous nonmetals, in liquid form at their boiling points, have been added, to complete the picture. I hope this works for you now. Feedback always welcome. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• 7b. Thank you for the shortened caption! Regrettably you removed the reference to the fact that all the moderate to strong agents, apart from iodine, have a lusterless appearance. This is an important aspect of the transition from metallic to nonmetallic character. That is, the set of ten reactive nonmetals collectively closer to the metals are weak oxidising agents and when nonmetals “lose “ their metallic lustre, being closer to the right side of the PT, they become stronger oxidising agents.

If you had brought the article up to FAC standard you would not use daggers. I brought the article up to FAC standard and did use them. Neither option is better than the other. The two approaches represent philosophical differences that, in terms of the FAC criteria, are neither here nor there.

I concur with the sentiment of your closing statement that:

"The FAC criteria that an article "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" does not require that the article include every single tidbit and factoid about a subject, and it certainly does not require every graphic in the article to include every possible detail that could be included."

Indeed, the article does not include every single tidbit and factoid about nonmetals, and each graphic in the article certainly does not include every possible detail that could be included. OTOH FAC criteria 1c looks for an article that is well-researched and is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature, and that is what I’ve strived to do.

Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 10:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by YBG (6)

Comments:

• 1a: Lede improvement. Still in YBG's court I have now made the edits I had in mind. Done ^{YBG (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)}
• 10: Shared uses chart. Thank you for removing this. Done
• Many other changes in response to other reviewers have resulted in great improvement.

@DePiep, YBG, Graham Beards, Double sharp, Dirac66, DanCherek, and Nick-D: Please consider these matters where Sandbh and I have different points of view.

• 2a/7a: H/F vs H/Li. In §§ Definition and applicable elements​ and Subclasses, Sandbh uses an H/F PT with groups 13-18; I prefer an H/Li PT with a pinking shears cut for groups 2-12.
• 3: Metal/nonmetal id key. Sandbh believes the § Origin of the concept chart helps; I believe it tries to show too much and prefer it be replaced by the earlier version or removed.
• 6a: Packing efficiency chart. Sandbh has offered several text-based charts, e.g., the current or previous ones. I prefer an easier-to-read graphical version, but this was reverted.
• 7b: Oxidizers. In § Subclasses, Sandbh's subclasses chart marks oxidizers with two markers (†‡). I prefer not marking oxidizers, but if they must be marked, I prefer to mark N/O/S with a solid marker the same color as the halogen nonmetals (which are all oxidizers). Of course, the color would need to change from the current pastel yellow. The note could read something like

   Light green  indicates strong oxidizers, including all halogen nonmetals and ♦ three unclassified nonmetals.

• 8: In PT terms ¶¶. In §§ Noble gases, Nonmetal halogens, Unclassified nonmetals, and Metalloids, the "in periodic table terms" paragraphs seem IMO to be too much detail for an overview article. The statements that "this subclass forms a bridge between the class to the left and the class to the right" seems to add very little. The statements "This subclass corresponds to the X subclass of metals" seems IMO to be placing unWP:DUE weight, over-emphasizing details beyond what the emphasis found in the literature. These well-sourced paragraphs could find a useful home in an article on periodic trends, but they seem too much detail for an overview of the nonmetal elements.

If in any of these issues, a single reviewer gives Sandbh's preference a thumbs up, I will reconsider my point of view. If on any issue no reviewer favors Sandbh's preference, I ask that Sandbh would likewise reconsider his point of view. (If the above brief summary seems insufficient, please re-read the the exchanges above between Sandbh and I. If I have misrepresented Sandbh's point of view, please correct me.)

Summary status:

• Done. Previously: 1, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4, 5, 6, 6b, 7c. Newly: 10 Newer still: 1a
• Not/partly done but OK. Previously: 2e, 4a, 7, 7d, 7e, 9.
• Awaiting input from other reviewers: 2a/7a (H/F), 3 (Id key), 6a (Packing), 7b (Oxidizers †‡), 8 (In PT terms ¶¶)
• In YBG's court: 1a

YBG (talk) 11:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Updated status of 1a. YBG (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting (pinging) me. I cannot understand any of this (without doing research ie homework). Maybe later on I can grasp some of the issues. By default, I tend to: "YBG is right". HTH. -DePiep (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: I tried to summarize things in this section so that one can simply read this section and follow the links I've given. If that is sufficient for you to make a decision on any point, say so. If not and you have a little bit more time, read Sandbh's comments in the section just below here; if he then convinces you on any of these points, indicate which ones. If reading those two sections is insufficient to convince you, only proceed to do more research (eg, reading our whole interchange) if you really have time and the inclination to do so. I am not looking for a vote or consensus here. In my mind, one person agreeing with Sandbh on a given point is sufficient for me to withdraw my objection to that point. YBG (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

No bad feelings, but to me this talk-flow is chaotic. I tried to fix details, but won't push it any further. I'll do my best. All in all, does not bide "FA" for the article imo. -DePiep (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Response to YBG by Sandbh & others (6)

Clarification/correction by Sandbh:

@YBG: feel free to move my comments elsewhere if here is not such a good place for you.

Several improvements to the first four items were made by me in an effort to accommodate YBG's concerns. To me the situation now feels like, with no disrespect to YBG who is entitled to call it as he sees it, a case of "my way or the highway", based on subjective preferences rather than merits of the article as an FAC. As far as the images go, these are fully compliant with the FAC media criteria, as supported by accompanying captions, text, or endnotes, in each case.

For images I generally observe the principles set out in Tufte (2001, p. 13), The Visual Display of Quantitive Information:

Graphical displays should

1. show the data
2. induce the viewer to think about the substance rather than about methodology, graphic design, the technology of graphic production, or something else
3. avoid distorting what the data have to say
4. present many numbers in a small space
5. make large data sets coherent
6. encourage the eye to compare different pieces of data
7. reveal the data at several levels of detail, from a broad overview to the fine structure
8. serve a reasonably clear purpose: description, exploration, tabulation, or decoration
9. be closely integrated with the statistical and verbal descriptions of a data set.

In this regard, the FAC Commenting, supporting and opposing instructions say, "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."

On item 8 I do understand the basis for YBG's continuing concern. To make things easier, here's what I explained earlier to YBG:

The well-sourced "in periodic terms paragraphs" elaborate the traditional contrast between the group 1 metals and the halogens, for example:

"…we focus mainly on the gross structure – the metals are here, the non-metals are there, and so on. Once they have grasped this, you can start to show that there’s some order to it. We talk about the Group 1 alkali metals and start to see that they’re all similar in some way. Then at the other extreme there are the…halogens. The idea that the table shows us how to group similar elements starts to come together in this way.”

--- Niki Kaiser (2019), Notre Dame High School, Norwich, UK [2]

The article where this comes from is appropriately enough called Unwrapping the periodic table.

The [citation-supported] statements about bridging subclasses are consistent with the left-to-right transition in metallic to nonmetallic character across the periodic table. For example, in the case of where the post-transition metals meet the metalloids, the associated quote shows that the notional dividing "line" between metals and nonmetals is more like a frontier territory occupied by ca. 15 metals and nonmetals.

The focus of the article is on chemical elements with nonmetallic properties. These properties show periodicity and periodic trends, an understanding of which provides a shorthand way of grasping the nonmetals and their chemistry. Periodic trends go to the heart of chemistry rather then being incidental. Their inclusion is consistent with FAC criteria 1B, comprehensive: "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" and 1C, well-researched: "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate".

thank you, Sandbh (talk) 05:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I acknowledge my thanks to Sandbh for his responsiveness to my suggestions and I acknowledge that in these final sticking points we are at an impasse; I am not convinced by him and he is not convinced by me. So one could easily say that I am saying "my way or the highway". It is for this reason that I said I would reconsider my position if just one of the other reviewers supported Sandbh's side in these five disputes.

If just one reviewer agrees with Sandbh on issue 2a/7a (H/F vs H/Li), I will reconsider my position on that issue. If just one reviewer (the same or a different one) agrees with Sandbh on issue 3 (M/NM id key), I will reconsider my position on that issue. Likewise for issues 6a (packing % chart), 7b (oxidizers †‡), and issue 8 (In PT terms ¶¶).

I have pinged the other reviewers on this page and I ping them again here. I am even willing to allow Sandbh to canvas these reviewers and ask them directly for their opinion support on these five issues. I don't think I am setting a very high bar here. If just one reviewer supports Sandbh on any one of these points, I will reconsider my position on that point.

@Sandbh, DePiep, YBG, Graham Beards, Double sharp, Dirac66, DanCherek, and Nick-D:

YBG (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I think 2a/7a is okay. Hydrogen over fluorine is not quite "standard", but no position for hydrogen really is. IUPAC puts it over lithium, G&E float it, Clayden et al.'s organic chemistry textbook put it over fluorine (notably, if we restrict to organic chemistry, H-F does make more sense). I think that suffices to show that its position is not really a "settled" question. We are discussing nonmetallic chemistry, so it makes sense to put H-F as primary here. To me it's the same situation as putting H-Li + He-Be for the table specifically illustrating the first-row anomaly. Double sharp (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Double sharp Thank you for your response. Although I would have preferred to see the pinking shears form, I will withdraw my concern for 2a/7a. I await input from other reviewers on items 3 (Id key), 6a (Packing), 7b (Oxidizers †‡), 8 (In PT terms ¶¶).

YBG I've streamlined item 3, so it's now a conventional taxonomy. I hope you'll agree it's an improvement. Sandbh (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from DePiep

In this thread, WP:TALK flow is the rule and I will maintain. You're welcome.

-DePiep (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Periodic table (PT) illustrations

1. Overview PT missing (=nonmetals marked, definingly opposed to metals and possibly metalloids).

With YBG (above), I looked for a list or periodic table in § Definition and applicable elements but didn't find one. The topic is nonmetals, which is in a same class level with metals (and possibly metalloids at this point). More so because this classification shows a trend (periodicity) in the PT (with hydrogen as an outlayer, and the curious staircase border, which of course are expected to be detailed in the body text). This classification being top level for the nonmetals, this image could be the top image. Details like fuzzy borders need not be addressed. Such an image is or should crisp and clear be supported in the text, not mixed up with lower level details.

If the need and location for such an image does not present itself naturally (say, from the article text & structure), this could be an indication that the text may be not well-structured.

2. Single-themed PT images: a PT illustration preferably handles a single theme (think: the legend has a one-dimensional list of keys). Rare if ever there are situations where multiple themse must be mixed — then again, this would require extra care, and space, for the graphic design.

Situation 1: Above, YBG proposes a PT with key set "all/most/some authors / never a nonmetal". This last one is from a different theme (namely, the above class overview PT). Telling is the need to describe the last one as Metals never considered "nonmetals". (Possible solution: leave it out here.)

Situation 2: Above, YBG proposes a PT with keys set "Metals / Metalloids / Unclassified nonmetals / Halogen nonmetals / Noble gases". This is mixing up two classifications: top-level classes (metal-[metalloid-]nonmetals) and subclasses ([metalloids-]unclassified nonmetals-...noble gases). At this point, this issue is irrespective of the classification systems & naming applied. So, two themes are mixed here.

Situation 3: § Subclasses (image XPT extract). The image mixes some four themes: nonmetal-subclasses (4), author-tallying (3), borders (4), plus classname-footnoting (2). The caption(!) uses seven full sentence paragraphs to describe the image; multiple graphic features are keyed verbose only; the extend of certain features is undefined (circled numbers). Possible solution: split over as many images as there are themes to show; maybe some themes do not need an image.

3. Ineffective image design: some PT-images have a poor setup, which makes it difficult to grasp their message. As said, this may be caused by themes chosen too (it might be impossible to do it right when showing multiple themes). Just listing:

- Cropped too small. Loosing location of the detail; why neighbouring columns/rows excluded?: § Properties: first (Physics) table

- Legend missing, unit ("%") moved from graph without obvious reason, § Properties: first (Physics) table.

- Irregular layout. Period numbers to the right in § Subclasses this. Incidentally, its caption requires extra HTML styling in wikitext.

4. Possible useful images missing. Since the topic is about nonmetals, their subclasses and their properties throughout, it might be more illustrative to show common properties graphically in a PT over a table. This might show PT-trends. And the opposite: if there is no trend or what to discover, one can wonder why the property is relevant for the article.

-DePiep (talk) 09:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC) (responses below my signing please)

5.: PT better in 32-column layout. In § Complications, image PT blocks and 1st rows is used. Exactly because of what it purports to illustrate, this is an extremely obvious case to show in 32-column format. It does not help any reader to cut up an original impressive illustration into parts, to be reordered mentally before eh getting the picture. As if an IKEA cupboard is presented in the showroom in its transportation box. -DePiep (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Response by Sandbh

1. Thanks @DePiep: This was discussed during peer review. Since there is no universally agreed definition of a nonmetal it was decided to not have an overview periodic table in the lead, and to have a gallery instead.
2. The multi-themed PT has now been split into two tables, as per my responses to YBG, with some further theme trimming. While the focus of the article is on nonmetals, rather than metals and nonmetals, the inclusion of "metals" in some images and tables is intended to provide an overall context.
3. Neighboring columns/rows are excluded in order maintain the focus on nonmetals the properties of which are more or less well-known. The % has been moved to the caption in order to not have two dozen redundant % signs. The periods are there to indicate that the unclassified nonmetals mostly occupy the lower numbered periods. This results in some of them having the lowest average atomic radius of the four subclasses which goes some way to explaining their proclivity for forming interstitial compounds. The article says, "When combined with metals they can form hard (interstitial or refractory) compounds,[196] in light of their relatively small atomic radii and sufficiently low ionization energy values.[104]"
4. While that could be done, and as noted in my response to YBG, the article was criticised at FAC #2 for having too many images and tables. To some extent the common properties you refer to can be seen along the rows of the comparative tables.
--- Sandbh (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

re Sandbh 1: "there is no universally agreed definition of a nonmetal" -- sure. But there is more between "no definition" and "definitions applied". Otherwise, this whole article is useless. Whathever "definition" (that's classification right?), it is very acceptable to note that the border (-elements) are not hard known. Or that different classification rules are applied (by authors). Because that is what the main bulk of the article actually does. How can one without the slightest treshold list & illustrate say "nonmetal halogens", but not aggregate that to the "nonmetals" (i.e., claim that aggregation is not possible)? BTW, the opposite direction, better: of course the nonmetal halogens is a segregation if the nonmetals.

BTW, wrt the peer review statements: this being an FAC, I can say that this issue affects the article being encyclopedic enough, and "well-written". One of the article's most basic statements is evaded. -DePiep (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC), 11:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Response by Sandbh. I don't understand what you're trying to say. Sandbh (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

re one more try. You say "no universally agreed definition", and then drop the nonmetal-classification completely. It is not revisited any more. Being not classified as nonmetals makes this article idle, as in: anything could be a nonmetal full stop. Also, elsewhere in the article a (sub-)classification is made—based on the same (absense of) such a definition (eg nonmetal halogens). Omitting the classification grounds makes the class just a bag of elements. Further more, unspecified listings of criteria topics such as in § Distinguishing criteria Note: that is not the criteria themselves. In § Definition and applicable elements there is a three-set author tallying, without assessing by what arguments these authors stated their list of nonmetals. DePiep (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC) -09:26

• Yes, there is no universally agreed definition. However, the lead paragraph says that, "In chemistry, a nonmetal is an element that usually [italics added] gains electrons when reacting with a metal, and which forms an acid if combined with oxygen and hydrogen." Later the article says, "Broadly, any element lacking a preponderance of metallic properties such as luster, deformability, and good electrical conductivity, can be regarded as a nonmetal." And the caption to the various kinds of matter image says, in part, "The lower half is an example delineating between metals and nonmetals based on electrical conductivity, and reactions with nitric acid.[27][28][29]"
• No, as per the above, the article does not drop the nonmetal classification completely.
• No, anything cannot be a nonmetal given the existence of ca. 95 metals.
• Yes the article refers to nonmetal halogens, since F, Cl, Br and I are effectively universally recognised as nonmetals as is the case, for example, with the noble gases.
• Yes, the distiguishing criteria section lists 22 examples of criteria that have been used in an attempt to distinguish between metals and nonmetals.
• Yes, in the Definition and applicable elements section image there is a three-set author tallying and neither Steudel 1977; Powell & Tims 1974; nor Emsley 1971 set out their criteria for deciding which elements are nonmetals although they all count C, P, Se as nonmetals. Meanwhile three of these authors count B, Si as nonmetals rather than metalloids; two count Ge as a nonmetal and one counts it as a metalloid; two count As as a nonmetal while the other counts it as a metalloid; Sb is counted by two as a metalloid and by one as a metal; and Te is counted by two as a nonmetal and by one as a metalloid. Sandbh (talk) 03:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Response by Sandbh. There is only one PT in this article. The 18-column form is by far the most common form in the literature. Evidently, whatever requirement there is for mental reordering is not an issue. Nothing will be added to the article by adding a 32-column form. Sandbh (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

(this is re 5.: PT better in 32-column layout) It's about conveying the point it purports to illustrate. That is not a question for literature-tallying, but about science communication. No designer would design the meaningful image and then deconstruct it before presenting. The "Everybody is used to it" is probably incorrect, and anyway not a right design principle. No need is mentioned or present to cut up the PT requiriung a extra mental step to grasp it. -DePiep (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Response by Sandbh. Thank you DePiep. I agree with you that conveying the point it purports to illustrate is important, as is science communication. Another important principle is being representative of the literature, having regard to the different forms of PT. Nowhere did I say "everybody is used to it". Rather. I said there is only one PT in this article, and this form with its 18-columns is by far the most common.

You're entitled to your opinion and to express it here but saying it "is probably incorrect" without explaining why, carries no weight. As you know, there are other design considerations that come into play which is that the 32-column form is widely regarded as taking up too much space, on account of its width.

Elsewhere in this page I referred to the design principles I've been following as set out in Tufte (2001, p. 13), The Visual Display of Quantitive Information. The relevant display principles in the case are 2. induce the viewer to think about the substance rather than about methodology, graphic design, the technology of graphic production, or something else; 4. present many numbers in a small space; 6. encourage the eye to compare different pieces of data.

I mention Tufte since FAC guidance is that, "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." Sandbh (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Properties

• State of matter statements. Today [40], the second and third sentence in the lede say: "At room temperature, around half are colourless or pale yellow to pale green gasses, and one (bromine) is a dark red liquid. The rest are solids, either hard and brittle or soft and crumbly; mostly silvery-gray in color."

Consider this. It says: "some are blue, others are solid". -DePiep (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It says "Some are this sort of gas, one is that sort of liquid. The others are solids, either this type or that type. YBG (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Yep. "Some are liquid, some a gas, some are solid". So actually: "all exist". Or whatever (and there are colors too). Now, why in 2nd sentence? Why at all? -DePiep (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

No, "some" are not liquid. There is only one liquid. One could say around half are fluid and the other half solids. However not many folks associate fluids with gases, even though this is a technically correct description. Sandbh (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I've rephrased the sentences and I believe they read better now. YBG (talk) 07:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Sandbh, you completely ignore/don't recognise that what I pointed out and paraphrased is logical nonsense. YBG: "the dark red bromine is ..." still is nonsense. (Unless the connection is clarified in the article—quod non). -DePiep (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

To be clear:

1. State of matter of the nonmetals is indifferent, not distinctive (all SoM's are present, apparently, as are almost all in the metals).

2. State of matter does not relate to being nonmetal (not in article text)

3. State of matter does not relate to color (not in article text)

4. State of matter has no use being in the lede (being this irrelevant for nonmetals).

-DePiep (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

More of the same: In § General properties it says "Physically, nonmetals in their most stable forms exist as either polyatomic solids (carbon, for example) with open-packed crystalline structures; diatomic molecules such as hydrogen (a gas) and bromine (a liquid); or monatomic gases (such as neon)." So they "exist as ..." but distinction with metals in these regards is not made. It is left to the reader to find out whether metals do not "exist as" such. Again, this is chaotic wrt state of matter, and no relation is established (just coincidences). (btw, section title "Physics" appears twice in the TOC). -DePiep (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Response by Sandbh: The paragraph in question adds, "Metals, in contrast, are nearly all solid and close-packed, and mostly have larger atomic radii." Sandbh (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

(@Sandbh: why do you start replying at this place? What do you expect me to do? -DePiep (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC))

I replied to you here so my response followed your signature block, as you requested. Since I’ve now addressed your concern there is no need for you to do anything. Sandbh (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

That's "nearly all", so how is that meaningful? Still no attempt is made to tie SoM to being nonmetal. It is still just a listing of the property. Even worse, thereby ignoring the fact that since "they can be anything, as can be metals" makes it trivial and meaningless. -DePiep (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It's meaningful in that while metals are nearly all solid, the situation for nonmetals, in contrast, is quite different. Sandbh (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Response by Sandbh

Color and state of matter are routine aspects of descriptive chemistry. State of matter is an important distinction between metals and nonmetals. All metals, bar mercury, are solid. The situation for nonmetals, in contrast, is quite different.

To help, here are the successive versions of the passage in question:

1. ​"…about half are gases, one (bromine) is a liquid, and the rest are solids. Most of the latter are silvery-gray in appearance, whereas bromine is dark red, and the remaining gases are colorless or are pale yellow to green. The solids are either hard and brittle or soft and crumbly and, in contrast to most metals, tend to be poor conductors of heat and electricity with no structural uses, as is the case for nonmetals generally."

2. "…most are colorless or pale yellow to pale green gases, and one (bromine) is a dark red liquid. The rest are solids, either hard and brittle or soft and crumbly; mostly silvery-gray in color. In contrast to most metals, nonmetals tend to be poor conductors of heat and electricity, with no structural uses."

3. "…around half are colorless or pale yellow to pale green gases, and one (bromine) is a dark red liquid. The rest are solids, either hard and brittle or soft and crumbly; mostly silvery-gray in color. In contrast…"

4. "…about half are gaseous and half solid; the only liquid is the dark red bromine. The gases are colorless or pale yellow to pale green. The solids are mostly silvery-gray and either hard and brittle or soft and crumbly. In contrast…"

I suggest:

5. "…about half are colorless or pale yellow to pale green gases, while one (bromine) is a dark red liquid. The rest are silvery-gray (barring sulfur, which is yellow) solids and either hard and brittle or soft and crumbly. In contrast…"

--- Sandbh (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. Sandbh (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

On General properties, the next sentence says, "Metals, in contrast, are nearly all solid and close-packed, and mostly have larger atomic radii."

There are two mentions of a Physical title, and these are in different sections, and at different levels, as follows:

 3  General properties
 3.1 Physical
 
 4 Subclasses
 4.1 Noble gases
 4.2 Nonmetal halogens
 4.3 Unclassified nonmetals
 4.4 Metalloids
 4.5 Comparison
 4.5.1 Physical

--- Sandbh (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Three Complications

• Three Complications in § Complications

First row anomalies. Unclear, not defined, hard to read & understand, not sure what relation with nonmetals is.

Nowhere is described what these "first row anomalies" are (that is, in top rows/periods for each block we understand). Neither is clear how the first-rows in metals differ/equal/relate-to those of the nonmetals. After this absent description, the paragraph is hard to read & understand. It looks like there are incidental patterns.

Secondary periodicity. Not clear, hard to read & undestand, relation to nonmetals unclear.

I do not understand. Nor the concept, nor its appearance wrt nonmetals is made clear. Should one scribble notes to get the issue, like doing homework excercitions? This may sound childish, but for an FA encyclopedic article, we may expect more readibility. We must assume but cannot find that this is a nonmetal-only issue.

Unusual valence states. Not sure what its relationship is wrt nonmetals. Appears to be about a subset, so relation with nonmetals not obvious.

This might have significance, but the specific sublistings ("the heavier group 15–18 nonmetals" and "other than the lowest for their group (that is ...)") and its principle, make it look incidental/accidental not a generic property typical for nonmetals. That is, as far I can grasp from the problematic (non-crisp) wording.

-DePiep (talk) 10:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Response by Sandbh

DePiep, these three topics are set out in the lead sentence of the Complication section:

"Complicating the chemistry of the nonmetals are the anomalies seen in the first row of each periodic table block, particularly in hydrogen, (boron), carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and fluorine; secondary periodicity or non-uniform periodic trends going down most of the p-block groups;[106] and unusual valence states in the heavier nonmetals."

The relation with nonmetals is explained in the next sentence:

"In this regard, Zuckerman and Nachod opined that:

"The marvellous variety and infinite subtlety of the nonmetallic elements, their compounds, structures and reactions, is not sufficiently acknowledged in the current teaching of chemistry."[107]

The first row anomaly section discusses the unusual chemistry of H, and explains the cause and consequences of the first row anomaly for boron to neon. The accompanying image shows where it occurs. I haven't discussed the impact on metals as this is too far out of scope of the focus of the article. The article has already been criticised by YBG for having what seems to him as being too much content about metals.

The second paragraph on secondary periodicity explains where and how that comes about, and its effect. An example is shown in the accompanying image. For the same reasons as above I do not discuss the impact of secondary periodicity on metals. That said the accompanying image includes polonium, which is a metal.

The third paragraph on unusual valence states explains why this comes about, and its consequences, and gives examples. It is indeed not a general property of nonmetals; as the paragraph explains, it applies to the "atomic radii of the heavier group 15–18 nonmetals." It is thus another complication that needs to be borne in mind when dealing with the chemistry of the nonmetals.

--- Sandbh (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

(but why, at all, and for ffs really, do you start a new section for a reply? why? What's wrong with indenting &tc? Why do you give me homework to follow & reply to posts, my owen posts? -DePiep (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC))

@DePiep: I believe the reason is that Sandbh got into this bad habit due to the discussion that he and I had in which we used that "new section" style of response. After it went on for several (!!) versions of back-and-forth, I regret that I had started that habit, and wish that I had started with a paragraph on each topic, and placed my signagture after each one, which invites the respondent to respond to each one individually. Because I entered a bulleted string of comments with but a single signature, Sandbh assumed that I wanted his response to follow all of my comments. And that is what I intended at the beginning. Only later did I realize my mistake and wish that I had signed each paragraph separately so that Sandbh would reply by indenting. YBG (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

No. It was Sandbh's own-resposible edits. No need for you to excuse whatever, and not for 'introducing habits' at all. Apart from this, one cannot expect me to reply to a post that says 2a/7a: H/F vs H/Li. In §§ ....

My guess is: either this discussion is, like, corrupted, or the article itself is failing (not FA fit). -DePiep (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Response by Sandbh. I used the new section style of response in an attempt to bring some thematic order to the conversation. One idea per section. I find it tiresome to follow multiple indents in a conversation with multiple ideas. Not to mention trying to add new comments to such a conversation and having to find the idea/comments in question in a "massive" thread containing several ideas. YMMY. Sandbh (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

re the first row anomalies. So the topic is specified now (in the link). Now, in the clarification and on this page is stated like: "all first row elements have anomalies" (that's 32 then). But no distinction is made to why this would be particular to nonmetals. As is described, the anomalies affect all first row elements equally, nonmetals do not stand out. The Z&N quote invites interest, but not a base. So: not a nonmetal topic. btw, "inner analogues" isa unclear.

re secondary periodicity: obviously not relating to the nonmetals too, as the description says the issue extends to metals (La-Lu, gallium). Yes it's complicated, no it does not relate to being nonmetal.

re unusual valence states: Anyway, another decription and listing, not related to being nonmetal. (But wait. Could it be this is the opposite of complicating, that it is strengthening the nonmetal class? In that case, here an oppotunity is missed to make a case for true nonmetal properties). -DePiep (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Response by Sandbh Thank you DePiep. Yes, all first row elements have anomalies to some degree, in the approximate order s >> p > d > f. That is, the strongest impact is seen in H, He, Li, Be, B, C, N, O, F, Ne—80% of which are nonmetals.

In the case of nonmetals, the specific impact of the first row anomaly is made clear in the lead paragraph of the section:

"Complicating the chemistry of the nonmetals are the anomalies seen in the first row of each periodic table block, particularly in hydrogen, (boron), carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and fluorine; secondary periodicity or non-uniform periodic trends going down most of the p-block groups;[77] and unusual valence states in the heavier nonmetals. In this regard, Zuckerman and Nachod opined that:

The marvellous variety and infinite subtlety of the nonmetallic elements, their compounds, structures and reactions, is not sufficiently acknowledged in the current teaching of chemistry.[78]"

Yes, these things are not specific to nonmetals. Do they need to be borne in mind when considering the nature of the nonmetals? Yes.

I've clarified the meaning of "no inner analogues". Sandbh (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Properties (2: colors?)

• @Sandbh: current version, second sentence of the lede(!):

"At room temperature, about half are colorless or pale yellow to pale green gases, while one (bromine) is a dark red liquid. The rest are silvery-gray (barring sulfur, which is yellow) solids and either hard and brittle or soft and crumbly."

