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whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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. Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. The only templates that are acceptable are {{xt}}, {{!xt}}, and {{tq}}; templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples; and {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. 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 review (FAR) Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Featured article criteria Mentoring for FAC Featured article log Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Featured article statistics Nominators of featured articles promoted Random featured article Former featured articles

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

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)

Comments 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)

Why Marx Was Right

Nominator(s): — Bilorv (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

A quite long-term project of mine (including a long off-wiki writing process), Why Marx Was Right is my third article nominated for FA status. I've written lots of book articles before, but neglected to take many through feature-quality processes. A lot of research went into this article, perhaps the most of any of the 125 or so articles I've created. I look forward to all constructive criticism. — Bilorv (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't duplicate captions in alt text
• File:JStalin_Secretary_general_CCCP_1942_flipped.jpg: why specifically is this believed to be PD in Russia?
• File:Karl_Marx_001_(cropped_2).jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: done the first. For the second, I believe the Library of Congress record shows it was first published at least before 1944, when it was transferred to the LoC, and there's been no author identified in 70 years (plus 7 more). Is that okay, or would File:Cropped Stalin 1943.jpg be a more clear-cut PD usage?
    And on the last point, it was created by John Jabez Edwin Mayall and published in the International Institute of Social History (Amsterdam) in 1875. Mayall died in 1901. — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    • On the second, I don't see that LOC specifies it was published before being transferred? On the third, suggest adding that to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from czar

General

• Had more to say than I anticipated. :) It was an interesting read—thanks for the heads up!
• Most of my comments below are structural. Anything phrased as a question is rhetorical—no need to answer them; feel free to address or ignore. If I have time later, will return for more.
• Listing page numbers and database identifiers would make source verification so much easier for readers (or a FAC source reviewer)
  • Page numbers should now be added. Not sure what exactly you mean by database identifiers—experienced Wikipedians should be able to see most sources within ProQuest on TWL but readers (and editors) might be using JSTOR or their university's search system, so I'm not sure how universal an identifier would be (or how to get a DOI out of ProQuest). — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Lede

• Are all 10 objections needed in the lede? It's somewhat excessive to me as a general reader when a few examples would suffice. The list in the synopsis section would make sense, though.
• How do you know the reception was "mostly negative" without an aggregate reviewer saying so? Believe that's original research
• General readers don't need exact dates in the lede since they have it in the infobox and, if necessary, in the relevant section. They just need to know the gist of when the book was released.
  • Now just gives the years 2011 and 2018. — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• "criticised by others as humourless, filled with poor analogies or lacking strong arguments" introduce a parallelism for better reading: "as lacking humour, strong arguments, and good analogies"
  • Done — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• "the prose style", "the commentary on historical materialism" sound detached; it's either "its prose style" (referring to the book) or "Eagleton's prose style" (referring to the author's role in writing the book)
  • Done — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• "historical moment" doesn't need ersatz quotes (or, then, a ref)
  • Done — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• were no reviewers strong enough to warrant mention in the lede? If not (and that's fine), consider how the reception section could mirror the lede; i.e., where is the group citation for how the prose style can be summarised as witty, entertaining, and easy to read? If that's a point important enough for the lede, I would want to read a part of the Reception that explains why, perhaps starting with that topic sentence and followed by the supporting evidence
• Is there anything worth adding about Eagleton's approach or background with Marx in the lede? Like what about his prior experience with the subject or reputation in this aspect
  • None of the sources really brought in past works of his; the only real commentary on his approach is that he's an Irish Catholic, given a paragraph in "Background" and Gray (2011) believes Eagleton understates Marx's objection to religion based on his Catholicism, as mentioned in "Reception", but that's not lead-worthy. I could maybe add "Eagleton's approach to Marxism was informed by his Catholicism", or equally leave it out? — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Background/Editions

• There are parts of this section that would fit better in a Publication section (history of publication, development of the work, relationship with publisher, editions, release) if there's enough for a dedicated section (check for interviews); Background should be the truly Background topics needed for a general reader, e.g., what does the reader need to know about Marx to make the synopsis intelligible for a general audience?
• re: editions, it would be sufficient to put the reprint information in prose as four identical citations are redundant
  • Is the current version what you had in mind? — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• There are a few parts here that would be better served by saying what the source means instead of their flourish: What is "something of a revelation"? (To what? About what? In what way?) What is "newly perceptible as as a system"? (More apparent to non-theorists? More present in everyday life and rhetoric?)
  • Done this for those two and a couple more. — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Room for concision: "The New Republic's John Gray argued that before the economic crisis, Marxism had been at its most "unfashionable", due to the failures of the Soviet Union and modern China.[8] However, the crisis caused a resurgence in Marxist thought.[8][9] " >> "While Marxism had been "unfashionable" due to ..., the financial crisis caused a resurgence in Marxist thought." (this should be a fact, not an attributed opinion, if the source is reliable)
  • Done — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• "its fallout" whose? Or in the spirit of concision, "resurgence in Marxist thought, including the books ..." But I don't think you need to list five books to make your point—picking the best one or two would be sufficient. The rest can go to a footnote if important.
  • Down to two. — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• "obselete" typo
  • Done — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• The most interesting parts of this section are the background on the historical moment. For what it's worth, I don't think the background on Eagleton's motivation, professorial history, or favorite chapter was particularly important background, though perhaps relevant in a Publication section.

Synopsis

• This section isn't very accessible to a general audience—it's trying to convey a lot of information in the space of a plot summary when it would be better served by taking more time to explain each "objection" and the substance of Eagleton's rebuttal. For this reason, it would be much more helpful for this section to have citations such that you could introduce outside context where needed for each description without needing to work around rules for foregoing summary citations. There are plenty of reviews so I would imagine there is plenty of content here.
  • I guess I was worried that more words would make the section too long. For instance, I could do a paragraph on each chapter, but is that not too much detail? I tried to make the synopsis just about self-contained, and I can probably give quite a lot more context with another 100–200 words, but where do you think the limit is? Or are you talking about a more fundamental restructuring? — Bilorv (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• I.e., "against the irrelevance of Marxism to the 21st century" this is academic language—what does this mean to a general reader? Is it "argues against the objection that Marxism is outdated for 21st century purposes" (which would still need explanation)?

Reception

• It's very hard to follow the cavalcade of reviewer names and frequent quotes. For instance, when "Barry and Rundle found it the weakest part of the book", should I be backtracking to figure out who Barry is and what qualifies his opinion? This is a common Reception section issue and I've found that the best solution is to not name individuals unless they are noteworthy critics (with their own WP articles) and instead refer to reviews by the outlet name, when it's necessary to even attribute the sentiment. The smoothest Reception sections group each thematic paragraph into a narrative. For example, it's much easier to understand that, "Multiple reviewers [or Publications X, Y, Z] criticized what they considered weak argumentation throughout the book. Supporting example 1 of assertion instead of argument. Supporting example 2 of glib approach. Supporting example 3 of general weakness. Dissenting example or caveat 4, e.g., who were generally convinced." But by setting up what the paragraph is about (argumentation more than rhetoric), it becomes much easier to follow what you want the reader to take away from the paragraph.
  • CRS is my Bible, but I have worked quite hard to try to theme the comments and draw a narrative from them. If you look at the wikitext, there's a hidden comment for each paragraph which roughly describes its topic, and the first sentence should be a topic sentence. I'll work on restyling the names (though I really dislike quotes with no prose attribution so I might shorten just to outlet), but can you give some more guidance on the rest? — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Critics were divided on whether the topics covered were well-chosen." Generally can avoid passive voice by putting the author or book in there: "Critics disagreed on Eagleton's selection of topics."

czar 20:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed comments, Czar. I've read them all and begun addressing some, but it may take me a few days to properly respond to them all. — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Drive by comment from Nick-D

• The references to journal articles, the hard copy magazines and The Communist Manifesto need page numbers. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • These should now all be added, Nick-D, except for Brown (2011), Maclean's (2011a) and Maclean's (2011b), where ProQuest doesn't show any page numbers. Does it look right now? — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    • No. You need to provide page numbers for all the specific references to these works. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Julian of Norwich

Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Julian, one of England's most important mystics. In May 1373 Julian completely recovered from a serious illness that had caused her to have revelations (or shewings), all of which she went on to describe in detail. Her writings are now published as Revelations of Divine Love, the earliest known book in English to be written by a woman. I would be great if her article was to be promoted before the 650th anniversary of her revelations, in 2023. It has been peer-reviewed and copy-edited since gaining GA status in 2019. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support: This is my first time participating in FAC. I copy-edited this article as requested by Amitchell125 and corrected/updated citations and template usage. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 03:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the map and the stained glass multi-image

Done. The church drawing (made in 1828) is now not there, as a larger map caused a sandwiching issue. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Amitchell125: I could try to remake the map with less dead space, if you think it would be helpful --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Guerillero: Thanks, not sure if it's worth the effort, as it's a complicated map to remake. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• File:Preobrazhenie.jpg needs a US tag

I'm guessing that the none of the articles with the template Template:Christian mysticism have been at FAC before, so the image has never been challenged. It was uploaded to the Russian Wikipedia in 2005, and it's source is not given. I'll see if I can replace the image in the template with one whose source can be verified.Amitchell125 (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• File:Map_of_Norwich_(c.1300)_by_Woodward.jpg: where is that licensing coming from?

Sorted, I think. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• File:St_Julian's_Church_Norwich.jpg: where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Image now gone (see comment above). Amitchell125 (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Chiswick Chap

Fascinating article on a major subject.

• The 'Background' sentence "Julian was alive ... " needs to be split into two. Probably shouldn't be using "overwhelmed" twice in succession either.

Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• "a number of them" - perhaps "some of them".

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Map of Norwich: perhaps "south of the castle" or "towards the bottom of the map" would help those who don't know where Ann's Staithe is.

Caption amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• "refers to Kempe travelling to Norwich" - perhaps "mentions that Kempe travelled to Norwich".

Sentence amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Julian was largely unknown until 1670," - clearly this doesn't apply to her lifetime.

Sentence amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• "It became known still further" - perhaps "It became still better known".

Agreed, sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Contemporary monastic and university authorities might not have challenged her theology because of her status as an anchoress." Perhaps the intended meaning is "Her status as an anchoress may have prevented contemporary monastic and university authorities from challenging her theology."

Thanks, your version is definitely better. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Eliot actually uses "All shall be well" not once but three times in "Little Gidding", surely worth saying. It might be appropriate to quote a few lines of the poem including one of the mentions. Eliot's use of Julian's saying is discussed by Barbara Newman; she notes that it serves "as a refrain, much as it does in Julian's own Revelations of Love", that it was a "very late addition" to the poem, and that Eliot corrects Julian (as he saw the matter) by adding "By the purification of the motive" before Julian's line "[In] the ground of thy beseeching", as he disagreed with her theology. Perhaps something of all this deserves saying, though the detail probably belongs in the article on the poem.

All done (I've put some of the Newman details in a note). Amitchell125 (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Super.

That's all from me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Chiswick Chap, all now addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy to Support. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

A Canterlot Wedding

Nominator(s): Pamzeis (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is about... a wedding in Canterlot. Well, kind of. A My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic episode, "A Canterlot Wedding" follows Twilight Sparkle, who learns her brother will be marrying her old "foalsitter" Princess Cadance. She gets suspicious of this pink pony princess who isn't as perfect as she remembered and decries her evilness to everyone. And... everyone abandons her; she's left with Cadance who comforts her and then tells her "you will be [sorry]" and uses green magic to... banish her. So, yeah. That's what happens in part one. This article passed a GA review by Parcly Taxel in May 2012, less than a month after it was created and the episodes aired. FAC was brought up a few days later but was dismissed due to a lack of coverage about development and review coverage. Since then, this production and critical reception have been expanded and a themes section has been added. With three full(ish) reviews, these episodes have the most coverage from critics. All constructive feedback is welcome. Thanks! Pamzeis (talk) 06:43, 12 November 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.
• 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.
• 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)

Pomona College

Nominator(s): {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a liberal arts college in California, one of the four level-5 VA liberal arts colleges.

I have been working intently on it for the past year or so, hoping to create a new model article for WikiProject Higher education, which has seen a devastating trend: of its 15 FAs on extant institutions in September 2020, all but 4 have now been delisted after failed FARs, and most of the remainder are in poor shape.

I am grateful to have already received substantial feedback on this article in three prior venues: a thorough GAN, the previous FAC, and most recently an extensive peer review and source spot check. It includes some novel elements, like an interactive campus map (the first of its kind for a college, I believe) and 360° interactive panoramas accompanying some photos. I hope you enjoy reading it and look forward to addressing your comments! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• This article includes a large number of images, which is causing some layout problems

  I've focused on ensuring that there are no layout problems on New Vector, as that's what will be in widespread use shortly. If you have any particular concerns, please let me know. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  Skin isn't the only thing impacting layout - also screen size. On my (average-sized laptop) screen there is extensive sandwiching, particularly in the Campus and Student life sections, as well as headings getting shifted right. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  You're correct that screen size has traditionally been a main determinant of sandwiching—with the old skins, on a big enough screen, any article with any images on the left will have sandwiching. But New Vector limits content to a maximum of 960px. When it is deployed soon as the default mode, it will be the experience for 99% of desktop readers, so that's what I'm designing around. Let me know if it's different for you, but when I read the article with New Vector, the only place where sandwiching concerns might arise is the athletics section.

  That section presents a tricky scenario, as it would be a significant loss to the article to remove either the table of athletics teams (a pretty standard element) or the sole photo of contemporary athletics, and it is not really possible to retain both without creating a minor sandwich. To alleviate that concern as much as possible, I ensured that both the table and the photo are thinner than average width, so the text is still as wide as it'd be with something like {{Multiple image}}. Ultimately, it boils down to whether minor sandwiching or the removal of useful content is the greater loss for readers, and my view is that the content loss would be more significant, making this an appropriate instance to invoke the note at MOS:IMAGES that occasional exceptions may apply. Do you find that rationale satisfactory enough? We can explore what to do if it's a dealbreaker, but I think it'd be a loss. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Given that there is a free logo, what is the justification for also including a non-free logo?

  Having both a seal image and a wordmark is built into {{Infobox university}}. The "free logo" in this case is just a wordmark that doesn't pass the threshold of originality. It would be insufficient to fulfill the seal's purpose of use as described at the file page, as it is the seal, not the quite generic and undistinctive wordmark, that is the primary visual identifier of the college. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  Suggest elaborating on this in the FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  Done here. Let me know if I should change anything further. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• File:Exterior_view_of_Pomona_College,_Claremont,_1907_(CHS-3857).jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:President_Roosevelt_speaks_at_Pomona_College,_1903.jpg, File:Men_protest_opening_of_Frary_Dining_Hall_to_women.jpg

  For the first one, I'm not aware of the initial publication date, but the current rights holder is USC, and per the description page they've released it into the public domain. For the second, it was published 9 May 1903 as can be seen here. For the third, it was published in the 1957 Metate, Pomona's yearbook, per here and my correspondence with the Pomona archivist (see here). I looked through the copyright renewal logs to confirm that the Metate copyright was not renewed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  For the first, if this is believed to be PD because of a release the tagging should be changed to reflect that. For the second and third, that information should be added to the image description. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  PD tag for first adjusted. Information added for second and third. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• File:Pomona1.jpg is tagged as lacking a description

  Description added. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• File:Johnson_spanish_music_1916_4.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  I added PD-US-expired. Did I do that right? My understanding is that both the sculpture and the photo need to be properly licensed. For the photo, that's pretty easy, as it's own work by Seauton. For the sculpture, it was created in 1916 and the artist died in 1927. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

1996–97 Gillingham F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Following on from four successful nominations and another which seems to be nearly over the line, here is another eventful season from the history of English association football club Gillingham. In this particular season, the "Gills" defeated a team from the top division of English football for the first time in nearly 90 years and had a player miss a match because he'd been shot!! Never a dull moment...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

TRM

• "the 1995–96 English football season, the" maybe pipe to "previous season"?
• "65th season playing" do we need that quick repeat of "season".
• "The most notable new signing" that's POV.
• "£235,000" could inflate since it was 25 years ago (*gulp*).
• "club, both as a ... the club's" repetitive.
• Bradford City is an A.F.C. as is Wrexham and Swansea City.
• "against Bristol City. New" overlinked.
• "and scored the" to score (to avoid the and ... and...)
• "scored two goals from penalty kicks against" perhaps tighten to "scored two penalty kicks"?
• "suffering a serious injury" what was the nature of this?
  • I don't know, I couldn't find a source that was that specific..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• "and Watford.[23] It " overlinked.
• "away to Burnley, who" ditto.
• "Due to the postponement of a number..." what caused the postponement, bad weather?
  • I guess so, but I don't have a specific source for that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• "to Crewe Alexandra, the" overlinked.
• "placed Watford, Butler" same.
• " Rotherham United and Bristol City.[28] " both of these too.
• "ended the month of March" no need for "the month of".
• "against AFC Bournemouth in identical" overlinked.
• "defeating Millwall, Walsall and Shrewsbury Town." all overlinked.
• Link Chapman consistently.
• "the 1996-97 FA Cup in" en-dash.
• "of the Third Division." overlinked.
• "due to the state of the frozen pitch" is "the state of" needed?
• "all unavailable" why?
• "the 1996-97 Football League Cup in " en-dash.
• "level opponents.[48] Gillingham's opponents" repetitive.
• "played Cardiff City of the" overlinked.
• Consider telling us when the pictures of the players were taken, Akinbiyi's looks like it was 12/13 years after this specific season.
• "the 1997–98 season mounting" perhaps "following season" instead.

That's it for the article, I'll take a look at sources at some point if that's useful. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man:, many thanks for your review. All actioned other than where noted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:44, 13 November 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

• 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.

• 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)

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)

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.

• "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.

• 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.

@Wehalt: 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)

No Panties

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 10:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is a hip hop song by American rapper Trina, featuring American singer Tweet, from Trina's second studio album Diamond Princess (2002). Despite its provocative title, the song is actually about keeping one's clothes on and not having sex with a man unless he has money. I initially worked on this article in 2020, as I'm interested in women in hip hop, and although I dislike this song, I decided to come back to it to improve it further. Any comments would be much appreciated. Aoba47 (talk) 10:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review from Heartfox–pass

Quality

• I don't know if a 15-year-old's review in the Home News Tribune would be considered a high-quality source

• That makes sense. I have removed the source. I was on the fence about it, but I was uncertain if it would qualify as it was published in a newspaper, but I agree that alone does not make it a high-quality source. Aoba47 (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• What makes The Rough Guide to Hip-Hop a high-quality source?

• I have removed it as it really did not provide that much information. I do not think the Timbaland comparisons are particularly helpful for readers since the writer does not delve deeply into it other than saying that it is there. Aoba47 (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• satisfied with other non-mainstream sources due to citing in books by reputable publishers, etc.

• Thank you for checking. Aoba47 (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• ABCNewsRadio should be ABC News Radio; currently it's linked to the Australian one.

• That is a very silly mistake on my part so apologies for that. Aoba47 (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• Shapiro 2005 Google Books displays no preview for me; not sure about relevance of link

• I had put in the link more for verifiability purposes, but I have since removed this source from the article per an above comment. Aoba47 (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• suggest adding via=Google Books for refs linking to those urls

• That makes sense to me. I have added them. Aoba47 (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• suggest adding hyphens to Hayes ISBN as they are available within the preview (Template:Cite book says they're optional but preferred)

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Steve Jones article you can get rid of the ProQuest formatting and just do page=D3 not D.03 or I.10 for Wehner

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Vanessa Jones article originally in The Boston Globe, but republished in the Sun-Sentinel. I'm not quite sure how to acknowledge this

• I ended up replacing this source with a different one to avoid any unnecessary confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Spotchecks

• "Slip-n-Slide and Atlantic released "No Panties" as the lead single from Diamond Princess on July 16, 2002." → everything supported by the sources cited
• "Trina and Elliot are close friends" → supported
• "who was one of Elliott's protégés" → supported
• "For the UK and Europe, the 12-single included the song's" → what on the media notes indicates it was issued in the UK and Europe?

• I will look into this further later tonight (or this weekend). It could be something to do with the catalog numbers, but I will do further research. Apologies for the delay on this. Aoba47 (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• For info, Discogs has listings for both the European vinyl and CD versions, but I don't know if that would be considered a reliable source.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I initially got this information from Discogs. I do not know either vinyls, although I did seriously consider buying one on eBay. From my research, the catalog number included on the vinyl does distinguish the area it was release. Discogs has a nice article on it here. Also, when I look up images of the UK/Europe vinyl, it includes information about how it is released "for the world outside of the United States" (their phrasing not mine), and this is absent on the US vinyl. Aoba47 (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• As there is no clear evidence that the vinyl was specifically released in the UK/Europe, it might be better to go with a more general phrase like "another vinyl with an alternative tracklist including the bonus track "Get It" was also released". I'm also a bit confused as to why the track listing section only lists vinyls but there were CD/digital downloads released? Heartfox (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I will post the CD and digital download track listings later today. I am somewhat hesitant about doing the digital download as it is just the song and nothing else, but I will still do it as it would be helpful to have the complete information. I will go with the more general phrasing that you have suggested for the different releases. Apologies for not being able to get to it until later. Aoba47 (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Heartfox: I believe that I have addressed this now. Thank you again for the review. Aoba47 (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "it was one of only two entries Trina had on the chart; the second was "Here We Go" in 2006" → supported
• "Retrospective articles have considered "No Panties" and its follow-up single "B R Right" the most commercially successful songs from Diamond Princess" → ok
• "Dave Meyers directed the music video for "No Panties" in Los Angeles" → ok
• "he Herald Sun's Cyclone Wehner described it as a "techno-hop romp" → supported
• ""No Panties" is a two-minute, 42-second hip hop song" → Billboard gave 2:43

• I have checked on Spotify and that platform also uses the 2:42 time. The 2:43 time seems to be the clean version so the Billboard review was likely using that one instead. Aoba47 (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Steve Jones for USA Today noted that Trina "uses booty as currency to accumulate power and pleasure" throughout Diamond Princess" → supported
• "The Scripps Howard News Service's Chuck Campbell viewed it as a "woman's manifesto" → supported
• "including AllMusic critic Rovi Staff" → AllMusic was owned by Rovi Corporation; Rovi Staff is not a real person

• Apologies for this. I actually had formatted this correctly in my first draft of the article, but I for whatever reason mistook Rovi Staff for a person later on in the process. I have revised it accordingly. Aoba47 (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Chuck Campbell believed she was the perfect choice for the song" → supported
• "In 2005, a writer for Spin jokingly included "No Panties" on a list of songs that "insist on giving way too much information"." → supported
• " While negatively reviewing Diamond Princess, Slant Magazine's Sal Cinquemani dismissed "No Panties" as not "even remotely as erotic" as "Oops (Oh My)"" → supported

Heartfox (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Heartfox: Thank you for your review! I greatly appreciate your help. I have addressed everything, but one point. I will do further research on how releases in UK/Europe are distinguished from the US ones. I am currently on a small vacation in DC, so it will take me a little longer than normal. Apologies for that. I will still do my best to look into it further. I hope you are having a great end to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I have responded to the vinyl point as it was easier to find out than I had anticipated. Aoba47 (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I would say this is a pass for the source review. I hope you are having a great vacation and best of luck with the rest of the nom! Heartfox (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you! I greatly appreciate your help. Aoba47 (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• @Heartfox: Sorry for the ping. Just wanted to let you know I added the digital download track list to the track listings section. Apologies for forgetting to do this earlier. Aoba47 (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments on stuff other than sources

• "by American rapper Trina, featuring American singer Tweet, from her second studio album" - not 100% clear who "her" refers to here

• Good point since it could easily be misread as Tweet's album. Revised in the article and on here. Aoba47 (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "stated that explicit, hip hop tracks, such" - don't think those commas need to be there.....

• Agreed. Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "the most "most salacious and sexually explicit" songs" - most most? :-)

• I guess I thought it was the most of the most lol. Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Think that's it - great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for your review! I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if there is anything else I can do to further improve the article. I hope you have a great day! Aoba47 (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Pseud 14

• "Missy Elliott contributed to two songs" --> contributed two songs

• I can understand your suggestion, but I am somewhat uncertain. Elliott worked on the two songs with other people (like with this one she worked with a producer), and I would be concerned that "contributed two songs" could be read that she gave the songs to Trina after doing all the work on it separately or by herself. For my phrasing, I was just trying to convey that she was a part of two different songs from the album, although they were both in different ways. Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• "including an AllMusic critic, Frank Pearn Jr. of The Morning Call, the Miami New Times's Ryan Pfeffer". --> and the Miami’s Times’s …

• Yikes, that was an embarrassing oversight on my part lol. I have revised this part. Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• ”While” appears to have been excessively used in the critical reception section (e.g. ”While referencing”, “While reviewing”, “While negatively reviewing”, “While writing”), perhaps reword the others to avoid being redundant

• That's a great point. I have revised the section, but please let me know if further revision would be beneficial. Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Alternately refer to “No Panties” as “the song” or “the single” in the music/lyrics and reception sections, as it seems to be heavily repeated.

• Good point. I have revised this to address your point. Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• That's all I have. Great work as usual! Pseud 14 (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Pseud 14: Thank you for the kind words and for the review. I have addressed everything, except for one point, but I have left a comment about my concerns about it. Please let me know if there's anything I could do to further improve the article. Have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 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)

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)

Beowulf and Middle-earth

Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is about J. R. R. Tolkien's use of the Old English poem Beowulf in his Middle-earth fantasy writings, especially his 1954–55 work The Lord of the Rings. Like the Beowulf poet, Tolkien was a Christian looking back at a distant pagan past; and he hoped to echo the poem's symbolism that managed never to be a mere allegory. The article was generously reviewed by Amitchell125 and I hope that FAC reviewers will similarly find it worthwhile. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
  • Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• File:Rolfs_sidste_kamp_-_Louis_Moe_(17009)_-_cropped.png needs copyright tag for the original work - under US law reproduction of a 2D work does not garner a new copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Added PD-old on Commons, Louis Moe died in 1945. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    • This will also need a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Added PD-1923 on Commons (published 1898), happy to be advised if other licenses are more appropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hurricane Noah

• J. R. R. Tolkien, a fantasy author and professional philologist, drew on the Old English poem Beowulf for multiple aspects of his Middle-earth legendarium: in terms of elements such as names, monsters, and the structure of society in a heroic age; in terms of style such as creating an impression of depth and adopting an elegiac tone; and in terms of its larger but hidden symbolism. Multiple issues with this.

• "In terms of" is used too many times.

• Edited.

• I would consider splitting this up into multiple sentences as it quite massive.

• Done.

• The names of races including ents, orcs, and elves, and placenames such as Orthanc and Meduseld, derive from Beowulf Should be a comma after races.

• Done.

• That symbolism, [...] , Tolkien worked to echo in The Lord of the Rings. This is a bit clunky.

• Rearranged.

• Beowulf also rid Heorot of Grendel's mother. Source?

• Added.

• The name "Beowulf" can indeed be read as "the Bees' Wolf", that is, "the Honey-Eater", in other words "the Bear", the man who is so strong that he snaps swords and tears off the arms of monsters with his enormous bear-like strength. This is clunky and likely should be split into two sentences.

• Split.

• Smaug enraged when Bilbo steals golden cup missing a verb.

• Fixed.

That should be it. Would you consider reviewing my article? Noah^Talk 01:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

All done. I'll take a look at it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Supporting now. Noah^Talk 12:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Looking now....(fascinating topic)

• Thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Lead looks a little choppy at 3 smallish paras...I might consolidate into two.....

• Done.

• werebear looks odd to me hyphenated....(but then again I've played D&D for over 40 years..)

• Unhyphenated it is.

• Beowulf was in the Tolkien scholar and fellow philologist Tom Shippey's words "the single work which influenced Tolkien most" - scans oddly when I read it - also, last segment can be reworded and dequoted.

• Done.

• Describe who Verlyn Flieger is

• Glossed.

• Among the many poems in The Lord of the Rings are some fine examples... - "fine" strikes me as POV...let words speak for themselves

• Removed.

• I'd probably put the The road of life segment at the bottom as a nice way to finish the article

• Moved it down there.

• Another large theme, in both.. - "large" strikes me as an odd usage...

• Removed.

An interesting read and in good shape. Am wondering whether the sections are a bit small and numerous - if any can be combined might be good for flow....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Merged two sections in the Rohan chapter. The others seem to work well, each corresponding to a subsidiary article for further information. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Okay...nothing else to complain about....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Good to hear! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado

I have a couple of questions:

• Trolls
  • 'Noting that Tolkien compares them to beasts as they "came striding up, roaring like beasts ... bellowing", she observes that they "remain wordless warriors, like Grendel", although they are sentient, with intelligence and a single language, unlike the varied tongues of Tolkien's orcs.' I didn't understand this at all, are they wordless or do they have a single language?
    • Clarified. In The Lord of the Rings they never speak; in The Hobbit they use the common speech (represented as English). Tolkien regretted that early decision, as having language implied to him that they had souls and were not simply monstrous beasts. He never fully resolved the matter, which is discussed further in Troll (Middle-earth)#Speech, sentience, and souls. It's probably off-topic for this article.

      Thanks for the detailed reply (I've corrected the troll link above). The article is now clear in referring to The Return of the King and I agree that details of how the concept evolved are off-topic here. The further information link to Troll (Middle-earth) is there for the interested reader to follow. I may have a detailed look at that article one quiet evening... --M

• Elegaic tone
  • "The Lord of the Rings, especially its last two books in The Return of the King": two books? one book?
    • The Lord of the Rings is in 6 books, which are printed in either 1 or 3 volumes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
      • There is no other mention in this article of the separation into six books, so this is a bit confusing even if correct. Perhaps change to: "The Lord of the Rings, especially in its last part The Return of the King", this provides all the information without any distraction about different presentations. --Mirokado (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Indeed. Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

--Mirokado (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Support: thanks for the quick response! A well-written, well-sourced article. --Mirokado (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Bad Times at the El Royale

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

In 2018, 20th Century Fox released Drew Goddard's Bad Times at the El Royale, a thriller set in the 1960s. The film features an ensemble cast including Jeff Bridges, Cynthia Erivo, Dakota Johnson, Jon Hamm, and Chris Hemsworth. It was praised by critics but bombed at the box office. I rewrote the article in 2020, adding over 100 references. It is a GA and has appeared on the main page through DYK. I believe it can become an FA. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Bad_Times_at_the_El_Royale_-_Hotel_Sets_and_Design_by_Martin_Whist.jpg is missing a fair-use tag and the purpose of use field in the FUR should be strengthened
• File:Bad_Times_at_the_El_Royale_-_Character_Posters.png: the fair-use rationale currently seems to be based on the image being used for identification purposes; that's not really what it's being used for here
• File:Kubrick_on_the_set_of_Barry_Lyndon_(1975_publicity_photo)_(cropped).jpg: the given tag says year is required for a "literary, musical, or dramatic work " - which this is not. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Done the first two. I am confused about the third image. The public domain tag says it could be in the public domain if "it is a printed literary, musical, or dramatic work that does not include the year." There are other reasons listed that would put it in the public domain, including: "Notice does not include the copyright symbol ©, the word "Copyright", or the abbreviation "Copr."" Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

If you look at the original, it does include the word "Copyright"; is there another of those reasons that you feel may apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I guess not. The image has been replaced. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Pamzeis

• 2018 American neo-noir thriller film written — WP:SOB?
• and slow pacing. It — "slow pacing" is WP:VOICE
• and Goddard Textiles, Goddard produced — repetition of Goddard
• Furthermore, Erivo would also go on — "furthermore", "also go on", seems kinda redundant
• chronological order, due to most of the story taking place in the same location, to improve — kinda awkward
• was working on The Greatest Showman in 2017. — if, according to TGS's article, filming began in 2016, wouldn't that be 2016 and 2017
• Working with "distinctive characters" he believed — comma after "characters"?
• respectively, on October 12, 2018. — remove respectively as redundant
• while a digital rerelease on → while a digital re-release on
• included two additional songs, "This Old Heart — I think a colon, instead of a comma, would work better in this case
• and "Hold On, I'm Comin'", performed → and "Hold On, I'm Comin'", performed (edit to see)
• Following its rerelease, the soundtrack → Following its re-release, the soundtrack
• know about the characters so far." — per MOS:LQ, move the full stop outside of the quotation mark
• high runtime, slow pacing — WP:VOICEy
• Wikilink weighted average
• average reviews." — move the full stop outside the quotation mark
• and slow pacing. Additionally — WP:VOICE
• gets too clever." — move the full stop outside the quotation mark
• Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works like Bad Times at the El Royale should be italicised in citations

That's what I got on a first pass (not a lot). Ping me once these are resolved! Pamzeis (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: All done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support – great work! BTW, I'd appreciate any comments here. Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

• I do not really see the benefit of File:Bad Times at the El Royale - Character Posters.png. When looking at it in the article, the individual posters are rather small, and I could not clearly make out the differences in appearance that are discussed in the caption. The eight character posters are also discussed in the prose. I am just uncertain about how useful this image really is in the article due to the size of each individual character poster.