In other words: "Nonmetals, at room temperature, have colors". Wow. Once more I say, as with state-of-matter which was the 2nd sentence some weeks earlier: not signifying, not based on being nonmetal, not a pattern. With this chaotic lede "defining" description, I won't even care to check what (or even whether) the body article text describes & sources this statment any more. *If it were in the article body, well described & as being related to nonmetal-ness, the lede sentence would be better already. -DePiep (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, unlike metals ca. 95% of which have silvery appearance. No, nonmetals do not all have colours: H, N, O and the noble gases are colourless (ca 40%); F, Cl, Br, S are coloured (18%); the rest have a metallic appearance (ca 56%). Sandbh (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

So it says "some nonmetals have colors" then (do we expect the reader to find this themselves while reading? I did not). Which only strengthens my point: unrelated at all, so more so (ie less relevant) for the ledes 2nd sentence. The opposing metal point is not mentioned. -DePiep (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Pending. That's a good call DePiep about the opposing metal point not being mentioned. I'll see if I can add this into the lead paragraph of the article. Sandbh (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. Sandbh (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• To generalise this issue: this is another example of properties not related to being nonmetal, properties listed not explained from being nonmetal, and actually a very diffuse set of values that do not push forward a typical nonmetal's feature. So being more or less basesless for the topic (and thus not encyclopedic), it also leads to less-inviting reading. Let me give an illustration: "'It appears that the nonmetals contain almost all single-lettered symbols, only exceptions are ...'": true and not relevant. Any such a property may well be researched, published and sourced here (making the statement by itself being correct), when the relationship with nonmetallness is not established it is still irrelevant for this article. And makes boring reading. -DePiep (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Response by Sandbh: It's standard practice in chemistry to describe the physical properties of chemical elements under consideration including their appearance/colour. In the case of the nonmetals, the metallic appearance of the metalloids, and to a lesser extent, C, black P, Se and I historically resulted in some confusion as to their nature, since it was metals there were supposed to have a metallic appearance rather than nonmetals. A similar thing happened when Na and K were first isolated since they looked metallic yet floated on water. How could this be, since all metals known up to that time were heavier than water? Describing nonmetals in terms of their single-lettered symbols is not helpful. Sandbh (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Berzelius specifically gave single-lettered symbols to nonmetals in cases where both nonmetals and metals began with the same letter. So, I guess it is useful to note it, but for the Chemical symbol article rather than this one. Double sharp (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion flow

About this page's discussion structure issues, re my concerns

-DePiep (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Bad discussion flow (last call)

Hi Sandbh it looks like you replied to me somewhere somehere. Since I cannot detect any head or tail, I refrain from spending time on trying to understand or reply to you in this. All the best. It follows, for sound FAC reasons, that I cannot strike any of my comments. So, they still stand. For lack of proper replies (by a FAC calling Editing Author no less). -DePiep (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

IGF I tried responding to your comments by factoring them into discrete threads. You objected to this approach with incivil commentary [41]: "stop it. just stop it ffs. do not ever abuse or corrupt a discussion flow ever again."

Subsequently I extracted and relocated my commentary. Sandbh (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Responses by Sandbh to DePiep

(point 0)

• Looks like Sandbh expects me to do page refactoring homework first, and then me reply here. I wont. -DePiep (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I've relocated my responses so that they follow your sig blocks. Sandbh (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Canvas

• Sandbh This looks like WP:CANVAS to me. -DePiep (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

That's:

Michael_D._Turnbull

Petergans

Utopes

-DePiep (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It is blatant canvassing and all resultant declarations of support should be ignored. Graham Beards (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment (inc. Support) by Dirac66

I would like to see more details on which elements are nonmetals and why. The section "Definition and applicable elements" has a partial periodic table showing 14 elements "included by nearly all authors", 3 "included by most authors", and 6 "included by some authors". We really should have a source for these qualitative estimates. Also it would nice to know WHY some authors consider a given element metallic and others authors consider the same element nonmetallic. For carbon as an example, my unsourced guess is that most authors consider it nonmetallic because it forms so many covalent bonds, but that some would call it metallic because graphite is an electrical conductor. It would be better to have a sourced summary of the arguments on both sides (metallic and nonmetallic) for all 9 elements listed as controversial. Dirac66 (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Dirac66: There are 0 literature sources treating the gases or Br or I as metals, consistent w/the specialist sources in the monographs section. There are however single sources in the literature counting, H, N, I and Rn as metalloids. These 14 elements are thus “nearly all”. The variable treatment of metalloids is discussed in the article, with citations. On this basis they’re coloured sometimes counted. C, P, and Se are routinely counted as nonmetals in the literature, consistent w/the monographs section. That said there are 16, 10, and 40 citations recognising them as metalloids in lists of metalloids as cited in doi:10.1021/ed3008457 itself cited 42 times in the academic literature. On that basis these elements are coloured as usually counted.

I could add the single citations for HNIRn, and add a further cite of doi:10.1021/ed3008457 to support the CPSe situation. Arguments for 8 of the 9 are set out in Metalloid. I could copy those to this article, and add pro’s and con’s for P. Does that seem reasonable? Sandbh (talk) 10:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

For B, C, Si, P, Ge, As, Se, Sb, Te your solution does seem reasonable. For H, N, I, Rn if they are only cited as nonmetals once each in the literature, I would be inclined to leave them out of the nonmetal article. If we do add any of them a source is required by Wikipedia rules, but a simpler solution is to just decide not to add them. Dirac66 (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Will implement 1st suggestion as soon as. There may be a short delay until I get to my desktop, in two days, as doing it on my iPad may be painful.

To clarify, H, N, I, Rn are effectively always classified as nonmetals, aside from isolated peer-reviewed literature references counting them as metalloids. Subject to your thoughts, I’ll change the 14 to “effectively always” and seek to add a brief endnote to clarify what is meant by “effectively”. Sandbh (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

OP asked "... more details on which elements are nonmetals and why". This not an answer. -DePiep (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC=

Comment. @Dirac66: Rather than transcluding a lot of text, endnotes, citations and reference, I've copyedited, and added further citations to, the lead paragraph in the Definition and applicable elements section to address your WHY question. The caption notes for the accompanying image now have either endnotes pointing to supporting citations, or a specific citation. Does this address your concerns? Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks mostly ok, except that I have made 2 small changes. 1. I changed "can be counted as nonmetals" to "are sometimes or usually considered as nonmetals", and 2. I added a link to the article "Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals" for more information. I agree however that there is no need to transclude a lot of text etc. from this article - just tell the interested reader that there is more information there." Dirac66 (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dirac66: I am wondering if you may now be in a position to support, or otherwise, my nomination. No pressure, no obligation. Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Support. I think that on the whole that is a well-written article on an important aspect of chemistry, so I support its appearance as a Featured article. Is this comment here sufficient or am I supposed to add it on some administrative page for FA candidates? I don't know the procedure. Dirac66 (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Just put support in bold and with an uppercase S. It will be picked up. Graham Beards (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Britannica definition: nonzero band gap

I notice that the Encyclopedia Britannica at [42] defines a nonmetal as a substance having a "finite" (i.e. nonzero) band gap for electron conduction. I realize that not all authors accept this definition as complete, but it does have the advantage of being a clearcut criterion to decide whether any given substance is a nonmetal or a metal. Dirac66 (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Dirac66. Band gap is included in the Distinguishing criteria section as one the properties used in an attempt to delineate between metals and nonmetals.

As you allude, such a definition experiences issues with the most stable forms of C, As and Sb.

C as graphite, which is commonly recognised as a nonmetal, has a tiny band overlap of ca. 41 meV.[43] As and Sb are counted as either nonmetals or metalloids, or both, by a significant number of authors, yet both are semimetals with small band overlaps, and both are metallic conductors. On this basis, some count As and more often Sb as metals, even though the chemistry involved in each case is predominately nonmetallic in character.

In an effort to avoid these difficulties, classes in classification science are usually defined by more than two attributes. A kind of triangulation, if you will.

--- Sandbh (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose (comments) from Graham Beards

An commendable effort has clearly been made here and without wanting to come across as overly critical I have some concerns:

• Images - are they all necessary or just decorations? The circuit-breaker, the 747, the fire extinguishers and the portrait of the alchemist for example:?

Done. No; not necessary; more like eye candy designed to catch or relieve the eye. I've removed them. That said, if another editor subsequently wanted to add them back later on, I'd find it hard to object. Sandbh (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Tables - the "Physical", "Chemical" and "Shared Uses" tables are information overloads; there's too much detail for an encyclopaedia in my view.

Done. I've reduced the tables down to one small table, consistent with the example in the metalloid article, here. The shared uses table has been deleted. Sandbh (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Footnotes - way too many.

In progress. Do you have an indicative number or range of endnotes you have in mind or would be comfortable with? The endnotes tend to arise due to the complexity of chemistry, there being many exceptions to general observations. A fair number of endnotes belong to images, where the same consideration arises. Rather than overly long captions, the nuances get assigned to the endnotes. Is it acceptable to incorporate some of the too many endnotes into the main body of the article? Sandbh (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The # of footnotes has fallen from 63 to 48 25. Sandbh (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

--Graham Beards (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Do 5,6 and 7 have to be so long? Graham Beards (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. They're now 4, 5, 6. Note 4 is only as long as it takes to outline why N, S and I are rather hobbled as oxidising agents. I've halved the length of note 5, thank you. I trimmed note 6 down to about a third of its original size, thank you. Sandbh (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Graham Beards: that's very gracious of you. Comments above. I'll have some further housekeeping to do in checking for orphaned references given my trimming. Sandbh (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Citations 10, 11 and 12 are broken.

Fixed. That was a result of me removing the shared uses table. They were repaired shortly after your post, by User:Nucleus hydro elemon thank you! As noted, I have still to check for any other broken citations (or orphaned refs), as a result of recent trimming. Sandbh (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You can't use et a. in cite#114 see Help:CS1_errors#explicit_et_al Graham Beards (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Response by Sandbh: The article doesn't use the optional cite style templates which would cause such errors. Sandbh (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The error was fixed by JohnB123 on 12 November ! See [44]- Graham Beards (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment. Broken citations and orphaned refs checked/corrected/removed. Sandbh (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• What is the relevance of "otherwise" in this figure legend, "A partially filled ampoule of liquefied xenon, set inside an acrylic cube. Xenon is otherwise a colorless gas at room temperature."

I intended it to mean that outside of the confines of its room temperature ampoule, xenon is a colorless gas rather than a liquid. Sandbh (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• With regard to the footnotes, how many of these "nuances" are needed in an encyclopaedia article? This should not emulate a monograph; it should give a general overview of the subject, written in summary style.--Graham Beards (talk) 08:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Done, I hope. The number of notes has been reduced from 63 to 25. Of the remaining notes, 14 belong to images or tables. The remaining 11 are attached to text. Sandbh (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Citations. Some of these are very old and are primary studies from the previous century. Aren't there any recent secondary sources that can used instead? --Graham Beards (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

On very old sources, Bond (2005, p. vii), in Metal-Catalysed Reactions of Hydrocarbons writes:

"I started research in 1948. I can…remember papers that are becoming lost in the mists of time, and I shall refer to some of them, as they still have value. Age does not automatically disqualify scientific work; the earliest paper I cite is dated 1858."

Older sources, once a reader knows where to look, tend to be easier to look up via e.g. the internet archive. Primary sources are allowed within the scope of WP:PSTS which says articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Sandbh (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. Our readers expect our articles to be up-to-date and based on recent sources. Graham Beards (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

For example for the citation "Dupasquier A 1844, Traité élémentaire de chimie industrielle, Charles Savy Juene, Lyon." from 1844, you could use this source, "Looking for an Order of Things: Textbooks and Chemical Classifications in Nineteenth Century France from 2002. Graham Beards (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I partly agree with you. Our articles should be up to date which is the case for the nonmetal article having worked it on and off for the past eight years. At the same time: (i) I don't believe it is a wp policy requirement for editors to effectively tear their hair out asking themselves if they've found the most recent reliable source, rather than a reliable source; (ii) per the Bond quote, age does not disqualify a source; (iii) it is a myth that the more recent a source the more pertinent it must be; (iv) in the case of descriptive chemistry, which this article is substantially concerned with, many of the facts have been known from before the 1950s, and don't change; (v) modern textbooks don't focus so much on descriptive chemistry since these facts can be looked up in older texts.

I'm familiar with Looking for an Order of Things article. In that case I choose to cite the primary source, given its historical significance. The same happened where I cited Mendeleev twice. I've now added the Looking for an Order of Things citation to the Dupasquier citation. Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

We have a guideline on this at WP:AGE MATTERS. I would prefer to see these ancient sources replaced by modern secondary ones. Graham Beards (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment re older refs: Thanks for that policy reference Graham. It says:

"Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. In particular, newer sources are generally preferred in medicine."

The older references are accurate, and have not been superseded. While I prefer to use relatively modern established sources such as Greenwood & Earnshaw; Wiberg; or Emsley, simply because that is less work, I sometimes have to fall back to more recent or older sources. In my experience it is easier to find superseded or dubious literature than it is to find RS.

Out of the 236 sources, I checked the oldest 23, spanning 1651 to 1949. Broadly they are either historical examples; historical facts known to still be accurate; or backed up by later cites; or luminaries such as Mendeleev, Herzfeld, and Deming whose views are still current.

Alternatively, I welcome any good-spirited disputation on the accuracy of any of the citations.

As this is not a medical article the general preference for newer sources is n/a.

I acknowledge your preference for secondary sources, noting primary sources are allowed within the scope of WP:PSTS which says articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Sandbh (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

We await the source review, which is an integral part of the FAC process. My advice in the interim is to replace the sources from before this century. If the facts can only be sourced to books such as "A Companion to Physical and Inorganic Chemistry (R.W. Stott - 1956)" , they are probably not worth mentioning. Graham Beards (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Sandbh response. Graham, as explained per WP:AGE MATTERS, there is no basis for your advice in the context of WP policy. Stott's rather good book, which I have a copy of, is mentioned once in a section of the article that has a chronological listing of suggested criteria for distinguishing between metals and nonmetals. Sandbh (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Monographs. What is the purpose of this section? Are any of the works cited? Graham Beards (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:FURTHER, the purpose is to provide a chronological, consolidated list of nonmetal monographs, which could enable the interested reader to further trace classification approaches in this area. A few of them are cited in the article, as permitted by MOS:FURTHER. Sandbh (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

They have little value and are not worth bloating the article with. Graham Beards (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Resolved. See below. Sandbh (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• General comment. I think you have to decide if you want this to be like a chapter in a textbook cum monograph or a Featured Article in an encyclopaedia. They are not compatible. WRT MOS:FURTHER, just because something is allowed (and you are bending the rules here) does not mean it is needed or it improves an article. Graham Beards (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Resolved. I've moved Monographs into its own article, List of nonmetal monographs and added a See also link. Sandbh (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Quotations: I can't see the point of these in an general encyclopaedia article. What purpose are they serving that cannot be achieved by paraphrasing? The article is not called History of nonmetal classification. They come across as an attempt at some sort of pretentious philosophical aside. Graham Beards (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Response by Sandbh: Sometimes an author captures an idea so beautifully that paraphrasing would do it an injustice. Such quotes serve to add mental variety, in the same way that images can do. In any event, there are just 153 words set out in quotes = 2.5% of the article (excl. TOC, the two property tables, and end matter). The focus of the article is on the concept of a nonmetal, their properties, and chemistry. Given the lack of a universal definition of a nonmetal, some discussion of the history of the concept sheds light on the current day situation. Sandbh (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose on Criteria 1c (citations) and 4 (Summary style). I'm sorry I don't agree with you on these points. - Graham Beards (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Note for Coordinator: The article has improved as a result of Graham’s feedback for which I thank him. More broadly, I’ve either fully addressed Graham’s comments, or attempted to accomodate them, or explained my position on the basis of WP policy or FAC criteria, including having regard to the complex nature of the subject matter. Acknowledging and respecting Graham’s entitlement to express his opinion, I consider Graham’s Criteria 1c has no basis, as I’ve explained. As to 4, I’ve reduced the word count of the article by 25% since it was nominated, and it’s size has fallen from 185K to 123K. In the context of the literature, the current word count of this vital article (ca. 7,000) is equivalent to ca. 1.8% of Stuedel’s 2020 book, The Chemistry of the Nonmetals. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Doncram

This is unfamiliar topic area for me, but someone suggested i participate, and i may try.

• First note: Sentence "Fourteen elements are nearly universally included, with nine more sometimes also added, making the number of nonmetals typically range between fourteen and twenty-three." seems really awkward to me. And after thinking about some big random range being implied, then deciphering for a while, it seems to me the sentence doesn't say much. Given that min is 14 and max is 14+9, then any estimate must _always_ be between 14 and 23. And is there in fact a range of estimates, or is it only the 14 camp vs. the 23 camp? --Doncram (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Doncram. It's good to have someone unfamiliar have a look. Specific comments to follow. Sandbh (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The challenge is that there is no standard defintion of a nonmetal. It's a bit like attempting to define what room temperature is, there being many possibilities. Therefore, the number of elements recognised as nonmetals varies from author to author. 14 is a typical minimum; 23 is a typical maximum, with 15-16-17-18-19-20-21-22 all being conceivable. For now, I've adjusted the passage in question as follows:

No standard definition distinguishes nonmetals and metals. Consequently the number of elements recognised as nonmetals depends on the classification criteria used by each author. Fourteen elements are nearly always included. Up to about nine more nonmetals are sometimes added. The number of nonmetals therefore typically ranges from fourteen to twenty-three.

--- Sandbh (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Upon further thought, and considering the introduction in the metalloid article, I am wishing this nonmetal article would more positively attempt to define what nonmetals are, up front, than it currently does, for the naive reader such as myself. And I also wish that the intro should acknowledge the existence of metalloid classification, which is currently (deliberately) left out of the intro, but introduced later in the article. The current first sentences are:

In chemistry, a nonmetal (from Old Latin noenum "not one"; from Greek μέταλλον métallon, "mine, quarry, metal") is an element that usually gains electrons when reacting with a metal, and which forms an acid if combined with oxygen and hydrogen. Nonmetals display more variety in color and state than do metals. About half are colored or colorless gases whereas nearly all metals are silvery-gray solids. They tend to be poor conductors of heat and electricity with no load-bearing uses, in contrast to most metals.

Sandbh comments: Doncram, I don’t know how the intro could more positively attempt to define what nonmetals are than it already does. Metalloids are not acknowledged in the intro since the article is primarily not about them as such and while metalloids are mentioned by a fair number of authors it is not clear they are mentioned by the majority of authors.

Please further bear in mind that I've attempted to write the article in the manner that nonmetals are discussed in the literature rather than the way you feel they ought to be discussed. As well, it's a characteristic feature of chemistry that non-precise concepts and models are extremely successful in explaining chemical findings, which can be sometimes difficult to get comfortable with, especially for non-chemists. While I try to limit the fuzziness there's only so much I can do.

Sandbh (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

For me, that narration is too self-confident that it has defined what a nonmetal is, and the narration goes on too soon into backtracking ("No standard definition exists..." ) and into empirical details, like reporting numbers of percentages of authors (out of some undefined set of authors) who say there are 14 or 23 or whatever, when I am not yet ready for that. I would prefer that the term "chemical element" be used rather than just "element", to help clarify what is being talked about, as is done in the intro of the metalloid article, and for the context to be defined as being about dividing between metals vs. nonmetals, or between metals vs. metalloids vs. nonmetals. At first usage, for me, an "element" could mean a classical element or any kind of component of something else, but you mean chemical element so that should be said. And I feel there is need to assert some importance of this term, e.g. to assert that the term nonmetal is in fact commonly used despite its difficulties, or there is need to explain this is a historic term that is no longer used and no longer important which would be very plausible (especially as we are about to be told of many deficiencies of the term).

Sandbh comments: The narration uses three qualifiers namely “usually”, “tend to”, and “most" hence it is not self-confident as you may feel.

I see what you mean about backtracking in the second para of the intro. That needs to be addressed.

Done. Sandbh (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The figure of 14 nonmetals nearly always recognised as such is based on citations mentioned later in the article, recalling that the intro is a key point summary of the main body of the article.

Done. I’ve added “chemical” to element, as you suggested. Sandbh (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The metalloid article currently starts:

A metalloid is a type of chemical element which has a preponderance of properties in between, or that are a mixture of, those of metals and nonmetals. There is no standard definition of a metalloid and no complete agreement on which elements are metalloids. Despite the lack of specificity, the term remains in use in the literature of chemistry.

How about, to start:

A nonmetal is a type of chemical element which has a preponderance of properties that are opposite to those of metals. There is no standard definition of a nonmetal and no agreement on which elements are which, although the periodic table of the 118 so-far-observed elements is usually presented with a zigzag line dividing them. Also, a number of elements who have properties in between are commonly termed metalloids. Despite some lack of clarity for the term, it remains in use in the literature of chemistry.

Sandbh comments: No, the opening sentence should seek to define what a nonmetal is, rather than define it in terms of what it is not. Defining it in terms of having a preponderance of properties opposite to metals says nothing unless you spell out what the properties of metals are, which is a rather clumsy and inefficient way of going about things. As well, not all nonmetals have a preponderance of properties opposite to metals; some have a mixtures of metallic and nonmetallic properties including intermediate properties.

I understand you would like to define nonmetals directly in terms of their properties, but while the current first paragraph discusses properties, that seems like a discussion of the properties of nonmetals if you knew what nonmetals were. It does not seem to me to define what nonmetals are. I gather my attempt is also inadequate (including because they don't in fact have a preponderance), but I am trying to help provide a definition. If it is impossible to define nonmetals positively in terms of their properties, then one may have to go back to saying they are a group of chemical elements that are not metals. Okay, more specifically about the current first sentence, that a nonmetal "is a chemical element that usually gains electrons when reacting with a metal, and which forms an acid if combined with oxygen and hydrogen." Do you see what I mean that it is nondefining? "An element that usually gains electrons" is an odd idea; it is suggesting that there is a substance which sometimes gains electrons and sometimes does not. While I think you mean that most nonmetals gain electrons while some nonmetals do not. I may be wrong, but I have the impression that the nobel gasses do not react with metals and gain electrons, and I also believe that they do not combine with O and H to form acids. So gaining electrons is not a defining characteristic. I get that you want to talk early on about properties, but that is not the same as providing a definition to the reader for this concept, i believe. I do suppose I may be completely wrong, and that "An element that usually gains electrons" may in fact be really clear as a definition for persons who are more knowledgeable about chemistry than I am. --Doncram (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Sandbh comments: Well, the opening paragraph says a nonmetal is a chemical element. If you don't know what a chemical element you can check the wikilink. Having done that I hope things would begin to fall into place. No, the definition does not imply that a nonmetal is a substance that sometimes gains an electron when reacting with a metal and sometimes does not. It says nonmetals "usually" gain electrons when they react with nonmetals. The "usually" is what characterises nonmetals. Of the noble gases none react directly with metals AFAIK although xenon can be found in compounds bonded with metals. While xenon does not gain electrons from metals neither does the definition say all nonmetals gain electrons from metals. It only says they usually do. Xe forms an acid when combined with H and O, in the form of xenic acid. Sandbh (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

While a fair number of periodic tables have a zig zag line there is no evidence that they usually have such a line. The lack of clarity is more about which elements are counted as metalloids; there is no lack of clarity, in the same sense, about the term nonmetal. Sandbh (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I thot my wording was a decent shot at introducing important concept of metalloids (things that are between) which also fully communicates that there are no fixed definitions, that there are disagreements, obviating need to state that. It seems to me that there is indeed a lack of clarity about what are nonmetals, because 6 of the 23 are termed metalloids in contrast to being nonmetals. The category of metalloids does not just steal from the metals, it also steals from the nonmetals. I think you simply have clear knowledge in your mind what nonmetals are, so you can handle various statements that distress me because they undermine my belief that the concept of nonmetals has yet been defined, as I read forward in the intro.

The 14 commonly recognized nonmetals are Hydrogen, Helium, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Fluorine, Neon, Sulfur, Chlorine, Argon, Bromine, Krypton, Iodine, Xenon, and Radon. In most [textbooks?/historic literature/modern literature?] Carbon, Phosphorus, and Selenium are also included. Sometimes included are Boron, Silicon, Germanium, Arsenic, Antimony, and Tellurium, although these six are the elements most commonly called metalloids, instead.

Sandbh comments:Yes, your wording was a decent shot, and gave me pause for thought. Recall we are talking about the intro, which is supposed to be a high-level summary for the general reader. In my view metalloids are not so important in an article about nonmetals that they need to be included in the intro, and thereby risk confusing the general reader further. Of course, the metalloids are discussed in the main body of the article, and that is appropriate. Bear in mind, too, that not all authors recognise the concept of metalloids and that there is no evidence AFIK that the majority do, in comparison the two "great" classes of metals and nonmetals.

It's been known for over a century that metalloids behave chemically predominately like nonmetals. The reasons why they're less frequently regarded as in-between elements is too complicated to, IMO, go into here.

About statements causing you distress I'm not sure what gain there is from becoming distressed apart from, I suppose, prompting you to post here. But that can be done without getting distressed in the first place. Sandbh (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Sandbh comments: No, those 14 are effectively always recognised as such, rather than commonly recognised as such. It is not helpful to encumber the general reader with a long recounting of the names of 14 items, followed by further mentions of 3 and six such items. Sandbh (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure, a list is indeed "encumbering" in a way, but stating this is actually positively saying nonmetals are something. They are these items. And there should be a full or partial periodic table right next to this paragraph, with the nonmetals color-coded. As a reader I am more willing to temporarily accept that nonmetals are defined as this list of items, and be "encumbered" with wanting to know why they are named nonmetals, why it useful to discuss them as a group, etc. I will then want the rest of the article to explain. I am less willing to accept that there exists a definition already in the current first paragraph, in which any idea of nonmetal is slippery, it seems to me. The elements are in fact listed in the next(?) section of the current article, so it is not useless to list them, it does have to be done. And doing it here would provide me something that I may accept as a definition, at least for now. But again, maybe this article should not be aimed at serving me as a reader, maybe I am just too needy about wanting a definition, and it is better to serve readers who are not anxious (because they already know what nonmetals are, or for other reasons). --Doncram (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Nonmetals make up more than 99% of the observable universe by mass, and [more than half / about 60% or whatever is true] of the Earth's crust, oceans, and atmosphere. This despite the fact that the 14 or 17 or 23 nonmetals are far outnumbered by the 104 or 101 or 95 elements remainder of the 118 so-far-observed elements, which are termed metals or metalloids.

Sandbh comments: The intro explains that nonmetals are chemical elements. The image gallery at the top right givens four examples of what they look like. As I believe I have explained, there used to be periodic table right at the top of the article showing the elements regarded as nonmetals. This was criticised by other reviewers for implying a level of precision that is not present in the literature. So I moved it further down into the article, where it becomes less controversial. I regret that I cannot provide you with a level of certainty that is beyond that which is provided for in the literature.

Yes, I agree the elements involved are listed in the next section of the articles along with explanatory comments appropriate for the main body of the article, rather than its intro,

As with becoming distressed, I'm not sure what is gained by becoming need or anxious. Sandbh (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Sandbh comment: Yes, I agree with you that the current paragraph could be better expressed. Sandbh (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't really want to introduce numbers 104, 101, and 95, but that can be avoided as here done by strikeout and new wording, i.e. just stating that the rest are metals or metalloids, out of 118 total number of elements. --Doncram (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. It'll take me a little longer to add a new supporting cite. Sandbh (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Most nonmetals have biological, technological or domestic roles or uses. Living organisms are composed almost entirely of the nonmetals hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen.

Physical properties and chemical properties of nonmetals (from Old Latin noenum "not one"; from Greek μέταλλον métallon, "mine, quarry, metal") include that they usually gain electrons when reacting with a metal, and they usually form an acid if combined with oxygen and hydrogen. Nonmetals display more variety in color and state than do metals. About half are colored or colorless gases whereas nearly all metals are silvery-gray solids. They tend to be poor conductors of heat and electricity with no load-bearing uses, in contrast to most metals.

Sandbh comment: No, in descriptive chemistry (which this article is mainly about) one starts with describing the subject/s in terms of their properties, rather than leaving this to last. That is why the picture in the intro shows four different kinds of nonmetals. Sandbh (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Again I understand what you want, but I don't see that the description defines what nonmetals are. "They tend to be poor conductors" means some or most of them are poor conductors, so that is not defining. That is why I suggested changing the order. I do see that the properties are important, so maybe the description of properties should be longer. I also see that my views are not going to change yours, which is okay. --Doncram (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Sandbh comments:The definition does not say they are poor conductors. It says they "tend to be" poor conductors of "heat and electricity". This is an overall defining characteristic of nonmetals. Your views count as seen in the refinements I made to the article. In any aspect in which I didn't agree with you I attempted to explain my reasoning. I've also needed to attempt to accommodate the views of about 16 other reviewers, over the course of (so far for this article) two unsuccessful FAC nominations; one peer review process; and this still open FAC nomination. Thanks very much for your interest and tolerance. Sandbh (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

This approach feels to me as more positive. --Doncram (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

References

• Note 2: about etymology of term, in the lede I wanted to see something in the intro + definitions sections explaining where the term nonmetal comes from, how the term derives. I do see there is some/much of that later. Perhaps something from that could be summarized in the lede? Where on earth are we coming from, to arrive at this term? Perhaps if we are starting as scientists figuring out the periodic table of the elements, it would make sense to consider some "metallic" vs. others not being metallic (which I think is the context suggested later). If we are, say, construction workers though, I would be thinking some fasteners/screws were metallic while others were plastic and could not be found by running a magnet along a wall. Maybe some composite materials have metal included and are seen by metal detector, in which case they are clearly metallic. I really was at a loss through the intro. --Doncram (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The scope of the article is chemistry, and what is a nonmetal in that context, rather than materials science, hence plastic fasteners don't come into play. I could change the name of the article to Nonmetal (chemistry) if you feel that could help.

I've added an etymology to the topic sentence of the lead. Sandbh (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I see you did add that the parenthetical (from Old Latin noenum "not one"; from Greek μέταλλον métallon, "mine, quarry, metal") but actually I personally don't think that is useful enough in the very beginning, before the term nonmetal has been well enough defined for my taste; it comes across to me as extra/unwanted detail at that point. What I actually was looking for was not this etymology, but rather a statement like "The term nonmetal came into use in the late 1600s within the literature among alchemists who were attempting to identify and characterize fundamental substances...." (example text made up by me). That gets at the type of context I am looking for as a naive reader. And something like that might pair up nicely with a statement about usefulness or prevalence of the term nonmetal in modern times. --Doncram (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. Etymology removed. Historical lead-in added to intro. Looks better now, thank you Doncram. Sandbh (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Note 3: I assumed that there were some small number of non-metals, perhaps about as many as elements known as metals, and that there were other elements which were neither. The intro does not contradict that. I thought it was suggesting that nonmetals were things that are close to metals somehow, or react with them to make rust or similar, while there would exist other elements that were not paired to metals. You state that "Although five times more elements are metals than nonmetals, ..." without having defined what metals are. Okay, somehow there are 5 times 14-23 metals, but I do suppose there are many more elements that are neither. When I guess you mean metals are all non-nonmetals? But later in the article it turns out you mean most elements are termed metals, while only a few are not, and these are called non-metals. Perhaps you are strenuously avoiding defining what a metal is, while I look for that, want to know, am surprised there is no link (at least not in intro) to an opposite article on metals. Not sure if metal would be that link, because it is not just about elements that are termed metals; it is also about alloys and more. (From metal article: "A metal (from Greek μέταλλον métallon, "mine, quarry, metal") is a material that, when freshly prepared, polished, or fractured, shows a lustrous appearance, and conducts electricity and heat relatively well. Metals are typically malleable (they can be hammered into thin sheets) or ductile (can be drawn into wires). A metal may be a chemical element such as iron; an alloy such as stainless steel; or a molecular compound such as polymeric sulfur nitride.") Aside: is it fair to consider all molecules that are not termed metals, to be non-metals? I bet not, i bet you mean "non-metals" to be only the elements that are not termed metallic. I think it would be a good complementary approach for you to define or describe what you mean by metals in the intro, and state that non-metals are all the other elements (presumably the elements that don't conduct electricity and heat very well). --Doncram (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Doncam, could you please bear in mind there are only so many things I can fit into the intro, and that earlier iterations of it were criticised for being too long.

Since the intro is a summary of the main body of the article this explains why it's not until paragraph 3 of the intro that it's noted there are ca. 5 times as many metals as nonmetals. Correspondingly, the main body of the article first discusses the question of what is a nonmetal and then mentions ca. how many there are.

Some authors refer to some elements as being neither metals or nonmetals, calling these elements metalloids. This is not mentioned in the intro for space saving reasons and given that metalloids behave predominately like chemically weak nonmetals. The existence of metalloids is linked in the Definition and applicable elements section. The taxonomy chart in the Origin of the concept section further notes that:

"Some authors divide the elements into metals, metalloids, and nonmetals although, on ontological grounds, anything not a metal is a nonmetal.[30]"

In light of the above, and in my opinion, acknowledging YMMV, I feel there is no need to mention metalloids in the intro.

As the intro reads to me it does not imply that nonmetals are close to metals. Paragraph 1 notes that nonmetals, "tend to be poor conductors of heat and electricity with no structural uses, in contrast to most metals."

As noted above, para 1 of the intro broadly covers off what metals are.

Per your good suggestion, I've added a w/link to "metal" in the lede to the chemical properties section of the metal article.

On your aside, molecules tend not to be referred to as metals or nonmetals. Rather, where applicable, they can be referred to as having a metallic appearance (galena), or as being metallic conductors (polythiazyl). Sandbh (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Note 4 (point related to note 3): Refocus to metals vs. nonmetals. If there is not an article about "metal" as you mean it, then should this article be focused upon "metals vs. non-metals", covering both. Should this be reworked to be titled something like "Nonmetals vs. metals in the Periodic Table of Elements"? --Doncram (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

No, each article can focus on its own topic. Per my suggestion it may be better to rename this article as "Nonmetal (Chemistry)." The metal article may benefit from being separate into at least "Metal (chemistry)" and Metal (materials science). And perhaps Metal (astronomy). It's tricky. Sandbh (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Note 5: About number of elements which exist. This does not make sense. If there are up to 23 nonmetals, then there are up to 115 metals 23 x 5 = 115 metals. I know for a fact there are at least 239 elements, because isn't there Uranium 239? So there are in fact a very large number of elements that are neither metals nor non-metals. And you must mean non-metals to be some particular category of elements that do react with metals or something. How do you rule all those others out? Are you only considering a narrow context of, say, elements that exist at room temperature in a pure state? The context/scope we are to be thinking about is not at all defined. --Doncram (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Re Note 5: you are confusing elements and isotopes. Uranium-239 is one of several isotopes of the element uranium. The number of elements observed to date is 118, but the number of isotopes is much higher. In this article we are talking about elements, not isotopes. Dirac66 (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, duh on me, sort of. I was in trying-to-make-sense-of-this mode. (But, by the way, then what about different isotopes, are all the isotopes of a given element always either metal or nonmetal (because I wouldn't rule out idea that reactivity would vary, right? It would maybe be good to say this is about elements, i.e. about nuclei having different number of protons, while different numbers of neutrons given a fixed number of protons does not make a difference in metalness which might not be about reactivity after all). And okay maybe U-238 is U's biggest isotope, anyhow? But don't completely dismiss me for being stupid. This article is nowhere near the quality of, say, the Periodic table article, which seems really clear, defines terms, builds understanding for a broad audience i think. It has tables where you can click on "period" to get reminded those are the number of electron shells, etc. That article is fairly clear there are 118 elements; there has been steady progress discovering more, but so far no 8th period elements have been found. This article states flatly there are five times more metals than non-metals, which is not true (assuming that we're talking about metals vs. nonmetals, among 118 known elements). If there is a range of number of nonmetals out of a fixed total number, there has to be a range of ratios. 118 divided by 14 = 8.43; 118 divided by 23 = 5.13. It is not stupid of me, as a reader, to see contradictions which rule out many possibilities that the article could be supposed to be about. If there are about five times as many metals, then this cannot be saying there are only metals and nonmetals; there has to be another category. You might think the intro is clear enough, say, but cognitive dissonance up front requires me, and other readers in sense-making mode, to reject your (perhaps) assumption or tacit knowledge that this is about the elements being divided into two groups. And then later there are just more problems; the major divisions are said to be metals vs. metalloids vs. noble gasses vs. other things. So obviously the intro was stating other false things, was an over-simplification, so I cannot be understanding what this article is about. And the sense-making reader is getting frustrated that evidently the intro was sloppy or careless not attempting to be precise(?), so why should I be investing more into trying to understand WTF this is about. A lot would be clarified if there was, upfront, a perhaps-very-small simple graphic showing 95 light vs. 14 dark vs. 9 inbetween, out of 118 elements (and statement that context is about 118 elements, will change when another element is discovered). That would allow me as reader to interpret that "there are 5 times as many metals" is a simplification, an over-simplification, not meant to be a literally true statement. And then allowing me to maintain other hypotheses of what is this article about, what I am to take literally vs. not. And for a later section, use a same-size matching simple graphic making further distinction of metal vs. metalloid vs. nobel gas vs. whatever. --Doncram (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Doncram, that is a good point about the 5 times as many passage. I have changed this to say:

"Although several times as many elements are metals than nonmetals…"

Early on in the process of bringing the article up to FAC standard I thought about and experimented with having a PT in the intro showing the metals and nonmetals. I decided not to since the topic of which elements are metals and which are nonmetals turned out to be controversial among some editors, especially to show in the lede. Sandbh (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Doncram: Thanks for your kind words about the periodic table article, since much of the current version is my writing! :) I wonder if the section Periodic table#Metallicity is clear enough for you? It's an overview of the metals vs nonmetals dichotomy; if you think it's easier to understand, then maybe something like it could be put here, naturally with more of an accent in the nonmetallic side.

I am sorry if it is a bit vague at times about which elements are metals vs nonmetals, but really it's because there is not a consensus among chemists as to what criteria define an element as one way or the other, which is what this article too is trying to get across. Rather, it's more that there's two clusters of properties among elements. You have those which are shiny, dense, melt and boil at high temperatures, conduct heat and electricity well, and can be stretched and shaped; their atoms tend to give up their electrons, and their oxides (think about that as "rust") behave as alkalis. (There are more chemical properties, but I think these are probably the easier ones to understand). Those are usually called metals. And then you have those that are dull, not dense, melt and boil at low temperatures (some so low that they're already gases), are poor conductors of heat and electricity, and smash into pieces if you try to shape them; their atoms tend to grab electrons, and their oxides behave as acids. Those, being pretty much the reverse, are usually called nonmetals. And there is quite some basis for the dichotomy, since each type of element tends to be reactive towards the other type. Unfortunately, the dichotomy is not perfect because there's a trend from one to the other. So you can have weirdos that are shiny, dense, melt and boil at high temperatures, conduct heat and electricity fairly well, but smash if you try to shape them, are not sure whether or not they want to give up their electrons, and have oxides that can act both as alkalis and acids depending on the situation. (For example, antimony.) The existence of these things is why (a) people talk about "semimetals" or "metalloids", (b) nobody actually agrees what criteria define "metal" vs "nonmetal" [because pretty much any criterion, applied on its own, will be "gamed" by some borderline element that meets that one criterion for being a metal while failing at most of the others, or the other way round], and (c) therefore nobody actually agrees how many elements are metals vs nonmetals. Also (a) sort of leads into why the categories are then subdivided further, like "noble gases" which are a type of nonmetal. So it's a vague "I know it when I see it" kind of thing, but people generally agree at the core, even if not so much at the edges, and it really is useful for chemistry. Please understand that presenting something like that presents challenges. :) Double sharp (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Note 6: Non-veg. Okay, suppose I am understanding everything is either metal or nonmetal. True story: i flew on an Indian airline across India just once in my life (going to a friend's wedding, after flying the long Heathrow to Mumbai route on British Air or similar), and was presented with surprising meal choice: you could have "veg" or "non-veg", that was it. I was amused, would non-veg be some kind of paste of fish, meat, chicken, whatever? Or would it be just chicken, say, and if so then how bizarre is that, you would not know what you were going to get. This topic of nonmetal seems funny that way, too, to me; I have simply not heard of "nonmetal" before, and I would like to learn what it really _is_ in a positive way, and/or what "metal" really _is_. I don't exactly remember, but I think I chose "non-veg", and found that it was something unidentifiable but that Tastes like chicken. --Doncram (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I’ve tried to adopt a positive approach to saying what a metal is rather than what it isn’t. You can see this in the first paragraph of the intro. That said, metals have been around for millenia whereas the concept of a nonmetal really only got going about two centuries ago. So, in the literature, nonmetals described in terms of what they aren’t compared to metals, is nothing unusual. And there is a flavour of that here and there in the article. Sandbh (talk)

• Note 7: Prerequisites? Sorry if my abjectly ignorant state coming in is not helpful. You don't necessarily want the article to be addressed to me. There are definitely topics in math, statistics, other subject areas, where it has to be understood that readers have a certain level of knowledge. Like you could not explain what differential equations are to someone who doesn't have a basic understanding of calculus. Can you state up front what is required, as prerequisite to appreciating this topic? --Doncram (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The intro is all that is needed for an overall appreciation of nonmetals. The main body of the article provides more detail. Sandbh (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Note 8: Simple big graphic needed. Near the top I see a graphic showing a small part of table of elements, in which nonmetals vs. metals are distinguished. It is perfectly possible that another part of the table of elements would also show some of each. I really want to see a whole picture, of the whole table, showing which are which clearly. Then you can zoom in on one interesting area. Later, there is a graphic of the whole table with various colors not defined, but explaining the colored elements are in first rows. It is currently captioned "Periodic table highlighting the first row of each block. Helium (He), as a noble gas, is normally shown over neon with the rest of the noble gases." The colors need to be defined, or all colors should be changed to just one color. And, I am not close to understanding what is the relevance of this graphic. How does it relate to nonmetals vs. metals. Or to nonmetals vs. metals vs. other. It would be very helpful for you to give a simple graphic that shows the whole table (if that is the context), and to convey if we are talking about metals vs. non-metals, or if we are talking about 3 groups. Actually there should be 4 groups: always/usually metals (light color) vs. sometimes not-metals (darker shade) vs. always/usually non-metals (darkest shade) vs. other. Or if this is not just about elements in the periodic table, then give me a big Venn diagram of circles with examples listed, in words, in each defined area. --Doncram (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Doncram could you please bear in mind that the article is about nonmetals rather than metals v nonmetals.

There's a periodic table extract in the first section of the main body of the article, showing all the nonmetals and how often they’re regarded as nonmetals. Nearby metals are shown too. The rest of the periodic table is all metals.

The graphic that colours the first row of each block does no more than that. The different colours distinguish each block; the block names are shown at the top of the graphic. The relevance of the graphic is explained in the immediately accompanying text. Sandbh (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Doncram: The graphic that colours the first row of each block now shows which elements are within the scope of the article. Good idea, that. Sandbh (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Note 9: Apology in advance for harshing on the rest of the article. It seems to me like the rest of the article is random facts, largely unrelated to the topic of nonmetals or to nometals vs. metals. E.g. 4 photos at top right show two pure solids, a composite container of some liquid, and an envelope. If i'm to understand those represent 4 elements, and it is not about containers, then so what? There is no indication which, if any, of these are nonmetals. E.g. there is a section randomly called "Abundance", consisting of "Hydrogen and helium are estimated to make up approximately 99% of all ordinary matter in the universe and over 99.9% of its atoms.[7] Oxygen is thought to the next most abundant element, at ca. 0.1%.[235] Less than five percent of the universe is believed to be made of ordinary matter, represented by stars, planets and living beings. The balance is made of dark energy and dark matter, both of which are currently poorly understood." So what, I don't understand what "ordinary matter" has to do with nonmetals, or what Hydrogen and Helium are, or anything. Etc. This just unrelated nonsense. Sorry, I think i have whipped myself up into some angry, frustrated state, and I oughta be sent away to a corner to sulk. --Doncram (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Since the article is about nonmetals I suppose it’d be reasonable to presume the 4 photos at the top right are of nonmetals.

In the Abundance section the references to ordinary matter and dark matter clarify that while H and He seem to pervade the universe, in fact only 5% of the universe is made up e.g. what you and I and the Earth and our sun, and all the nonmetals and metals are made of i.e. what is referred to as ordinary matter.

After the intro, I guess about 99% of the article is about nonmetals, their properties, occurrence, abundance, discovery etc. Sandbh (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Support / comments from Mike Turnbull

A large amount of work has clearly gone into this article thanks to Sandbh and others. I have been following these developments and as this comes to a conclusion I support the candidacy. Articles like this, which are trying to define something in terms of what it is not (i.e. not a metal) have a particularly difficult task. The approach has been to focus on the properties of nonmetals as elements and less on their use as building-blocks within compounds. That seems a reasonable limitation of scope. Nevertheless, I think it would be worth emphasising that human efforts to make new compounds has, in the past century, led almost exclusively to novel combinations of these elements alone (as an organic chemist, I would express this by saying that the numbers of new well-characterised organometallic compounds and inorganic compounds containing a metal are dwarfed by the number of new organic compounds, perhaps by a ratio of 1:100 although I have no firm source for that assertion). The reason for this is that we seek what are generally referred to as effect chemicals — drugs, agrochemicals and dyestuffs for example. The current draft mentions medicines and pharmaceuticals but not the latter two, which I think should be added with an appropriate recent review reference. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Michael D. Turnbull. You've got to the nub of the matter, which is to write about a concept seemingly defined in terms of what it is not.

Pending. I'll see if I can add citation-supported content about the building-block aspects of the nonmetals, and the number of new organic compounds compared to the rest. I hadn't heard of the expression effect chemicals. I'll see what that turns up.

Michael D. Turnbull, the General properties, chemical section currently reads:

The number of compounds formed by nonmetals is vast.[74] The first ten places in a "top 20" table of elements most frequently encountered in 895,501,834 compounds, as listed in the Chemical Abstracts Service register for November 2nd, 2021, were occupied by nonmetals. Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen were found in the majority (80%) of compounds. Silicon, a metalloid, was in 11th place. The highest rated metal, with an occurrence frequency of 0.14%, was iron, in 12th place.[75]

Is that close to what you had in mind? Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, very much so, although "vast" seems odd. Is that the word used in the source? Is the Chem Abs data something that can be updated, or did you have to generate it in some special way? An comment like this would be useful in other articles but I can't determine how you obtained it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The refs attached to the "vast" cite are not so familiar to me, so may have been there for quite a while. Cite [74, now 75] is to King & Caldwell 1954, p. 17, who refer to the vast number of possible salts that occur naturally or can be made where a salt is a compound of a metal with one or more nonmetals. That was then. Brady & Senese 2009, p. 69 look like a more recent clarification of the situation applying to nonmetals but I can't access them to check. A source not included in the article, Jespersen & Hyslop 2021, Chemistry: The Molecular Nature of Matter, p. 99, refers to the vast number of nonmetal-nonmetal compounds. So "vast" looks OK.

I tried to look up the data myself on the CAS but it seemed like one cannot do this. I then asked the CAS for the data, as the most recent data I could find in the literature was from July 1987. The details of the 2021 data are in cite 76, "Chemical Abstracts Service 2021, CAS REGISTRY database as of November 2nd, Case #01271182". I posted the report to the nonmetal talk page. There is this source, which says "The number of organic compounds far exceeds the number of inorganic compounds" but it provides no further details and does not separate out organometallics. Sandbh (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. The article now mentions the use of nonmetals (aside from the noble gases) in (i) agrochemicals and (ii) dyestuffs. Emsley covers off on these two uses for all bar (i) Si, Ge, Sb and Te; and (ii) B, Si, Ge, Te and F. I've changed the wording so that it now sees that aside from the noble gases, most of the rest of the nonmetals have used in these two areas. Sandbh (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

About the uses, is there some other way to say "Near universal uses for nonmetals are for household items; lasers and lighting; and medicine and pharmaceuticals", which appears in the article. I literally do not understand what that means. Is it meant to mean something like "Nonmetals are included in almost all new compounds created for many areas, including in household items; in lasers and lighting; and in medicine and pharmaceuticals; on the other hand metals are hardly ever used in those areas."? And adding "One or two of germanium, arsenic, and or radon will be absent", which I am also unsure about, does that mean "All nonmetals, with the exception of germanium, arsenic, and radon, are used widely in many areas, including in household items; in lasers and lighting; and in medicine and pharmaceuticals; on the other hand metals are hardly ever used in those areas." --Doncram (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Recall the article is about nonmetals. So when I list uses of nonmetals that's all I do. There's no need for, or expectation of, inferring anything about metals. For example, water (H, O) is an ingredient in some cakes. That does not mean we have to say metals are not used in ingredients of cakes. Saying "One or two of germanium, arsenic, and or radon will be absent" is shorthand for the fact that one or more of Ge, As or Rn will not have a use in household items; lasers and lighting; or medicine or pharmaceuticals". I'll see if I can refine this. Sandbh (talk) 06:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Further, I thought you were in fact making an indirect statement about metals. I was trying to make sense of what "Near universal uses for nonmetals" could mean, and was thinking it might mean nearly 100 percent of materials in these areas are nonmetals, i.e. nearly zero percent of materials in these areas are metals. Did you mean that nonmetals appear nearly everywhere, without regard to presence of metals or not? I just didn't understand. --Doncram (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. I’ve adjusted the wording. Hope it works for you. Sandbh (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Support / comments from Peter Gans

This article does a good job at covering the chemistry of the non-metallic elements. It deals comprehensively with the fact that there is no unique way to distinguish between metallic and non-metallic elements.

Perhaps a little more emphasis could be placed on the importance of oxidation state; the tendency to form covalent compounds, a typically non-metallic trait, increases with oxidation state; for example, elemental tin is a metal, compounds of tin(II) are typically ionic while tin(iV) typically forms covalent compounds. Petergans (talk) 11:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. I've added a row to the table in the Nonmetal#Chemical properties section saying metals seldom form covalent bonds whereas nonmetals form many covalent bonds. I believe this covers off on your suggestion. Sandbh (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado

Based on my no-doubt-outdated memories of studying chemistry at university, this article does well presenting a topic which cannot be described in terms of black and white. The explanations for why something is changing from element to element are clear (in other articles, I often find myself asking "OK, I understand that, but why is it so?") Here are some comments, I will continue later.

• Distinguishing criteria
  • No quotation marks around blockquotes, since they are already in blockquote format (here and also later)

    Done

  • Here the reference for the blockquote appears before the quote itself, rather than embedded in the blockquote as in §Complications. I think the placement before the blockquote is preferable since the callout is not part of the quotation itself

    All good

• Complications
  • "... triple or double bonds." The normal idiom would be "double or triple bonds" and I see nothing in the source to suggest a different usage

    Done

• Historical
  • why is "nonmetals" in quotes (the only quoted term in the list)?

    A category name of “nonmetals” implies that only these elements are nonmetals whereas e.g. the stable halogens wouldn’t be regarded as nonmetals.

  • more generally, the terms introduced in this list are variously in italics or plain text, is a distinction intended?

    Fixed

    Looks clear now, with the italics for current terms. --Mirokado (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Unclassified nonmetals
  • wl semimetal on first occurrence (decide whether or not to retain the later wl)

    Done

  • end of last paragraph: there are three double quote chars in the quotation, please clarify if this is one quotation or two with linking text

    Fixed

--Mirokado (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Mirokado. Sandbh (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome. I have now read through the article for the first time, I will have another look a bit later.

• Metalloids
  • "with each having a metallic appearance. They are called metalloids mainly in light of their appearance." Repetition of "appearance", at the ends of successive sentences. How about: "with each having a metallic appearance, which is the main reason for the name metalloids."

    Done. 2nd sentence removed since although Rochow discusses the appearance of the metalloids he falls short of saying that is why they're called as such, aside from a few words on the meaning of the "-oid" suffix. Sandbh (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Abundance
  • difficult to parse the second paragraph: in particular the figures of 0.5% and 0.2% seem contradictory.

    Done. It was contradictory. Now streamlined. It may change a little more as I recheck the sources. Sandbh (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

--Mirokado (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Use of the term
  • There is a nice French article for fr:Étienne de Clave, please add his inter-language link: {{ill|Étienne de Clave|fr}}
  • wl Lavoisier

    Done. The interlanguage link to de Clave is très bon. Sandbh (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Chemical
  • "Here, and in general, the higher an element's ionization energy, electron affinity, electronegativity, or standard reduction potentials, the more nonmetallic that element is." This list repeats exactly the list in the previous sentence. To avoid the reader having to check whether or not it really is the same, we should rephrase: "Here, and in general, the higher these values, the more nonmetallic is that element." or similar.

    Done. Nice. Sandbh (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  • "In metals, the nuclear charge is generally weaker than that of nonmetallic elements." It is the effect or influence of the nuclear charge that is weaker, not necessarily the charge itself, so rephrase: "In metals, the effect of the nuclear charge is generally weaker than for nonmetallic elements." or similar.

    Done. Ditto. Sandbh (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Complications
  • "The alternation is further compounded by the appearance of fourteen f-block metals between barium and lutetium." This could be stated more clearly, I think: "A similar effect accompanies the appearance of ..."

    Done. Sandbh (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  • The alternation arises from the appearance of each new shell type (d, f), so it would be clearer to mention the net result after describing the effects of the new shells. Thus swap the final two sentences of the Secondary periodicity paragraph.

    Done. Very nice. Sandbh (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Physical
  • <span id="GHdata">The physical differences between metals and nonmetals</span>: GHdata is defined but never used

    Fixed. Redundant code removed. Sandbh (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comparison
  • the lists in the tables should be wikified for accessibility (so that a screen reader can recognise them as lists and read them properly). The source is already formatted consistently, so this would be a series of relatively simple transformations: please don't do the changes individually by hand, I can help if you wish.

Pending. Sandbh (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

By wikified did you mean in the manner used in the two comparative tables of properties included in Properties_of_metals,_metalloids_and_nonmetals#Details? My colleague YBG used the bulleted list template to do this. Sandbh (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

There are two issues to correct: the use of <br /> to delimit list items, which applies to the plain and bulleted lists, and the use of '''•''' as the list marker for the bulleted lists. You can use {{plainlist}}, and {{bulleted list}} as you suggest. It is possible to use the normal wiki syntax for a bulleted list within a table, but since we also have the plain lists it would be more consistent to use templates for both. I previewed this on a couple of the cells and the indentation of the real bulleted lists is a bit different. --Mirokado (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I have changed the lists per your suggestion on behalf of Sandbh.--217.107.124.254 (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mirokado: As you said, using those templates works, but the results are graphically speaking less than appealing. Further to the IP editor's contribution I've now replaced the lists in the two tables with the Template:Indented plainlist and manually added ◇ list markers. Does this look OK now? Sandbh (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, IP. This is a good improvement, with the lists clearly defined. The diamond is probably better than the bold star and the visual presentation is fine. Striking and supporting now. --Mirokado (talk) 07:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps more to come... --Mirokado (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Shared uses: perhaps the following quotes represent disagreement among the sources, if so this could be more clearly expressed
  • "Only one or two of either germanium, arsenic, and radon do not have uses across all three of these fields." Another sentence I am unable to understand.

Fixed. This part now reads:

Nearly all nonmetals have varying uses in household items; lasers and lighting; and medicine and pharmaceuticals. Nitrogen, for example, is found in some garden treatments; lasers; and diabetes medicines. Germanium, arsenic, and radon each have uses in one or two of these areas but not all three.

Clear now, thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Sandbh (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

"and either tellurium or germanium": why the uncertainty?

Done. Removed. Upon reflection, mentioning Ge or Te is redundant. Sandbh (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Second read through completed. --Mirokado (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Support --Mirokado (talk) 07:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy notes from Sandbh

Note 1: Since the lead paragraph has been the subject of so much interest, I draw attention to the fact that I'm going to attempt to add something there about the appearance of metals in contrast to that of nonmetals, as per DePiep's suggestion. Sandbh (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to seek to refine. The lead paragraph and the rest of the lead are certainly looking trim these days. Sandbh (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Note 2: I’ve restored a slightly reduced image of the alchemist discovering P, since the image has been lightened to bring out more detail, and it’s appropriate for its section. Sandbh (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Note 3: DePiep: no bad feelings; please do not refactor the page in the way you did by dividing it into 1. Nonmetal; and 2. Discussion environment. If you wish to comment about the discussion environment please add it to your own comments section, rather than dividing the page. I've reverted that part of your edit that divided the page into two sections. Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

No. -DePiep (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

This was completed at FAC#2.[45] Since that time the number of images proper has reduced. The only new images are those drawn by me and released by me. Sandbh (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

If I may, I'll add one anyway:

• File:Bromine 25ml (transparent).png source should probably link to the page directly.
  • Done. That image is no longer at the external source page. There is another one there which I've now uploaded and added the link to. The image owner's page says, "All images and videos appearing in the website 'Science made alive' are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Images and videos may be copied, redistributed and modified, provided a link is given to the original work." Sandbh (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
• File:Boron R105.jpg source is broken.
  • Done. Source updated Sandbh (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
• File:Basic taxonomy of matter.png and File:EN values of chalcogens.png I trust that these doesn't copy the layouts of the sources?

• Comment The first image matches the layout from the "matter" row to the "compounds-elements-homogenous mixtures-heterogenous mixtures" row. The source for the second image is for the values only; there is no such image in it. Sandbh (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• File:Diamond-dimd5b.jpg where is the licence?
  • Comment: The image information page says, "Rob Lavinsky, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publishes it under the following license: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Attribution: Rob Lavinsky, iRocks.com – CC-BY-SA-3.0". Should there be something else? Sandbh (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
    

ALT text is OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Seems like this passes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Source review (ComplexRational)

ComplexRational, who participated in FAC#1, has offered to do this subject to study obligations. Sandbh (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Thanks for the ping. I should have additional time this week (holidays) to take this up, though should I slack off or otherwise become unresponsive by next Monday, anyone else feel free to take over. ComplexRational (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sandbh: I have started reviewing the sources. I intend to do this review in two parts: formatting and functionality of citations (2c) and verifiability of the article text (1c). Along the way, I'll take it upon myself to perform small and straightforward fixes, but more open or sophisticated things, I'll comment here much as I have done in the peer review.

• For starters, I already see a mostly consistent citation style (details and "exceptions" to follow).
• All citations with URLs are working, though I have yet to investigate whether any other sources are available online. Sandbh, I encourage you to do this as well if you haven't already; if any other web versions exist, please add them for easy access for readers and reviewers.

• Comment: Most online sources I can find are via Google Books, or Google Scholar, or behind paywalls I can access via e.g. Society memberships, or I have them on my Google Play bookshelf. Aside from adding doi's I don't add GB links since these aren't stable; what one can access at one time can become unavailable at another time. When I don't have a book at hand, I've accessed a few sources via the Internet Archive, and will add these in due course. Since there are about 168 book sources this will take a while. I'll start by setting aside the ones I have at hand either in hard copy form or via GP like Wiberg, G&E etc. Sandbh (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Some statements lack (or have incomplete) inline citations. As I read through the article, I'll tag them.
• More to come... ComplexRational (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

One other thing to note: perhaps my university has access to some subscription or offline sources, so if possible, I'll gladly help with verifiability spot-checks in those cases. ComplexRational (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Just a heads-up that the pace of my review might slow down for the next two weeks. I'll try to continue giving timely responses and definitely will add things as I check and notice them, but my free time at the moment is somewhat limited, so I can't promise substantial, continuous progress until then. ComplexRational (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Citations (footnotes)

• As a general note, I highly recommend separating different citations into different footnotes. That makes for more consistency with other articles and more flexibility in reusing footnotes. For instance, Steudel 1977, passim; Powell & Tims 1974, passim; Emsley 1971, passim (note 14) would be equally sufficient for verifiability as three separate footnotes, but the latter is much less restrictive, especially since the citations are all given separately in the bibliography. I won't highlight every example; this is just one case where I feel formatting could be improved or made more flexible for future edits.

Comment: My practice is to grip up citations where ever possible in order to reduce the number of footnotes. I've seen this done in other articles and it reduces any unintended impression of citation bombardment. The individual cites are easily copied for use elsewhere. Sandbh (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'm glad to see that the page ranges are ordered sequentially and consistently with en dashes, though there are a couple of inconsistent/incorrect uses of p. and pp. for pages that I noticed.
• "Passim" is sufficient when there isn't one specific page, though precise pages are desired when possible. In the cases below where a page range is missing and this is the reason, I highly suggest using "passim" if it reflects a citation of the entire source.
• Brande 1821, pp. 5 (note 34) – if it's one page, then it should be p. 5. I don't see too many instances of this among the citations. Done Sandbh (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Rao & Ganguly 1986 (note 41) – page needed NFA the article only runs to 1½ pages. Sandbh (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Beach 1911 (note 49) – page needed NFA The page number is "Metalloid" as per the bib entry. Sandbh (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• de Clave 1651 (note 56) – page needed. I see this is a very old source, though, so finding a page number may be more difficult (unless it's a single-page reference). NFA no page number present Sandbh (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Good to know.