This is my only comment for now, but I will read through the article again later in the week. I have made some minor edits, mostly involving linking. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Upon reading the article again, this is the only note that I have for my review. Once it is resolved, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: The image has been removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• I support the FAC for promotion. Great work with it! Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment from indopug

I haven't read the whole thing because I want to watch the film first, but the lead currently seems very bare bones and workmanlike, giving very little idea about what is unique about the film and its making. Much of the second paragraph is basically redundant to the infobox ("it was shot by X, scored by Y and edited by Z"). Just glancing through the Production section it's clear you can write a more substantive paragraph, going beyond dates and a role call. You can also add something from Themes (perhaps summarising it) to the first paragraph.

On the other hand, I feel there is some stuff you can trim. For e.g., "took place until April, in British Columbia, specifically mostly on a large studio set in Vancouver"? Also, what was well-received about the film is repeated twice ("its ensemble cast, soundtrack, and cinematography, ... story, cinematography, writing, and acting"). Is "Best Thriller Film at the 45th Saturn Awards" an accolade even worth mentioning? Lastly, I'm confused as to how "grossing $31.9 million against a $32 million budget" constitutes a bomb.—indopug (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Indopug: done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hamilcar's victory with Naravas

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Another obscure North African campaign involving the Carthaginians. This went through GAN a couple of months ago and I have worked on it a little since then. I believe that it is now up to FA standard. As with several similar submissions, scholarly discussion is limited enough that I believe that I have covered everything of note, but sufficient that I believe that there is enough to warrant an FAC. Feel free to disagree, on this or anything else. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Image review—pass indeed I think I've seen all these images before (t · c) buidhe 02:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• Autaritus or Autharitus?

Oops. The former. Standardised.

• "The rebels were finally defeated in 238 BC. " - the text is not so certain on this; which is correct?

Lead expanded to clarify.

• Be consistent in when you include publication location

Fixed.

• Eckstein ref is misformatted - this appears to be an encyclopedia entry

It is called an encyclopedia, but it isn't. It is a straight forward set of history volumes.

• Scullard: current title should be split across multiple parameters.

Done.

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria, I think that I have now sorted everything. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Iazyges

• Reviewed this at GAN, happy to support it for FAC. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Serial Numerus LIVCXXIX

A battle so obscure we don't know where it took place, excellent. Suggest this is raised far sooner than it is: at the moment, 1st para of fifth section and nothing in the lead. So perhaps Hamilcar's victory with Naravas was a battle that took place in 240 BC.... Although remember that per WP:AVOIDBOLD, there's no pressure on you to shoehorn the title into the lead if it reads uncomfortably. (Here's an example you won't find at all memorable!) For instance, you could remove the bolding and say something like In 240 BC a battle was fought at a now-unknown Tunisian location between.... Either way, however it's dealt with in the lead, suggest an etymology section before everything else, perhaps just transposing the explanation from where it is now to the top. By the way, welcome back to FAC! ——Serial 15:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

1937 Brazilian coup d'état

Nominator(s): FredModulars (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the 1937 coup which created a dictatorship in Brazil. I have created and worked on it for the past few months and believe it satisfies the featured article criteria.

It was recently copyedited by Twofingered Typist (talk · contribs) and received its GA review from Gabriel Yuji (talk · contribs) in September.FredModulars (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• File:MonroePalaceguarded1937.jpeg is tagged as lacking author info, and when was this first published? What is its status in the US? Ditto File:São_Paulo_flag_burned_in_1937.jpeg

I am unsure. I uploaded both as not knowing what license it should be under, and both were reviewed by the same two users as public domain.

Images uploaded locally should be public domain in the US (or claimed as fair use), so these will both need tagging for US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Both have been tagged for fair use in the US, public domain in Brazil, and the resolution for each has been reduced.

These will need a stronger FUR, and suggest using the generic fair-use tag rather than unique historic image.

Tags have been replaced. What do you mean by "stronger"?

Non-free content needs a fair-use rationale that justifies why each of the non-free criteria are met and why a non-free image is necessary for illustrating the article. At the moment the rationales presented do not adequately accomplish this. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Added rationales for why File:MonroePalaceguarded1937.jpeg is necessary.

• File:Revolução_de_1930_-_Bombeiros_na_Revolução.jpg: when was this first published? Ditto File:Intentona_Comunista_de_1935_-_Contingente_de_fuzileiros_navais_desembarcando_no_Catete_para_guarde_do_Palácio.jpg

Unsure, but the permissions for these two images should not come into question because they were uploaded from the National Archive. Also, since they take place in two historical events, File:Revolução_de_1930_-_Bombeiros_na_Revolução.jpg is in October 1930 and File:Intentona_Comunista_de_1935_-_Contingente_de_fuzileiros_navais_desembarcando_no_Catete_para_guarde_do_Palácio.jpg is in November 1935.

We do still need to ensure the tagging is correct, particularly with regards to US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

They are, though, I believe. Both photos have tags of the National Archive. FredModulars (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, why do you believe the tagging is correct if the publication date is unknown? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

There should be no question about it if it was uploaded from the National Archive. See the first licensing and summary for each image.

Is there a link to this work on the Archive website? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

All National Archive photos uploaded have identification in their summaries, so a link is not required.

If we're not able to verify from the Archive site what licensing information is provided there, then yes, there is a question. It would be unusual for a non-US site to identify the status of a non-US work in the US. This applies also to several other images throughout. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Both images were uploaded by the National Archive. They have identification in their summaries, licensing, and are said to be of the "Brazilian National Archives GLAMWiki Initiative". For US copyright purposes, the licensing on Commons is fulfilled by the file. It was first published in Brazil and not published in the U.S. within 30 days. Being that the Correio da Manhã (newspaper) shut down in 1974, it was first published before 1 March 1989. Fundo Correio da Manhã is also a part of the National Archives. Finally, it is a "cinematographic, phonographic, photographic and applied arts works completed before 20 June 1938" and/or a photographic work "not considered to be 'artistic creations' produced before 20 June 1998" from my understanding of the copyright law. Looking at the dates of the files (October 1930 and 25 November 1935, respectively), both are before 1938 and 1998. Therefore, both files are public domain in the US.

We know the images were created before 1938/1998, but you've indicated above you're not sure when they were published. It's very possible for archival materials to have never been published. This applies to other archival images as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I have indicated the publication was before 1989. Since they are part of the Fundo Correio da Manhã, they were published in that newspaper, and before 1989 since the paper shut down in 1974. See above.

Does the Archive specify that everything in that collection was published, as opposed to just part of that collection? The latter is more typical. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

They were published. If you want more proof, which I believe is unnecessary since the archive is of the newspaper's photos, after p. 130 in "Vargas of Brazil: A Political Biography" by John W.F. Dulles, File:Intentona_Comunista_de_1935_-_Contingente_de_fuzileiros_navais_desembarcando_no_Catete_para_guarde_do_Palácio.jpg appears, albeit in a worse condition. It is sourced from the Correio da Manhã, the newspaper itself. For the other image, see here. Page five of the newspaper, middle of the three bottom images.

• File:Miguel_Costa,_Góis_Monteiro_e_Getúlio_Vargas_-_1930.jpg: is there evidence to support that the uploader was the copyright holder and could therefore release the image under the given license? Ditto File:Plinio_Salgado_(cropped).png, File:Armandosallesdeoliveira_(cropped).jpg, File:Francisco_Campos.jpg

The first's permission in the table is "Fotografia com mais de 70 anos, domínio público." Being more than seventy years old, it is in the public domain (as should be most of these photos from my understanding of the law). There is no evidence for File:Plinio_Salgado_(cropped).png, File:Armandosallesdeoliveira_(cropped).jpg, or File:Francisco_Campos.jpg.

Being old does not automatically make something public domain; even if this is in the public domain due to age, the current tagging is incorrect and will need to be corrected. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Plinio_Salgado_(cropped).png has little information and has been replaced by Plínio Salgado, 1959.tif.

File:Armandosallesdeoliveira_(cropped).jpg was uploaded from Facebook and there is little more information. It has been replaced by File:Pintura Oficial de Armando de Sales.jpg.

What's the status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Someone has just added a license that seems right: The same as File:FranciscoCampos.jpeg.

The source link is dead - is there an alternative available to confirm those publication details? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

https://www.saopaulo.sp.gov.br/conhecasp/historia/galeria-governadores/. This should suffice.

File:Miguel_Costa,_Góis_Monteiro_e_Getúlio_Vargas_-_1930.jpg has been replaced by File:Getulio Vargas (1930).jpg.

When was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

1930.

Do you have a citation for this publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I got confused with the date it was made and the publication date. I have removed the image entirely.

File:Francisco_Campos.jpg has been replaced by File:FranciscoCampos.jpeg, a file I have uploaded from the Ministry of Justice.

Why is this believed to be PD in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Found on a government website. Campos died in 1969, so it was commissioned before 1983. With that, it satisfies all the requirements of the licensing.

That's for the Brazilian licensing - my question is with regards to the US licensing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I meant it satisfies all the requirements of the US licensing, sorry.

Okay, but again, the information you've listed is with regards to the Brazilian licensing, so why specifically do you believe it satisfies all the requirements of the US licensing? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Updated the license with one from Wikimedia, the same one for File:Revolução_de_1930_-_Bombeiros_na_Revolução.jpg. It "was first published in Brazil (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days)" and "it was first published before 1 March 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities" and it is a photographic work not considered to be an artistic creation. It was made before 20 June 1998 since Campos died in 1968. Removed the image entirely; can't find when it was first published.

• File:José_Américo_de_Almeida_no_Catete._(cropped).tif: why is this believed to be a government work? Ditto File:Deputado_José_Antônio_Flores_da_Cunha.tif, File:EstadoNovoaddress.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The first two were uploaded to Wikipedia by the National Archive of the Ministry of Justice. With that, they are in the public domain. The third is one that I was not sure of when I uploaded it, so it was put to discussion for deletion and it was marked as being government work.

It appears that the first two were uploaded by individual users, one of whom has had multiple images deleted for copyright concerns; what leads you to believe either is affiliated with the National Archive? For the third, do you have a link to the deletion discussion? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Of the first two, both are sourced from the National Archive. Their permissions are attributed to the National Archive. I believe the user you are talking about is Avrelianvs Magnvs. The image they uploaded is extracted from another image (that they did not upload) which, again, is affiliated with the National Archive. Here is a link to the third image's deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 June 25. It is the third image being discussed. FredModulars (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

That discussion does not determine that this is a government work; the file was deleted because it existed on Commons, but it does not seem that the underlying issue was addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I have reached out to the user who closed the discussion and uploaded the file to Wikimedia Commons to inquire on why they concluded it was a government photo. I am awaiting a reply.

@Nikkimaria: The user was confused with the copyright and the photo has been deleted from Commons. In the article, it has been replaced with File:EstadoNovoRadioAddress1937.jpeg, awaiting a size reduction. FredModulars (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

This should use the generic fair-use tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Done.

• File:Plano_Cohen_-_Correio_da_Manha.png needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Done. For the license, it meets the first two formalities as well as "an anonymous work or a work deemed to be anonymous, or a work by a collective person whose authors were not individually identified, published or disclosed before 20 June 1938."

I apologize for my delay. I will address the issues above soon. FredModulars (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I have responded to the image review.

@Nikkimaria: I believe your concerns have been addressed. FredModulars (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

• Will take this up. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Locations

• Fausto, Boris; Fausto, Sergio (2014) per WorldCat it looks like all editions were either published in São Paulo, Brazil (currently presented location) by the Universidade de São Paulo, or in New York and Cambridge by the Cambridge University Press (current publisher). Currently used ISBN gives New York and Cambridge by the Cambridge University Press. Whichever edition you used, standardize to that, and if it's São Paulo, Brazil by Universidade de São Paulo, you'll need to change the ISBN to whichever is used in the text.

Done.

• Dulles, John W.F. (1967) what is the year of the edition you used? The ISBN provided links to a 2012 edition; if you used the 2012 edition change the date to 2012, and insert an orig-year of 1967. If you used a 1967 copy, change the ISBN to whatever is used in the text.

Done.

• Pandolfi, Dulce Chaves (2004) add a |trans-title parameter of the English title.

Done.

• Skidmore, Thomas E. (2010) add identifier; a common ISBN for the 2010 edition is 9780195374551, but check your edition.

Done.

• Young, Jordan M. (1967) add an id from whichever you used; it will likely be an OCLC.

Done.

Notes (non-issues)

• For Hudson, Rex A. I fixed the template used; Country study has its own template, and cite web isn't really appropriate.
• Meade, Teresa A. (2010) Facts-on-file is not the greatest publisher but she has been published by university presses, so I won't object to inclusion.
• @FredModulars: That is all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Article passes source review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hurricane Noah

• Vargas had risen to power in 1930 with the backing of the military following a revolution which ended a decades-old oligarchy. Comma after military and it should be "that ended".

Done.

• Under a new constitution, Vargas became the constitutional president of Brazil. Probably should link the constitution in this sentence.

Unfortunately, there is no article on the constitution on the en Wikipedia. I linked it to the section on it in the article History of the Constitution of Brazil.

• With preparations beginning officially on 18 September 1937, senior military officers used the Cohen Plan [pt], a fraudulent document, to provoke the National Congress of Brazil into declaring a state of war. With few other options, Rio Grande do Sul's Governor Flores da Cunha [pt], who was opposed to Vargas, went into exile in mid-October 1937. Im not seeing the connection. Did the declaration of war grant Vargas additional powers that made him more of a threat to the governor? Something else?

Changed to "With preparations beginning officially on 18 September 1937, senior military officers used the Cohen Plan [pt], a fraudulent document, to provoke the National Congress of Brazil into declaring a state of war. After having his state's militia be incorporated into federal forces by a state of war commission in his state, Rio Grande do Sul Governor Flores da Cunha [pt], who was opposed to Vargas, went into exile in mid-October 1937. State governors of Bahia and Pernambuco were also attacked by commissions in their states." This should clarify that the state of war allowed the federal government to pursue more interventions in the states.

• Francisco Campos [pt] was drafting a new constitution. Why? Was this to give Vargas more power? Something else? Link the new constitution as well.

Clarified. Linked to a section in the History of the Constitution of Brazil.

• By November, the president held most of the power in the country and nothing stood in the way of the intricate plan from taking place Comma before the "and". The second part after the junction is a bit clunky.

Done. Changed "nothing stood in the way of" to "little stopped."

• In the coup's aftermath, a semi-fascist, authoritarian state was propped up in Brazil based on European fascist countries. Comma after Brazil.

Done.

• Foreign reaction was mostly negative. Wouldn't it be reactions and were?

I meant it as a general reaction to the coup, but that makes more sense.

• The First Brazilian Republic ended with the Revolution of 1930 You should elaborate a bit more in this overview sentence (a generalization of why it ended).

The paragraph explains the causes for the revolution. I believe it would be unnecessary and repetitive.

• By now, the military and figures such as military politician General Góis Monteiro [pt] supported Vargas. by now doesn't make much sense. I would say something like "At that time" or "At that point".

Done.

• The aftermath was harsh. Historians Boris and Sergio Fausto note, "it opened the way for far-reaching repressive measures and for an escalation of authoritarianism". Could these two be merged together? It likely is a with/ing kinda deal.

Added a semicolon.

• became a permanent organization lasting until 1945. Comma after organization.

Done.

• ending with the arrest of several assemblymen, supporters of the pro-National Liberation Alliance, a leftist front; No "and" in this list?

It's not a list, and this may be confusing. The assemblymen were the supporters of the ANL. The ANL was a leftist front. I have reworded the sentence: "who were supporters..."

• The 1934 constitution essentially existed only de jure. The states of emergency, police actions, and the anti-communist climate violated it. These could likely be combined.

Changed to "existed only de jure, as the states..."

• arose in its aftermath You should clarify which aftermath since you mention the coup and the revolt in the same sentence.

Changed to "arose in the aftermath of the communist insurrection."

• Vargas found support from all sides, and three constitutional amendments were passed by Congress to bolster Vargas's power --> "Vargas found support from all sides, with congress passing three constitutional amendments to bolster his power"

Done.

• Luís Carlos Prestes assumed responsibility for the movement after he was caught in March 1936, sentenced to seventeen years in prison by the TSN Change the comma to a semicolon and add "he was".

Done.

• Through late 1936 to early 1937 Through should be from since it is the starting time.

Done.

• supported Armando de Sales Oliveira ; Extra space here.

Fixed.

• Congress refused a request to prolong the state of war I assume a request to extend it even further?

Yes. Added "again."

• The military joined in the effort making a plethora of accusations against Cunha Comma after effort.