    Comment. In fact, I now recall the commentary about de Clave was provided by Schlager & Lauer 2000, p. 370, footnote 58, which I can now no longer access :( I've removed the de Clave cite, since that was only intended to provide no more than the publication details of the work. Sandbh (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Cressey 2010 (note 83) – page needed NFA Cressy is a Nature news blog item; there is a hyperlink in the Bib. Sandbh (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Knight 2002 (note 108) – page needed Done Sandbh (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Tshitoyan, Vahe; et al. (note 116) – to keep a consistent style, the full citation should be in the bibliography and have a separate footnote Done Sandbh (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Mazej 2020 – page needed NFA Whole article is applicable. Sandbh (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll do a full review of this later, but could you add the pages (if possible) to the citation in the bibliography?

Comment: This article belongs to a Journal that does not use sequential numbering; each article starts at page 1. Since the whole article is about noble-gas chemistry there seems little point in adding pages, in this case. Sandbh (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Moss 1952, p. 180, 202 (note 141) – similar to above, should be pp. 180, 202. Done Sandbh (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Bevan D 2015 (note 152) – page needed Fixed Sandbh (talk) 10:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  Note: this citation is no longer present. ComplexRational (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  NFA required. Sandbh (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Vernon 2020 (note 159; note 218) – page needed. If the pages are the same, they should be combined into a single named footnote. Fixed Pages nos added. Sandbh (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "p. 221–223" should be "pp. 221–223", as in the other examples I highlighted.

    Done. I was getting tired when I tried fixing that one the first time. Sandbh (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Kneen, Rogers & Simpson 1972, pp. 439 (note 174) – p. 439 Done Sandbh (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Welcher 2001, p. 3–32 (note 192) – pp. 3–32 NFA that is how the page is numbered Sandbh (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  In this case, I suggest using a hyphen rather than an en dash, so that it is clearly distinguished from page ranges (which use dashes). ComplexRational (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  Done. Sandbh (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yamaguchi & Shirai 1996, pp. 3–27 (3) (note 197) – what exactly is meant by (3); is this a reference to a chapter or subsection? NFA; it was the page number within the page range now removed Sandbh (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Labinger 2019, pp. 303–328 (305) (note 254) – what is meant by (305)? Done 305 was the actual page within the page range of the article; I've removed the range Sandbh (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Weeks 1945, pp. 22 (note 260) – page needed NFA err, it's p. 22? Sandbh (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, p. 22 is what I meant; pp. 22 is inappropriate if it's only the one page. Excuse my copy-paste error. Not yet addressed 02:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

    Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• That's everything I noticed so far in § Citations. Next I'll take a look at the bibliography. ComplexRational (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Thank you. That's good and represents about 6% of citations, noting there [are] may be reasons for some of these showing as they do, which I'll start looking at shortly. Sandbh (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Some fine tuning of the above "Done's", etc to follow, later. Sandbh (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

That's fine, as long as it's clear why exact pages cannot be given. I've worked with citations like this. A few smaller things might come up along the way, though your edits look good for the moment (note my replies to a few things). ComplexRational (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Atkins 2006 et al. (note 206) – should be "Atkins et al. 2006" to match the established style and correct use of et al. ComplexRational (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Thank you for your prompt action. I think you may not have noticed this addition (Atkins). ComplexRational (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

(And the following two) Not yet addressed 02:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Imbertierti 2020 (note 11) – page needed, if possible. I think there's also a misspelling in the author's name – should be Imberti. Not yet addressed 02:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Csele 2016; Winstel 2000 (note 12) – pages needed, if possible, though I expect that passim will suffice because this sources a general statement to chapters about the subject within Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. Additionally, seeing as they are from the same encyclopedia but are 16 years apart, are they from different editions? If so, please include the editions for each. Not yet addressed 02:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  Fixed. The sources have general relevance so I’ve added passims. As electronic sources there are no editions per se, only dates for each entry. Sandbh (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  Passims look good. Do you mean that each entry is individually dated and all of them are compiled to form and continually update Ullmann's Encyclopedia (whose publication date might then be irrelevant)? I'm curious how this works. ComplexRational (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Bibliography

• A consistent style is in place, even though it does not utilize citation templates. In accordance with WP:CITEVAR, this style should not be changed without consensus.
• All ISBNs and dois that are present are correctly formatted. They link to sources that (at first glance) are pertinent and of high quality.
• As the ISBN was introduced in 1970, and Sandbh has justified using some older sources where appropriate, it follows that the ISBN is not always available. Almost all books published since 1970 have their ISBNs included, with the following exceptions (please add the ISBN – or other identifier – if available):
  • Powell P & Timms P 1974, The Chemistry of the Non-Metals, Chapman and Hall, London
  • Rudolph J 1974, Chemistry for the Modern Mind, Macmillan, New York

    Done. ISBN added for the first one; there is no ISBN for the second but I added a link to the Internet Archive. Sandbh (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• Berzelius JJ & Bache AD 1832, "An essay on chemical nomenclature, prefixed to the treatise on chemistry" – is there any additional info available besides the volume?

  Done. Not so much; I've added the place of publication and the month it appeared. Sandbh (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• Cao et al. 2021, "Understanding periodic and non-periodic chemistry in periodic tables" – I see in the article that "article 813" is used as an identifier. However, I suggest changing this to "no. 813" for consistency with similar sources – the identifier is the same, whether it be called issue, number, article, etc. Done. Sandbh (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Better now. There's also another instance of this (Vassilakis AA, Kalemos A & Mavridis A 2014), where "article no. 1436" is uniquely used, that I hadn't yet gotten to. ComplexRational (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

    Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• General comment: most of the references having multiple authors abbreviated with et al. do not include first and middle initials of the lead author(s). To match the established style for sources with 1–3 authors, initials should be included even in these cases, and there are several instances (e.g., Edwards PP et al. 2010) where they are included. I won't mention every example (there are at least a dozen), but some of the first alphabetically are Atkins et al. 2006, Bailar et al. 1989, Brown et al. 2014, etc.

  Checked. Fixed where applicable. Sandbh (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Cox PA 1997, The Elements: Their Origins, Abundance, and Distribution, Oxford University Press, Oxford, Oxford – guessing from the other sources, is "Oxford, Oxford" a typo?

  Fixed. Indeed a typo. Sandbh (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Cressey 2010, "Chemists re-define hydrogen bond" – add the first initial (Cressey D)

  Done. Sandbh (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• The formatting of translators is inconsistent among these three and (sometimes) with that of authors and editors elsewhere in the bibliography. There should be something standard for these; I'd strongly recommend the latter example (in the Remy ref – Anderson JS (trans.)), as this one consistently orders last name, first initials and has a parenthesized abbreviation.
  • Glinka N 1965, General Chemistry, trans. D Sobolev, Gordon & Breach, New York
  • Mendeléeff DI 1897, The principles of chemistry, vol. 1, 5th ed., trans. G Kamensky, AJ Greenaway (ed.), Longmans, Green & Co., London
  • Remy H 1956, Treatise on Inorganic Chemistry, Anderson JS (trans.), Kleinberg J (ed), vol. II, Elsevier, Amsterdam

  Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• National Institute of Standards and Technology 2013, SRM 4972 – Radon-222 Emanation Standard, retrieved from the Internet Archive, August 1, 2021 – minor thing, but I feel it should say "accessed" rather than "retrieved" in line with the presentation of access dates.

  Done. Sandbh (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Piro NA, Figueroa JS, McKellar JT & Troiani CC 2006 – this is the sole source for which exactly four authors are listed. Is this the only source with exactly four authors, or are there others for which et al. is used instead? In the latter case, I suggest editing this to Piro NA et al. to keep a consistent threshold at three authors (who are all listed out for several sources) before abbreviating with et al. It's also worth noting that footnote 225 references "Piro et al." instead of listing out all four authors. Conversely, if necessary, make sure every source with exactly three authors lists out all three in the form "Last1 F1, Last2 F2 & Last3 F3".

ComplexRational (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed. I checked all the et al's to see that there were > 3 authors and that was the case. Sandbh (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you. Good to know that this is indeed standard across all the sources. ComplexRational (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• I noticed another general thing and included one example to illustrate. When multiple sources are by the same author, that author should be cited in the same way with the same initial(s) (and spelling – e.g., Mendeleev vs. Mendeleyev – though I haven't identified any instances of the latter in this article).
  • Atkins PA 2001, Atkins P et al. 2006, and Atkins P & Overton T 2010 – Atkins should be consistent across all three. Since first initials are often included, I suggest standardizing to that (Atkins PA).
  • However, this is already well done in many cases. ComplexRational (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

    Done. Sandbh (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Brooks RR 1992, Noble metals and biological systems: Their role in medicine, mineral exploration, and the environment, Routledge, Roca Baton, ISBN 978-0-8493-6164-7 – I think you meant Boca Raton? ComplexRational (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  Fixed. Indeed. Sandbh (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Greenwood NN & Earnshaw A 2002, Chemistry of the Elements, 2nd ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, ISBN 978-0-7506-3365-9 – the second edition was published in 1997 and I can't find anything more recent, so 2002 seems incorrect here. ComplexRational (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  NFA. They were reprinted with corrections in 1998. The version I have was reprinted 2001, 2002, hence I used the latter. Sandbh (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

​I see, that makes sense, even though this isn't reflected in some databases.

Same question for Rayner-Canham 2021, The Periodic Table: Past, Present and Future, World Scientific, New Jersey, ISBN 978-981-121-850-7: a lookup of the ISBN gives a publication data of 2020. Was there another edition with corrections reprinted in 2021? ComplexRational (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. It is in fact 2020. Sandbh (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability and spot-checks

Placeholder Slowly working through this... please note that I will probably update this on a rolling basis as I go through the list. ComplexRational (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sandbh: I've read through some of your replies, though probably won't be able to respond to them or continue reviewing until midweek (Tuesday/Wednesday). Perhaps I'll also be able to find some print sources this week. ComplexRational (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Update @Sandbh: Getting back to it now. Expect more comments to trickle in during the coming days. ComplexRational (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: Good to see you're back. Sandbh (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• The bulk of the remainder is composed of sodium, magnesium, aluminium, calcium and iron. (8) – I checked source 8 (Nelson 1987), and am curious why you group H, O, Si, and the rest as you do. 85% appears to be a very rough aggregate estimate from all four lists in the source, rather than an exact reflection of it. On the other hand, Nelson clearly groups H, C, N, O, Al, and Si as the most important elements in all different settings described. To better reflect the source, I suggest following the grouping, unless source 9 (Brooks 1992, which I cannot currently access) treats them differently. ComplexRational (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  Done. I listed H, O, Si in order of Z. Brooks gives the abundances in the biosphere. To get the 85% requires some more aggregating on the basis of the weights of each of the four spheres (bio-, atomos-, hydros- and lithos). The weight of the lithosphere dwarfs the weights of the others by ca. 4 orders of magnitude. I've added a cite for the weight of the lithosphere. Sandbh (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  Still unsure about this one. I'd like to think WP:CALC would apply here, though I'd need info on the weights if the figure of ~85% is a weighted average, i.e. cites for all the "-spheres". ComplexRational (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

  Well, we could start with the whole paragraph:

The nonmetals hydrogen, oxygen and silicon constitute about 85% by weight of the Earth's atmosphere, oceans, crust, and biosphere. The bulk of the remainder is composed of sodium, magnesium, aluminium, calcium and iron.[8][9][239]

Looking through my handwritten notes, the approximate weights involved are crust 2.77 × 10²² kg; oceans 1.32 × 10²¹ kg; atmosphere 5.5 × 10¹⁵ kg; biosphere 10¹³ kg. While the figures vary between sources these look as good as any. Now, the biosphere and atmosphere can be set aside for these purposes. From there it's a matter of looking up the estimated proportions by weight. In the crust, these are oxygen 0.466 and Si 0.27. For the oceans, they are H 0.662 and oxygen 0.332. In multiplying these figures by the weights of the crust and the oceans I get H + O + Si = 76.7%. This is not the same as the 85% figure as I misread the units on one of the figures. So, It's a good thing you checked. I've changed the figures accordingly and have added a cite for the weight of the oceans. Sandbh (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• bare proton with tremendous polarizing power (81) – Greenwood & Earnshaw, p. 43 does not say anything about polarizing power. The parts about H⁺ forming in aqueous solution and this forming the basis of acid-base chemistry are well-cited, though another source (or page, if appropriate) is needed to cite the polarizing power of H⁺.

  Comment/Done (I hope). The G&E citation instead belongs to the sentence following the sentence in which reference is made to the polarising power. This raises the question as to whether a citation is needed for every sentence in an FAC? In any event, the Lee citation just before the polarising power sentence refers to the proton having a "very high polarizing power" so I've moved that citation along by one sentence. I've seen another reference to the polarising power of the proton being "enormous". Sandbh (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  Done well enough. I was able to cross-check the veracity of this statement, though it was needing of a direct inline citation, which is now present. ComplexRational (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• The alternation is further compounded by the appearance of fourteen f-block metals between barium and lutetium (86) – verified. It may also be helpful to mention the lanthanide contraction (as described in the source) and wikilink it, as this better explains the behavior of 5d transition elements.

  Done. Good, I've expanded sentence and added a w/link to the contraction. Sandbh (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Greenwood & Earnshaw, p. 804 (129) – looks good for the whole paragraph, though to avoid confusion as to what is cited, perhaps also include the footnote before (or next to) Vernon 2013.

  Comment. There are no cites for the colours of the halogens since this is common knowledge. Vernon applies only to I looking metallic under white light; G&E applies only to its sentence. Sandbh (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  Reasonable enough. ComplexRational (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Electrically, graphitic carbon is a semimetal along its planes and a semiconductor in a direction perpendicular to its planes (138) – OK, also from reading the values in the table on p. 278, which I had to consult because the semiconductor bit wasn't obvious from the text alone. Accordingly, I would change the reference to pp. 277–278. Also, later in the paragraph (deviating slightly from the source review), I suggest mentioning that diamond is an insulator (alongside H, N, O, and S) and citing it to the same source.

  Comment. Ah, I see. G&E say graphite is a semimetal along it planes but that its resistivity increases by a factor of [a whopping] ~ 5,000 along the c-axis. They don't elaborate. I've added an existing citation, but with a different page number, to Atkins et al. who're explicit on this point. Sandbh (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  Still need to check the citation or cross-check if I can't access Atkins. And, as I mentioned, do you think it's worth mentioning diamond among the insulators? ComplexRational (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

  It's not worth mentioning diamond since the focus of the article is on the most stable forms of the nonmetals. Diamond does, however, get a mention in the allotropes section. Sandbh (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• phosphorus and selenium are semiconductors (139) – I only checked Greenwood & Earnshaw so far in (139), but some other sources and the WP article for phosphorous only describe black phosphorous as a conductor. If black phosphorus is indeed the only conducting allotrope, the article text should reflect this.

  NFA. G&E say black P is a semiconductor. This is confirmed by the accompanying cite of Berger. You may have heard black P referred to as "metallic" P. This is a reference to its metallic appearance rather than its metallic conductivity. Sandbh (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  Ahh, I see. I should have clarified, is black P the only non-insulating allotrope? ComplexRational (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

  Addition: the article later specifically states that white P is an insulator and red P is also a semiconductor. Might this also be worth mentioning here? ComplexRational (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Not worth mentioning. Same thing applies here as is the case for diamond. Black P is the most stable form. It is not the only non-insulating allotrope, as explained in the allotropes section. Sandbh (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• semi-lustrous: C, P, Se (table) (171) – Emsley p. 397 does not mention a semi-lustrous appearance. Is this to be inferred or does another source in note (171) describe this (inaccessible via Google Books preview, though p. 480 and Wiberg p. 780 are respectively about Se and C)? If not, better source needed.

  Done. Emsley (p. 397) says black P looks like graphite, while Wiberg says graphite has a metallic appearance, and then adds that natural graphite has a "dull" metallic lustre. Emsley refers to a metallic semiconducting form of selenium (p. 478) and then to one of its forms as a silvery "metal", which must be a typo. To make things easier I've removed the "semi-" from semi-meta‖llic, trimmed the second page number from Emsley, and replaced this with a cite to Rochow. It is probably the case that the semimetals C==, As, Sb have a lustrous appearance, whereas the semiconductors B, C ‖, Si, black P, Ge, Se, Sb, Te, and I== have a semi-lustrous appearance, but I need to do more research, and that is a level of nuance which can wait for now. Sandbh (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  Definitely agreed that greater detail is not necessary here and now. The wording is better now, though I may still want to do a cross-check before striking this. ComplexRational (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Greenwood & Earnshaw and Emsley are otherwise reliable and verifiable for all the citations I could check specifically. Still more to come. ComplexRational (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Continuation from 16 December

• Periodic table extract showing the frequency with which authors class elements as nonmetals: (15) (caption) – Vernon 2013 groups the six commonly grouped metalloids as such, but aside from a brief mention of Sn as possibly "a chemically weak nonmetal", does not say anything about them being grouped among the nonmetals. However, another source later in the article (Dingle 2017; ref 170) seems to make this distinction, as evidenced by the quotation. I would suggest adding the Dingle ref to the caption.

  Vernon 2013 surveyed the literature as to which elements were regarded as metalloids. The implication being that metalloids were not always regarded as such, meaning that they could only be regarded as either nonmetals or metals, depending on the metalloid in question. In any event, I've replaced this cite with three more explicit examples. Sandbh (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Goldhammer-Herzfeld metallicity criterion ratio (40) – you might want to cross-check the exact wording of this, as I can't match this exactly to the cited source or anything else; it seems to more commonly be called "Goldhammer-Herzfeld criterion (for metallization)", among other names.

  Done. Changed to Goldhammer-Herzfeld criterion for metallization. Sandbh (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Chemical Abstracts Service 2021, CAS REGISTRY database as of November 2nd, Case #01271182 (75) – could you add a URL?

  More specifically, is there a link to "Case #01271182" or similar? ComplexRational (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  Kind of. The report was requested by me from the CAS. They assigned the case number. There’s a copy of the resulting report from CAS on the nonmetal talk page. I’ve added a wiki link to it. Anyone could confirm the report by emailing CAS and quoting the case #. Sandbh (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  Good to know. ComplexRational (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• the 21st amino acid of life;[76] – not sure what [76] (Cao 2021) is citing here, as the source does not include any of the given examples. I'm not disputing the statement itself, as it is cited also to [77] (which I checked) and borders on common knowledge, but I can't figure out what [76] cites exactly. Other occurrences of [76] are well done, and this source would even (partially) address my earlier comment re metalloids.

  Fixed. The source should be Cockell rather than Cao. Now fixed. Sandbh (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  Very good, I was able to verify. Could you add an ISBN for Cockell? ComplexRational (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  Done. Sandbh (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Zhao, Z, Zhang H, Kim D. et al. 2017, "Properties of the exotic metastable ST12 germanium allotrope", Nature Communications, vol. 8, doi:10.1038/ncomms13909, PMID 28045027, PMC 5216117 (note 233) – source is good, though in the citation, 13909 should be the article number, not the page number.

  Fixed. The citation provided by the journal itself makes it look like a page number. I’ve removed the number since the title of the article, the volume number, and the doi provide sufficient information to locate it. Sandbh (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  The citation is correct now, though the page linked through the doi gives "Nature Communications volume 8, Article number: 13909 (2017)", so I think it can be added as the article number to keep consistency with other citations to journal articles. ComplexRational (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  Done. Sandbh (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• More still to come. I checked everything I could access up to note [84]; aside from the specific points I raised here, the sources are reliable (legitimate and cross-checked) and the content is verified. ComplexRational (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks. Sandbh (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Stellman 1998, p. 104-211 – just for clarification, I'm guessing the hyphen is supposed to be part of the page number?

  Kind of. It turns out to actually be a chapter number, which I've now Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• "nonmetals";[108] – I can't verify this source, so asking directly to clarify: are the quotes part of the name?

  Fixed. They aren't part of the source so I've added a footnote explaining why they appear here. Sandbh (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• the Royal Society of Chemistry periodic table shows the nonmetallic elements as occupying seven groups. – source is good and clear, though I find this wording a bit ambiguous. The nonmetallic elements are shown to occupy both seven subclasses and seven groups, though neither contains exclusively nonmetals. Could you perhaps reword this in some way to make the intended meaning clearer? ComplexRational (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  Done.

• Up to [113] now, verified everything I have access to. ComplexRational (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks you. Sandbh (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Armenian genocide

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 10:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

After a bit of a delay, I think it's time for this level-4 vital article to come back to FAC. I really appreciate the feedback I received on the last nomination, which I did my best to address, and am looking forward to additional comments. (t · c) buidhe 10:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Super Dromaeosaurus

Hello. As on the last FA review, I am here just to note some minor details and will not engage in full review.

• Check duplicated links, there's a few of them.
  • Mostly fixed. I left a couple in where there's a large gap.
• The only note on the article, "Also known by other names", should have its own section and not be included within the references one in my opinion. A period could also be added. It is pretty short anyway so we perhaps could just remove it.
  • Added period, but an additional section would add too much page clutter (including table of contents) to be worthwhile imo.
• Article uses both "Armenian Question" (twice, excluding references) and "Armenian question" (once). It'd be better to have consistency.
  • Per MOS:Caps, this phrase is not consistently capitalized in reliable sources so it should not generally be capitalized. However in direct quotes original capitalization is preserved.
• Could we add the Armenian name of the event in the lead? I imagine this probably has been discussed before and not just not considered at this point, my apologies if so.
  • I don't think so. The entire reason for creating the terminology article was to move the details on alternate names somewhere other than the first sentence of the lead where they're UNDUE (in my opinion).
• It could be stated that the Armenian genocide is part of the Late Ottoman genocides and not just of WW1 in the infobox. Super Ψ Dro 21:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • This is discussed in the article, but I'm concerned that it would add too much clutter to the infobox, which we've tried to keep simple, as well as not necessarily being understood by the average reader.
  • Thanks for your comments. (t · c) buidhe 22:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Will take this up. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• de Waal, Thomas (2015) WorldCat relates that the 2015 edition is a PHD dissertation, you may wish to make note of this.
  • The ISBN is correct, I copied it from the title page of the (PDF) version I cited. It is not a dissertation.
• Kévorkian, Raymond (2011) while Bloomsbury Publishing does currently own I.B. Tauris, it was I.B. Tauris themselves that published this before being bought seven years later, you may wish to specify the publisher to them.
• Suciyan, Talin (2015) same here, may wish to specify to I.B. Tauris.
  • Done both.
• Ahmed, Ali (2006) the linked ISBN (9781135205089) seems to lead to a 2013 edition per WorldCat; suggest 9781579583880 as used for 2006 edition. If you used the 2013 edition, you may wish to simply insert an orig-year of 2005 (the earliest I can find it). If you used a paper copy of 2006 with the linked ISBN, disregard this.
  • The version I used says it is from 2006 but the ISBN is 978-1-57958-388-0 so I changed to that.
• Anderson, Margaret Lavinia (2011) listed ISBN of 9780199792764 brings up an error on WorldCat; 9780195393743 seems to be a common ISBN for the 2011 edition. If the listed ISBN is from a paper 2011 copy, disregard this.
• Ditto Astourian, Stephan (2011), Göçek, Fatma Müge (2011) Zürcher, Erik Jan (2011), and Dündar, Fuat (2011).
  • Replaced with 978-0-19-539374-3 the ISBN from the edition I used.
• Kévorkian, Raymond (2020 WorldCat seems to have a lot of 2021 editions compared to 2020, double-check that 2020 is the correct year; ISBN is appropriate for both, but 9781789204506 is more commonly used for 2021 editions.
  • I used the Google Book version, which has that ISBN and is from 2020.
• Mouradian, Khatchig (2018) per WorldCat the current ISBN is somewhat rare for the 2018 edition, may wish to double-check/change to the more commonly used 9780415787444, but default to used copy.
  • Double checked this one and the pdf copy I used says its ISBN is 978-1-315-22591-3.
• @Buidhe: That is all, no objection to the inclusion of any sources. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Notes (non-issues)

• Bloxham, Donald (2005) the ISBN (9780199226887) links only to 2009 WorldCat editions, but subsequent searches in the 2005 editions reveal the ISBN as valid for 2005 editions, presume failure of WorldCat.
• de Waal, Thomas (2015) ISBN provided (978-0-19-935069-8) links to a 2019 edition, but WorldCat confirms valid for 2015 edition.
• Bloxham, Donald; Göçek, Fatma Müge (2008) WorldCat has no 2008 entry but Google Books and Springer confirm it.
• Leonard, Thomas C. (2004) no WorldCat entry for this date, confirmed in other locations.

• Thanks so much for checking these ISBNs, it's always something I am lazy about although I know that different editions can have slightly different content or pagination. (t · c) buidhe 22:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

  Article passes source review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by a455bcd9

Thanks for working on this important article. A few remarks:

Lead

• The Armenian genocide was the systematic mass murder of [...] Armenians [...] it was accomplished primarily through mass executions, death marches leading to the Syrian Desert, and the forced Islamization of Armenian women and children.: I don't understand why forced Islamization is mentioned here, because from what I understand people who converted to Islam under duress survived. I think this may be more correct: "it was accomplished primarily through mass executions and death marches leading to the Syrian Desert. Many Armenian women and children were also subject to forced Islamization." (as it is written in the third paragraph: "Around 100,000 to 200,000 Armenian women and children were forcibly converted to Islam and integrated into Muslim households.")
  • I think it is a misconception to assume that genocide is just killing people. Indeed both the Genocide Convention and reliable sources cited in this article use a more broad definition that considers such actions as kidnapping children, forced conversion, economic dispossession etc. as aspects of a genocide. See for example Akcam and Kurt 2015, pp. 4–6: "Genocide does not just mean physical annihilation. Going even further, physical annihilation is only one detail of the process. How many Armenians died during the course of the deportations or destruction, or how many remained alive—as important as this is on the human level—is just a secondary issue from a definitional point of view; what is important is the complete erasure of the traces of the Armenians in their ancient homeland." The sources cited definitely consider Islamization as a structural element of the genocide.
    • I agree with this definition but what is weird is the current construction: "The Armenian genocide was the systematic mass murder of [...] Armenians [...] it was accomplished primarily through". This could be solved this way (a bit heavy...): "The Armenian genocide[a] was the complete erasure of ethnic Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during World War I. Spearheaded by the ruling Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), it was accomplished primarily through the systematic mass murder of around one million ethnic Armenians in mass executions and death marches leading to the Syrian Desert and the forced Islamization of Armenian women and children." A455bcd9 (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Revised
• Prior to World War I, Armenians were concentrated in the Armenian highlands and occupied a protected, but subordinate, place in Ottoman society.: would be great to add the number of Armenians before the Genocide + the % of the total population. Also it should be mentioned that many Armenians lived in Constantinople, in addition to rural areas in the east. Otherwise we don't understand the roundup in Constantinople on April 24 1915.
  • More details on this are given in the body. I get your point that adding more background information could be helpful, but I don't think there's space to expand the lead.
• Should it be "the empire" or "the Empire" for the Ottoman Empire?
  • I believe "the empire" is correct per MOS:CAPS.
• to permanently forestall the possibility of Armenian autonomy or independence. => I think it should be mentioned in the introduction that there was an Armenian national liberation movement. For instance after "Large-scale massacres of Armenians occurred in the 1890s and 1909." something like "In reaction to these massacre..." Otherwise the reader doesn't understand why "the possibility of Armenian autonomy or independence" is mentioned and why there was "fear among CUP leaders that the Armenians [...] would also attempt to break free of the empire."
  • It is actually a really complex question the extent to which these fears were "real". It's true that Armenian revolutionary groups existed, however, their goal was reform not secession in most cases. Secession was a fringe position for Ottoman Armenians until after 1915 (see) More widely accepted scholarly explanations focus on how the Armenian question was manipulated in diplomacy and how the loss of Macedonia warped CUP leaders' perception of the Armenian provinces. But, although I agree that you might add something there for balance, I'm struggling to think of any way to explain these factors in a couple sentences (I wrote an entire article Causes of the Armenian genocide).
    • Maybe something like this: "Prior to World War I, Armenians were concentrated in the Armenian highlands and occupied a protected, but subordinate, place in Ottoman society. Secession was a fringe position for Ottoman Armenians and most wanted to reform their status. Large-scale massacres of Armenians occurred in the 1890s and 1909." A455bcd9 (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Armenian soldiers in the Ottoman Army were disarmed pursuant to a February order and were later killed.: how many of them? what was their representation in the Army as a whole?
  • Despite looking, I am not aware of any figures on this.
    • In that case, I'm not sure this should be mentioned in the lead. Especially given the other important things that could be mentioned. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  Removed. (t · c) buidhe 15:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• The Turkish government maintains that the deportation of Armenians was a legitimate action that cannot be described as a genocide. I think something like this would be more neutral and would be a better representation of the official Turkish stance (and of Genocide denial in Turkey in general): "The Turkish government describes the "events of 1915"[Could add a footnote: "In 2006, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan ordered government officials to say "the events of 1915" instead of "so-called Armenian genocide", cf. Terminology of the Armenian genocide] as a "tragedy" that resulted in "the loss of many innocent lives" but that cannot be described as a genocide as it maintains that the deportation of Armenians was a legitimate action under war-time conditions." (source 1, source 2)
  • This sentence has been discussed on the talk page. I'd agree that your longer version of the sentence does do a better job of conveying the nuances in Turkey's current official position. However, there are a couple reasons to prefer the current version: 1) it is more concise, and maintaining conciseness in the lead is very important and 2) it is accurate over Turkey's entire history, whereas the proposed version is accurate only during the last few years. (t · c) buidhe 13:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I understand. I still think this sentence could be improved for instance to distinguish the position of the Turkish Republic from the one of the late Ottoman Empire: "Although after the genocide the Ottoman Empire publicly recognized that 800,000 Ottoman citizens of Armenian origin had died as a result of state policy, the Turkish government has maintained since 1923 that the deportation of Armenians was a legitimate action that cannot be described as a genocide." A455bcd9 (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

      I think it's important not to give too much weight to the post-Mudros Ottoman government, which existed for only a few years and had little sway outside the capital. (t · c) buidhe 15:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

[I'll check the rest later]

• A455bcd9 (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. (t · c) buidhe 13:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• The lead should reflect the content of the article. In particular the "Aftermath" section and the trials should be mentioned (currently, only the Turkish War of Independence is mentioned).