Done.

• Maciel Filho described the atmosphere in mid-September writing Comma after mid-September.

I believe this was written to convey the writing was of mid-September. Nevertheless, it makes no difference. Done.

This is all for now. I will do the rest of the article later. Noah^Talk 23:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• On 1 November there was a parade of the Integralist militia Comma after November.

Done.

• national plebiscite detailed in the new constitution was held Phrase from detailed through constitution should be offset by commas.

Done.

• those in Rio Grande do Sul, São Paulo,[e] Rio de Janeiro, Bahia, and Pernambuco's intervenors were replaced. This is a bit clunky.

Changed to "Most appointees had succeeded themselves. Intervenors in Rio Grande do Sul, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Bahia, and Pernambuco, however, were replaced."

• Instead, he presented a new program of activity, with new roads and railways into the Brazilian hinterland and implementing "a great steelworks" that could use local minerals and offer employment. verb tenses don't match throughout the sentence.

Changed to "Instead, he presented a new program of activity, including new roads and railways into the Brazilian hinterland and the implementation of "a great steelworks" that was to provide local minerals and offer employment."

• Civil rights were curtailed and individual liberties were nominal. The proposed Congress never met. Could these be combined?

Changed to a series.

• Vargas's term was lengthened by six years, and he could now run for re-election --> "making him eligible to run for re-election" has a better flow.

The lengthening of his term does not imply he was allowed re-election. Reworded to ", and he was now eligible to run for re-election."

• Political parties were outlawed on 2 December 1937. However, Vargas saw no reason to build support using a political party or an ideological program. Im not seeing a contrast?

This was supposed to contrast with the idea of the entire paragraph. The section implies Vargas had unlimited power and leaves the reader thinking he was totalitarian or fascist, which is only partially true (and completely false by the end of the Estado Novo) and contrasts with historians' view of him. Since these encompass two different ideas, I have separated them into two paragraphs.

• During this new period, Vargas ruled as dictator; his term ended on 29 October 1945. Why did it end?

I originally wanted to exclude this because it is drifting a bit too far from the direct aftermath of the coup. Added a paragraph at the end of A new regime to summarize how he lost, regained, and again lost power. After Vargas dies the political scene slowly shifts away from him and his crew and his memory is slowly forgotten, so that is enough. Many things are details (e.g. "a political crisis") because explaining them would drift too far away from the idea of the article.

• United States ambassador to Brazil Jefferson Caffery Ambassador should be capitalized in this case.

Done.

• Sources are out of order in multiple locations.

Fixed.

• Portuguese is a duplicate link in the lead.

Fixed.

• Hora do Brasil is a duplicate link.

Fixed.

That should be it. Would you consider reviewing my article? Noah^Talk 01:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: Addressed all issues presented. Thanks for the review, I'll check out your candidate. FredModulars (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• I believe everything has been addressed appropriately so I am now supporting. Noah^Talk 03:23, 11 November 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": [1]. 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 [2]
   

   • 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[3], and too much code.[4]

--- 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 ¶¶).

Comments from DePiep

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 DePeip. 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 [5], 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 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)

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 [6]: "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)

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)

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)

Comment 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)

Pending. 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)

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: 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 [7]- 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 Sandbh

Courtesy 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)

Courtesy 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)

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)

A Beautiful Crime

Nominator(s): DanCherek (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a 2020 novel in which a young couple travels to Venice to sell an inherited collection of forged antiques to an unsuspecting collector... what could possibly go wrong? The article has been taken through peer review and most recently a GOCE copyedit. Thanks in advance for any comments and feedback; I'll do my best to address them. DanCherek (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

• I do not think it is necessary to name The Destroyers unless that book is somehow more closely tied to this one. If it was just the last book he wrote prior to this one, then I do not think this information is notable or informative enough for inclusion here.

  Agree, I've removed it from the lead. DanCherek (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• This may be a silly question so apologies in advance. For this part, which is set in modern-day Venice, would "modern-day" be appropriate? I am curious as this will change depending on when the reader approaches the article as "modern-day Venice" may be dramatically different in 20 years for instance. However, this is likely already clear from context, specifically the book's publication year, but I still wanted to get your opinion on this one.

  That's a great point that I didn't consider. I've removed "modern-day" as you suggested, per the spirit of MOS:CURRENT.

  Thank you for addressing this point. Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• I think a link for depopulation in the lead would be beneficial.

  Link added. DanCherek (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• I would include the year that The Talented Mr. Ripley was published to the lead.

  Added. DanCherek (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• This is probably obvious so apologies in advance, but what happens to Richard after he is exposed as the anonymous investor?

  Not obvious at all, thanks for asking! He remains mute; public sentiment turns against him and his home is vandalized, and his wife transfers him to a neurologic clinic in Leipzig. I've added his transfer to Leipzig to the article to wrap up his part of the plot. DanCherek (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for adding this part in as it does clear this up for me. Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• This is another clarification question, but do we know anything further about Freddy van der Haar's more prominent role in the first draft?

  Unfortunately, not really—it's based on this source which doesn't really answer that question—but I've added a few words about his character representing an older generation of gay New Yorkers. DanCherek (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  That is understandable. The bit about the older generation of gay New Yorkers adds a lot more context by itself. It is understandable that further details from a first draft would not be publicly discussed so this part looks very good to me now. Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• For the Patricia Highsmith photo, I would clarify in the caption when it was taken to provide a clearer context for readers. I am also curious on why this photo was selected rather than one like File:Patricia-Highsmith-1962.jpg which was taken closer to the time that The Talented Mr. Ripley was published. I do not a preference either way. I was just curious about it.

  Honestly, I'm not very good with image licensing and I wasn't sure whether File:Patricia-Highsmith-1962.jpg was actually freely licensed because I didn't know how to confirm that it was published without a copyright notice. The source link is live but it's just a link to the image itself without any context, and the uploader's talk page has some copyright concerns, so I went for the VRT-confirmed File:Highsmith on After Dark.JPG. (Besides license questions, I don't have any objections to the 1960s photo.) In the meantime, I've added "(pictured in 1988)" to the caption. DanCherek (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for adding the year to the caption. If I am being honest, I am the worst with images. That is really my biggest blind spot on Wikipedia. I can understand your concern, and I think that is valid. The current image should be fine, and I would honestly give more weight to whomever does the image review as they will likely be more well-informed on image policy than myself. Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful. It is always great to see a book article in the FAC space. Once all of my comments have been addressed, I will re-read the article to make sure I did not miss anything. I hope you are having a great weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for taking the time to leave these comments, very much appreciated along with your copyedits. I'll be happy to address any additional concerns, questions, or clarifications. Enjoy the rest of your weekend! DanCherek (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I have done one more edit to add a link to the racism in the LGBT community article as I think that could be helpful for readers, but feel free to remove it if you feel it is unnecessary. I am just glad that I can help. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The link looks great. Thank you! DanCherek (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Urve

I watched this article's good article nomination and its peer review. There have been changes since then, but none that are troubling to me. My view is that comprehensiveness is only able to be judged in reference to what sources exist, but not what sources could exist. There are many details here that, in a perfect world, would have further elaboration - but since those questions are not answerable by sources in either the nominator's searches or my own, I believe this article to be comprehensive. The prose is of an excellent quality. That's all to say, I support promotion.

I continue to think that you should read Garth Greenwell's What Belongs to You (currently a redirect - maybe a future project, should our paths cross again). Urve (talk) 07:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments during peer review and here. And yes, it's next on my to-read list and I'm very excited to get to it! DanCherek (talk) 12:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The Boat Race 2021

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about canoes up the Thames. No, actually, not this time. With COVID still in full swing, a very RARE thing happened, the BR was moved to a different river altogether and was contested behind closed doors. For us oficianados, it wasn't quite the same thing, a pretty much straight race without the infuriating aspects of rowing on the Thames, but it was a race nevertheless, and naturally the best team(s) won. I'll happily address any constructive comments raised here, thanks in advance for your time and energy. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Support Reviewed this article at GA. Looks good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• One image, a map. Licensed okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  And it was made especially for this article too, with enduring thanks to Amitchell125. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  @The Rambling Man: Ordnance Survey maps are subject to copyright --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  Guerillero please take the issue up with the creator of the map, as noted above Amitchell125. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Guerillero, I'm pretty sure we're OK—see here. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Amitchell125: Awesome. I did some tinkering to deal with OGL. Let me know if you disagree -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

No problem, whatever floats your boat... Amitchell125 (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Lee Vilenski

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

Lede

• You've probably had this asked before, but when you say "the 2021 race", should this not be plural, as there were two races? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  I've addressed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Looks like there were four races. Can the lede not comment on the reserves a bit more? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Honestly? Not really. This year's races, held on a practically straight river, were wholly uneventful (other than the fact they weren't held on the Thames of course), so there' nothing much else to say at all I'm afraid, unless you think I'm missing something specific? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Prose

• the previous occasion was an unofficial wartime staging of the event, which Oxford's men won by three-quarters of a length. - could we get the year this is? I'm assuming this is second world war stuff, but a year would make that a bit more obvious. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Ok. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• It says 1944 later, which could probably be moved a touch up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Ok. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Only the main men's and women's races were scheduled to take place on the same day, with the women's race around 3:50 p.m. and the men's an hour later. As of March 2021, the reserves races were yet to be scheduled. - unless I've missed it, we haven't commented on the date of the race in the prose yet. - also, the lede comments about the reserves, perhaps the last sentence needs an update. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Link YouTube? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Linked. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski thanks for your comments, sorry it's taken a while to get to them, but I think I got 'em all. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisTheDude

• Echoing a comment above, it seems odd to refer to it as a race (singular) when the article covers four separate races. Even if you disregard the reserves, is it really right to say "The Boat Race 2021 was a side-by-side rowing race that took place on 4 April 2021." when two different races occurred on that day?

  Addressed above. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• The lead says it took place near Ely, but then the background section says it took place literally in Ely. Which is accurate?

  Near. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• The Adelaide in Adelaide Bridge is linked in the body but not in the lead. Better to be consistent I would have thought.....?

  Added. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• "As of March 2021, the reserves races were yet to be scheduled" - this doesn't match the rest of the article

  Addressed above. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Alex Bebb is the Oxford University Boat Club (OUBC) president" - is there a way to reword this now so that it doesn't need updating when Alex inevitably stops holding this position?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Think that's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude sorry for the delay, I think I got to all your comments eventually! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Just a thought, but "The Boat Race 2021 were two side-by-side rowing races" does read a little oddly, but "The Boat Race 2021 was a side-by-side rowing race" isn't technically accurate. How about "The Boat Race 2021 was an event comprising two side-by-side rowing races"....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks, done that, of course next up someone will say "yeeaaah, but wasn't it four races....?" The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

SS Choctaw

Nominator(s): GreatLakesShips (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the Great Lakes freighter SS Choctaw. I brought the article to GA status in December 2020. Ever since then, it has been copy edited by Baffle gab1978 and has undergone and a peer review. The original review was closed to a lack of input. GreatLakesShips (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: Should this be added to the urgents list? It already failed the first time due to lack of reviewers and now the second nom is two weeks in with just an IR and my review. Noah^Talk 13:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Your infobox is really long, leading it to collide with the cross section image. Consider removing the second part of the infobox (NRHP listing) or moving it to the section of the article dealing with the wreck.
• File:Wahcondah.jpg—how do you know the publication date?
• File:Choctaw after the collision with L.C. Waldo.jpg File:Semi-whaleback cross section.jpg—what is the publication date? (t · c) buidhe 03:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I don't know the exact publication of the Wahcondah image, however, it is know that the publishing company went out of business in about 1920. I have added the exact publication date on the other two images. GreatLakesShips (talk) 08:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, the licensing looks fine. (t · c) buidhe 09:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I have moved the infobox to the wreck section. GreatLakesShips (talk) 09:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Hurricane Noah

• Consider adding {{snd}} between the year ranges in the infobox for operators instead of the –.
• On her regular route between Detroit, Escanaba, Marquette, Michigan and Cleveland, Ohio, she carried iron ore downbound, and coal upbound. It isn't inherently clear that that the first two are also in Michigan. Personally speaking, I had no clue where Escanaba was.
• Link Lake Huron in the lead.
• Multiple duplicate links in the lead and body.
• East of Presque Isle Light the freighter was rammed by the downbound Canadian canaller Wahcondah I believe a comma is needed after Presque Isle Light.
• She was discovered resting in about 300 feet (91 m) of water, Should it be resting under? Also, I would abbreviate feet to ft.
• shipyards around the lakes began construction iron ships on a relatively large scale Missing a couple of words here.
• As the railways were unable to keep up with the rapid production of iron ore, [...] , was transported by bulk freighters. Missing a noun/pronoun on the second half.
• The quantity of iron ore mined from Am I mistaken or is ore measured by volume rather than quantity?
• Her hull was 266.9 feet (81.4 m) in length with a 38.1-foot (11.6 m) beam,[13] and had a 17.9-foot-deep (5.5 m) hold and water bottom. Feet and foot can be abbreviated.

• 16-foot (4.9 m) draught same here... check for others.

• Her regular route was between Detroit, Escanaba, Marquette, Michigan and Cleveland, Ohio. Same thing as the comment about this in the lead.
• Choctaw was travelling on Lake St. Clair when one of cylinder heads exploded, Missing a word.
• I suggest incorporating dates into the middle of sentences rather than having them all listed out front as it makes the prose flow choppy.
• Link Pointe aux Pins
• after being lifted by heavy seas I would use a word other than seas since this is a lake.
• Choctaw, under the command of Captain Charles A. Fox, was upbound from Cleveland, Ohio, with a cargo of coal and was bound for Marquette, Michigan This sentence seems a bit clunky.
• For the times you are mentioning (midnight, 5:30 a.m), which timezone is being referenced?
• five–six miles (8.0–9.7 km) Abbreviate miles. Check for others.
• alleging that she was travelling at an excessive for the condition Missing a word.
• hi-definition --> high definition.
• The remains of Choctaw rest in about 300 feet (91 m) of cold, fresh water Probably should be "under" instead of about.

That should be it. Would you consider reviewing my article? Noah^Talk 03:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: Thank you for the suggestions. GreatLakesShips (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@GreatLakesShips: No problem. Quite frankly I am appalled that nobody commented on this sooner. I have experienced the same fate as you did for one of my FACs. I had no substantial reviews and it was archived. Hopefully, we can get some more people here so this can get going. Noah^Talk 15:54, 11 November 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.
• 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)
  • 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)
  • 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).
  • 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)
• 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)

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)

Jr8825

I hope to give this a read through and provide some feedback. Jr8825 • Talk 14:17, 4 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)

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)

Older nominations

Billy Bates (baseball)

Nominator(s): Therapyisgood (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about... Billy Bates. Pinging @Hog Farm:, as they did a great pre-FAC review. I've expanded this over the past few days, and hopefully this meets FA criteria. Expanded with new sourcing and information after a Newspapers.com search and roundup. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll wait to post a review to let some other editors look at this first, but I feel like my comments in the pre-FAC review and in the last FAC have been well-addressed. Hog Farm _Talk 02:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "William Derrick Bates was born on December 7, 1963, in Houston, Texas, to a paint foreman" - to my mind, being born "to" someone suggests that person was the mother. Presumably his mother wasn't a paint foreman?
  • The source doesn't say which parent was a paint foreman, so I've reworded in the article to just say "the son of a paint foreman". Therapyisgood (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• "He finished the season batting .296" - what does this mean?
  • It means he had a batting average of .296. I used "batting average" on first use now, clarified. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• "and drew a walk" - what does this mean?
  • Reworded. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• "As of 2018, Bates holds" - that was three years ago, so if a more up to date stat is not available, I would suggest changing it to "held"
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Bates; and LaVel Freeman" - think that semi-colon should be a comma or possibly not even there at all
  • Agree, cut. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• "stated Bates may make" => "stated that Bates might make"
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• "in a Zephyrs' victory" - no need for that apostrophe
  • Cut. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Image caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• "though Bates stated he played at shortstop and third base last year" => "though Bates stated that he had played at shortstop and third base the previous year"
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• "was placed on the DL" - what is the DL?
  • Explained. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• "an error that allowed Boggs to reach" - reach what?
  • Reach base, clarified. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• "and the Brewers won, 8–4" - don't think that comma is needed
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Bates came into the game as a pinch runner" - first mention in the body so should be linked
  • Linked. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• "with the Reds losing, 4–3" - don't think that comma is needed
  • Removed. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• "moved on to the World Series" - link World Series (probably the specific one)
  • Linked. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• "was not able take his spot" - word "to" is missing
  • Added. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• "He was a physical education major at the University of Texas" - in 1984?
  • Good catch. 1985. Added. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support - nice one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from GhostRiver

I will look at this when it is not 1:30 in the morning. — GhostRiver 05:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Stats don't need to be cited in the lead if they're mentioned with a citation in the body
  • They are not currently. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Removed reference and added later in section. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• MLB year template should be used in the infobox
  • Added. Therapyisgood (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Though defensively he played as a second baseman," >> "Though his defensive position was at second base,"
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• "4th round" >> "fourth round" per MOS:ORDINAL and MOS:NUMERAL
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• "and teams that he played for won multiple minor league titles." >> "helping several of his minor league teams win their respective league titles."
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• Name the second baseman who was injured in the lede
  • Named. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delink "pinch hit" in the lede, it's linked above
  • Pinch runner is linked above, not pinch hitter, I believe. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• No comma after "scored the winning run in Game 2"
  • Removed. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Minor League Baseball" should be capitalized as the name of a business, whereas "the minor leagues" would not be
  • Caps added. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• He presumably played for the Reds and Cubs organizations, as those are major league teams
  • Good catch. Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• "After retirement" >> "After his retirement" or "After retiring"
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• Link "scout" to Scout (sports)
  • Linked. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• "8th round" >> "eighth round" per above
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• If he enrolled in 1983, he wouldn't have played until 1984, as baseball is a spring sport at UT-Austin and he would have enrolled in the fall
  • Good catch, removed. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• To determine which team would represent the Central Regional in the College World Series (CWS), the Longhorns played against the Mississippi State Bulldogs; the Longhorns defeated the Bulldogs and advanced to the World Series. Redundant sentence
  • Reworked. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• "the Longhorns never lost" >> "the Longhorns remained undefeated"
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• "and, in the 1984 College World Series, lost in the finale to the Cal State Fullerton Titans 3–1." >> "and lost 3–1 to the Cal State Fullerton Titans in the final game of the 1984 CWS."
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• Link "Division I" to NCAA Division I
  • Linked. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• The quote with "if you just put the stats on" should have the period inside of it, per MOS:LQ
  • Moved. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• Link 1985 MLB Draft in the body
  • Linked. Therapyisgood (talk)
• Switch the order of clauses so it's "Although they had 7 pitchers, there were only two position players"
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• Excise the parentheticals, as you have the WL for "position players" and it can be inferred that means "non-pitchers"
  • Removed. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• Instead of parentheses around "Bates and LaVel Freeman", add a colon after "position players"
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• "The eight home runs that Bates hit and his 75 runs batted in (RBI)" >> "Bates' eight home runs and 75 runs batted in (RBI)"
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delink "home run" in the "Rise to the majors" section
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• "for most steals in a single postseason game, with three." >> "with three stolen bases in a single postseason game."
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• I don't know why the "MLB debut" section is not called "Milwaukee Brewers"
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• ""[was] expected to join [the MLB team] by game time [August 16]"" goes beyond MOS:PMC and can be paraphrased
  • Done. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• Link "start" in "first career start" to Games started
  • Linked. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• "and final" doesn't need to be in parentheses
  • OK, changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• Link "hit by a pitch" to Hit by pitch
  • Linked. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• the Sounds defeated the Buffalo Bisons when Chris Jones hit a double that scored Bates as the game ended after 18 innings. Too much going on in this clause
  • Reworked. 22:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• Add (NL) after "National League" in "National League West"; that way, you can say "1990 NL Championship Series"
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• "In Game 1, manager Lou Piniella put Bates in the game as a pinch runner for Ron Oester on first base in the bottom of the ninth inning with the Reds losing 4–3." >> "In Game 1, with the Reds down 4–3 in the bottom of the ninth inning, manager Lou Piniella put Bates in the game as a pinch runner for Ron Oester on first base."
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comma after "When the strike ended"
  • Added. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Career stats should be in the "Later career" section, after his reitrement is mentioned
  • Added. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Link "baseball at the Olympic games" to Baseball at the 1984 Summer Olympics
  • Linked. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• The part about being taunted for his height would make more sense if it were connected in the text to the fact that he was only 5'7"
  • It's directly above. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

That's what I have. — GhostRiver 17:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski

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

Lede

• Surely he is a retired professional baseball player who played in the MLB, rather than just a former MLB player? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Reworked opening sentence. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• I feel the lede needs to cover a bit more about how he lost his place in the Reds after he won the playoff game. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Tried to rework to emphasize he was signed to a one-year contract with the Reds. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Prose

• The son of a paint foreman, Bates - just say "he" as all of his siblings are also Bates. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• "several smaller schools" - who said this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Clarified. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• $102,000 or $103,000 in 2020, Huh? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Corresponds to the inflation rate for 2020 for the contract offered to Bates by the Phillies. I used Template:Inflation to generate those numbers, and they're sourced to the footnote. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• What's with the external images? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Just a way to get an image of the guy. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• It's All-American, not All American. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• TL, you use this acronym once in the article, can you not just say "in the league"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• There's so many acronyms in this article - did we need one for Disabled List? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Cut. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• bottom of the tenth - tenth innings. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • "Bottom of the tenth inning" is proper American English, it's "inning", not "innings". Maybe an EngVar thing. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• I feel like the article is missing stats or something, other than just the career and personal life sections.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • What do you mean? Therapyisgood (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: and @GhostRiver: comments responded to. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:41, 1 November 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)

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)

Comments 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

• 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

• 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)

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

• 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

• "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)

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)

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)

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)

Laborintus II (album)

Nominator(s): 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Another attempt for this particular article after the last nomination was declined on prose grounds. It has undergone further copy-editing since and as always I'm happy to respond to constructive criticism as to any improvements. Bit a strange one, it's only the third recorded version of an Italian composition, recorded by a Dutch choir, a Belgian orchestra, and an American ... vocalist(?), but I feel it's worth a listen. Thanks in advance to anyone giving this one a look. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from ChrisTheDude

• "the Belgian orchestra Ictus Ensemble, the vocal group Nederlands Kamerkoor and the American vocalist Mike Patton" - personally, I would put a comma after Kamerkoor

  Done.

• "debuted at number 23 on the American Billboard Classic Albums chart" - it's the Classical Albums chart, not Classic

  Changed at both mentions--was this renamed or have I been staring at this one for years?

  Can't say for certain but I would imagine it's always been called that. Classical Albums (recordings of Mozart, Beethoven, etc) are very different from Classic Albums (Dark Side of the Moon, Sergeant Pepper, etc) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Is there an appropriate wikilink for "usury"? It's not the most common word and some people may not know what it means

  Yes, linked.

• Refs at the end of the first para of Composition are not in the right order

  Rearranged.

• "spent one week on the Billboard Classic Albums chart at number 23" - same comment as above
• "the musician has previously produced similarly avant-garde records in the past" - I would change "has" to "had", and also, you don't need both "previously" and "in the past", as obviously anything that happened previously happened in the past

  Changed.

• What's the source for the personnel section?

  Initially the album notes, which I don't have to hand currently, but I can add a source to AllMusic. Have added as a brief line but can refactor it another way if preferred.

• First note is a sentence fragment so doesn't need a full stop

  I'm not sure about this--the Dutch is a complete sentence ("the libretto can be read as an indictment against the practice of loan-sharks"), does a full sentence quoted in what would otherwise be a fragment count?

  I would personally say the whole thing is still a sentence fragment...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  No worries, removed.

• Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for having a look at this, I hope these changes address everything, although I have one query above. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

• This is more of a clarification question than a suggestion. Was there any coverage on Berio using a blow-up doll during his performance? I fully admit that I'm not familiar with this genre of music at all, but this part seemed particularly strange and I was curious if this received any attention.
• This is a nitpick, but for this part, being a recording of theatrical music—described the recording as, I would avoid repeating "recording" in such close proximity.

For full disclosure, I participated in the last FAC for this article and supported it for promotion at that time. I honestly cannot believe it has been over a year since that FAC. I have two quick comments right now, and I will read through the article again tomorrow. I do not anticipate finding anything further, but I want to make sure I thoroughly read everything a few times. Aoba47 (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for having another look at this. I've amended the sentence in question by changing the second "recording" to "album". As to the former point, I've had no joy in finding anything further, I've even used my limited dutch to try looking through dutch sources for the Holland Festival to no avail, but it's possible I'm missing something a native might find. It's a curious note so I'd love to be able to expand it more too but I've exhausted what I can find. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response! It could just be a case where it was not discussed in sources or was overshadowed by other elements on the performance. Thank you for looking though! I will look through the article again later today. Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I could not find any further issues with the article. I support this FAC based on the prose. Best of luck with everything! Aoba47 (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review as a very non-expert prose and MoS reviewer.

• "the American Billboard Classical Albums chart." If "Classical Albums" have upper case initial letters, why not "chart"?
  • I hadn't been using it as a proper noun (...the "Classical Albums" chart, essentially) but checking back with the source they include the word in the title of it too so I've capitalised it on both uses.
• "and contains lyrics from Edoardo Sanguineti's 1956 poem "Laborintus". Were these lyrics in Berio's original? If so, "and" → 'which'.
  • They were, amended.
• Could we be told what the abstract image at the top of the infobox is?
  • There's nothing in an of the sources to indicate what it's meant to represent, or do you mean you'd like a caption identifying it as the album's cover?

Yep. Otherwise it comes across as a piece of random decoration.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for having a look, happy to address anything else which comes up. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 22:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• "The libretto was provided by Edoardo Sanguineti". Could we have an in line explanation of "libretto", per MOS:FORCELINK.
• "sometimes evoking the style of Italian composer Claudio Monteverdi." It may be worth pointing out that he was not a contemporary of Berio.
• Would the quote in "Production", starting "Patton said, regarding the album ..." not fit better in "Composition"?
• "the overall effect is one of "dramatic tension"". If you are going to quote, note the MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original. Check for other instances and either paraphrase or attribute.
• "In the United States, the album debuted". Does "the album debuted" tell a reader anything?
• Lead: "It received mixed reviews from critics"; Body: "The album was not well received by critics"?
• "Consequence of Sound's called it". Why is the " 's" there?

Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• Direct quotes in the lead should be cited, even if repeated later
  • Added.
• "Allmusic. AllMusic." is redundant, and generally formatting for this site is inconsistent
  • Combed through these to standardise them; for now I've used the website parameter to list AllMusic but it italicises the title, I can move this to another field if this is not ideal.
    • That's fine, but there's still a mix of "Allmusic" and "AllMusic". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I believe I've caught the last straggler now.
• FN6: why not use the direct source for the quote? Ditto FN16
  • For 6, I don't have access to the original source as it's paywalled, additionally the second-hand report translates it rather than me having to provide a translation. I can try to cite it directly if this is preferable though, but in that case would I be best translating the quote differently to avoid closely paraphrasing the current source's take? For the second one, the former ref 16, I could replace this with a cite journal ref based on the original source but without tracking down a second-hand copy of the issue it would be missing a few details (reviewer name, volume number). Which would you consider preferable, the current situation or a slightly barebones ref to the paper source (or both together)?
    • In both cases, I would suggest clarifying per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT that these are secondary citations and the originals have not been consulted. I'm uncomfortable with the latter in particular because of the inline attribution and the possibility that the quote may be taken out of context. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
      • In the case of the former, I should be able to access the original fairly cheaply and so I'll replace that with a direct attribution to the original Dutch interview. In the latter case, I'm going to try digging a little more in case I can find the relevant information online, if not then there are a few listings for second-hand copies of this issue so it shouldn't be difficult to obtain one and quote it directly, although it may take a few days.
        • Okay, I've located and added the original Dutch source for this first quote. It's in Dutch throughout the interview--I haven't changed the translation as yet, but if you feel that it's better to translate afresh from this source and leave the original text in an endnote like has been done with the other Dutch quote used, I have no issue with that. I will include the original Dutch quote on the talk page of this nomination for comparison as the interview itself is paywalled.
• What makes Sputnikmusic a high-quality reliable source?
  • This has come up before (here and here, among others), with the general consensus being that the site uses a mix of professional critics and user reviews, the former of which are beholden to editorial oversight and picked up by Metacritic, the latter are not considered reliable. The particular reviewer of this entry is a former staff member who reviewed this as a professional critic at the time of release.
    • Where did that info about the author come from? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
      • It was present at the time of writing, although currently it displays a username rather than a real name and a note that the writer is a former staff member. I'm concerned that the archival link doesn't seem to work--that feels very counter to the purpose of archiving, but it appears to be an issue with the archive service. If there is doubt regarding this source I can remove it.
• FN11: don't need department in the title parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Removed.
• Thank you for having a look at this, let me know how you feel the above queries should be best resolved. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Hurricane Leslie (2018)

Nominator(s): Noah^Talk 18:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Hurricane Leslie, a long-lived system that was the strongest cyclone to affect Portugal since 1842. It caused severe wind damage across Portugal and Spain. Leslie combined with another system to cause severe flooding in the Aude department, France, which was the worst seen there since 1891. River records in the Aude that had held strong since 1871 fell during the storm. This article took months of work to research and write; it contains 81 Portuguese, 27 Spanish, and 17 French-language sources. Incorporating the local perspective is something that I see as a cornerstone with articles like this. I'm proud to finally be able to bring this behemoth of a storm here. Noah^Talk 18:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from LightandDark2000

There are just a few minor issues that I found. Otherwise, I think that this article is a solid FA candidate. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• In the lead, I would specify that the USD and Euro values are in their 2018 values.
• At least 13 districts in Portugal were placed under a red alert from 13–14 October in anticipation of adverse weather conditions from Leslie. Add a comma after "13–14 October".
• Following the storm, water currents were greatly diminished for multiple weeks, This could be clarified some more. Is the sentence referring to the strength of the water currents?
• causing fog to persist for 32 hours in Ferryland, Newfoundland. For "Newfoundland", I would change the link from Newfoundland (which redirects to Newfoundland and Labrador) to Newfoundland (island), since the latter is more specific.

That's all I have. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000: should be fixed. Noah^Talk 21:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Supporting now. Looks good to go. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Chiswick Chap

Interesting article, and evidently already highly polished, so there's little to comment on.

• "hundreds of buildings, signs, and equipment." Perhaps "pieces of equipment".

• Added. Noah^Talk 12:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• "and damaged several structures and vehicles" -> "and damaging..." to fit the rest of the sentence.

• Fixed. Noah^Talk 12:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• The map shows the track with circular symbols denoting "Tropical cyclone" as far north as the latitude of southern Spain. How is that?

• It's entirely possible to occur as long as conditions are favorable enough (warm sea surface temperatures mostly). I would note that in the last case as it was nearing Portugal and Spain, the storm was in the process of losing its tropical characteristics, although was considered tropical until the process was complete. This year, Hurricane Sam was tropical quite a bit further north (48N). It mostly is a result of warm sea temperatures allowing the storm to stick around. Noah^Talk 12:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• This was an international event (Azores, Spain), and Wikipedia has an international readership. "The National Hurricane Center" needs to be glossed "The American National Hurricane Center".

• Used United States-based. Noah^Talk 12:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• "araucaria columnaris" -> "Araucaria columnaris" as a species name.

• Fixed. Noah^Talk 12:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• "€5 million (US$6.1 million) in funds were approved ... At least 230 trees were planted". That's over €20,000 per tree? Seems out by about 3 orders of magnitude.

• I changed the first part to specify there is a recovery plan and changed the second part to specify this was only part of the plan. Other details for the plan were not mentioned and I haven't seen any new developments. Noah^Talk 12:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

That's about it from me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. I should have addressed everything. Noah^Talk 12:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• That's great, happy to Support. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from FredModulars

My first time reviewing, so sorry if I screw something up. FredModulars (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

A very interesting article, and not much to comment on. Just a few things:

• "In November 2018, Aon estimated that Leslie's damage total exceeded US$500 million." Is there an equivalent damage total in Euros which should be mentioned? Lead and first "Impact" sentence.

• Converts to around 590 million euro. I will add it. Noah^Talk 04:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: Took me a while to realize this, but that makes no sense. The amount of euros should be less than dollars.

• Fixed it last night. Twas a case of converting it in the opposite direction. Noah^Talk 15:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Is there a link to the 1891 flood mentioned in the lead and in "France"?

• No there is not. Floods are a very lacking topic on Wikipedia. I also checked FR Wikipedia and didn't find anything there as well. Noah^Talk 04:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• In the infobox, wind speed is displayed mph (km/h). In the article, it is km/h (mph). If it's not the infobox template's fault, then it should be that way in the infobox.