Armenians in the Ottoman Empire

• The presence of Armenians in Anatolia has been documented since the sixth century BCE, more than a millennium before the Turkish incursion.: this is not directly related to this article but the map in the Anatolia article shows only the Western part and yet here we mostly talk about Armenians living in the east so I think the reader who clinks on this blue link may be confused. Should we change that map?
  • There are different definitions of "Anatolia". But the one used in this article and the cited sources puts the eastern edge of Anatolia approximately equivalent to Turkey's eastern border.
• The Ottoman millet system offered non-Muslims a subordinate but protected place in society. we could add "(Christians and Jews)" after "non-Muslims" to make it clearer. Or just replace "non-Muslims" by "Christians and Jews".
  • I think "non-Muslim" is better because it's the language used in the sources and included other groups such as Samaritans and Mandaeans. I don't see how it's unclear because this policy actually applied to the non-Muslims in the empire.
• Around two million Armenians lived in the Ottoman Empire on the eve of World War I: what was the total population of the empire and/or the share of Armenians among the total population?
  • Added the total population of Anatolia
• This section only mentions Armenians in the Armenian Highlands but there were also many Armenians in other parts of present-day Turkey (especially Constantinople) and in other parts of the empire. Because they're not mentioned it's unclear whether they were also killed or not. (Which is by the way a common theme in the Armenian genocide denial: "Look at all the Armenian restaurants, churches, and schools in Istanbul!")
  • I had previously given a figure for Armenian urban population ("According to the Patriarchate's figure, 215,131 Armenians lived in urban areas, especially Constantinople, Smyrna, and Eastern Thrace."), but I don't see how that helps. We already give the main Armenian population (peasants in the east), and the implication is that the other Armenians lived elsewhere. Then, the partial killing of Armenian urban population is discussed later in the article.
    • I think this sentence about Armenians in urban areas would help. Yes, the reader can currently infer that some Armenians lived elsewhere but it's unclear 1/ whether these Armenians lived in cities or villages and 2/ whether that population outside the Armenian Highlands was significant or not. Here we have a reliable figure (which seems quite rare in this subject!) so it would be a pity not to mention it I think. A455bcd9 (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Added
• Also, don't we have a better map? Or could we make one? I'm colorblind and the current one is hard to read.
  • There are several maps in Armenians in the Ottoman Empire with the % of Armenians by locality before the Genocide. New SVG versions should be created (for instance of this one). General maps delineating the Armenian population in 1915 are also good, see: DW (at the end of the article) and AFP. An even better map would also feature Greek populations (example) A455bcd9 (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
    • The issues with making a new map is that there are no generally accepted figures for the pre-1915 Armenian population. The 1914 Ottoman census is generally considered to significantly undercount Armenians as well as Syriacs/Assyrians, but it is disputed how much. So you could make a map with the figures for the census, but it would not be reliable in terms of the actual Armenian population. A less specific map highlighting Armenian populated areas is possible, however the reality is that Armenians were living in greater or lesser numbers in pretty much every vilayet in Anatolia, and sufficiently precise and accurate statistics for a detailed map just don't exist. (t · c) buidhe 13:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

      Got it. But why should we keep the current map that is probably not more accurate than the 1914 Ottoman census or a less specific map highlighting Armenian populated areas + that is hard to read (at least for me) + that is not in SVG? And what about these maps (that could be remade in SVG, provided they are based on reliable sources)? File:Armenia between russian and ottoman empires.png, File:Six armenian provinces.png, File:Six Vilayets ethnic groups.png? A455bcd9 (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

      The first two maps are ok since no one disputes which vilayets were designated as "Armenian". (Although this designation does not help much in showing where Armenians in the empire actually lived). The factual accuracy of the third one looks highly questionable to me, the numbers for Diyarbekir do not look realistic at all. Would this map be any better than the current one? I'm not sure about the sourcing but it seems to be a decent rough approximation of where Armenians lived. (t · c) buidhe 15:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

      That map is indeed quite nice! If the source is reliable it can definitely replace the current one.

      An alternative is this map which has many advantages:

      • focuses on Armenians only,
      • in shades of blue (no issue for colorblind people),
      • shows both the Armenian populations in both the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire,
      • shows the vilayets and oblasts' borders,
      • the sourcing is sure as it's a scan of an existing map,
      • it's more recent (1896 vs 1870s).

      Someone "modernized" it (here and there), I'm not convinced by the result but we could either use the original one or ask someone else in the illustration workshop to SVGize the old version. A455bcd9 (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

      I've put in Armenian population map 1896.jpg for now. (t · c) buidhe 15:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

      What about this one? It was published in 1917 but based on the figures (in the original map: 2m Armenians in Turkey, ~10% of the population) and the geographic distribution I guess it shows the situation just before the genocide. It is easy to read (at least for me) and it also shows that Constantinople was about 50% Turk, 25% Armenian and 25% Greek which seems in line with File:Ethno religious groups Istanbul.png. A455bcd9 (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

      This map is not very accurate, it suggests that a large area around Lake Van was mostly Armenian which is not the case. (t · c) buidhe 17:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

      Too bad :( (btw this map is actually from 1916 and it's interesting because it surprisingly comes "from the Allies' peace terms as stated in their reply to President Wilson's note of 19th Dec. 1916"!) A455bcd9 (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Should "Greek Orthodox" link to Greeks in the Ottoman Empire or Rum Millet? I read in "Rum Millet" that: "Its name was derived from the former Eastern Roman (a.k.a. Byzantine) subjects of the Ottoman Empire, but all Orthodox Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians, Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians and Serbs, as well as Georgians and Middle Eastern Christians, were considered part of the same millet in spite of their differences in ethnicity and language."
  • I think the link is appropriate as those who were living next to Armenians would have not necessarily been Greek-speaking, but they belonged to the church that is called Greek Orthodox (as opposed to Bulgarian Orthodox Church, a separate millet) and were treated as Greeks during the population exchange. (t · c) buidhe 13:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Land conflict and reforms

• The nineteenth-century Tanzimat reforms abolished the protections that members of the Armenian millet had previously enjoyed, but did not change the popular perception that they were different and inferior.: I don't understand, what were these protections? And how are the two part of the sentence related: how abolishing protections could/should "change the popular perception that they were different and inferior"?
  • Rewrote
• It's unclear to me whether most Armenians were landowners when I read: The Ottoman Land Code of 1858 disadvantaged Armenians and many now had to pay double taxation both to Kurdish landlords and the Ottoman government. and Armenians faced large-scale land usurpation as a consequence of the sedentarization of Kurdish tribes and the state began to confiscate Armenian-owned land in the eastern provinces.
  • OK, so Ottoman landholding is very complicated. In principle the land was supposed to belong to those who cultivated it, but the wealthy and powerful (in this case rural notables who had previously earned a living from tax farming) had an advantage in the 1858 land reform because they could register land in their own name, then charge rents. It seems to me that some Armenians owned their own land (although land ownership was often gray/disputed as well). "Land usurpation" is described by Suny as de facto violent seizure of land occupied by one family by others seeking control of the land, although the usurpers would often register the property and claim ownership under the 1858 land code.
• Also: who were these "Kurdish landlords" Armenians paid taxes to?
• Do these two sentences refer to the same events? From the mid-nineteenth century, Armenians faced large-scale land usurpation as a consequence of the sedentarization of Kurdish tribes and the arrival of Muslim refugees and immigrants (mainly Circassians) following the Russo-Circassian War. and In 1876, when Sultan Abdul Hamid II came to power, the state began to confiscate Armenian-owned land in the eastern provinces and give it to Muslim immigrants as part of a systematic policy to reduce the Armenian population of these areas. Because I read regarding the Russo-Circassian War that: "Circassian resistance continued in the mountainous regions until the 1870s, but the war was officially over by 1864"
  • The source states that land usurpation against Armenians was occurring before the reign of Abdul Hamid II, but under his watch it was legalized and facilitated by the state in order to settle Muslims from Caucasus/Balkans. It's true that the Circassian war was the previous decade but the Great Eastern Crisis, which resulted in another round of Ottoman territorial losses, was ongoing at this point.
• 300,000 Armenians emigrated in the decades leading up to World War I: did they emigrate to other parts of the Ottoman Empire or outside the empire?
  • The definition of "emigration" is moving to another country. Rephrased to "left the empire"
• Where Dashnaktsutyun is mentioned, the Armenian national liberation movement could be mentioned and the fact that "Secession was a fringe position for Ottoman Armenians".
  • Linked the first, the second is already implied by existing wording
• This marked the emergence of the Armenian question in international diplomacy as Armenians were for the first time used to interfere in Ottoman politics.: used by whom?
  • Foreign powers, added
• Although Armenians had been called the "loyal millet" in contrast to Greeks and others who had previously challenged Ottoman rule, Armenians became perceived as subversive and ungrateful after 1878.: do we know why this shift happened? Also, who called Armenians the "loyal millet"?
  • The Ottoman authorities considered Armenians the "loyal millet" because they hadn't rebelled. This perception was challenged by the Congress of Berlin due to fear of European intervention justified as being on behalf of the Armenians. Reworded to make it more clear, but I don't want to repeat "Congress of Berlin" in three sentences.
• mobs incited to violence: incited by whom? local Ottoman officials?
  • The source states that most violence was not spontaneous and that in some areas, Ottoman officials did not permit killing. Reworded
• Many Armenian villages were forcibly converted to Islam.: do we know how many? do we have examples?
  • Source doesn't specify how many. This paper goes into more detail but doesn't give an estimate either. I think examples would be more relevant for the Hamidian massacres article
• whose purpose was violently restoring the previous social order in which Christians would unquestioningly accept Muslim supremacy: this is the first mention of "Christian" in the body of the article: it should probably be mentioned somewhere that Armenians were not the only non-Muslims and not the only Christians. This term could also be linked to Christianity in the Ottoman Empire.
  • Christianity is discussed in the "Armenians in the Ottoman Empire" section. I don't see why Christianity in the Ottoman Empire should be linked, as it doesn't cover anything that's not already in the Millet or Armenians in the Ottoman Empire articles.

Young Turk Revolution

• A link to Abdul Hamid II on the first mention of "Hamidian" may be useful (took me a few seconds to understand...) or replace "leading Hamidian officials" => "leading government officials"?
  • Done
• Should the link to Macedonia (region) be replaced by North Macedonia under the Ottoman Empire?
  • The region of Ottoman Macedonia was not the same extent as today's country of North Macedonia
• When news of the countercoup reached Adana, armed Muslims attacked the Armenian quarter and Armenians returned fire.: do we know why? Were the Armenians accused of being behind the countercoup?
  • Both CUP and anti-CUP supporters were involved in the Adana massacre, which started as a generic riot but escalated into violent attacks on Armenians.
• Unlike the Hamidian massacres: there should be a like to Hamidian massacres. Also this is the first time the term "Hamidian massacres" is used but it is not defined and the use of "Unlike" seems to imply that the reader should already know what these massacres are.
  • Replaced with "1890s massacres"
• putting the Hamidiye in reserve: adding "regiments" after Hamidiye would make the sentence clearer.
  • Done
• CUP leaders feared these reforms would lead to partition and cited them as a reason for the elimination of the Armenian population in 1915.: I don't understand (but not sure the CUP logic was understandable and/or made sense). They "feared these reforms would lead to partition" and in any case these reforms were not implemented. So how did they justify the genocide based on these unimplemented reforms? Is it that they feared that the implementation of these reforms would lead to partition and in that case thought that the total elimination of the Armenian population was a better solution? If so maybe I suggest we change the sentence to: CUP leaders feared that, if implemented, these reforms could lead to partition and cited them as a reason for the elimination of the Armenian population in 1915.
  • Done. For more on this, see Causes of the Armenian genocide#Armenian question. Many historians believe that the CUP's fears were overblown, given that none of the other states involved, not even Russia, wanted to separate the eastern provinces from the Ottoman Empire, and Ottoman Armenians would have been happy with a reform agreement that protected their lives and property. However, in the past, other agreements had led to territorial secessions in the Balkans.

Balkan Wars

• This map could be used and/or a link to Territorial_evolution_of_the_Ottoman_Empire#1913 on "almost all of the empire's European territory" and/or adding the list of regions after "empire's European territory" (Balkans, etc.) otherwise the reader may not understand "the mass expulsion of Muslims from the Balkans".
  • Added link
• It is widely accepted that: I think (or hope) most of what is in the article is "widely accepted", so why is it mentioned here? It could probably be removed.
  • Removed
• Instead, the CUP turned to an increasingly radical ideology of Turkish nationalism to preserve the empire. add link to Turkish nationalism?
  • It's already linked above
• CUP leaders such as Talaat and Enver Pasha came to blame non-Muslim population concentrations in strategic areas for many of the empire's problems, concluding by mid-1914 that they were "internal tumors" to be excised.: do we know which problems in particular?
  • The source doesn't specify
• After the coup, the CUP shifted the demography of border areas by resettling Muslim immigrants while coercing Christians to leave: Muslim immigrants from the Balkans? Where Christians coerced to leave the empire or to leave these areas for other areas?
  • Changed to "emigrate" and "Balkan Muslims" for more specificity.
• Also, what were these "border areas"? Only in the east of Anatolia or all around the Ottoman territory?
  • Both east and western Anatolia. But mainly the border areas.
• "Aegean littoral": link to Aegean Sea?
  • Done
• I don't understand Turkish/Muslim bandits in the description of the image. Why not just "Muslim" as in the text? Were all Çetes Turkish? I see in "The Armenian Genocide: A Complete History", Kévorkian, 2011: "There they were shut up in a stable belonging to the mufti, Kuruca Koruğ, where a squadron of Turkish and Kurdish çetes stripped them of their belongings." so I guess some Çetes were Kurdish?
  • In this case, they may or may not have been Turkish and also included recent immigrants from the Balkans. So I removed the word Turkish from the caption (t · c) buidhe 15:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Ottoman entry into World War I

• The same month, CUP representatives went to a Dashnak conference: I guess Dashnak is the adjective related to Dashnaktsutyun? But the term does not even appear in Armenian congress at Erzurum. It would be more clear to have "The same month, CUP representatives went to the 8th World Congress of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation"
  • I don't see how that would be clear? The sources I checked don't even mention which ARF/Dashnak conference it is, they identify it by the location and date.
• The same month, CUP representatives went to a Dashnak conference demanding that, in the event of war with Russia, the Dashnaktsutyun incite Russian Armenians to intervene on the Ottoman side.: the reader discovers at this point that there were ethnic Armenians outside the Ottoman Empire: how many of them? What were their links (if any) with Ottoman Armenians? I think this point is important and the historic distribution of Armenians in the region (including outside the Ottoman Empire) should be mentioned in the "Background" section.
• Wartime requisitions were often corrupt and arbitrary, and frequently targeted Greeks and Armenians.: what were these requisitions?
  • As with most requisitions it seems to be anything the army needed or wanted, including livestock, vehicles, goods, etc.
• Armenian leaders urged young men to accept conscription into the army the link to Seferberlik does not mention Armenian but "the forced conscription of Lebanese, Palestinian, Syrian, and Kurdish men". So is it correct to have this link here?
  • Seferberlik refers to the entire Ottoman war mobilization, not just specific ethnic groups
• "Revenge", an Ottoman map published during World War I. Territory lost during and after the Balkan Wars highlighted in black.: maybe add the Ottoman Turkish word انتقام?
  • Done
• The Armenian soldiers in labor battalions were systematically executed: would be great to have more data on that. Especially, how many Armenian soldiers were there in the Ottoman Empire army? I found this source (no idea how reliable it is): "At the outbreak of World War I some 60,000 Armenians between the ages of 18-45 were conscripted into the Ottoman Army. [...] What followed was the directive of Enver Pasha, Minister of War, to exterminate all Armenian soldiers in the army. More than 60,000 Armenian soldiers were brutally killed on the rear lines." and this one: "On August 1, 1914 World War I started. All the men in the Empire from 18 to 45 were conscripted to the army, among them also 60 thousand Armenian men, who joined those already serving in the Ottoman army. [...] The defeat at Sarikamish became a pretext to blame Armenian soldiers for treachery. On February 12, 1915 by the order of the same Enver pasha the disarmament of the Armenian soldiers of Ottoman army started, then amele taburi-es (labor battalions) and hamal taburi-es (cargo transportation battalions) were formed with the involvement of disarmed Armenian soldiers. At the same time the isolation and arrest of Armenian officers started. This was followed by the order of Enver, Military (War) minister, about the annihilation of Armenian soldiers serving in the Ottoman army. Thousands of Armenian soldiers and army suppliers were cruelly killed by their Turkish companions-in-arms." Also, looking for source I found this one mentioning that: "While many Armenian men served in the Ottoman Army, some crossed the border to join the Russian Army, and others formed guerrilla bands to fight Ottoman forces behind the front lines." As it is a common theme in Turkish genocide denial that Armenians helped the Russians I think it should be mentioned that most young Armenian Ottomans joined the Ottoman Army. I haven't read this but it may be a good source as well.
  • I'm hesitant to include this 60,000 figure since I can't find out where it comes from and it doesn't seem to be mentioned in any of the scholarly sources about the genocide (I looked on Google Scholar and the only one I found was "Approx. 60,000 Ottoman-Armenian soldiers took part in the Ottoman military campaign in the Caucasus in 1914." a footnote in Religious Minorities in Turkey, no source is given) this does not inspire confidence.
  • I don't know if it's accurate that most Armenians joined the army. Suny states that most Greeks got exempted and that Armenian community leaders encouraged recruitment but for Armenians as with other Ottoman communities there were issues with draft evasion and desertion. However, the Armenian units in the Russian Army were mostly made up of Russian and diaspora Armenians, and Armenian guerrilla activity in the empire was relatively minor and/or provoked. However, I wouldn't say the purpose of this article is to debunk Turkish claims but rather concisely summarize what it says in reliable sources.
    • Yes, the purpose isn't to debunk all Turkish claims. However, this is the main one. For instance, all Anadolu Agency's articles about the genocide end with: "Turkey's position on the events of 1915 is that the deaths of Armenians in eastern Anatolia took place when some sided with invading Russians and revolted against Ottoman forces. A subsequent relocation of Armenians resulted in numerous casualties." (example). According to the current version (in "Onset of genocide"): Enver publicly blamed his defeat on Armenians who he claimed had actively sided with the Russians, a theory that became a consensus among CUP leaders. [...] Historian Taner Akçam concludes that "the allegations of an Armenian revolt in the documents ... have no basis in reality but were deliberately fabricated". So I understand that there was no Armenian revolt, but did some Ottoman Armenians join the Russian forces? In Armenian volunteer units, one can read: "its ranks were primarily made up of Armenians from the Russian Empire, though there were also a number of Armenians from the Ottoman Empire." (not sourced) Reading that article, I discovered the Armenian fedayi, they may be mentioned as well, as: "Some fedayi groups joined the Ottoman army after the Ottoman government passed a new law to support the war effort that required all enabled adult males up to the age of 45 to either be recruited in the Ottoman army or to pay special fees (which would be used in the war effort) to be excluded from service. The Genocide, committed during World War I by the Ottoman Empire, gave way to the return of the fedayis, who reorganised themselves once again inside the borders of the Ottoman Empire. In turn, tens of thousands of Armenians volunteered to be drafted in several different armies. These Armenian volunteer units were formed inside the Russian army to fight against the Ottoman Empire." (again, not sourced) The French Armenian Legion is also interesting because it apparently included "Armenian exiles and refugees from the Ottoman Empire" but it was formed on November 15th, 1916 so after the beginning of the genocide and when it was almost completed (Based on contemporary estimates, Akçam figured that by late 1916, only 200,000 deported Armenians were still alive.). Were these units used as a retroactive justification for the genocide? This reminds me this other sentence in the article: From 1918 to 1920, Armenian militants committed revenge killings of at most 40,000 to 60,000 Muslims, providing a retroactive excuse for genocide. If there are reliable academic sources about the involvement of Ottoman Armenians in foreign armies (esp. Russian), in terms of both numbers and timing (before or after 1915/1916?), it would be amazing. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes, one of the main Turkish arguments in genocide denial claims that the ARF was trying to stage a general rebellion in Ottoman Armenia while simultaneously have Armenians defect from the Ottoman Army (see this paper). According to this argument, the mass deportations were enacted in order to prevent this revolt from succeeding. Akcam and many others say there is no evidence for this theory.
      • I've looked through various sources on the Armenian volunteer units. There were some high profile Ottoman Armenian defectors (eg. Armen Garo) and Akcam in his 2012 book discusses recruitment of diaspora Armenians born in the Ottoman Empire into Russian volunteer units. I also found this (not a reliable source) stating "Deserters from the Turkish army as well as surrendered Armenians were included into formation of Armenian units." But I can't find any statistics on the exact scale of this phenomenon. As far as retroactive excuses goes, pretty much any anti-Ottoman activity by Armenians can be cited for the ultimate disloyalty and untrustworthiness of all Ottoman Armenians. (t · c) buidhe 14:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

        Thanks for checking. Too bad we don't have good sources for that... I just had a look at Kaligian 2014. It just says that "some" Ottoman Armenians joined the Russians: "Lewy, who writes, “Most of the volunteers were Russian subjects, exempt from military service; but some of them came from as far as America and Western Europe, and Turkish Armenians, too, began to cross the border to join these units.” Uras and the other denialist authors do make a valid point concerning the role played by Armen Garo as a commander in one of the volunteer regiments. To have such a high-profile ARF member and deputy cross the border could legitimately be seen by the CUP as a betrayal. But the actions of one individual cannot be generalized to an entire political party, much less an entire people, as these authors are wont to do." I wonder if it could be interesting to cite the example of Armen Garo and to mention that otherwise the Armenian volunteers in the Russian army were mostly Russian subjects and that only "some" Ottoman Armenians joined them. A455bcd9 (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

        I added more info to this section about the volunteer units and Ottoman Armenian attitudes towards the war. (t · c) buidhe 06:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Onset of genocide

• Same remark regarding "Dashnak" here, it's unclear for a non-expert that this is a short-term for "Dashnaktsutyun". By the way, Dashnaktsutyun may be replaced everywhere in the article by "Armenian Revolutionary Federation" as I think non-Armenian speakers struggle to read and understand "Dashnaktsutyun", and the Wikipedia article's title is "Armenian Revolutionary Federation" and not "Dashnaktsutyun".
  • Done

Systematic deportations: Aims

• Ottoman records show the government aimed to reduce the population of Armenians to no more than 5 percent in the sources of deportation and 10 percent in the destination areas.: cf. my previous remark, would be great to know before the genocide the % of Armenians by locality.
  • I'll reply to that above.
• Some areas with a very low Armenian population and some cities were partially spared from deportation.: what about Constantinople? What explains the current presence of Armenians there? According to the Armenian National Institute (here): "The majority of the Armenians in Constantinople, the capital city, were spared deportation." and before the genocide there were many Armenians in Istanbul. Would be worth mentioning, for instance: "Some areas with a very low Armenian population and some cities, such as Constantinople, were partially spared from deportation."
  • OK, added mention of Constantinople
• Map of the Armenian genocide in 1915:
  • What are the dots in the sea (from İzmir, Trabzon, Rize, etc.)? People killed at sea? The legend says "Deportation control centre", it's weird. This should be clarified. And because it is on the map the Armenian genocide in Trebizond may be mentioned: "The method employed to kill was mainly by mass drowning, resulting in estimated deaths of 50,000 Armenians."
  • I'm colorblind and I can't see any difference between "Deportation routes" and "Armenians and Assyrians escape routes"
    • Yes, I agree that there is room for improvement with this map. Unfortunately, it's beyond my ability to fix. (t · c) buidhe 10:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
      • The map used to be a featured picture and was delisted in 2019. We could ask graphists of the Illustration workshop (on Wikipedia and/or on Commons) to improve it. What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk) 11:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

        Yes, hopefully we can find someone willing to improve the map. Another issue I see is that it does not show Assyrian escape routes despite the claim. Ideally a map would show railways and rivers as this one does since these were used for transport and disposal of bodies. (t · c) buidhe 13:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrative organization

• the Directorate for the Settlement of Tribes and Immigrants (IAMM): what does IAMM stand for? I found "İskan-ı Aşair ve Muhacirîn Müdüriyeti". Maybe good to add it otherwise we don't understand why "IAMM" is used (instead of DSTI)
  • There are different ways to romanize the Ottoman Turkish name, but all English-language sources consulted abbreviate it as IAMM, not DSTI. I don't think writing out the full name is helpful to readers.
• Link to Eastern Anatolia Region could be added?
  • No, that's a modern administrative jurisdiction that is not synonymous with the geographic meaning of "eastern Anatolia"
• Many perpetrators came from the Caucasus (Chechens and Circassians), who identified the Armenians with their Russian oppressors.: is this sentence also sourced by Kévorkian 2011, p. 810.? Also, instead of "Caucasus" it could be more explicit to write Caucasus Viceroyalty or at least to link to it so that the reader understand that the region was ruled by the Russian Empire, which explains "Russian oppressors". Also, is "Russian oppressors" a neutral term?
  • Yes, both sentences are supported by the same source. I'm concerned it would be original research since the source does not state the Russian administrative jurisdiction. I also replaced "Russian oppressors" with "Russian conquerors".
• Some Ottoman politicians opposed the genocide, but they faced dismissal or assassination.: some => who? Witnesses and testimonies of the Armenian genocide cites a few, could be good to add "such as X, Y, and Z" with links. And also to add "and government officials" after "Ottoman politicians"
• The government decreed that any Muslim who harbored an Armenian against the will of the authorities would be executed.: should it be mentioned that some Muslims helped Armenians? (cf. Mehmet Celal Bey, the "Turkish Oskar Schindler", source)
  • Their opposition is mentioned in the previous sentence. I expanded to "and officials" but don't think it makes sense to mention individuals, because then there would be a question of which ones to mention. I also haven't mentioned/linked individual perpetrators or victims as examples, so it doesn't make sense to have special treatment of dissenting officials. I don't think appellations like "Turkish Oskar Schindler" are really all that meaningful.

Islamization

• "Islamized Armenians who were "rescued from Arabs" after the war": shouldn't this legend be changed? + a link to Vorpahavak added?
  • The caption can't be original research so I relied on the Library of Congress caption.

Destination

• No link to Deir ez-Zor?
  • Added link
• In the territory of the Ottoman Fourth Army: what was this territory?
  • Clarified that this was the western Levant
• All traces of Armenian existence, including churches and monasteries, libraries, archaeological sites, khachkars, and animal and place names, were systematically erased.: This statement is I think factually wrong. There are still several Armenian churches, cemeteries (cf. Şişli Armenian Cemetery), and schools in Turkey so I guess some were not "systematically erased" (cf. Armenian cultural heritage in Turkey) Some were also converted (such as Cathedral of Kars). Some were kept but unused and renovated decades later St. Giragos Armenian Church or Cathedral of the Holy Cross, Aghtamar. Providing numbers could help: "Most traces of Armenian existence were erased: X animal names were changed, Y Armenian places were renamed, out of Z churches before the war only ZZ were still intact after the genocide, etc."
  • Also, what were these Armenian "archaeological sites" in Turkey?
  • Reworded the sentence to avoid the implication that "all" was successfully destroyed. I don't think it's accurate to say that this destruction wasn't systematic but it was selective, since it was focused on the Armenian highlands and wasn't applied at all in Istanbul. (See Suciyan's book) I also deleted "archaeological sites", I believe it's from the Cheterian ref but I'm too lazy to look it up right now. (t · c) buidhe 06:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Perfect, thanks! A455bcd9 (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• This map could be added. It shows how the Armenian presence before the genocide and it seems based on a reliable source.
  • I don't think there's space to add that image unless another were removed.

Death toll

• The genocide reduced the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire by 90 percent.: does this include both people exterminated and people who left (during and after the genocide)? Would be better to be more precise because if we know exactly by how much ("90 percent") the Armenian population declined then we should deduce (based on pre-War Armenian population) the number of people who died I guess. But the next sentence says The exact number of Armenians who died is not known and is impossible to determine.
  • The first figure must be the number of killed + exiled, although the source doesn't say so explicitly. As for the second statement, because of uncertainty over the prewar population as well as the postwar population, the exact number of deaths cannot be pinned down with any amount of precision. I ended up removing it as it's not like we'll ever know the exact number of deaths in the Holocaust or Rwandan genocide. (t · c) buidhe 21:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

International reaction

• The German Empire is mentioned, what about other Central Powers? (Austria-Hungary & Bulgaria)
  • I don't think it's WP:DUE. Almost all coverage is about Germany, mainly because its presence in the Ottoman Empire vastly exceeded other Central powers.