• I don't believe there is any way to change this since it is dependent upon the basin parameter and the Atlantic goes to mph (km/h) from the knot input. Noah^Talk 04:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Initially, on 27 November 2018, the Portuguese government rejected a proposal to provide relief funds for victims of the storm.[162]...The Portuguese government was criticised for being slow in authorising the release of funds to these organizations.[170]" Portuguese government/government seems repetitive in this paragraph.

• Changed some of them to similar terms that would fit. Noah^Talk 04:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Was there any significant aftermath in Spain or elsewhere?

• I haven't seen any aftermath outside Portugal and France, and I didn't see anything new when I checked again a couple of weeks ago. A search now didn't turn up anything new. Noah^Talk 04:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for review. Let me know if there is anything else, @FredModulars:. Noah^Talk 04:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing else. Great job on this article. Glad to support it. FredModulars (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't duplicate captions in alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Should be fixed. Noah^Talk 23:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

Article looks good to me. Some minor suggestions:

• Air pressure is measured in hectopascals in the lead and millibars in the article. Per MOS:METRIC, the metric conversion should be to the SI unit, hence hectopascals.

• Changed the lead to millibars. The Atlantic basin uses millibars and this is technically limited by our templates as well. Noah^Talk 03:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Mark the article as using US English with a {{Use American English|date=November 2021}} template.

• Done Noah^Talk 03:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• It says twice in the lead that it was an extratropical cyclone. Suggest dropping the first one.

• I removed some mentioning of it being an extratropical cyclone. Some of the earlier mentions are due to Leslie originating from an extratropical cyclone rather than it being one itself. Noah^Talk 03:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Duplicate links: convective, Figueira da Foz, Lisbon, Aude

• Removed duplicate links. Noah^Talk 03:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment from RetiredDuke

Hm, I'd like to take a closer look at this one before it closes, I've already spotted and corrected two mistranslations from Portuguese just from a quick once-over (180 football games cancelled in Madeira sounded implausible to me and I happen to know Trofa well so I know it's not a street but a city, so those were quick to spot). In the mean time, what do you mean by "ocean routes"? RetiredDuke (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• A "marginal" in this case is a street that runs parallel to the ocean, it's built right next to the beach. It's not an "ocean route". RetiredDuke (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed that one. Noah^Talk 03:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Chinatown MRT station

Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Following the successful nomination of Dhoby Ghaut MRT station, using what I have learnt from that FAC review, I am now nominating this page for FA. This is about a Singapore MRT station in the Chinese ethnic enclave of Chinatown. It has a pretty interesting construction history, due to its location in a built-up area. And the artworks adorned in the station are rather vivid and suited for the station. ZKang123 (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from KN2731

I'll go through section by section and review against criteria 1a/1b (i.e. no comment on copyright/sourcing/images). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• Is the hatnote necessary? "MRT station" is quite clear in the title, and Chinatown, Singapore is linked in the second sentence.
  • Removed.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Link ethnic enclave
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Might as well provide the DTL station opening date, since the NEL one is mentioned.
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

North East line station (1996–2003)

• Arterial roads like New Bridge Road, Eu Tong Sen Street and connecting streets had to be rerouted – are connecting streets part of the arterial roads?
  • Added a comma so it becomes "Eu Tong Sen Street, and connecting streets". The connecting streets are the alleys and streets branching off the arterial roads.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• The rerouted roads and the construction barriers erected had impacted the foot traffic of the area – tense is off, no need "had". "impacted" is vague – I assume "reduced" works better?
  • Actually more of inconveniencing pedestrians who have to use longer alternative routes to get to their desired destinations around the construction site. Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• In addition, any businesses in the area were affected by the noise and construction dust. – remove "any". Are the sources more descriptive than just "affected"? Was it just patronage that took a hit?
  • Yes. Reduced. Also their goods and merchandise were dirtied by the dust.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• During the Lunar New Year in 2001, a temporary bridge was constructed – any reason in particular that this was done during CNY? Was it simply a coincidence, in which case it would be much clearer to state the month, or was it done in anticipation of increased foot traffic during CNY?
  • It isn't specified, but it's likely due to the increased foot traffic.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• The Land Transport Authority (LTA) engaged with the local community through press releases, discussions and community events – corporate puffery, can be removed.
  • Shortened to just "Through engagements with the local community, the Land Transport Authority...--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Would suggest "Following engagements" instead, to provide the logical flow that the measures were introduced as a result of the feedback given by the public. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• The sentences Prior to the construction, the utilities at the site had to be diverted at a cost of S$7 million (US$4.7 million). This was to ensure that the utilities were not damaged during the station's construction. and To prevent disruption to the power and water supply and telecommunications during the manoeuvre, the utilities had to be cautiously protected or substituted. essentially state the same thing.
  • Reword and removed.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• the construction had resulted in a few cave-ins at the site – no need "had"
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Did all the cave-ins occur in 1999? The text doesn't really make this clear.
  • Yes. Added "that year".--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• a two cm (0.79 in) depression – is this width or depth?
  • Depth. But already doesn't a depression imply it's a depth?--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Following the discovery of the cracks on the road – this is the first time cracks are mentioned? Are these linked to the depression found on 2 December, or found during the later inspection of pipes/cables under the road, or a separate discovery?
  • Reworded to have cracks mentioned earlier.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• cement mixture was pumped into the ground – think just "cement" will do
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Downtown line station and further plans (2007–2013)

• when he announced → "where he announced" (date's already mentioned, plus emphasis should be on location since that's the significant bit)
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• being constructed near the foundations of the State Courts and a HDB block – mentioned already, unnecessary
  • Removed. Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• disrupted lives is very vague.
  • Reword to say disrupted businesses.--ZKang123 (talk)
• Check if you're spelling tunnelling with one or two Ls.
  • Double Ls. Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Location

• In addition, this station site allows closer links to shopping centres and busy pedestrian areas – "closer" as compared to other undiscussed sites...? Just say "closely linked to shopping centres [etc.]" and remove "In addition".
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Services

• Chinatown station is served by the North East (NEL) and Downtown (DTL) lines – no need to reintroduce abbreviations
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Design

• The NEL station is a designated as Civil Defence (CD) shelter – something's wrong here
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• As Pagoda Street is on a low-lying area, vulnerable to flooding, → "As Pagoda Street is in a low-lying area vulnerable to flooding,"
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Haven't looked at Public artwork yet – I'll likely continue next weekend. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Public artwork

• Link Long Ya Men and Kris
  • Linked.--ZKang123 (talk)
• Are the five values referring to the Five Constants in Confucianism?
  • Yes. Linked.--ZKang123 (talk)
• Link vitreous enamel
  • Linked.--ZKang123 (talk)

That's all from me. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Moving to support on prose. Great work on the article. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 02:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Prose comments from Dracophyllum

• "As the name suggests" - is this needed?
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• "...resulted in pedestrians have to take longer routes around..." - have is wrong tense, should be having
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• "tarnished" and "patronage" seem unnecessary complex, not a biggie tho
  • Hmm, "tarnished" seem more professional than 'dirtied'. --ZKang123 (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Through the engagements with the local community," - > Through engagements with the local community,
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• " Initially, it was considered to use steel beams - Rephrase; "it was considered" sounds wrong; can be done in many ways
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• Is the section following the above line in the source?
  • Yes.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• "During the construction of the NEL station, it was proposed for Chinatown station" - rephrase
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• idk if "As the name suggests" should be in the body either...
  • I rather retain it, unless it breaks the encyclopedic tone.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• Is "concourse" standard English?
  • Yes it is. See Concourse.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• "As the artist has explained, the poem" >> The artist intended...
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

That's all for now, thanks, Dracophyllum 11:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review by MSG17

All pictures are properly licensed, have descriptive alt text and adequately illustrate the article's subject and aspects related to it. I will analyze image placement later. MSG17 (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Placement looks good on both desktop and mobile. Passed. MSG17 (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Epicgenius

I will leave some comments later. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Epicgenius, any idea as to when? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about this. I'll get to it today. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Lead:

• Situated at the junction of Eu Tong Sen Street, New Bridge Road and Upper Cross Street, several landmarks around the station include the Buddha Tooth Relic Temple, Masjid Jamae (Chulia), Chinatown Point and People's Park Complex. - There is a dangling modifier. I would suggest changing the highlighted text to "the station is near several landmarks, including"
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• First announced as People's Park MRT station in March 1996, the construction of the North East line station was one of the most challenging projects on the line. - A similar dangling modifier exists here. I would replace the entire second half of the sentence with something like "the North East line station was one of the most challenging projects undertaken during that line's construction".
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• In March 2007, it was announced that the station would interchange with the Downtown line - Wouldn't the NEL, not the station itself, be the one interchanging with the DTL?
  • Fixed. Changed to the line interchanging with the DTL at this station.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• On a side note, shouldn't the NEL and DTL abbreviations appear in the lead? They're also mentioned in the body.
  • Hmm, initially because someone in that Dhoby Ghaut review suggested not to abbreviate the terms in the lead, but probably that was because the lead was rather short. Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• as part of the line's Stage 1 - I suggest "as part of Stage 1 of the line"
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Each of the entrances has glass structures - If there are only two entrances, then you should say "Either" rather than "Each".
  • Actually six. But these two entrances are rather uniquely designed. Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

North East Line station:

• Before the article even mentions that the NEL station contract was awarded, I would give a little background similar to the DBG article. Such as Plans were made in 1986 for a new line from Outram Park station via Chinatown to Punggol station in the northeast. These were finalised as the North East line (NEL) in January 1996. This is the penultimate station toward Outram Park, so this could be relevant here, unless I'm wrong and Chinatown was announced later.
  • Chinatown station was only announced much later among the 16 stations revealed in March 1996. So I don't find it relevant to mention the NEL plans prior to the station's announcement. It was not stated (explicitly) that the line would serve Chinatown when the line was being planned.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• The station was first announced as People's Park station - The LTA announced it?
  • Actually Transport Minister Mah Bow Tan. Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• The bus stops had to be shifted accordingly as well - I would strike the indicated portion of the sentence as it's redundant.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• The rerouted roads and the construction barriers erected resulted in pedestrians having to take longer routes around the construction site to their desired destinations - I would rephrase this sentence, as "erected resulted" seems strange grammatically. For instance, "As a result of the rerouted roads and the construction barriers, pedestrians had to take longer routes around the construction site to their desired destinations."
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• During the Lunar New Year in 2001, a temporary bridge was constructed to connect the two sides of Pagoda Street so that the pedestrians could walk over the entrance work site - Was this specifically for the Lunar New Year or did it just happen coincidentally? Also, I would remove "that the" in "so that the pedestrians...." as it's also redundant.
  • More likely planned, but like what I said to a similar comment earlier, the source did not state that explicitly. Removed the redundant words.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Prior to the construction, the utilities at the site had to be diverted at a cost of S$7 million (US$7 million in 2020). This was to ensure that the utilities were not damaged during the station's construction - I suggest combining these sentences, e.g. "Prior to the works, the utilities at the site had to be diverted at a cost of S$7 million (US$7 million in 2020) so the utilities would not be damaged during the station's construction."
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• The utilities had to be cautiously protected or substituted - I think "cautiously protected" is a bit redundant since one wouldn't say that someone was haphazardly protecting something.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• but this would risk damaging the canal, causing the site to flood - Was this discovered after the original plans?
  • More likely when exploring ways to deal with the canal, not when it was being constructed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Going with this alternative, the drainage diversion became one of the largest in Singapore. - I think this is also a dangling modifier. Who went with this alternative, the LTA?
  • Yes the LTA.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• a bridge built in 1995 that connects New Bridge Road to Eu Tong Sen Street, as it is a social and cultural landmark. - Since Garden Bridge is previously mentioned, I would move this bit upward.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• the construction resulted in a few cave-ins at the site. - I suggest "there were a few cave-ins at the site during construction".
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• resulting in its closure along with the neighbouring streets. - Similarly, I suggest "and it was closed along with neighbouring streets".
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• building structures - Here I'd just say "buildings" or "structures" but not both. Unless you mean superstructures specifically?
  • Fixed by removing structures.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• two cm (0.79 in) - This should be adjective form, e.g. "two-centimetre"
  • Fixed. Removed abbr=on--ZKang123 (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• In light of the station's opening, the surrounding shopping complexes People's Park Complex and the OG Shopping Centre underwent renovations and redevelopment. - "In light of" could be replaced with a better phrase. If these renovations happened at the same time, you might say "In conjunction with the station's opening"; if they happened beforehand, "Prior to the station's opening"; and if they happened afterward, "Following the station's opening".
  • Fixed to "in conjunction".--ZKang123 (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• With the opening of the station on 20 June 2003 along with the other NEL stations, it was expected that the station would bring further development to the area with more investments and crowds. - "Stations" is excessively repeated here. In the DBG article, you say, "With the NEL commencing services on 20 June 2003". Given that Chinatown was part of that section, I think you can say something like "With the NEL commencing services on 20 June 2003, it was expected that the station would bring further development to the area with more investments and crowds."
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Downtown line station and further plans (2007–2013):

• In subsequent plans however, the Chinatown branch was scrapped. - There should be a comma between the two highlighted words.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• was later revised to be the first stage of the Downtown line (DTL) in 2007 - I would remove "later" as a specific date is then mentioned in the sentence.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• The 7 metres (23 ft) wide and 3.5 metres (11 ft) - If this is using {{Convert}} then the parameter |adj=on should be added, i.e. "7-metre-wide"
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• marked the beginning of the DTL construction with a ceremony at this station - I suggest flipping the two portions of this phrase, so "held a ceremony at this station to mark the beginning of the DTL's construction" (also, "DTL's" is possessive since it's referring to the DTL's construction).
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• then Minister of Transport - This should be "then-Minister of Transport" with a hyphen after "then".
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• across the original river, which was drained and filled with soil - You mean the original riverbed?
  • Actually, after diverting the river to a temporary canal, they filled up part of the original river for removing the debris and allow safe tunneling underneath the river. see page 52 of source. Further clairified.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• the LTA had to maintain adequate hydraulic flows to keep the water clean - Since keeping the river free of pollution is already mentioned, this part of the sentence is unnecessary.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Station details:

• The NEL site was chosen here - "Here" is unnecessary as it's already implied you're talking about this location.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• The station serves public amenities include - "Include" should be "including".
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• The unusually long length is to allow the station to connect to various surrounding places of interest - "Long length" feels redundant, but just saying "length" may not be enough on the other hand. How about: "The station is unusually long, allowing connections to various surrounding places of interest".
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• wheelchair accessible - A hyphen should be inserted here, i.e. "wheelchair-accessible"
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• causing the barrier to rise and act as a gate against the overflow - This is probably not what you mean, but if something acts as a gate, it would let things in. Rather, the barrier rises to prevent overflow.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• allow viewing - You can just say "allow views".
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The Phoenix's-Eye Domain:

• a public art showcase which integrates artworks into the MRT network. - I think this can be condensed to just "a showcase of public artwork on the MRT network" or something like that.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Couplet" could be linked.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• The colourful mural - Any hints as to the general colour scheme (reds/yellows, blues/greens, grayscale, etc)?
  • Hmm not really in the sources.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• while the mural is to be a visual realisation of the poem - Generally, "is to be" is only used for something that will happen in the future. Perhaps this should instead say "...while the mural is supposed to be a visual realisation of the poem".
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Tan wished to capture the enduring and noble spirit of the ancestors, who help build modern day Singapore in the artwork - First, "modern-day" seems to be hyphenated. Second, if the artwork depicts the ancestors' spirits building Singapore, then the sentence should say something like "...who are depicted in the artwork as helping build modern-day Singapore".
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• the phoenix is shown in full glory, - This should likely be "the phoenix is shown in its full glory".
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Drawing out the work by hand, Tan directly applied oil and acrylic paints onto the canvas - I would move "directly" to after "paints", i.e. "Tan applied oil and acrylic paints directly onto the canvas"
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Reproducing this colour treatment, however, was difficult during the mural's production in the United Kingdom. - The fact that the mural was fabricated in the UK should probably be mentioned earlier in the sentence, or even earlier in the section.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• seven colour process - "seven-colour" should be hyphenated.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• The adjacent characters in each of the verses are matched in meaning. - I don't quite get what this means. Do you mean adjacent characters within the same verse (e.g. the first and second characters are matched in meaning) or do you mean the corresponding character position in either of the verses (e.g. the first character in both verses are matched to each other in meaning)?
  • Not sure. Need to check with the source.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• The calligraphy was first written in ink on rice paper, - The comma after this is redundant.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Flying Colours:

• The DTL station features Flying Colours by Cheo Chai Hiang displayed across the DTL concourse level - This can be condensed into something like "The DTL concourse level features Flying Colours by Cheo Chai Hiang".
• that changes slightly - This should probably be "which changes slightly" as it follows a comma.
• The tilt of the clothes lines - The angle of the clothes lines?