Aftermath

• Add link to Levant?
  • Already linked above
• Armenians organized a coordinated effort known as vorpahavak (lit. 'the gathering of orphans') to reclaim kidnapped Armenian women and children.: were these efforts successful? Do we know how many kidnapped Armenians were reclaimed? (dozens, hundreds, thousands?)
  • Thousands.
• Although the postwar Ottoman government passed laws mandating the return of stolen Armenian property, in practice, 90 percent of Armenians were barred from returning to their homes, especially in eastern Anatolia.: when were these laws passed? The armistice was signed on 31 October 1918 and the Republic of Turkey was formally declared on 29 October 1923. Were these laws "kept" by the Republic of Turkey? Also: were did these 90% of Armenians go instead?
  • The laws were passed by the postwar Ottoman government based in Istanbul. The issue of Armenian property laws is incredibly complex. But in general the Turkish government have not allowed Armenians to reclaim their properties, although in principle they are entitled to them. As for where the Armenians went instead, see the last paragraph before the "legacy" section. (t · c) buidhe 21:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Trials

• Grand Vizier Damat Ferid Pasha publicly recognized that 800,000 Ottoman citizens of Armenian origin had died as a result of state policy: there could be a note here that the Grand Vizier did not and could not recognize the events as a genocide because the term was only coined later.
  • I think that is already clear enough.
• Historian Hans-Lukas Kieser concludes that by agreeing to the treaty, the international community implicitly sanctioned the Armenian genocide.: I'm not a native speaker and for me "to sanction" means both "to give official permission or approval for (an action)." and "to impose a sanction or penalty on." (Oxford Languages). In this case I guess it's "to give official permission or approval for (an action)." but it's not obvious so I would avoid using the word "sanctioned". Also, I don't understand how by agreeing to the treaty, the international community approved the genocide.

• • OK, I removed the sentence. I think what is usually meant by this criticism of the treaty is it basically confirmed that "genocide works" and enabled Turkey to maintain all of the "advantages" that they got from genocide. Also there are some sources that argue that Germany was inspired by the Turkish example during wwii.

Turkish War of Independence

• Armenian survivors were left mainly in three locations. In the Republic of Turkey, about 100,000 Armenians lived in Constantinople and another 200,000 lived in the provinces, largely women who had been forcibly converted or married and adopted children.: What are these three locations: Constantinople, and?
  • The three locations are supposed to be Turkey, Soviet Armenia, and the Middle East. I reordered the paragraph to make this clear
• We can read in Armenian diaspora that: "the modern Armenian diaspora was largely formed as a result of World War I, when the Armenian genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire forced Armenians living in their homeland to flee or risk being killed." And yet the Armenian diaspora is only mentioned in the Legacy & "International recognition" part. I think the diaspora and the thousands of Armenians who fled to the US, France, Syria & Lebanon under French mandate, etc. should be mentioned (could be just in one sentence) here.
  • The Armenian diaspora article does say that but I don't know if it's accurate. We already mention Armenians in the Middle East, and many fewer Armenians went to US or France in the immediate aftermath of the genocide compared to the already mentioned areas so I'm not sure about WP:DUE.
    • According to the Armenian gov: "As a result of the Armenian Genocide, hundreds of thousands of survivors found refuge in various parts of the world, forming what is known today as the "traditional Armenian Diaspora." The Diaspora further expanded due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the ensuing economic and regional turmoil." I didn't download the whole book but based on Google Books preview I can read in The Armenian Genocide Legacy (by Alexis Demirdjian), p. 55 (by Pr Lorne Shirinian): "They had lost their Western Armenian homeland. The modern Armenian Diaspora had begun. Armenian orphans including those in Canada would remain in exile." and p. 85 (Dr. Susan L. Karamanian): "Armenian property was confiscated; Armenians were killed or deported; and those that survived traveled mainly by foot through the desert to Syria. An Armenian diaspora would make its way around the world". In The Armenian Genocide by Frank Chalk, Martin W. Lewis (senior lecturer in international history at Stanford) wrote a chapter "The Armenian Diaspora Is An Ongoing Phenomenon" where he argues that the Armenian diaspora started before the genocide and continues to this day but he still maintains that (bold mine): "Today, only about a third of their population lives in Armenia with the rest spread over a wide area... This pattern largely reflects the movements caused by deadly mass expulsions of the early 20th century that most scholars call the Armenian Genocide. As a result, standard reference sources on the "Armenian Diaspora" focus on the deadly Ottoman deportations in the Levant and the subsequent relocation of survivors to the far reaches of the world." So I think that the sentence in Armenian diaspora ("the modern Armenian diaspora was largely formed as a result of World War I, when the Armenian genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire forced Armenians living in their homeland to flee or risk being killed.") is correct and that such a sentence could be added to the article. For instance: "The modern Armenian diaspora largely reflects the movements caused by deportations and the subsequent relocation of survivors around the world."
      • OK, but most books on the Armenian genocide don't mention the diaspora outside of the Middle East (I checked) so the concern about due weight remains. From what I read there are several waves of Armenian migration into diaspora in modern times, some larger than post-1915: for example the 300,000 who left the Ottoman Empire prior to WWI or the even larger number (c. 1 million) who left Republic of Armenia since 1990. I did add an explicit mention and link to the Armenian diaspora. (t · c) buidhe 07:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Legacy

• according to Ihrig: first mention, there should be a link to Stefan Ihrig and maybe the full name => "according to historian Stefan Ihrig"?
  • Done

Turkey

• The nuances in Turkey's current official position should be indicated.
• Especially, since 2014, Erdoğan has every year, on April 24th, officially sent a message to the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople to offer his condolences to Armenians for the "events of 1915". (source 1, source 2, source 3)
  • This may be something that is pushed by the Turkish media but after thinking about it, I think it would be undue weight to include in this article. Most sources on modern Turkey's handling of the genocide barely mention this at all. It is touched on briefly at Armenian genocide denial#Politics, but the reliable sources that discuss it consider it an extension of denialism in slightly different rhetoric. You can ask how much of a change it really is. For example Galip states that since 2016 several people have been arrested in Turkey for discussing the genocide or peacefully commemorating it, and in 2019 Erdogan essentially said that the deported Armenians deserved it.
    • Yes I understand that Erdoğan's position is probably mostly marketing but at least at that time his declaration was noticed in the media, for instance: "It is the first time a Turkish leader has formally offered condolences for the mass killings." (Turkey offers condolences to Armenia over WWI killings. Armenian sources also report Erdoğan's declaration every year (example). If well-sourced, it could be interesting to add something like: "Turkish genocide denialism has evolved over time and in 2014 for the first time a Turkish leader formally offered condolences for the Armenians who died during WWI. However, Turkey still maintains that the deportations were legitimate." A455bcd9 (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  OK, I've rewritten the section, let me know what you think (t · c) buidhe 12:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  Looks good to me! A455bcd9 (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• The position of the Turkish society/public opinion should also be mentioned (cf. Armenian_genocide_recognition#Position_of_Turkey), for instance:
  • "In a 2015 poll for the Foundation for the Memory of Shoah and Fondapol, 33% of people between the ages of 16 and 29 living in Turkey surveyed answered in the affirmative to the question: "In your view, can we talk about genocide in relation to the massacre of the Armenians, by the Turks, in 1915?".[5]"
  • "2014 poll for The Centre for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies (EDAM), a Turkish think-tank:" "34.2% [consider that] "Turkey should apologize" or "express its regret over the Armenians that lost their lives in 1915"
    • The public opinion is already mentioned, noting that a majority of Turkish citizens (though not all) support the government's position.
• If relevant and well-sourced, the view of the Armenian community in Turkey could be mentioned as well.
  • I'm not aware of any quantitative studies on this. From Galip, I read that it is not a priority for some/many Turkish Armenians compared to other issues. However, I think that discussion of the different factions among Istanbul Armenians is beyond the scope of this article. (t · c) buidhe 09:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

International recognition

• As of 2021, 31 countries have recognized the genocide, along with Pope Francis and the European Parliament.: we could add the Council of Europe, to which Turkey is a member.
  • I'm trying to not to proliferate mentions of different international organizations, and the CoE is less influential than the EU.
• Germany, Austria, and Bulgaria could also be mentioned because their predecessors were allied with the Ottoman Empire and turned a blind eye on the genocide (as far as I understand)
  • There's some wisdom to that, but you can already see them on the map and it is hard to justify singling out individual countries without listing all 31.
• Map: we could add what the grey area means: "States without an official position on the recognition of the genocide", for instance?
  • I think it's already clear enough that grey means "neither"

Archives and historiography

• The genocide is extensively documented in [...] the Ottoman archives, despite systematic efforts to purge incriminating material.: what are these efforts? Destruction of archives?
  • Done
• Almost all historians and scholars outside of Turkey, and an increasing number of Turkish scholars, recognize the destruction of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as a genocide.: would probably be better to say "outside of Turkey and Azerbaijan". Could we also provide the names of Turkish scholars who recognize the genocide?
  • Individual names are probably UNDUE and some were mentioned already (eg. Akcam, probably the most famous one). The cited sources don't mention Azerbaijan, so I think that would be original research.
• Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term genocide in 1944 vs in Terminology of the Armenian genocide (linked in the article): "The English word genocide was coined by the Polish Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin in 1943."
  • There are different dates given, however 1944 is more widely accepted as that was the year Lemkin's book was published.

Overall view

The article is great. I read it a few months ago and it is way better now: congrats! A455bcd9 (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thought about this article again and realized that:
  • The lead mentions With the destruction and expulsion of Syriac and Greek Orthodox Christians, it enabled the creation of an ethnonational Turkish state. however besides one sentence (Armenians were a minority in most places where they lived, alongside Turkish, Kurdish, and Greek Orthodox neighbors.) it's unclear for the reader that before WWI the Ottoman Empire was a truly multiethnic and multireligious state. For instance the majority of Istanbul's population was non-Muslim before the genocides.
    • I don't think anyone could read this article and not figure out that Ottoman Empire is a multiethnic and multireligious state. Various religions (Syriac Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Muslim, Jews) and ethnic groups (Kurds, Circassians, Turks, Chechens, Arabs, etc.) are discussed. It's true that this aspect isn't as explicit in the lead but the first sentence of the second paragraph already suggests this.
      • As you said it's not explicit and I think it could be. For instance: "The Ottoman Empire was a multiethnic and multireligious state, and Armenians were a minority in most places where they lived, alongside Turkish, Kurdish, and Greek Orthodox neighbors." A455bcd9 (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Done
  • Similarly, the position of the Armenian elite should be explained. Currently there's only Although most Ottoman Armenians were peasant farmers, they were overrepresented in commerce. As middleman minorities, there was a great disparity between the wealth of some Armenians and the overall political power of the group, making them especially vulnerable. This is not clear. What was the overall political power of the group? I don't understand if their political power was strong or weak, especially given that earlier it is mentioned that The Ottoman millet system offered non-Muslims a subordinate but protected place in society.. I can read in Armenians in the Ottoman Empire that: "Historian A. Tchamkerten writes "Armenian achievements in the Empire was not only in trade, however. They were involved in almost all economic sectors and held the highest levels of responsibility. In the 19th century, various Armenian families became the Sultan's goldsmiths, Sultan's architects and took over the currency reserves and the reserves of gold and silver, including customs duty. Sixteen of the eighteen most important bankers in the Ottoman Empire were Armenian"" We don't need such a long sentence but it could be useful to mention that the small Armenian elite held high level of responsibility in the Ottoman Empire and to explain what was their political power.
    • What the sentence is says is that Armenians' wealth greatly exceeded their political power. Even the richest Armenians were vulnerable to the arbitrary whim of the sultan. I've rewritten the sentence to be more straightforward.
      • Perfect, thanks! A455bcd9 (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • After reading the article, my main question is: Why? Why did the Ottoman Empire do that? The article doesn't answer this question. I know it is a complex subject but I think the lead in Causes of the Armenian genocide does a good job in explaining it: "Differing views of what caused the Armenian genocide include explanations focusing on nationalism, religion, and wartime radicalization and continue to be debated among scholars. In the twenty-first century, focus has shifted to multicausal explanations. Most historians agree that the genocide was not premeditated before World War I, but the role of contingency, ideology, and long-term structural factors in causing the genocide continues to be discussed." A similar sentence could be included somewhere in the article. It seems especially essential to me to mention that "Most historians agree that the genocide was not premeditated before World War I".
    • I'm not opposed to putting more of this in, but where do you think it should it go? The Background section already discusses the factors that historians consider to be among the short and long term causes of the genocide. I previously had more explicit language in the "onset of genocide" section that CUP leaders decided on genocide in early 1915, but switched it to a format where different developments are explained. The problem is that it's hard to pinpoint exact when genocide begins and different sources have different estimates.
      • Below "Onset of genocide" there's a link to Causes of the Armenian genocide so I think this section could start (or end) with the sentence I quoted above, as a general introduction (resp. intermediary conclusion). A455bcd9 (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
        • I've rewritten the "Aims" section to hopefully better answer the question "Why did the Ottoman Empire do that?" (t · c) buidhe 02:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Naming: the reader learns at the very end of the article that: Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term genocide in 1944, became interested in war crimes after reading about the 1921 trial of Soghomon Tehlirian for the assassination of Talaat Pasha. Lemkin recognized the fate of the Armenians as one of the most significant genocides in the twentieth century. But how did these events come to be known by a term coined 3 decades after they happened? A short "Naming" section at the beginning (with a link to Terminology of the Armenian genocide) could explain that. I think it's essential because one of the main arguments of genocide deniers in Turkey is that genocide is a legal term defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention and that only international courts can decide what constitutes a genocide. Whereas: 1/ even before the term "genocide" was coined, "Contemporary observers used unambiguous terminology to describe the genocide, including "the murder of a nation", "race extermination" and so forth." and 2/ even though the Convention is not retroactive, "the events of the Armenian genocide otherwise meet the legal definition of genocide."
    • I think it makes more sense to talk about what it's called after what it is. The "Legacy" section already discusses contemporary perceptions, which I've beefed up. As for "the events of the Armenian genocide otherwise meet the legal definition of genocide", that would be most historians which is already stated, but Turkey disputes it (on the ground that intent requirement is not met).
      • Got it, makes sense in "Legacy". If sourced, would be great to add to "the murder of a nation" to: It was described by contemporaries as "race extermination", "the greatest crime of the ages", and "the blackest page in modern history". As for "the events of the Armenian genocide otherwise meet the legal definition of genocide", yes historians are mentioned but it would be great to mention the 1948 Convention and the opinion of legal scholars as well, as they consider (I quote Terminology of the Armenian genocide here, assuming it is well-sourced): "Although most international law scholars agree that the 1948 Genocide Convention, which established the prohibition of genocide in international criminal law, is not retroactive, the events of the Armenian genocide otherwise meet the legal definition of genocide." It provides another academic perspective on the subject (reaching the same conclusion).
        • Partly done. I did not add the sentence from international law scholars because I could not find sources for how widespread a view this is.
  • Aftermath: I understand reading the article that the Ottoman Empire recognized the genocide: Grand Vizier Damat Ferid Pasha publicly recognized that 800,000 Ottoman citizens of Armenian origin had died as a result of state policy[241] and helped initiate the Ottoman Special Military Tribunal. [...] The court ruled that "the crime of mass murder" of Armenians was "organized and carried out by the top leaders of CUP". and Postwar Ottoman grand vizier Ferid said that "humanity, civilizations are shuddering, and forever will shudder, in face of this tragedy". But then it's unclear to me how we went from this Ottoman recognition to the current Turkish denial (which is explained in the "Turkey" subsection). The article also doesn't mention the collapse and dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of the Republic of Turkey. When I read the article I feel like "Ottoman Empire" = "Republic of Turkey".
    • Short answer, Ferid's government was trying to convince the Allies that the Armenian genocide was caused by a small number of wrongdoers (the CUP leadership) and that only they should be punished. That is why the Ottoman courts-martial tried some of the perpetrators. However, it was always more popular for Ottomans/Turks to see themselves as the victims of WWI. What limited support for Ferid evaporated after the Treaty of Sevres, which was perceived as too harsh on Ottoman Empire/Turkey. The Turkish nationalists operating at the same time were the continuation of the CUP and founded the modern Turkish republic. Therefore, you're not wrong to think "Ottoman Empire" = "Republic of Turkey". However, most of this is outside the scope of this article.
      • Couldn't this be developed a bit in the "Trials" section? For instance: "Grand Vizier Damat Ferid Pasha publicly recognized that 800,000 Ottoman citizens of Armenian origin had died as a result of state policy. His government tried to convince the Allies that the Armenian genocide was caused by a small number of wrongdoers—the CUP leadership—and helped initiate the Ottoman Special Military Tribunal."
      • The second paragraph starts with March 1923 (immunity) and ends with March 1921 (Talaat Pasha assassinated). Shouldn't it be better in chronological order? In that case the immunity + Lausanne could be mentioned in "Turkish War of Independence":
      • "Turkish War of Independence" could start with something like: "There was limited support for the Ottoman government after the Treaty of Sèvres. The nascent Turkish National Movement, opposed to the Treaty, was the continuation of the CUP. The nationalist movement depended on the support of perpetrators of the genocide and those who had profited from it." then sentences about the war. Then, maybe in a new paragraph (or even a new section "Republic of Turkey"): "On 1 November 1922, the Ottoman sultanate was abolished. on 31 March 1923, the nationalist movement passed a law granting immunity to CUP war criminals. Later that year, the Treaty of Lausanne established Turkey's current borders and provided for the Greek population's expulsion. Its minority protection provisions had no enforcement mechanism and were disregarded in practice. The ethnic cleansing of Anatolia—the Armenian genocide, Assyrian genocide and expulsion of Greeks—paved the way for the formation of an ethno-national Turkish state. On 29 October 1923, the Republic of Turkey was declared."
      • I think it would help to understand the transition and the fact that, in practice here, "Ottoman Empire" = "Republic of Turkey". Even though (I thought!) I knew some Ottoman & Turkish history, it was not obvious to me at all when I read the article.
      • Between 1922 and 1929, the Turkish authorities eliminated surviving Armenians from southern Turkey, expelling thousands to French-mandate Syria. could be moved at the end of the paragraph to respect the chronological order.
      • Side node: Turkish National Movement or Turkish nationalist movement?
      • Shouldn't the last paragraph of "Turkish War of Independence" be in a new section called "Survivors". I don't see how this paragraph (especially refugees in Russia and the Middle-East) is related to the war? We could add to this section the last paragraphs of the introduction of "Aftermath" about orphans + vorpahavak + the return of stolen Armenian property. The beginning of "Aftermath" could then be a new section "End of World War I".
      • As the British Army advanced in 1917 and 1918 northwards through the Levant, should probably in that case be moved before Ottoman troops withdrew from parts of Armenia following the October 1918 Armistice of Mudros.
      • Overall, I think the "Aftermath" section contains most relevant information but just needs to be reordered a bit. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
        • I believe I've done most of this. As for "Turkish nationalist movement" I've seen both in reliable sources. Also expanded on the refugee issue being a consequence of the TWOI and the rebels' refusal to allow survivors to return. (t · c) buidhe 12:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• A455bcd9 (talk) 09:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• A455bcd9, It's going to take me quite a while to respond to all these comments, but I'm sure the article will be better for them. (t · c) buidhe 10:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  Great! It's the first time I review an article so I hope my comments were relevant for a FAC. A455bcd9 (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  A455bcd9 Sorry it's taken so long to get to all your comments. Are you happy with the changes? (t · c) buidhe 12:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks a lot for your hard work on this article: it's even better now! The only remaining issue for me is the "Map of the Armenian genocide in 1915" (cf. my comments above). I don't know if this is a blocking point to be a featured candidate. Otherwise, everything looks good to me! A455bcd9 (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Give me a ping once most of A455bcd9's comments have been addressed, so I am not picking up issues that have already been raised, and I'll recuse and give this a look over. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild It looks like I've addressed A455bcd9's comments! I would really appreciate a review from you if you're still planning to provide it. (t · c) buidhe 00:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Recusing to review. Feel free to remind me if I have not started in two or three days. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• "the systematic destruction of ethnic Armenians". Optional: "destruction" → 'murder'.
  • This was discussed above. The issue with "murder" is that most reliable sources agree that the genocide was broader than murder and also included forced deportation, cultural destruction, Islamization, etc.

Fine. In which case you need to change "ethnic Armenians" to whatever it is that you are saying was destroyed. Eg, 'destruction of Armenian population and culture' or 'of the Armenian people and identity' or similar.

• "during death marches leading to the Syrian Desert". Delete "leading".
• "During their invasion of Russian and Persian territory". Perhaps add 'in 19xx ...'?
• Perhaps link "deportation"?
  • I think this would be too general term to be helpful.
• "definitive solution to the Armenian Question". Personally I would remove the quote marks. This is nailed down enough that it can be stated in Wikipedia's voice.
• "death marches leading to the Syrian Desert". 1. repetition 2. suggest removing "leading".
• "another wave of massacres was ordered". Strictly, you haven't mentioned a previous wave.
  • The first wave was those that occurred further north in 1915 during the death marches. I agree that the wording might be improved but I can't think of an improvement.
• "Eastern Anatolia"; "eastern Anatolia". Which?
  • Lowercased
• "with the destruction and expulsion". Suggest "destruction" → 'murder'.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Done everything except those mentioned above (t · c) buidhe 03:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Background

• "the sixth century BCE, more than a millennium before the arrival of Turkmens under the Seljuk dynasty." Without checking, I thought it quite a bit longer. What date do the sources give for the latter event? (I accept that even 1,500 years meets the criterion for "more than a millennium".
  • This is often dated to the Battle of Manzikert, although I believe there were some Turkmen incursions into present-day Turkey prior to that battle. Would it be an improvement to state "about 1,500 years"?

Yeah, that was what I immediately thought. Personally, yes, 'about 1,500 years', but it is a minor issue.

• "Following the Byzantine Empire's fall in 1453". I think "in 1453" is misleading. I wouldn't have thought that I would have difficulty finding sources dating it to the 1071 Battle of Manzikert.
  • Changed to "end of the Byzantine Empire" as it is correct that the decline of the Byzantine Empire began earlier.
• "On the eve of World War I". Perhaps date this? For the more militarily ignorant among our readers.
• "towns and villages in the empire". Suggest "empire" → 'Ottoman Empire'.
• "Conditions of the Armenian peasantry". I think that "of" → 'for'.
• "In 1876, when Sultan Abdul Hamid II came to power, the state began to confiscate Armenian-owned land in the eastern provinces and give it to Muslim immigrants as part of a systematic policy to reduce the Armenian population of these areas that lasted until World War I." This sentence is a bit long. Perhaps break "This policy lasted until WWI" or similar off hte end?
• "an opposition movement, the Young Turks, who sought to". Should "who" not be 'which'?
• "took steps to reform local gendarmes". Do you mean something like 'took steps to reform the local gendarmerie'? Or was it individual gendarmes who were reformed?
• "would turn into another Macedonia". I suspect that the reference will be missed by virtually all readers. Perhaps unpack it a little? Or rephrase?
• "by resettling Balkan Muslims". Worth explaining a little with 'by resettling Balkan Muslim refugees' or similar perhaps?
• "Around 150,000 Greek Orthodox". Is that acceptable grammar? (As opposed to 'Around 150,000 Orthodox Greeks'.)
  • This refers to followers of the Greek Orthodox Church, not all of whom spoke Greek or were citizens of Greece

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Done everything except those mentioned above (t · c) buidhe 02:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

WWI & Onset

• "before the Ottoman Empire officially entered the war.[87] On 29 October 1914, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I". I find it a little confusing that after multiple cases of "the empire", the article suddenly starts giving the name in full. (Personally I would always give it in full, but that's your call.)
• "and therefore largely unable to organize armed resistance to deportation in 1915." I don't personally like this stepping out of chronological order and would suggest deleting this, or moving to the appropriate chronological point.
  • I thought about moving this later in the article but either way it breaks the chronology (then we would be referring to the 1914 call-up in the discussion of 1915 events)?
• "The retreating Ottoman army indiscriminately destroyed dozens of Ottoman Armenian villages". Why "indiscriminately"? It sounds as if they were discriminating - against Armenian villages.
• "and others marched away to be killed later". You have already dealt with men, women and children; who constituted these "others"?
  • Rephrased. Source states: "After the men were gathered together and shot, the women were offered to the local Kurds; those not killed or converted were marched away, usually to be murdered later."
• Maybe a more universally comprehensible word/phrase than "shuttering"?
• "diverted the Armenians who had previously been removed from Cilicia from central Anatolia". 1. "diverted" suggests that the Armenians were still in transit, were they? 2. "from Cilicia from central Anatolia": the repeated "from" had me reading this three times to understand it.
  • At the time this order was given, some Armenians were already arrived in central Anatolia and others were in transit. Rephrased to improve clarity.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Done everything except those mentioned above (t · c) buidhe 15:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Deportations

• " aimed to reduce the population of Armenians to no more than 5 percent". Does this mean 5% of the prior Armenian populatuin, or 5% of the resultant total population? 2. Why "5" and not 'five'?
  • Changed to "five" and "ten", clarified that this refers to the total population not the previous Armenian population.
• "an ethno-national Turkish state." I think a reader might be a bit vague about the meaning of "ethno-national". May be 'ethnically homogeneous' or similar?
  • Turkey wasn't ethnically homogenous after WWI. There were still Kurds, as well as many non-Turkish Muslims of Balkan and Caucasian origin. The difference here is that Talaat believed he had eliminated the ethnic groups who were an obstacle to building a Turkish nation-state, and that these Muslim groups could be successfully "Turkified" (which turned out only partly to be the case).
• "the most important war aim". Really? More important than winning the war? Or being overrun by Greece?
  • Kieser doesn't say that this in fact was the most important, only what Talaat claimed upon realizing that he had lost, I guess in order to put a positive spin on things. I've rephrased to avoid any confusion.
• "On 21 June, Talaat ordered the deportation of all Armenians throughout the empire, even Adrianople ... Following the completion of deportation from other areas, in August 1915, deportation was extended to western Anatolia and European Turkey" If deportation throughout the empire was ordered in June, with Adrianople in Europe picked out, how can it be "extended" to the same areas two months later?
  • Although in June the decision was made in principle to deport all Armenians throughout the empire, it took them some time to put this order into practice (for example the Armenians of Adrianople were deported partly at the end of October 1915 and partly on 17–18 February 1916). Rephrased to be more clear.
• "The IAMM, under the control of Talaat's Ministry of the Interior and the Special Organization,". Should there be a comma after "Interior"?
  • Yes, added
• Link imams.
  • Done
• "killers were entitled to a third of Armenian movable property". Does that mean a third of the property of the specific Armenian[s] they killed? If so could this be specified. If not, could whatever the mechanism was be specified.
  • Neither of the sources specifies exactly how this division was made. For example Kaiser states, "Perpetrators had been allowed to a third of plunder, while local authorities were entitled to another third, and the rest was due to be handed over to the CUP." Since the executions were done by groups of killers working together, one possibility is that after they were done killing they were supposed to add together the property they found on the victims, take one third to split between themselves, and turn the rest over.
• "The convoys would stop at a nearby transit camp". Is "nearby" necessary?
  • I think so, to state that these camps were located near the execution sites.
• "There was a distinction between the convoys from eastern Anatolia, which were eliminated almost in their entirety, and those from farther west, who made up most of those surviving to reach Syria." "... which ... who ..." I think you need to chose one. (Suggest "which".)
  • Done
• "it is estimated that as many as 2 million Turkish citizens may have at least one Armenian grandparent." Could we hava date in here? (I first thought it meant in 1915.)
  • Done
• "physical destruction". This seems an odd way of saying 'death'.
  • I kept the wording close to the source because it's not clear if it means "death" in every case or also includes for example deportation to the Syrian desert as a way of dealing with surplus Armenians.
• "Women and children who fell into Muslim hands during the journey typically ended up in Turkish or Kurdish hands". A synonym for one of the "hands"?
  • Done
• "presuming that they had ceased to exist"> Might this be clearer as 'it was presumed that they had ceased to exist'?
  • Done
• "Confiscated property was often used to". I think you mean 'The proceeds from the sale of ...'
  • Done

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Crimes against humanity later became a category of international criminal law after World War II". Delete "later".
• "Since 1988, Armenians and Turkic Azeris have been involved in a decades-long conflict". The use of both "Since 1988" and "decades-long" seems redundant.

That's all I can see. A fine piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Done both. Many thanks for your review! (t · c) buidhe 17:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Well up to your usual standards. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, a couple of afterthoughts added above for your consideration. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Done both, thanks again for your review! (t · c) buidhe 12:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Jr8825

I hope to give this a read through and provide some feedback. Jr8825 • Talk 14:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Is Sedentarization of Kurdish tribes an article that's likely to be created in the future (no other articles point towards it)? I see you argued it should be kept as a redlink back in March, but it seems to me like a topic that might be adequately covered at Kurds#Ottoman period? (In which case we could follow the style used in the lead of Deportations of Kurds and link it as "sedentarization of Kurdish tribes", which seems more helpful to me. Further comments to come as I work through the article. Jr8825 • Talk 17:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think this topic was covered anywhere else on Wikipedia, so I stubbed it. (t · c) buidhe 21:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Brief comment from Aza24

Though the Cultural depictions has "Armenian genocide in culture" listed as the main article of the section, it doesn't seem to cover the full scope. Essentially the section focuses solely on literature and one film. The biggest omission is Arshile Gorky, who is a hugely important artist and seemingly directly impacted by this event. I feel that at least the fact that music have been created as a reaction to the genocide should be included. Something like "numerous works of music have been created in response to the genocide including pieces by [insert a few of the most notable names here]". Looking at the musicians, I know that Komitas, Khachaturian and Hovhaness are very important composers. Considering how many films have been made, it might be worth noting that as well. Again, not looking for a major expansion of this section, just something like 2–3 more lines; at least one for Gorky and 1–2 for music/film, otherwise, the sole inclusion of literature and a single film doesn't make sense. Aza24 (talk) 09:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Aza, this is a good point and another area where it's hard to assess due weight because the art/culture (except Musa Dagh) is rarely discussed in general works on the subject. I had a sentence on Gorky, I'll add it back and see what to do about music/film. (t · c) buidhe 19:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Aza24, I've expanded the section accordingly. However, I do believe that Werfel's book—because of its high popularity over a long period of time, and high influence—as well as Ravished Armenia due to its impact on fundraising and influencing Western views on the genocide at an early date are arguably the two most important works to be mentioned in this section. I am not finding as many sources that connect music to the Armenian genocide as with film or other cultural products so I didn't add a sentence on that. (t · c) buidhe 12:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, no worries! I trust your judgement, and am happy to see Gorky be included, as his art seems to directly tied that it would be an omission not to mention him. Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by John the Janitor

Is there a reason that article prefers Erzerum instead of Erzurum? Also, I think archive and historiography part could contain a see also link to Kemalist historiography article.--John the Janitor (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I attempt to consistently use the most common Ottoman Turkish romanization. As you can see from this NGRAM, the spelling "Erzurum" only came into use in English because it's the modern Turkish spelling, during the era of the Ottoman Empire it was romanized as "Erzerum". Added a link to Kemalist historiography. Thanks for your work expanding that article! (t · c) buidhe 21:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for linking the article. However, I think sticking to the more recent spelling would be better as it seems to be more common since last 40 years, unless Wikipedia has a guideline urging to use the old versions in historical context. Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I do believe that the general practice is to use the historically accurate English language name. See for example discussion on Constantinople/Istanbul. This is also followed for respellings such as Kiev/Kyiv and Danzig/Gdánsk. (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Then, I support the article to become a featured one. Best regards. --John the Janitor (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Cartography

I am willing to make or remake some maps for this article, just let me know what you need --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

All images look reasonably sourced and placed to me. Most images lack ALT text however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Bach's longest motet, with a complex text alternating hymn stanzas from "Jesu, meine Freude" with biblical text from Paul's Letter to the Romans. The music, in a symmetrical arrangement of 11 movements, displays various vocal scorings (from 3 to 5 voices) and compositional variation and finesse. For the longest time, the motet was believed to have been composed for a certain funeral, but recent scholarship questioned that. - The article has a long history, I came in late, Francis Schonken brought it to GA quality, - I wonder how he could receive credit. It received a peer review earlier this year, with good comments by Amitchell125 and Aza 24. There is no similar article, because it's a unique artwork. Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

In response to concerns of several reviewers, I changed two things substantially: I expanded the lead, and I tried to unite the two tables showing the complex structure of the work. Please check those two sections once more, see if your points were covered, and suggest further improvements. I'll go over the individual questions now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Jesu,_meine_Freude_(Bach)_Anfangstakte.png is tagged as lacking author info, and should include a tag for the original work
• File:Jesu_Meine_Freude_Praxis_Cruger_1653_-_extract.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! GRuban, can you please help in a field I'm not sure I do the right thing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I fixed the complaining templates on both pages, but not sure what "should include a tag for the original work" meant. It's a score of a Bach composition, do you mean you want a link to our page for the composition, meaning Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227, this article in question? --GRuban (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Not a link, but a copyright tag, reflecting that the copyright of the work itself has expired. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done --GRuban (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brain

On first read-through this is very solid, with a cohesive narrative. It does a good job outlining what's of interest to the reader. I suspect I will have some nitpicks that I'll either correct myself or post here for clarity, soon. It's close to ready. --Laser brain (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments:

• "Bach set both in a symmetrical structure" - I do not understand what this means without an explanation or context.

  What would you expect? --GA

  Please check new lead. ---GA

• Similarly in the second para, I don't know what "free setting" means.

  The other movements follow rather strict rules, but that one is free. How to say that? --GA

  Please check new lead. ---GA

• "the genre was regarded as antiquated" by whom?

  Nobody specific, the genre just wasn't as fashionable any more as it had been in the Renaissance and early Baroque. --GA

• "which at some point or another" is too informal and imprecise for this type of writing.

  That corner of the article was written by Francis. How can we say - what I think he intended - that there is great uncertainty for many works of the 15 if they really are motets by Bach (doubting "motet, doubting "by JS Bach", or both), but for a solid five, there was no question. Aza, can you help with this phrasing, perhaps? Split the sentence? --GA

  I changed it, please check again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• "the large majority of his vocal church music" - similarly, this is imprecise writing. Use "a majority of" if it's more than half. If it's closer to 100%, then I'd recommend writing something like "most of".

  "most of" taken, talking about around 200 cantatas plus four-part chorale settings. I wonder if we should name the few 5-part works: Magnificat and Mass in B minor? --GA

  I added the two works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• "The hymn tune appears in two variants in the uneven movements of the motet." Is any more detail available? What kind of variants?

  That is clarified in the individual movements, and the dating. It seems to suggest that the composition wasn't written at one time. --GA

  The variant is small, in only one measure, but for musicologist, it gives them a clue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Article contains mixed American and British English (harmonization, analyse)

  I'll check. It should be British, - please feel free to just change when you see the other unless it's in a quotation. --GA

This takes me up to Movements. I will leave more comments soon. --Laser brain (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for looking closer. The article was written by many users, which explains mixed spellings. I'll look, but have a few tasks with a time stamp first. The symmetrical construction of the whole composition, as pictured under "Structure and scoring", is the key aspect of it, and how could it be said to be understood by you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I just needed to keep reading. --Laser brain (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

More comments:

• Made some small edits for clarity and consistency.

  Thank you for those. I changed one, please check, about the last movement having the same music as the first. --GA

• Can you provide the passage(s) from Jones p. 203 that support the following text: "Jones noted that the tenor part is particularly expressive. The last movement has the same music as the different text of the last stanza, creating a frame that encloses the whole work"

  I'll have to look, but the tenor thing was again not written by me, and the same music of first and last is illustrated just below. --GA

  From what I can tell, this was derived from the following excerpt (from p. 203): "A1 and A6 are identical four-part chorales, creating an outer frame. [...] The musically identical outer movements, A1 and A6, are plain four-part chorales, albeit of great beauty and with an exceptionally expressive tenor part." DanCherek (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you, Dan, that's helpful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Explanation needed for "rhetorical homophony"

  I wish I could ask Francis. --GA

  User:Laser brain, I began by grouping the sentences differently; the following sentence is perhaps an explanation. RandomCanadian, do you think you could help with the music, perhaps just of the soprano first line? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Gerda Arendt: Homophony, as you must well know it, involves multiple voices (singing together with the same rhythm and usually same text; as opposed to polyphony). The explanation is already given in the previous sentence and in movement two. I'll try rewriting it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• "While the soprano sings the chorale melody, the lower voices intensify the gesture dramatically with word painting: 'weg' is repeated several times in fast succession." Is there some significance to this word? What is the translation?

  Yes, significant, and hard to translate. "away", and it's given in the first line of the paragraph. In the St John Passion, the text is "Weg, weg mit dem. Kreuzige, kreuzige ..." = Away, away with that one. Crucify, crucify ..." - Should there be more translation in this article? Or in the hymn article. How about English for the beginnings in the table of movements? --GA

• "Performers of Jesu, meine Freude have to decide..." The choir are the performers.. wouldn't a director or producer decide? The end of that long sentence doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I would break it up to more clearly articulate what the performance options are.

  Well, the intention is rather "whoever wants to perform it", and decision processes differ. Some small ensembles don't even have a conductor. The smallest group performing it are just five singers, because instruments are not prescribed (but would have been normal at Bach's time). Suggestions? --GA

• "based on the motet's first (=11th) and seventh movements" I'm not sure what the parenthetical is expressing.

  Again by Francis, and meaning again that the music of the first movement is the same as of the last (=eleventh) movement. I assume that CPE Bach rendered the setting without text. We can drop the (=11th) if it's confusing. --GA

That's all from me for now. It's in fine shape. --Laser brain (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for looking closely, User:Laser brain. Sorry about not replying sooner, but I travelled over last days and managed only some of the most time-critical things. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

No worries on the timeframe. I do have serious concerns, though, about how this can move forward without the involvement of someone who has access to and understanding of the sources cited. There are parts of this article that are somewhat inaccessible, although I understand a previous editor wrote them. --Laser brain (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, we talk about the most prolific editor for Bach's biography, list of works (98%), compositions, Baroque music in general. I wonder how far AGF goes for book sources on historic material. I'd call Mathsci, the other expert on Bach, if he wasn't in an interaction ban with Francis, so could probably be blocked for any comment. Sometimes Wikipedia is that crazy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes it's unfortunate when user's behavior problems affect their ability to create content. I've seen far too much of that in my years here. Anyway, how do we proceed? I don't see how this can progress without ability to answer questions about the content and cited sources. --Laser brain (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Is Jones the only specific source at issue, or others as well? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

That specific source, yes, but there are also several places in the article where the writing is unclear (to me, anyway) and it's problematic that the principal author is not available for inquiries. --Laser brain (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Noted, but where there is an issue with source interpretation IMO the solution is to get hold of the source, which Dan has offered below. That applies regardless of who originally added the source, and allows for issues of wording to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

In the Jones source, some pages are missing in the google version, but how about AGF there? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not a matter of AGF. If I don't understand what's written here, I'd like to refer to the source so I can read it myself and try to improve the text. --Laser brain (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm out for today, but think that we can check what exactly is unclear, and if it can we reworded, dropped, or a better source found. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I have institutional access to Jones 2013 and can send pages from it to anyone here who needs it. I replied to Laser brain's comment about the tenor part in the first movement. Happy to supply a longer excerpt if needed. DanCherek (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, can I perhaps have all of p.203? It's cited several times and some of the passages are unclear to me (c.f. "rhetorical homophony" above); I'd like to read the source so I can improve the writing here. --Laser brain (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure, sent via email. Gerda (and anyone else), let me know if you'd like me to email it to you too. DanCherek (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Laser brain, please check the new lead and table. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Will do! --Laser brain (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Support on re-reading with recent revisions in place. It's in great shape. --Laser brain (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

This nomination is nearly at the three week mark and is showing little sign of gathering a consensus to promote. Unless this changes over the next day or two I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, I found supporters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from GeneralPoxter

Should be leaving a review by the end of the week, but I have a lot of outside work on my plate right now. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Lead/infobox

• It may have been composed for a funeral, but scholars have come to doubt the dating (from 1912) to a specific funeral in Leipzig in July 1723, a few months after Bach had moved there. I found the use of the parenthetical to be somewhat confusing in the lead. Looking further in the article indicates that it meant the dating was made in 1912, but I originally thought it meant the scholars began to doubt the dating in 1912. Maybe a better summary of the Time of origin section here would be to say that though some scholars considered the work was composed for a funeral in 1732, others have proposed alternative occassions and dates.
• Rest of lead reads fine, and infobox looks good.

  please check the new lead ---GA

History

• exceeding that of a standard SATB choir of soprano, alto, tenor and bass, Isn't soprano, alto, tenor, and bass redundant since it's already implied in "standard SATB choir"? This explicit listing of voices also contributes to the number of commas in this sentence, which can be confusing to read.

  taken with thanks! ---GA

• Would it be misleading to characterize Johann Michael Bach as J.S. Bach's "ancestor" since the two are not related by blood?

  Thanks for that catch, - what can we do? Is there a different word? ---GA

  Maybe a more general term like "relative"? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 05:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  thank you, taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Around 15 extant compositions were recognised by musicologists as a motet by Bach (BWV 118, 225–231, 1083, 1149, Anh. 159–165), Jesu, meine Freude is one of only five (BWV 225–229) which have always been considered as a Bach motet. Besides the comma splice (in red) and apparent subject-object disagreement ("around 15 extant compositions were recognised as ... a motet by Bach ", "one of only five...which have always been considered as a Bach motet") [should be "motets by Bach" not "a motet by Bach"?], "were recognised" just seems a bit ambiguous here, since it is not revealed until the end of the sentence that these works were not always considered motets. Maybe rephrase "were recognised" to something like "are now recognised" or "were once recognised" (depending on which is the case) to give the reader a better clue at the beginning of the sentence that this list of works were not always considered motets.

  you are right, and let's think, - postponing for now, - perhaps a complete rewrite would be best, focusing on that BWV 227 was always a core motet ---GA

  GeneralPoxter, I tried now to reword it, - please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Compositions with five-part movements are the Magnificat, written in 1723 at the beginning of his tenure in Leipzig, and the Mass in B minor, compiled towards the end of his life. This sentence could be better linked to the previous by prefacing it with something along the lines of "uncommon examples of five-part movements can be found in".

  taken ---GA

GeneralPoxter, thank you for your comments, and please check the new lead and table. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Structure and scoring

• Only the alto, the middle voice in the motet's SSATB setting, sings in all movements. Is it necessary to clarify that the alto is the middle voice, given that the order of voices is already specified in the previous sentence?

  taken --GA

• In great variety, the fifth movement is a free setting of the chorale stanza... It is unclear to me what "great variety" refers to in this sentence.

  added that variety of chorale settings --GA

• its source naming the stanza in the hymn movements and the Bible verses in the other movements Maybe more concise rephrasing: "its text source in either Franck's hymn or the Bible"?

  taken --GA

• Any specification of what the dots mean in the Form column of the table? (I assume they're supposed to indicate the symmetry of the work?)

  yes - any suggestions how to clarify? --GA

  Not quite sure, but maybe something on the lines of: "and its form with the number of dots indicating the corresponding movements in the motet's symmetrical structure"? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  I tried something. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  Looks good to me. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Repeated links to verses from Romans in both the Table and in the Movements section? Also note that movement 2 has no verse attribution in Movements. I also suggest introducing each Epistle-based movement as simply "The xth movement sets Romans 8:[verse number] ...", which would make the text clearer in my opinion. (by referring to the other verses as "verse x from the Epistle" could lead to confusion since the verse numbers pertain only to chapter 8 of Romans, not Romans as a whole)

  Do you mean there should be duplicate links. What would The Rambling Man say? - The other taken, but will implement later. --GA

  I am suggesting that they shouldn't be linked again, since a) they've been linked in the table already and b) the verses are already provided in full in the article. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  Now Romans specified for all five, and link removed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• The sopranos often move in "beatific" third parallels. Shouldn't this be "parallel thirds"? Also Jones gives no indication of the frequency/distribution of parallel thirds to justify that they are used "often". From my impressions of both Jones and the score itself, parallel thirds in the sopranos are most frequently used in the first half of the movement. So maybe restrict the analysis to 'The sopranos move in "beatific" parallel thirds in the opening when singing of "life in Christ Jesus"', which better aligns with Jones? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  will check that one later, off again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  Now taken unchanged, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Five voices take part in a dramatic illustration, as they depict defiance, standing firmly, and singing, in the same rhetorical style as the beginning of the second movement, here often expressed in powerful unison. This sentence is particularly confusing with all the comma breaks. Could this be reworded and/or broken into two sentences for clarity?

  tried --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  Newer version is much clearer. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...is set in a homophonic adagio with deeply unsettling harmonies: "not of Christ" Notion of the harmonies being "deeply unsettling" doesn't seem to be supported by Jones p. 205, and the Dellal source appears to redirect to the website's home page, so I can't verify whether this is supported there.

  I searched for that, and found many interesting things, but not that. (I don't remember to have written the line, - "unsettling" not being word I knew. Leaves me too tired. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  Back: I will look at the Jones more, and found a thesis which is very detailed, perhaps too much so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  Pamela Dellal seems no longer on Emmanuel Music but her own site. Oh dear! I fixed this one and BWV 1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  I removed the "harmonies" as not mentioned by Jones, - and Dellal was there just for the translation. I looked at the thesis more, but am reluctant to introduce it at this stage. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  It's fine by me to omit the thesis, since theses are rather iffy sources in the first place. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• the lower voices intensify the gesture dramatically with word painting: "weg" is repeated several times in fast succession. The use of word painting specifically on "weg" is not substantiated in Jones p. 203, and Graulich & Wolff and Dahn both appear to be scores w/ no accompanying analysis (thus can't be used to prove this claim).

  You see it in the score, though. Should that be used for a ref? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  Repetition can be verified using the score, but whether this constitutes "dramatic" word painting seems more like analysis to me, which means WP:NOR probably applies. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  I keep looking, found this review: a reviewer singles out this movement (and one more) and writes: "Sie peitschte alle Schätze «weg, weg, weg!» mit einer Drastik, die an die Volkschöre der Johannes-Passion erinnerte." (She whipped all the treasures "away, away, away!" with a drasticness reminiscent of the folk choruses of the St John Passion.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  I dropped the drama and word painting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Should "Sarabande" be linked to the article on the dance?

  yes, done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps some overcitation in the first sentences of movements 3 and 11. Jacobi appears to be a superfluous source here, with its English translations not even being used in the article.

  understand, moved Jacobi, an interesting alternate translation, to where it's different. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Reception

• This section appears to cover more than just Reception (it also includes performance and publication)

  That's a Francis special, who goes by centuries. I added to the header. --GA

• and is regarded by many as one of Bach's greatest motets. Is Cookson accepted to be reliable? They also mention Tovey's singling out of "Gute Nacht", which I think could be included in the article (using Tovey's original commentary as the source -- wherever that happens to be).

  Will check, Gardiner and Jones also single that movement out. --GA

  I combined the Cookson with another, and better gave Gardiner some space. Please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  New commentary looks good. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• The earliest extant of such chorale collections... Not sure if "extant" is used in correctly here, since it's an adjective not a noun.

  taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

References

• Some Gbooks/archive.org refs have url links to the specific page while others don't. Should adopt a consistent style on this. In addition, Gardiner 2013 appears to have page links, even though there is no preview available on Gbooks (at least for me).

  When a source is used for a specific page or continuous pages, it's usually given in the ref. Jones and others, however, mention the motet at various locations. The link typically goes to the most frequent one, and to the others where used, - at least that's the plan. --GA

  Gardiner: pages 350 to 352, no chapter header on 350, diagram on 351, particular text for central movement 352 - I'll switch the link to 351, for most important piece of info. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  Sounds good then. What about Gardiner though? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  Not quite sure what you mean. I can see all pages of the passage in the 2013 book. If you don't see it, check out the liner notes for the recording, dated 2012. It's not word-by-word the same, but almost. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  Hmm... Google Books seems to make some books previewable to some people while non-previewable to others. As long as some people can see it, then this is fine. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• See Dellal url redirect issue mentioned above

  replied there --GA

• See Cookson reliability issue mentioned above. "Many judges" seems to be a pretty ambitious claim on Cookson's part, and the lack of cited material in his review to support this is somewhat concerning.

  will back up --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  Cookson has been adequately backed up w/ more scholarly sources. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Other sources appear fine.

Leaning towards a support here, but some issues need to be fixed. An interesting read! GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

All concerns in the review have been addressed, so I will be happy to Support this nomination now. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

TRM

• Bach himself isn't linked in the lead which seems a little odd. In the prose (as well as the infobox).

  Please see below under Wehwalt who had the same question. --GA

  I don't see why Bach wouldn't be linked. Simple. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Projects Classical music and Opera have a convention: when a piece is linked, no link to the composer, because whoever doesn't know him can be sure to find him in the piece's article. Mozart's Requiem. Same for a group of pieces, no? - But I'm open for a solution linking motet without Easter egg and Bach also if you have one. Or should we accept that Easter egg? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  But this is FAC and this article could end up on the main page where readers are not members of Projects Classical music. We shouldn't be beholden to arcane project rules to the detriment of the general public. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Bach is linked in the new lead. ---GA

• "for SSATB choir" this is unexplained (albeit linked) so it is intractable to most without clicking on it. And should it be choirs? or "an SSATB choir"? Right now it doesn't read correctly.

  I guess that most readers coming to this article know what SATB means, so will be able to understand SSATB choir, and it's one. There are many things I'd like to see in the lead, but not an explanation of a common abbreviation if we can avoid it. We say: "for cello", not "for a cello". --GA

  It's not a common abbreviation for all readers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Of course not, therefore we have the link. BBC is not a common abbreviation, but we'd still not spell it out or explain, no? I added a bit: "a five-part (SSATB) choir". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Um, I think BBC is far more common than SSATB (which I have literally never heard of). We shouldn't be demanding readers click away from the article to get even a clue as to what this means. That you have to expand it in the article indicates its relative complexity, and we don't really ever expand "British Broadcasting Corporation" because it's almost universally known as BBC. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  As long as our article name is SATB, and linked on around 1000 pages, I conclude that we don't have to write an explanation (beyond "five-part") in the lead. ---GA

  We still don't use abbreviations or initialisms before their explanations. So you could write it out in plain English and then abbreviate it so our readers don't have to hover over or click on a linked article. This is a MOS requirement, one which previously had issues with "technical terms" like "aggregate" so I'm sorry, it needs to be applied universally. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  (But you wouldn't spell out BBC?) - At that point in the lead, to say "for two sopranos, alto tenor and bass" is a distraction, and not even true for all movements. We can say just "five voices", without specifying which (which seems a disservice to those who know what SATB stands for), or we can pipe. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  This is an article which will be read by non-experts. And no, I think BBC is universal, like NASA. SSATB is very much "in-universe". It's fine, we can agree to disagree on it, I have been railroaded in other reviews to "inline explanations" which don't require hover-over text or clicking through, and I find it grossly unreasonable that the same standards aren't applied across the board, but perhaps classical music is deemed more important than contemporary sports events, and therefore unexplained jargon is just fine. I don't think it is. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• motet could be linked in the lead as well. In the prose I mean.

  The link supplied for Bach's motets leads to an article with a link to motet. Again, most people reading about one of Bach's 6 motets will already know what that is, plus motet has a very broad meaning much of which doesn't apply to this very unusual one. --GA

  I disagree. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Compare BWV 1, a recent FA: link to church cantata, not to cantata. - Again: motet has a very broad meaning much of which doesn't apply to this very unusual one. Sending someone there seems a needless detour, prepared or unprepared. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  I think technical terms should be linked. If the target article is sub-optimal, that's a different matter. This article needs to be accessible to all readers, not just music project members. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  It is linked in the new lead. --GA

• "1723 , a " no space after 1723.

  fixed --GA

• "Romans 8:1–2,9–11" space after that comma.

  not sure because couldn't that mean verses 1 and 2 of chapter 8, plus chapters 9 to 11? (I found that and copied, really not sure) --GA

  Yes, that's exactly what it would mean. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  and that's wrong because it should concern verses from chapter 8, the first, second, ninth, tenth and eleventh. I guess it's the normal writing for this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  No, a space after the comma is normal writing for this. It's no different to a page range where you might say pp. 34–35, 38–40. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  But you misunderstood it then, no? ---GA

  No, it's just formatted incorrectly. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry. You understand the 9 means the chapter, or what did I misunderstand above? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  No, "8:1–2,9–11" should be "8:1–2, 9–11", it's not too difficult, or it could be "8:1–2, 8:9–11", but not what it currently is. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  I searched for "Romans:8", and in the results I see several where discontinuous verses from one chapter are shown. Some have the comma, as in our example, some have a fullstop instead, - none has the space that you want. I don't know if we have a guideline for Bible quotation. I see that verses are normally separated by comma without space (Romans 8:6-7,27 · Matthew 6:4,8,15,18), and see groups of verses separated also by fullstop (Romans 8:12-22.24-27). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Unique in its complex..." this is only unique within Bach's canon, according to later in the article, that isn't clear here in the lead.

  Then we should fix the article, because it's unique, period. --GA

  I mean this very article. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  I meant the same. Bach's are the pinnacle of motet writing (which would need to be mentioned and sourced), and this motet is his pinnacle within. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  This article says " is unique in Bach's work in its complex symmetrical structure" so it needs to be generalised per your comments above. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  It's now "Bach's work", and general can come later, or not. ---GA

• "sacred cantatas" link cantatas.

  as for motet: cantata has a very broad meaning of which little applies to Bach's specific cantatas. Church cantata (Bach) was linked the previous sentence, and that article includes these wedding and funeral cantatas. We could link to its section §Occasions outside of the liturgical year if that helps. --GA

  But non-experts reading this would appreciate a link to a complex word whether it was 100% directly relevant or not. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Sacred cantata is a redirect, and not to cantata. Wouldn't that be a dupl link? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  used now redirect to the specific section ---GA

• ",[5][6][7].[8] " remove comma, place last ref before full stop.

  that seems fixed already --GA

• "scored for SSATB voices" this is overlinked.

  It's common to link in lead and body, and in this case also in the scoring section where it matters. --GA

  It's overlinked in the body. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Intentionally so, yes. Please compare BWV 1 again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  it's no longer duplicate as PeneralPoxter made me remove the first occasion ---GA

• Bible verses appear to be linked in the Movements table but several appear in the preceding prose/table.

  Do we have to switch the tables? Because the links make more sense with the text beginnings, while the other is more an overview (which I inherited) --GA

  Links normally appear on the first instance. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  I know, and am in a dilemma. The overview shows the basics, but we also need a relation to the text, or it remains abstract. I found no solution to have both in one format. I believe the overview is better as the first thing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  solved by combinung the tables, please check ---GA

• "the cantus firmus in" what's that?

  good catch, link added

• "two soprano parts (S or SS), alto (A), tenor (T) and bass (" each of those is overlinked.

  As said just above, it's common in compositions to have the links duplicate in the scoring section where readers may arrive from the TOC. --GA

  These terms are already linked in the main body. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, but for composition FAs, we have it also where it's more relevant, compare BWV 1 again, or any other of several cantata FAs. - This is the first motet, but that should be consistent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  as before, no longer ---GA

• "Rom. 8:1" etc, both before and after you don't abbreviate Romans but you do here, suggest consistency.

  "you" in this case is Francis, and he has a point because if we consistently spell it out then also in the first table which would be wider. What should we do? --GA

  There doesn't appear to be an issue with width, so I don't see why the full term shouldn't be used. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  as before, no longer ---GA

• Why is the fifth (light blue) column in the Structure and scoring section smaller top and bottom than the other columns?

  I don't find what you mean, sorry. --GA

  On my screen, the fifth column isn't the same size as all the other columns. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Not what I see, sorry. Others? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  How would it look on a mobile? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  I'm going by what I see on my desktop browser. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Jesus – Romans 8:1).[15] " this now links to the Bible passage, but in earlier prose sections you didn't link. I'm not clear on the strategy.

  The "strategy" - well, I thought that the translator might have used a different translation than the King James Version of the Bible but found (earlier today) that she used exactly that one. I dropped the Romans now. --GA

• "supply vivid lines" this feels like someone's opinion on the lines.

  Could you offer a synonym that sounds more neutral? "lively"? For language fine-tuning, I really need help. --GA

  Either way, it's opinion, who is saying it? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  I think it's description. Jones (the source given) says "the soprano continues to deliver the plain chorale melody, but the lower parts are more elaborate than usual, often in the interests of text illustration." Which we could quote, or paraphrase, which I thought I did. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Bible text,[63] regarded" this sentence feels like it needs "and is" before regarded to me.

  added --GA

• ". "BWV 227.1=227.11"" should that really be an equals sign?

  too bad we can't ask Francis. The music is exactly the same (while the text is not). Would you know a better option? --GA

  I am just asking why that's an equals sign, is it a range? It would be en-dash not equals if it is. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  All it should say is that the first movement's music is equal to the last movement's. I'll think about it, but - after failing to bring RD article Hilmar Kopper to ITNN format, I'm too tired right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  this appears now only in a ref header ---GA

• " "Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750) / Motets"" en-dsash for year ranges. At least a couple of these in the sources.

  sorry, I'm still blind for those, tried --GA

  Ok, well you can get scripts which address this issue in one click. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Please help me to it when I'm less busy ;) ---GA

That's a quick pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your keen eyes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

TRM, prompted mostly by your concern, I rewrote the lead and united the 2 tables, please check. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• You have in the TOC "2 Structure and scoring" and then just 1, 2, 3... what does that mean to a reader? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for catching that I dropped the level-3 headers when combining the tables, and didn't notice what it means for the TOC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The SSATB question

The first sentence of the lead currently reads:

Jesu, meine Freude (Jesus, my joy), BWV 227, is an extended motet by Johann Sebastian Bach, set in eleven movements for up to five-voices (SSATB).

Per comments by Aza, I further changed it now to

Jesu, meine Freude (Jesus, my joy), BWV 227, is a motet by Johann Sebastian Bach. The longest and most musically complex of his motets, it is set in eleven movements for up to five voices (SSATB).

TRM thinks that SSATB is an abbreviation that needs to be explained in prose. I think that it is in brackets, is explained by the preceeding "five voices", and can be skipped by those who don't know it. I also think that by the same logic, we'd have to spell out Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis. What do others think about this particular question? Laser brain, GeneralPoxter, Amitchell125, Wehwalt, Mirokado? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks Gerda for bringing this up. Our own MOS suggests that we shouldn't be expecting people to click away or hover over text to understand it. SSATB is jargon, pure and simple, so it needs explanation within the article itself, not just relying on the wikilink. As esteemed FA editors like Sandy or Gog would agree, we shouldn't be using "in-universe" terms without comprehensive explanation in the article itself, and starting with such jargon initialisms in the lead is a bad experience for our non-expert readers. I don't even know how "five voices" equates to SSATB for non-experts. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  My point: SATB (of which SSATB is a form) is our article title, it's not jargon but widely known as such, and linked in around 1,000 articles. I'm not willing to give the four rather common voice types weight in the first sentence, and would rather drop the specific set of five voices (in brackets) completely. I'd prefer not to do that, in the interest of the many readers of this article for whom it's a common abbreviation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  As you like. It's not "widely known" by any means outside the tiny niche of classical music. You don't want to enable our readers to understand this jargon? Ok, but I can't support that. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Hmm, I don't know about this, in the lead it says "five-voices (SSATB)" so I think it is clear enough that following five letters refer tofive respective voice parts, and it would feel like a lot of clutter to spell them out in the lead. In the article text, however, extra clarification by including the vocal parts by name (probably in parentheses) seems to not hurt, so why not? Aza24 (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you, and the spelling out is done in the Scoring section. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• I just changed the intro once more, please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it is mostly OK. The most relevant detail does appear in addition ("five voices" in the lead: I removed the hyphen), "five parts" in §History, for the earlier mention. "Motet" also appears without detailed explanation in the lead.