@ZKang123: These are all the comments I have. Overall, I think this is pretty comprehensive. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Fixed above.-- ZKang123 (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Support - All of the concerns I've mentioned have been addressed. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski

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

Lede

• I don't feel like the lede summarises the article in its entirety. Could we get some info from the public artwork section here? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Prose

• Could we move the images down a bit? At the moment they crush all of the text on my tiny screen. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• Even if you link it in the lede, should also do so in the first use in the body.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• S$141.5 million (US$95.3 million - inflation Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• Econ Piling (now Econ Corporation Ltd) - notable? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• Downtown line station and further plans (2007–2013) - this section has a lot of short paragraphs - consider merging. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• As the name suggests, - avoid. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• All but one image is on the right, - any reason for the other to be on the left? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• Otherwise, well written article. I didn't see any MOS issues particularly other than above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• • Fixed above as requested.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Uskok-class torpedo boat

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the Uskok or Četnik class of motor torpedo boats built for the Yugoslav Royal Navy during the late 1920s. An enlarged version of a British design, they deployed their torpedoes by lining the boat up with the target, dropping them off the back of the boat and steering away. Both boats were captured by Italian forces during the Axis invasion in April 1941, and they were commissioned in the Italian Royal Navy. Their age and condition meant they were only used for patrolling and second-line duties. One sank in 1942 when its hull failed, and the second one became non-operational in September 1943, but escaped from the Germans after the Italian surrender that month and sailed to Allied-occupied southern Italy. It was broken up after the war. This article forms part of the featured topic Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy that I am slowly moving towards 100% featured. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:Torpedo_boat_tc_1.jpg needs a stronger FUR, and suggest switching to the generic fair-use tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • G'day Nikkimaria, all done I think. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

• Chesneau, Roger, ed. (1980). Standardize location to "City, State" as elsewhere, or just simplify to "London" as one would with New York.
  • Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Freivogel, Zvonimir (2020) double-check the ISBN on this one, I can't find it anywhere but www.aircraft-navalship.com. Amazon gives an ISBN of 978-9537892128, but I also cannot confirm this in other places. If you bought the book physically, this may explain it.
  • Yes, I can confirm I physically have the book, and that is what it says on the relevant page, I think there may be some confusion as a second volume is pending and an ISBN for it is also listed, but this is the one listed against Vol 1. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Despot Infinitus is not the most ideal publisher, but I will accept on Freivogel's merits.
• @Peacemaker67: that is all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the source review, Iazyges! All done I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

    Article passes source review, may be back for prose review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Support by Pendright

Greetings @Peacemaker67: I have a few minor commemts! Pendright (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead:

• They were equipped with two British-designed 456-millimetre (18 in) torpedoes as their main armament, and were also fitted with hydrophones and could carry depth charges instead of torpedoes if being used in an anti-submarine role.

• They were equipped with "cradles" that carried two British-designed torpedoes?
• Drop the comma after armament or add a subject to the last clause?
• Is the word "being" neccessary, since the word "if" usually means "on condition that"?

Have rearranged the sentence and implemented the rest. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Great! Pendright (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• The boats were lightly-built using mahogany, powered by two petrol engines, and lacked transverse bulkheads within the hull to mitigate leaks.

Consider replacing and with "but

Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• They were commissioned in the Italian Royal Navy and operated with a squadron out of the Dalmatian port of Šibenik, where they had been based pre-war.

They -> "The ships" would drop one they?

Sure, used "boats" though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Background:

• Large numbers of 17-metre-long (55 ft) Coastal Motor Boats (CMBs) had been produced in the UK between 1917 and 1922 for the British Royal Navy, and they were also sold to overseas customers in the interwar period.[1]

This seems to be the first use of "UK"?

MOS:1STOCC refers to common abbreviations not needing to be expanded on first use, and I think UK is one of those, along with US. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• This created very uncomfortable conditions for the engine room crew due to [the] lack of space and the loud engine noise.

Consider this change?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• An open cockpit for steering was located amidships, immediately fore and aft of which were columns on which twin machine guns could be mounted.

Might consider replacing one which?

Done. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Great! Pendright (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• The boats of the class had two Thornycroft V12 petrol engines installed, the forward one driving the starboard propeller shaft and the aft engine driving the port shaft, with the rudders placed immediately aft of the propellers.

Should port and starboard be linked?

Sure, they are combined, but I think it'll work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• To conduct a torpedo attack, the [a] boat would be aligned with the [a] target, [then] the torpedo engines would be started and [a torpedo would] they were then [be] pushed over the stern by a 3-metre-long (9 ft 10 in) mechanical rod, after which [a] the boat would immediately turn to the side and [its] the torpedo would proceed towards [a] the target.

See what you think?

Not sure about that. This is being used as an example, so the definite article seems appropriate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

A specific boat is not mentioned, thus the comment - either way is fine. Pendright (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Only four torpedoes were delivered with the boats, which were to be used for both training – with an inert warhead – and in combat with a live warhead.[6]

• See if you can live with this version: Only four torpedoes – with inert warheads – were delivered with the boats, which were to be used for both training and combat with live warheads.[6]

I think that changes the meaning. The torpedoes were delivered with both inert and live warheads. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, no proboem! Pendright (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• The torpedoes had two speed and range settings. At 35 kn (65 km/h; 40 mph) it had a range of 2,300 m (2,500 yd), but a range of 3,650 m (3,990 yd) at 29 kn (54 km/h; 33 mph). It had a warhead that consisted of 145 kilograms (320 lb) of TNT.[7]

The subject of the first sentence is pural, but the sentence that follows refers bcck to the first and it's singular?

Fixed, I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• There were also some concerns that the Mediterranean sun would warp their hulls, and precautions were put in place to cope with this should it occur.[11]

Change would to could

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• It appears that after the two boats were commissioned, plans to order more were shelved due to a combination of: negative assessments of the boats during their sea trials and [the] training of crew members[,] ; and the advent of the Great Depression in 1929, which meant funds [would probably] were not [be] available in subsequent years for further acquisitions.[6]

See if you can live with some of these changes?

Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• By 1941, the maximum speed that could be achieved by boats of the class was 30–32 kn (56–59 km/h; 35–37 mph), and in Italian service the auxiliary engine could only achieve 4.5 kn (8.3 km/h; 5.2 mph).[1]

"while" in Italian service?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Depth charges

How were thsee put into the water?

Not in sources, presumably the same way as the torpedoes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Sevice history:

• one such training exercise a torpedo was lost from Četnik, and until 1941 she only carried one torpedo.

Any details about the loss of the torpedo?

Not in sources, presumably it sank. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Četnik was sailed to Divulje near Split by Popović's second-in-command, Porucnik Fregate (Lieutenant) Velimir Škorpik, ostensibly in order to join the nascent Navy of the Independent State of Croatia (Croatian: Mornarica Nezavisne Države Hrvatske, RMNDH).

• "was" and "in order" could be dropped?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Think about bracketing "near Split"

Used snd instead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• One of the boats was sent to Piraeus in Greece for a short time, but the wear and tear of the long voyage weakened her hull.[14]

Can you tell readers which one?

Actually yes, the clear implication in the source is that it was MAS 1D. Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• She sprang a leak and sank quickly due to the lack of transverse bulkheads in her hull.[5][13]

Any survivors?

Not mentioned in sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• On the evening of 11 September, her crew escaped and sailed ME47 to Taranto in Allied-occupied southern Italy.

Suggest replacing "and sailed" with "by sailing"

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Finishd - Pendright (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review, Pendright! All done, see what you think of my responses. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Supporting - I did leave some repsonses to yours. Regards! Pendright (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "Coastal Motor Boats". Why the upper case initials.

That was their proper name. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• "and were also". Maybe a little redundant? ("and" and "also".) Also a bit of a long sentence.

trimmed and restructured. See what you think of my changes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• "the boats were also equipped with two hydrophones". "two hydrophones" each?

yes, tweaked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• "In place of the torpedoes, up to four depth charges could be carried for anti-submarine warfare". Any details known about these? Size, weight, amount of explosive, whatever?

no, it isn't even clear where these were sourced from. Presumably the Brits, but nothing in sources specifically for this class. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• "at the surrender." This comes a bit from nowhere. Surrender? Of whom to who and when?

added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Četnik sailed to Divulje – Split – by Popović's second-in-command". "by" makes this non-grammatical.

good grief, yes... Fixed I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

All done I think, Gog. See what you think of my responses. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

TRM

• Is there a reason that you have "Yugoslav Royal Navy" linking just "Royal Navy" which is then piped to Royal Yugoslav Navy?

Over time, I have formed the view that the proper English translation of Kraljevska mornarica (and therefore the article title) is actually "Royal Navy", not "Royal Yugoslav Navy", so therefore the order "Yugoslav Royal Navy" is more accurate than the latter. I have yet to move the Royal Yugoslav Navy article to Royal Navy (Yugoslavia) and make many consequent changes to articles, but will when I get a chance. But in comparison, when the British Royal Navy is linked, only Royal Navy is usually linked, and this should IMHO be the same. I'm open to alternatives though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Uskok class or Četnik class was a class" forgive my ignorance, it seems like you're saying two classes were a single class? You then go on to say "Named Uskok and Četnik..." so is it really the case that it was just two boats in one class? It's very confusing to a non-expert.

It is a single class of two boats, but some sources call it the Uskok class whilst others call it the Četnik class. This is possibly due to ethnic bias, Uskoks were Croatian irregulars and Četniks were Serb ones. Any suggestions how I might clarify? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "by Italian forces" is there a link?

It isn't clear from the sources whether the navy or army captured them. The Italian Armed Forces page is actually about the whole shebang from the beginning of Italy, and isn't the best, but it'll have to do. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Italian Royal Navy" similar comment to the first one, why wouldn't Italian be in the pipe in this case?

Same response as above, it was the Regia Marina, and although that article should possibly be at Royal Navy (Italy) per WP:USEENGLISH, there is possibly an argument that Regia Marina is actually the common name in English. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Could create plausible redirects at MAS 1 D and ME 47 to here.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "British Royal Navy" similar comment, you've got "Royal Navy" as a link to several different targets.
• "class of 55 ft CMBs" you previously had metric first, which I have say I found odd (especially with the 456 mm (18 in)!), but here you use Imperial only, so I would consider the idea of using the contemporaneous units. "pair of .303-inch (7.7 mm) " is another example...
• "as the Uskok class" firstly, Uskok is easter egg link, and secondly "class" was used prior to this so should be linked there.
• "to mitigate leaks" is mentioned in the lead but doesn't appear to have made it into the main body when describing the ship design.
• "the engine room crew due " how many crew for the engine room?
• "open cockpit for ... the cockpit " repetitive.
• "Two torpedoes were carried..." the lead said that depth charges could be carried, so shouldn't this say "Two torpedoes could be carried..."?
• Might be the geek in me but "1.15–1.3 m " I would give ranges to the same number of decimal places.
• "The boats of the class" what does "of the class" bring here?
• Same comment on d.p. for "1.15–1.6 tonnes".
• "The main armament for the boats was two British-made forward-facing 456 mm (18 in) torpedoes in the cradles aft. ..." you already said most of this above, "Two torpedoes were carried in open cradles aft of the cockpit".
• No need to pipelink TNT, that's its common name.
• "mount were carried, which could be mounted" mount mounted reptitive.
• "precautions were put in place " such as?
• "a torpedo was ... one torpedo" torpedo torpedo.
• "on 17 April. " I would add the year for complete non-ambiguity.
• "Italian Regia Marina (Royal Navy)" earlier you had Italian Royal Navy and link Regia Marina. I would be consistent.
• "ME47 was based" is it this or ME 47?
• "sailing ME47 to" similar.

That's all I have in a brief read. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, one final concern, the image file being used says it has a "date of publication" of "1938 or earlier" yet just above it says the publication was "Original publication: Jane's Fighting Ships 1940 edition, p. 517" which appears to have been published in January 1941. It also appears the designation of TC1 is unspaced... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Farran Zerbe

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about... a major figure in numismatic history, if a controversial one. He seems to remain controversial, as in 2021, the American Numismatic Association took his name off its major award, some 110 years after the events in question. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Image review I don't see any major issues, willing to believe that The Numismatist was not copyrighted. I made some adjustments to avoid sandwiching and strongly urge the 1908 photograph to be used as the lead image as the current lead image is low quality. (t · c) buidhe 03:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I've done that. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Usernameunique

Early life

• By many accounts — Suggest rephrasing this (and making an appropriate adjustment in the next sentence) to something like "By many accounts, including as told by Zerbe in his later years,"
• silver French 50-centime piece — Anything to link to?

We don't seem to have an article that would suit. Zerbe exhibited a 50 centime piece he said was the one, but I've not seen a picture of it. Since France changed its coins in the early 1870s after the deposition of Napoleon III, I can't make assumptions as to which half franc piece this was.

• John P. Lupia III — Worthy of a red link?

He doesn't seem notable

• the story Zerbe told in 1903 — What were the circumstances?

• Following up on this. Where did he tell the story—an article, a speech, something else? --Usernameunique (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry I missed this. The source doesn't say. I ran a search of The Numismatist for 1903 and came up with nothing relevant.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Numismatist of the world's fairs

• In the first years of the 20th century, Zerbe began to show his traveling exhibit, "Money of the World" — Generally speaking, this section is fairly hazy on how Zerbe got started, and gained traction, in the coin-collecting world. I realize that much of this may be lost to time, but are there any more details that could be added?

I'll look, but numismatics was a very small pond at the time and someone competent and self-promoting could make their way to the top. As did Zerbe, in only seven years.

I found something in the sources that says much the same thing that I just said but perhaps that fills the gap.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Some collectors lent items for the exhibit and could not get them back — Why?

It is implied that Zerbe kept them and did not/would not return them

• he felt was justified — He felt, or he claimed?

Tweaked.

• he also sold them mounted in spoons, jewelry and other items — I realize there are a lot of images in the article already, but is there a good one of one of these items?

We have permission from Heritage Auctions to use their photographs, so it wouldn't be difficult to add one. I think it's a bit far afield though.

• When he was not busy with his duties — What duties?

Clarified.

• and found the New Orleans Mint temporarily not striking coins — I'm not really sure what this means. How did he "find" it not striking coins?

When he visited, they were not striking any coins. This wasn't unusual for the mints as they tended to shut down in the summer pre-air conditioning and the New Orleans Mint had only reopened in 1879 as there was such a need to strike silver dollars under the Bland-Allison Act and this had ended in 1904 when the last of the bullion obtained under the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890 had been minted, and the more modern and efficient Denver Mint was effectively taking its place. It finally closed in 1909.

• a profit of about $16,000 — What is that in current dollars? {{inflation}} should help.

President of the ANA

• Zerbe aided those affected by the earthquake — How?

The source does not elaborate.

• After serving three years, with Zerbe as first vice president ... with Henri Buck as first vice president ... with John Henderson as first vice president — It's "First Vice President" (capitalized) above.

Standardized.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• setting a membership goal of 3,000 — How many did it have at the time?

Less than 500. Clarified.

• There were complaints — By whom?

The source isn't specific, but as we soon get into the conflict with Elder, I think we can do without.

• got the membership to approve a dues increase to improve The Numismatist — Even though the ANA wasn't responsible for the publication?

It was still its journal, although it didn't have ownership. Without its services, the organization isn't much.

• President Theodore Roosevelt appointed Zerbe to serve on that year's Assay Commission. — May as well give a brief description of the Assay Commission.

Added.

• a "long price" for the periodical — No further details, I assume?

Not that I can find.

1915 Panama-Pacific International Exposition

• the coins and medals — does this include just the Panama–Pacific commemorative coins, or were the medals separate?

There was also a medal, mentioned in the article on the coins though not covered in detail.

• the Mint's exhibit — The Mint also had an exhibit, or is this referring to Zerbe's exhibit?

The Mint/Department of the Treasury had its own area. I think this is clear. The Mint's space is mentioned twice.

• Zerbe was present at the San Francisco Mint for the first ceremonial striking of the octagonal $50 piece — When?

Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• He felt ... and felt ... who he felt — Overuse of the same verb. More importantly, however, we can't know how Zerbe felt; we can know only how he said he felt.

Tweaked.

"thought" and "believed" have the same problem—we know what people said or wrote, but just because they say they think or believe something doesn't necessarily make it true. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The source cites a 1918 article by Zerbe, so I've been explicit.

Later years, death and appraisal

• returned to the road and exhibitions — What does this mean?

He would make arrangements to show Money of the World at different banks.

• Lesher Referendum Dollars — Worth a red link?
• Bryan money — Worth a red link?

Added in both cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• America's influence for peace — What does this mean?

Tweaked.