• The detailed explanation in §Structure and scoring should mention "SSATB" explicitly, so that people searching through the article for more details can find them here.
• Since SATB has links from so many other articles, including featured articles, it would be very good if someone familiar with suitable sources could add them to that article and remove the tag. --Mirokado (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Amitchell125

I found this be a well-researched and informative article, but I have concerns about the quality of the prose, the links, and other details. Some of the issues that need to be addressed are:

• The image that follows "creating a frame that encloses the whole work" seems to be far too large (it's much smaller than the infobox image).

  That is not an image but a lilypond rendition, by RandomCanadian. I don't know if the output is flexible. In the infobox (which covers only the first two measures), I can't read the text. --GA

  Understood. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• In the lead section, I would: put (Jesus, my joy) in bold and in italics; link motet (List of motets by Johann Sebastian Bach) and theological (also unlinked in the text); amend in E minor to 'in the key of E minor'; change a 1912 dating to a specific July 1723 funeral, as it sounds as if the text was being dated to 1912; replace to that town with 'there'; amend eleven movements to '11 movements' (it occurs elsewhere); introduce Christoph Wolff; copy-edit for education in both choral singing and theology to improve the prose; add a comma after complex symmetrical structure.

  I adjusted the lead, rewording the sentence to get to Bach sooner. I am reluctant about making "Jesus, my joy" a title, because it's just a translation of the meaning, not a title that would be used (which would be Jesus, Priceless Treasure). I believe that "theological" is a common word. I think that we say "Mass in E minor", not "Mass in the key of E minor", and believe that it is widely understood. I took "there", and tried a different wording for the funeral dating. I don't see "11 movements" elsewhere. The Bach scholar is now introduced as such. Sorry, can you reword the "education"-phrase, because it was the best I could come up with? I am not sure about the comma because the juxtapositioning makes the complexity. --GA

  • See here and here for two examples of where the title is in English, not German. See here for a FA with the style (bold, italics) that I would adopt. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    None of the two says it's performed this way. I looked around for the phrase, and found this dissertation, which might be good to use as a ref. The phrase appears only in the translation of the movements, not as a title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  I disagree, the title of the work, whilst usually in German, can also be in English, as these sources show. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  Could be, but the publisher may also just make it palatable in English. I can't read the title page of the Peters which Boosey wants to sell to an English audience, but I saw Schott: while the "title" is English but no title case, the cover has it only in German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  • I think it is up to others to decide if theological is a common word, i would link it as being relevant and helpful within the context of this article. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  • For 11 movements, see the infobox (eleven occurs twice in the lead, once in the History section, once in the Structure and scoring section). Amitchell125 (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    In the infobox, the number of movements is usually numeric, even 3 and 4. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  I know, and I would also have the word put numerically in the text. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  I normally follow spelling it out up to twelve, but if it pleases you I can make an exception. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• There are duplicate links: SSATB; soprano; alto; tenor; bass;

  We commonly repeat them for the scoring section, for readers who jump there, where they are most relevant. --GA

  OK, but are the last four needed? Amitchell125 (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  define needed, - strictly, they were already linked before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  they should be gone, please check ---GA

• In the first part of the History section, I would: amend was regarded as antiquated to 'was already regarded as antiquated'; put in E minor like his ancestor's into a separate sentence, and improve the quality of the prose; explain figural music (or Figuralmusik) in a note, as it appears to be a uniquely German term; link continuo (Basso continuo).

  "already" added, but I'd rather drop the "in E minor" than separate it (but then explaining the connection). With the hymn in E minor, it's actually not a surprise. Figural music: Francis planned an article. Perhaps we better do without (tried, please check). "basso continuo" was linked in the previous paragraph. --GA

• In the Epistle text and chorale subsection, I would query: why italics are not used for "Jesu, meine Freude" in the caption, and why "in the flesh" and "according to the Spirit" are shown in quotes; introduce Franck as "the theologian Johann Franck" at the beginning of this subsection, not later; improve the prose where it says addressing Jesus as joy and support, against enemies and the vanity of existence, which are expressed in stark images; look again at The hymn adds a layer of individuality and emotions to Biblical teaching. - another strange sentence, as how can a hymn add a layer of emotions?

  The image is of the hymn, not the motet. "living in the flesh/spirit" is a theological phrase (or concept) by Paul, no normal language, - would you know a better way to say that? "theologian" now comes sooner. I tried to clarify the individual position of the believer saying "meine Freude" (my joy) and other very personal emotional things, - better wording wanted. The images - "old dragon" and such - come later in the movements when mentioned, - this is just a summary, as in the source. --GA

• In the 20th and 21st centuries subsection there is an unaddressed 'citation required tag'.

  Will look, but have to jump right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  ref added --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

My comments were made because of my concerns about quality of the prose, amongst other things. Instead of making further comments, which I would if I had the time and energy, I instead suggest the article is checked over by an experienced copy-editor. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Amitchell125, in the meantime, Wehwalt, TRM and GeneralPoxter improved the prose. Please check the new lead and table. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aza24

• Currently reviewing GP's article. Please ping or let me know when some of the above comments have settled down, and I'll look through. I think the coords will be more lenient now that there are more commitments to review. Aza24 (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• I don't believe the meaning of "extended motet" (the first word specifically) is clear, is this is a specific genre or merely an adjective describing its size? If the latter, something more direct like "large" would probably be clearer

  It may be my language, but I never hear large for a piece of music. Yes it's meant to say that this is not the typical motet (one movement, four parts, Locus iste for example). Better wording wanted! We should probably improve both motet and Motet (Bach), eventually. --GA

  Maybe 'large-scale'? Extended sounds like it has a specific meaning, or refers to the length of the piece.

  That's an option, - I thought of something else, per your comment below, will try that and discuss. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  Perfect! Though do we need the refs in the lead? Aza24 (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Presumably Franck's "Jesu, meine Freude" is the text for the odd movements? I don't think this is clear, all it says is that Franck's poem is the namesake

  not sure, - lead says "The motet contains the six hymn stanzas in its odd-numbered movements." --GA

  My mistake!

• "the longest and most musically complex of Bach's motets" — that seems like lead material as well!

  it is there, - well not the exact wording, do you mean that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  I see it now, fine how it is I believe.

• more soon. Aza24 (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  thank you for looking! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Some more thoughts:
• Everything before the "18th and 19th centuries" in the "Reception, performances and publication" section seems somewhat out of place, would it perhaps better after the first paragraph of the Structure and scoring section? The "Performers of Jesu..." part could perhaps stay, thoughts?

  Not sure, but yes, somehow the general "this is the greatest" comments might be better for a conclusion. Suggestion for header then? Aza24

• Shouldn't the texts in the Movements of Bach's Jesu, meine Freude table still have quotation marks on them? Aza24 (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  I doubt it. We have quotation to differentiate from ordinary text, but within a table, no misunderstanding seems possible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I have (as is evident) struggled to find comments to give throughout and thus I find this article ready for promotion. Aza24 (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt

• "This Biblical text, which influenced key Lutheran teachings, is contrasted by the hymn" How is it contrasted? I'm not clear on what this means.

  The detail comes later, but at this point, we know already that we have older text (Bible, 1st century) and newer text (hymn, 17th century), and we have teaching (third person) vs. emotional emphasis ("Jesus, my joy", first person). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• " to Bach's Leipzig years.[26]" It might help the reader if you say when this was, although you do say about when he started in Leipzig. Similarly dating might be helpful for the Weimar period and for Bach's death when mentioned.

  There's now a link to where it's covered in the bio (as Weimar already had), and the years for both. Is that too much, perhaps? - I'm reluctant about the death, because the precise year is rather less important (and same as end of Leipzig period) than saying that the two other 5-part works are one from early in Leipzig and one from late. I wonder if we should add that both are exceptional works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• " was documented for event." This could use greater clarity.

  "the" seems to have been missing, and I changed "event" to "funeral", although repetitious - perhaps better than unclear. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" Should "which" be "who"? Given that we are discussing humans, or at least their souls, "who", commonly applied to human beings, seems more appropriate than "which". I also see translations of Romans 8:1 that use "who".

  That's all correct, only: Wikipedia's source is the KJV (King James Version), linked to, which has "which", and the translator referenced seems to have used the same. Should we go as far as finding and quoting a different translation, or rather leave it as historic language? The German is also sort of old-fashioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Why is Bach not linked in the lead?

  Sigh, he was until a reviewer wanted a link for "motet". As motet is very general, I thought that List of motets by Johann Sebastian Bach was better, but how to indicate the difference? My solution was to include his name in that link. If you don't like it, we could copy what the infobox has, but it's a bit of an Easter egg. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I've made a number of hands on edits, please feel free to revert any you do not like.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for looking, and I'll check your changes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the copy-edits, mostly great improvements! I'm not happy - has nothing to do with your change! - with the corner about the continuo accompaniment. Roughly: for centuries, choirs tried the "noble" unaccompanied singing because there was no continuo part; only when looking into sources more did musicologists find that two of the motets came with a continuo part, as was usual at the time. I wonder if that could be clarified, perhaps even naming those two? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm satisfied by the responses. Support.--Wehwalt (talk)

Wehwalt, kindly check the reworded lead and the table of the structure, combining the former two --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The first paragraph is a bit long for my taste, but I'm not going to make an issue of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado

I've read through this, copyediting en passant.

• Structure and scoring, the diagram
  • what does "free" mean in the chorale 3 box?
  • there is some numbering confusion here, we have unlabelled numbers 1–6 for the chorale stanzas, but in the final two boxes we have "similar to [movement numbers] 1, 2" so the "2" has different meanings within the diagram
  • apart from those occurrences, the movement numbers don't appear in the diagram, which makes flipping between introductory text, diagram and table a bit confusing. I appreciate that we don't want the diagram to get too cluttered, though.
    • I dropped the first diagram completely, adding it's info to the other table, please check ---GA
• Movements
  • wl incipit. I read this without noticing the first time, because I studied Latin a bit at school, but I have not so far come across the term in active use. Since we have a nice article about it, I think we should provide the link.
    • done ---GA
• Movements : 4
  • although the quoted "rhetorical" in §Movements : 2 is explained nicely by the subsequent text, "beatific" here is not. It is quoting the word used by Jones (2003 p. 205) but on first reading it looked like "I will let you work out what I mean here" quotes. Perhaps link to beatific, where the meanings blissful, heavenly apply.

--Mirokado (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for looking and the copy-edits, - I'm too tired now and hope for tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Mirokado, thank you for the suggestions, and all taken. I expanded the lead a bit, and combined the tables, please check --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Support: thank you Gerda, the updated lead and table look fine. --Mirokado (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spot checks not done. There are some source formatting issues - the web sources give nothing but the URL patterns, one URL ([46]) is dead and ISBN sometimes is linked and sometimes isn't. I was wondering if John Eliot Gardiner was a reliable source for a FA but going by the citations of his works it seems like he is. Johann Gottfried Schicht isn't so clear if he's a reliable source on this topic. Spitta's Johann Sebastian Bach is it a reliable source? The article raises some doubts. Is Pamela Dellal a subject-matter expert? Some of the web sources raise questions about the credentials of their authors. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for stepping up! Perhaps compare BWV 1, source review of the FAC. Spitta was Bach's first biographer, so almost a must. (I mean: much of what he wrote has been proven wrong, but he is the source for what has been believed then. Dellal trtanslated all of Bach's vocal music into English, and is used as a source only for the translations. Schicht is also historical, - we'd have to ask Francis, - similar to Spitta, I assume. Gardiner conducted the Bach Cantata Pilgrimage, and recorded the motets twice, so is my No. one expert. The other questions would need to be more precise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

If much of what he wrote was proven wrong, then I'd be wary of using him as a source. My question about websites is bach-chorales.com, bach333.com, hymnary.org and ccel.org are not particularly clear on what makes them RS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Spitta: If we talk about history of reception, we have to say what a first biographer wrote even if later research proved it to be wrong. Same for the one who wrote that the piece was composed for a specific funeral (writing that in 1912), which is still proclaimed in 2021 concert programs! - bach.chorales supplies only links to three chorale settings, while we have just one in lilypond in the article, - that's good for people reading music. bach333.com is only an additional ref for other motets by Bach which were recorded, - drop it if you find a problem, hymnary.org is given only for the translation by Winckworth, - we can drop the fact (and thus the link to her translation), but it's not contentious, and may be interesting to English-speaking readers. ccel.org has only that translation in larger print, - drop if you find not useful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Gerald Waldo Luis

Interesting article, despite me not being a huge Bach fan. Will post comments soon; after they're resolved I'll support this FAC GeraldWL 09:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the few hours delay, had some IRL issues. Anyways, comments are below. First time FAC-reviewing a classical article, so forgive if I have mistaken something. GeraldWL 14:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Outside body

• "It is named after the Lutheran hymn "Jesu, meine Freude" with poetry by Johann Franck"-- does that mean there's a poem of the same name by Johann Freude or...? "With poetry" is quite confusing for me. ESL guy here, so please don't mind wrong grammatical concerns.
• "More recently" will be outdated as time passes. Suggest changing to "Later"
• Why is "five voices (SSATB)" in the lead, but "five voices SSATB" (without brackets) in the infobox?
• In "Cited sources", it should be divided with sub-heading 2 instead of italics. After you do so, the Bach Digital link must be removed as there shouldnt be links in bolds or headings.
• I believe you can archive most of the sources, personally I use this tool.
• This is the first time I've seen colons on External links, but I don't think there's guidelines against that so I'm fine with that. However: in exlink 1 and 2 "Scores" and "Free" are in title case, but not "performance" in exlink 5. Must be consistent.
• "mvmc.de 19 January 2019"-- I think you can convert this to a citation like you did in the last exlink, and also provide a translation to the title.
• Move "Florida State University Libraries" to the publisher parameter to unitalicize, then link Florida State University.

Body

History

• "It is scored for up to five vocal parts (SSATB)" duplicate link.
• "at the beginning of Bach's tenure in Leipzig"-- link Leipzig.
• "from two sources,"-- should use a colon instead of a comma.
• "such as "old dragon" and "death's jaw""-- considering the text is in German, suggest providing the translations of those quotations.
• "The hymn's first line is also the last line of its final stanza"-- it would be interesting to provide the actual first line.
• "the hymnal used in Leipzig"-- remove Leipzig link (see History point 3)
• "with the word "Jesus""-- or "Jesu"? If the latter, then I think it should be changed to "Jesu".
• "The Cambridge musicologist" --> "The Cambridge University Press musicologist"
• "in his 1995 book about Bach's motets"-- a bit too descriptive, suggest trimming to "in his 1995 book" as that's the only relevant bit; also consistent with paragraph 3 sentence 4.
• "but the date has still been "nearly universally accepted"". I don't understand what this means.

Structure and scoring

• "Bach scored it for a choir of up to five voices (SSATB): two soprano parts (S or SS), alto (A), tenor (T) and bass (B)." Another STAB duplicate link. Additionally, I think this sentence fits more in Background, paragraph 3 sentence 2.
• "Romans 8:9"-- link to the Wikisource.
• "Movements of Bach's Jesu, meine Freude"-- I don't think "Bach's" is important here.
• "Romans 8, setting verse 1"-- "Romans 8:1"
• "Christ Jesus"-- shouldn't it be Jesus Christ? Also translations should be in quotations.
• "sets the second verse from Romans 8" --> "sets Romans 8:2"
• "quoting short motifs from the chorale"-- motif duplicate link.
• "to paintings by Cranach and Grünewald" --> "to paintings by Lucas Cranach the Elder and Matthias Grünewald"
• "John Eliot Gardiner" --> "Music conductor John Eliot Gardiner". Additionally, I see that prior to this sentence Gardiner has been mentioned a few times; the full name and link must be in the first mention, which is in Time of Origin paragraph 2, last sentence.
• WP:BLOCKQUOTE says only quotes with more than 40 words must use block quotes; since the Gardiner quote only has 31 words you can just combine the quote within the paragraph.
• "verse 9 from Romans 8" --> "Romans 8:9"
• "verse 10 from Romans 8" --> "Romans 8:10"
• "For the rejection of everything earthly, Bach composed a chorale fantasia"-- chorale fantasia duplicate link.
• "verse 11 from Romans 8" --> "Romans 8:11"

Reception, performances and publication

• The three blockquotes are also less than 40 words.
• "The motet's SATB"-- SATB or SSATB?
• "Philippe Herreweghe, second set recorded in 2010" --> "Herreweghe, second set recorded in 2010"
• "John Eliot Gardiner" --> "Gardiner"

Benedict Joseph Fenwick

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 14:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

This is the second nomination of this article, after the first failed for lack of input. I have taken this article through GAN and believe it is up to FA standards. Fenwick led a fascinating life, full of controversies and disputes navigated from senior positions. Ergo Sum 14:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from ChrisTheDude

• "with it officially shuttering in April 1814" - shouldn't that be "shutting"? Or is "shuttering" a synonym for that in US English?
  • Shuttering is a common Americanism but it sounded a bit colloquial on second glance, so I've rephrased. Ergo Sum 00:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Fenwick served alongside Kohlmann as pastor of Old St. Patrick's Cathedral in 1809, an office he held until 1815" - he held the office in 1809 (implying only during that year), but until 1815? That's a bit unclear......
  • Agree that that was poor wording. I've fixed it. 01:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• "St. Patrick's Cathedral, whose construction" => "St. Patrick's Cathedral, the construction of which" ("who" should only be used when referring to people, not inanimate objects)
  • Done. Ergo Sum 01:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• No need to link Georgetown College again in the section of that name
  • That link doesn't go to Georgetown College; it goes to List of presidents of Georgetown University. Ergo Sum 01:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• "In May 1822, Fenwick returned to Washington, D.C." - when was he in DC before? The city hasn't been mentioned up to this point......
  • The Early life section discusses how he lived in and then studied in Georgetown, which is in Washington. Ergo Sum 01:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• That's what I've got as far as the end of the Georgetown section. I'll look at the rest later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• "This was followed by the establishment of a co-ed day school." - what does "co-ed" mean? I suspect this is possibly a common US term with which I am not familiar
  • I don't think co-ed is a strictly AmEng term (but I could be wrong. Nonetheless, I've expanded it to co-educational and linked it. Ergo Sum 01:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• "the school began charging tuition" => "the school began charging for tuition"
  • I've never heard that particular construction. I've only ever heard "charging tuition." I suspect this might be an AmEng vs. BrEng matter. Ergo Sum 01:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• "As they left, a mob of 2,000, wearing masks or painted faces encircled the convent" - needs a comma after faces to close off the clause
  • Done. Ergo Sum 01:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• "All but one of the perpetrators was acquitted" => "All but one of the perpetrators were acquitted" (the subject "all but one" refers to multiple people)
  • Fixed. Ergo Sum 01:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, ChrisTheDude. Ergo Sum 01:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

HF - support

Will look at this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 21:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• " The school was opened in 1808, in a house on Mulberry Street,[10] across the street from the original St. Patrick's Cathedral" - based on our article about the cathedral, construction did not start until 1809, so the school would not have been across the street from it in 1808. Maybe rephrase to across the street from the future site of the original St. Patrick's Cathedral?
  • Good catch. Clarified. Ergo Sum 18:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• "succeeding Giovanni Antonio Grassi at the former" - you've already introduced him, so you can just refer to him as Grassi
  • Done. Ergo Sum 18:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Later that year, Ambrose Maréchal, the Archbishop of Baltimore, sent Fenwick to Charleston, South Carolina," - is there a more exact date for when he was sent from Georgetown?
  • Unfortunately, the source does not give specific dates. Ergo Sum 18:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Fenwick remained in Charleston one year beyond the erection of the new Diocese of Charleston and the appointment of John England as the first bishop" - more exact date? At least a year?
  • Added year. Ergo Sum 18:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• So he was acting president of Georgetown and Bishop of Boston at the same time? That seems geographically difficult, especially in the 1820s era
  • I'm not sure I follow. I don't see where it says he held the positions simultaneously. Ergo Sum 18:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    • "On September 15, 1825,[28] the Jesuit mission superior, Francis Dzierozynski, again made Fenwick acting president of the college and vice rector, as the incumbent president—his brother, Enoch—refused to return to the college after leaving for St. Thomas Manor" and then says he held the position for less than a year. And then he's consecrated as bishop of Boston on December 21, 1825. So does "less than a year" mean ~3 months here? Because I think that most readers would be like myself and assume that "less than a year" suggests a time period greater than three months. Reading Dubuisson's article, it looks like that Fenwick did have a very short acting presidency, so could the "less than a year" be rephrased to make it clearer that this time frame wasn't even close to a year? Hog Farm _Talk 20:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Rephrased to clarify it was just a few months. Ergo Sum 22:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Can we get a more exact date as to when his 1825 acting term ended?
  • I was able to find the precise date he became president for the second time, but the sources are silent as to the date his presidency ended. They all seem to suggest that he just held the presidency until he went to Boston, following his appointment as bishop. Ergo Sum 19:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Infobox says he died in Boston. I don't doubt this, but it actually isn't specified/cited in the body
  • Most every source simply says that he died as the Bishop of Boston, implying that he died in Boston. However, I was able to find one source that says he died at the then-cathedral of Boston, which is in Boston. I've added this to the article. Ergo Sum 20:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• ""From the Pastor's Desk" (PDF). Holy Trinity Catholic Church Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: Holy Trinity Catholic Church. December 6, 2015. p. 2. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 16, 2018. Retrieved January 4, 2019" - Since you're citing a column written by the pastor, shouldn't he be given as the author?
  • That makes sense. Done. Ergo Sum 20:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• File:Fenwick cropped.jpg - does not have a real source link. The source link takes me to a different file, which merely has a circular source link back to the file description page.
  • The original was a photograph, so there's really nothing to link to. I've slightly tweaked the wording to make this clearer. Ergo Sum 20:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

This does not constitute a formal image review, although I did look at the images. Hog Farm _Talk 05:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, Hog Farm. Apologies for the delay. Ergo Sum 20:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: Looking good, except for one point that I think can be addressed with a phrasing improvement. Hog Farm _Talk 20:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Grapple X

• Overall sources seem to be academic publishing—good to see a mix of university presses here and not a preponderance from Georgetown, the range speaks to breadth well.
• Tager 2001 has a URL but no access date, unlike the other sources with URLs provided. I don't believe these are necessary for books but it should be uniform if used,
  • Added access date. Ergo Sum 21:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Ref 52 mentions that the building was sold in 1980, not that the school ceased operating that year; can we get this backed up with another source giving the specific year it stopped operating?
  • I found a better source and replaced the previous one with it. (Also discovered that it was 1981, not 1980). Ergo Sum 01:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• That's all I have here. I don't believe a dedicated spot-check is necessary but I can conduct one if required. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your review, Grapple X. Ergo Sum 01:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
    • New source definitely covers this better. Took a second read over everything just to be sure and nothing seems amiss. Happy to consider this passed on sourcing. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

• Three links in the opening three sentences of the lead to the Society of Jesus.
  • I actually think it's justified in this instance, because each of those three instances are very different. One is the term "Jesuit," the other is "Society of Jesus," and the third is "SJ." I think it's definitely worth it to link Jesuit and I think your average reader, especially a non-Catholic, would not know that the Society of Jesus is the formal name for the Jesuits, much less that SJ is the abbreviation for Society of Jesus, which is the Jesuits. It is also standard in Jesuit biography articles to link the first instance of SJ for that reason. Ergo Sum 02:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "founder of the College of the Holy Cross" might be contextual to say where this is.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 02:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "began his ministry in New York City as the co-pastor of St. Peter's Church, the pastor of the..." mildly confusing, he began his ministry with two positions simultaneously? Also, a year would be helpful I think.
  • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 02:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "intra-parochial conflict" what's that?
  • Rephrased. I think "intra" is redundant here, and linked parochial to Parish (Catholic Church), of which it is the adjectival form. Ergo Sum 02:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Fenwick's life, and the formation of the Montgomery Guards. Fenwick also addressed intra-parochial conflict, ultimately placing a Boston church under interdict. Fenwick ..." thrice Fenwick, perhaps replace the middle one with "He"?
  • Tweaked. Ergo Sum 02:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "His older brother was.." last "his" would relate to Cuthbert, is that the intention?
  • Clarified. Ergo Sum 02:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "earning highest academic honors" what does this mean?
  • Not entirely sure. I could speculate that the source means summa cum laude, but I don't know if this institution was using Latin honors at this time. Ergo Sum 02:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• You link "philosophy" but not "theology"?
  • Linked. Ergo Sum 02:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "the Society of Jesus, which" again, you've linked Jesuit in this section already.
  • It's always been my practice that the lede is discounted for the purposes of linking first instances of terms unless it's an especially short article. Here, this is the first instance of Society of Jesus after the lede. Ergo Sum 02:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "entered the Jesuit novitiate ... enter the restored novitiate..." repetitive.
  • Combined sentences. Ergo Sum 02:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "he was sent" re-assert Fenwick, last "he" was Leonard Neale. And it's a new section so nice to recall who we're talking about in any case.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 02:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "the Archbishop of Baltimore, sent Fenwick" overlinked.
  • This is the only place in the article where Archbishop of Baltimore is linked. I think it makes sense to do so. Plus, the earlier Archdiocese of Baltimore is not that close. Ergo Sum 02:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "returned to Washington, D.C. as" overlinked, and comma after D.C.
  • This, too, is the only instance of Washington, D.C. being linked. I always think it makes sense to link cities, especially for a non-western readership. Ergo Sum 02:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    • But you've called it the District of Washington above and linked it as such. Did it change names? I would refer to the same entity with the same nomenclature here, and reduce the overlinking. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I've gone ahead and linked that first instance to District of Columbia (until 1871), which is really more accurate here. Ergo Sum 03:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Is there a link for rector?
  • Linked. Ergo Sum 03:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Archbishop Ambrose Maréchal served" overlinked.
  • Removed duplink. Ergo Sum 03:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "by Protestant evangelists" overlinked.
  • Though certainly a common term for a read-up person in the Anglosphere, I think it's worthwhile for those who may not be familiar with the Protest-Catholic divide/history. However, I'm amenable to removing this one if you really think it's unnecessary. Ergo Sum 03:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Well it's already linked in the same usage earlier on so I don't see what this is linked here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Very right. I didn't catch that. Removed the duplink. Ergo Sum 03:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• "in Old Town, Maine for" comma after Maine.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 03:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Is there a link for incardinating?
  • Yes, linked. Ergo Sum 03:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "from Emmitsburg, Maryland to" comma after Maryland.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 03:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "this paper survived" publication perhaps instead of the colloquial "paper".
  • Done. Ergo Sum 03:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• " The Pilot, which is today the oldest Catholic newspaper in the United States" the target article says it's the oldest still published because at least one other work was older.
  • Corrected. Ergo Sum 03:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Our article capitalised Greater in Greater Boston.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 03:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for your review, The Rambling Man. Ergo Sum 03:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, happy to support. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Image review

All images appear to be suitably placed and alt text is passable. File:Mitre plain 2.png and its parent work File:Mitre - Heraldry.svg however need to explain the copyright status of the mitre design; I imagine it's some flavour of PD-old? File:Old St. Patrick's Cathedral on Mott Street, NYC 1831.jpg licencing is fine but is a direct link to the page where the image is possible? File:Ruins of Ursuline Convent 1834 Riots.jpg dating is a little sparse. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, thank you for the image review. For the St. Patrick's Cathedral image, the link at present does go to the original work (a book), which is made available via Internet Archive. I'm afraid I can't find any more detailed a date than the year for the convent image. For the mitre image, which comes in as part of the template, I think the CC 2.5 license applies to the design of the mitre, since it's just a generalized depiction of a mitre. I don't think it copies anything, so the author's released under 2.5 is a release of the whole image, which includes the digital design. Otherwise, I'm not sure what they would be releasing. Ergo Sum 04:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

If the image depicts a generic mitre, it should be removed - the way it's currently used it strongly implies that the image is the official design and style of this particular cleric. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes, to clarify, the mitre is not specific to Fenwick. It’s a long-standing symbol of Catholic bishops and, indeed, many Christian bishops generally. It cannot be removed without removing {{Infobox bishop styles}}, which is used on a great many (perhaps the substantial majority) of Catholic bishop articles and those of other Christian denominations. It’s a useful template, and I think the mitre is a minor but welcome stylistic touch to the template. Either way, that’s something that has to be addressed in the context of the template, not this particular article. Ergo Sum 15:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Jo-Jo Eumerus just to make sure they saw the above response. Ergo Sum 04:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to be That Guy but I still think that it is misleading when the template says "Styles of Benedict Joseph Fenwick" (emphasis mine). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think we just have a difference of opinion. Granted I am fairly well versed in Christian, particularly Catholic, imagery, I don't think your average reader with at least some degree of familiarity with Catholic (or Christian) bishops would conclude, given the context, that the mitre depicted is Fenwick's uniquely. I think it is pretty well known that a mitre is the signature symbol of a bishop, and that is the reason it is used here. I would go so far as to say that is common knowledge among the average, educated reader. This is especially so, given the context of the vast majority of other Catholic bishop biographies on WP bearing that same mitre. If someone is not familiar with that, then one need only click on the image where there is the description. If it is any help, I have beefed up the description of that image on Commons to clarify that it is an image of a generic mitre, not any one bishop's in particular. Ergo Sum 20:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I am fine with being overridden on this one, but from my perspective as someone who knows about heraldry but little about the Catholic Church that kind of infobox image is misleading as my first assumption - endorsed by the text over the image - is that the mitre is specific. I wouldn't assume that readers coming here will be familiar with other bishop articles and their writing conventions, either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ergo Sum, any further comment? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• I would've liked a another set of eyes on the question. As I say above, I think the average reader would understand the image in context, but if others think otherwise, then I'd be open to removing the template for the time being and opening a broader discussion on the template page about whether the current use of the image is warranted. I just wouldn't want something rather minor like this to hold up what would otherwise appear to be a successful FAC. Ergo Sum 03:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)