• a paper from Farran Zerbe ... Zerbe's letter — Paper, or letter?

Done.

• and by two brothers — Might be worth mentioning any siblings in "Early life".

This is the sole reference to siblings I have found.

• Oglivie deemed him — Not yet introduced, so a full name and brief description should be given.
• His noteworthy achievements have truly earned him the title, 'Dean of American Numismatists'". — If this is a full sentence, the period can go inside one or both of the quotation marks.

The above two done.

Wehwalt, comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Due to travel, it may be a few days before I get back to this.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I think I've gotten to everything. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks good, adding my support. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments and source review from Grapple X

Nothing major here, will also look at refs

• Pricing them at $3, a price he stated was justified because regular-issue gold dollars commanded a premium, he also sold them mounted in spoons, jewelry and other items—First I think we've "pricing ... price" a little close together but also I'm not sure the source supports the idea they were sold mounted: he advertised a wide range of bangles, charms, stickpins, broaches and spoon handles free with each coin ordered is how CoinWeek words it, which I would read as accompaniments rather than affixtures. If there's another mention of mounting it could be appended otherwise I'd suggest a rewording here.

Bowers' 1992 book in the refs at p. 603 states, "In an effort to increase revenue, Zerbe came up with the idea of mounting gold dollars into souvenir brooches and pins; and, apparently, quite a few were sold in this manner to those who attended the fair in 1904." Added as additional source. Anthony Swiatek's 2011 book I've used in commemorative coin articles concurs and displays one of them and the original box.

That works for me.

• Zerbe's activities at Portland yielded him a profit of about $16,000 (equivalent to $460,859 in 2020)—Nothing wrong with this but a use of the same inflationary aside earlier might be useful too; it's potentially more accessible for readers to know just how much walking-around money $3 was for example. I wouldn't use it in every instance (I don't think converting $3 and then $2.50 shortly thereafter is needed for example)

I've added a couple.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• There are a few mentions throughout to unspecified "research". Numismatics is not my forte or anything but this might stand to be glossed a little for the lay reader; is there any specific mention of what Zerbe was researching (especially in SF/LA)?

There is, and I've added some information. Regarding LA, it just says "additional research on old coins".--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Much better now; thank you.

• Although details are not clear, it seems evident that Zerbe caused the ANA membership rolls to be padded by adding new members ... Is this related or unrelated to the earlier mention that 364 people joined the ANA during Zerbe's two-year tenure, many sponsored by Zerbe himself?

Probably a connection but not drawn by the source.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• Alt text for the images used throughout would be beneficial; there is some for the infobox image but not the others.

Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources (as of this revision)

• Ref 30 is being used, in part, to support the claim that the PCNS "fosters a strong tradition of research and literary publication", but as this is a primary source I'm not sure I'd ascribe this in wikipedia's voice. Could we word this to show it's their stated aim, or add a secondary attribution?
• Ref 34 might be better served listing Numismatic Bibliomania Society as a publisher; as I can see "The E-Sylum" is the web version of their Asylum publication.
• Likewise I would replace "pdxcoinclub.org" as the credit for ref 27 with the Williamette Coin Club.

Done both of these.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• Unable to access "coin-gallery.com" through work's firewall so I can't check its credentials as a source, although a numismatics website being flagged like this does give me some concern. Who/what are the publishers of this resource?

I've replaced the source, modifying the text a bit to conform.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• Formatting is fine, happy with ref usage/layout. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I've gotten everything. Thanks for the reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Changes all look good to me. An interesting article, too. Happy to support on this basis, and to consider a source review passed. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 22:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hi ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ, is that a pass for the source review or a source review pass and a general support? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The latter; a support on the whole and a passed source review. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

TRM

• Could link "numismatist" in the lead.
• "World's Fairs ... at Portland" our article indicates that this was not an official World's Fair, perhaps a footnote.
• "Pennsylvania in " comma after Pennsylvania.
• Interestingly, lead starts by calling him "coin collector and dealer" but his occupation in the infobox is given as numismatist. Is that really an occupation?

I'd say, given the circumstances of his life, he made it such. Coins were his career, not only as a dealer but through his exhibitions.

• "the U.S. Mint for " link.
• "the ANA, The Numismatist from" comma before "from".
• "been done on" conducted instead of the clunky "done".

I've simply removed the word "done".

• "in 1939. In 1969" repetitive.
• "has been awarded by" on what basis?

I think the information that it is the association's highest honor is enough for lead purposes, and there is a link.

• "born in" in lead vs "born at" in prose, suggest you stick with one (the former).
• "the public schools" link because public school has a different meaning in other parts of the world.
• "50-centime piece" link? Or even just for centime.
• "$.25" I find this awkward, could we not just say 25 cents?
• "Numismatist of the world's fairs" why not World's Fairs? (the lead says "the World's Fairs in"...)
• "member #197" we avoid using the "hash" symbol to represent "number".
• Link Bureau of the Mint.
• "Pricing them ... a price..." repetitive.
• "issue gold dollars commanded" you link that here, but previously you mention "gold one-dollar pieces", are these not the same thing?

Yes, I am being more explicit as to what they are for the benefit of people who may not know. Since our gold dollar article only deals with the regular issue, 1849 to 1889, and does not attempt to deal with the commemorative ones that were struck after the denomination's demise, I link when the regular issue is explicitly mentioned.

• "to $460,859" probably too "precise", suggest nearest $1000 would suffice.

That takes me to "President of the ANA", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• "aided those affected by the earthquake" in what sense?
• "in Norfolk, Virginia and" comma after Virginia.
• "also featured lectures ... that also featured" repetitive.
• "Monroe, Michigan and" comma after Michigan.
• "be a disorganized mess" bit POV, maybe just "be disorganized".
• "his "Money of the World" exhibit" sometimes the title is in quotes, sometimes it isn't. I would be consistent across the whole article.
• "18,000,000" -> "18 million".
• "the fifty-centimes piece" above you call it a 50-centime piece (so numeral and singular), suggest consistency.
• "the $50 was" +coin.
• You don't link Colorado but you do link Chicago, I would adopt a consistent approach to this.
• "democracy... was" non-breaking space before the ellipsis.
• "World" in 1926" perhaps "two years earlier" to avoid a three-peat of "in YEAR".
• "made Historian of" why capital H?
• "its highest honor" ok you declined to describe it further in the lead, but perhaps here, what is it awarded for?
• Wouldn't the Numismatic Hall of Fame be notable?
• Ref 31, websites normally in italics, but why would this just be publisher = Pacific Coast Numismatic Society?
• Some online sources have access-dates, some don't, I would be consistent.

That's it from me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Seventy-Six (novel)

Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Nobody knows who John Neal (writer) is, so everybody doubly doesn't know about his novel, Seventy-Six (1823), even though it pioneered literary styles that later came to characterize American literature and foreshadowed better-remembered novels by better-remembered authors later in the 19th century. So I think it's interesting anyway, and hopefully you do too. I've successfully brought one other article (Neal's) through FAC and another through FLC, so I feel like I know what I'm getting into on here. This article recently passed GAN (Talk:Seventy-Six (novel)/GA1), which brought up one important comment that I was able to address. Because that reviewer already completed image and source reviews, they offered to do that here as well. Thank you in advance for taking the time to read through this article and making some comments! Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Image and source review - both pass

I reviewed this article at GAN and encouraged this FAC so I'll recuse myself from a full review at this time, but vetted the images and references at the time and will do so here. Based on this revision.

• Both images used are PD-US, both pictured works date to 1823 so predate the cut-off for public domain substantially, the photography itself has also been released into the public domain.
• Sources formatted consistently and cleanly, reliability thereof is also of a good standard. No CS1 errors or inconsistencies found. Spotchecks carried out only sparingly—cannot access JSTOR but have checked Neal 1869, Poe 1849 and Waples 1938 for accuracy and am satisfied. If a more in-depth spotcheck is required it may take JSTOR access or collaboration with nominator but as this is not their first FA this may not be customary.
• As I'm not the most experienced in these matters I will defer to anyone wishing to give a second opinion on either review but I happy to consider this a pass for images and sourcing. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for looking it over! If a more thorough source spotcheck is needed, I can provide scans of requested pages in an of the print books sourced in the article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

• I would link George Washington on the first mention in the plot summary. I understand that a majority of readers will already be familiar with him, but I believe it would be helpful for those who want to learn more about him.

I was on the fence about this, so thank you for the push. Done! Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Do you think either Randolph and Errata have the potential to have their own articles? I am just curious if either of them could have a red link.

This discussion has come up with reviews of John Neal bibliography. I do think many many of Neal's works are noteworthy enough to have their own articles (and I intend to produce some more myself), but it is hard to say which don't and it seemed like too much to redlink all over the place in the bibliography, so we decided just to redlink only his most famous work, Rachel Dyer. Do you have more thoughts on this? Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response. That makes sense to me. I trust your judgement as you are more knowledge about this subject than I am. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• For this part, Seventy-Six is also considered significant for its level of characterization, I would attribute in the prose who considers the book in this way.

I find in my notes that this claim is backed up by 3 different academic sources, so I added those other sources to the citation. If there are 3 different sources (4 authors) in the citation, do you still think it is necessary to include name attribution in the prose? Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• To clarify my point, I was not asking you to list all four authors in the prose. I just think it would be better to clarify which group of people was saying this (i.e. critic, academics, etc.). Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're saying. I just modified the sentence to attribute this opinion to "literature scholars". That term pretty well describes all 4 cited authors. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• For this part, attributed authorship on the title page to "the author of Logan", shouldn't Logan be italics since it is a book title?

No, because the quoted title page does not use italics. I had the same reaction when I saw it written out. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• That makes sense. Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think a facsimile link would be helpful in this sentence: The original Baltimore edition was republished by facsimile in 1971.

Agreed! I added it in the reference list as well. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of the "Publication history" repeats failing in some capacity three times (not counting the "without succeeding" part) and it is rather repetitious. I believe this is made even more noticeable since the paragraph is short. I would try to avoid this if possible.

Agreed. I rewrote the paragraph with this in mind, but also to remove some extraneous detail. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• I am not sure about the first paragraph in the "Reception" section. It seems copy-and-pasted from the lead. This information is presented in the subsections below (and they include the citations) so I do not really see the value of this part.

Funny you should say that. I wrote that paragraph here to summarize the section after expanding it, then realized that this new content should be reflected in the lead, so I pasted a version of it there as well. I realize it's more appropriate for the lead and not necessary in the body, so I just deleted the paragraph from the body. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for this edit. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• For this part, and other relevant romances of its period, is there a reason the romance (literary fiction) redirect is used instead of a direct link to the romance (prose fiction) article?

Yes! The article moved after I wrote this. Thanks for noticing that. Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the edit. Moves can sometimes be annoying for this very reason lol. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• For this sentence, The plot is "well-conceived, well-balanced, and developed smoothly, steadily, and without undue digression or stagnation" with characterization that "is even superior to its plot"., it was not immediately clear where these quotes were coming from so I would clarify that in the prose.

Sure! I just added an extra "he said". Let me know if it still looks unclear. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• That looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

This is an interesting topic and I enjoyed reading the article. I am glad to see more articles on books in the FAC space. One of these days, I will work on a book article. Once all of my comments have been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this nomination based on the prose. I hope this review is helpful, and have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for finding these issues! Let me know if you feel they are all resolved and if you now support the nomination. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I just have one point left, but once that is addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe the last comment is addressed! Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

As this nomination enters its fourth week it has received just the single general review. Unless it sees more activity over the next four or five days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Is it appropriate to list this at WP:FACURGENT to attract more reviewers? Can I add it there or does a coordinator need to do it? Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Anyone is allowed to, but in practice this is mostly left to coordinators, largely because of the formal and informal restrictions on what can be posted there. For example, is is usually reserved for nominations with two firm supports needing a third to gain the minimum needed for promotion to be considered. Can I suggest that you send a neutrally phrased request to anyone who you suspect may be interested in the article, to any editor whose FAC nom you have reviewed yourself (they are more likely to be sympathetic), maybe post a request on the FAC talk page. Perhaps ask Grapple X if they know anyone who may be up for an review. If in a couple of days this has generated nothing, ping me again and I'll think about it. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I am willing to provide a content review in addition to the above; otherwise perhaps a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels asking (neutrally worded, as above) for interested editors to participate may attract fresh eyes, and potentially more specialist ones at that. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: and @Grapple X: Thank you for the advice. And thank in advance, Grapple X, for offering a content review. I'll avoid FACURGENT, but I'll post to the Novels WikiProject talk page and see if I can drum up some interest by reviewing others' nominations. I've been shy to participate in FAC as a reviewer, but I suppose I've gained enough experience now to be helpful. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Re FAC reviewing. If you feel nervous, be clear in your summary which FAC criteria you have reviewed against. That may just be 1a, that's fine - it is all needed, it all helps. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

If I don't get to this tonight (GMT) then I should be able to get to it tomorrow by early afternoon. Dugan Murphy, if you're hesitant when it comes to reviewing, sometimes a source review is a good place to start; if there is one requiring spotchecks you can pretty much do one without much experience as you're simply comparing sources with the article for accuracy and paraphrasing, otherwise you have a much more defined scope to review (formatting, quality, and breadth of sources rather than doing so for all the article's text). It can also be daunting to review subjects you're unfamiliar with but as much as specialist subject experts are helpful, having a pair of eyes on an article to judge its accessibility for a lay reader is useful too, so don't be afraid to try looking at something outside of your usual wheelhouse. Good luck. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I've given it a first look and will try to post a review this week as well. I'm not familiar with this particular novel, but I do have experience with FAs for literature. --RL0919 (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Grapple X

• Previous comments can be seen at Talk:Seventy-Six (novel)/GA1. Re-reading this again more thoroughly and I have very little more to address.
• "This style choice had little precedent and little following its footsteps until the works of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walt Whitman, and Mark Twain, which are all foreshadowed by Seventy-Six"--For context it might be useful to include some relevant time frames here, to give a sense of how long there was "little following in its footsteps" for.

Added. Let me know if you think that still needs tweaking. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• "...that fashioned Neal as Cooper's chief rival for recognition as America's leading novelist". Re-reading this, we have previously discussed the novel having been published anonymously. Is this to say that the anonymous author was recognised as such or when was criticism directly attributing this reputation to Neal?

That's a good point. This book, like many of Neal's anonymous publications, was quickly attributed to him. I just added a sentence to point that out. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Glad to see an extended section on modern opinion though it seems perhaps overly reliant on direct quotation; the sentence "The preface by scholar Robert Bain to the novel's 1971 edition boasts that the story is "bold and experimental" but that it "requires patience and charity of modern readers" with its "dripping melodrama", "lurking gothic horrors", and "improbable plotting" that "seem ludicrous"." is particularly guilty of this. Taking another pass over this heading to paraphrase it more would be a good step.

I just trimmed this section a bit so it covers the same ground with a little less detail and quotation. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• That's all I have at present. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for reading through the article again! If you feel that your comments have been addressed, do you support the nomination? Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Changes look good; happy to support at this time. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Kavyansh.Singh

I remember promoting the DYK nomination of this article to a prep set. Completing my first read, this looks to be a well written, comprehensive and neutral article. Perhaps, I'm already leaning towards supporting it. Just a few comments suggestions. Feel free to ignore any of them which you don't feel useful.

• "Seventy-Six is a historical fiction novel by John Neal." — Will it useful adding "American author/writer John Neal"? Its quite commons in various other.

Done! Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Can link New Jersey

Even better, I Wikilinked Province of New Jersey. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I might be wrong here, but "cofounder" or "co-founder"?

A quick Google search tells me that both are acceptable, but that "co-founder" is more common in British English and "cofounder" more common in American. To stay consistent with the American English used in the rest of the article, I'll keep it as is. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "in spring of 1823" — MOS:SEASON discourages use of seasons to refer to a particular time of year.

Thanks for pointing that out! I just revised per MOS:SEASON.

• "unknown to modern readers" — both in the lead and in the 'Modern views' sub-section, how do we define a "modern reader"?

I rephrased in both places to "largely forgotten by the 20th and 21st centuries" since the cited sources were published in 1971 and 2012. That should be less ambiguous. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Scholar Donald A. Ringe opined," — completely upto you, though I'd replace that comma (,) with a colon sign (:)

Funny you should bring this up. I was going to comment on your FA nomination that you use colons too much to precede quotes, but then I read through MOS:CONFORM and found that colons are preferred in the cases you were using them. It seems a colon is preferred here too, so I just switched that out. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thats it from me. Thanks for your work on this article; perhaps on every John Neal related article/list. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read through it and type out these comments. Do you feel they are addressed and do you support the nomination? Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Definitely. I support this article for FA. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Coord comment

• RL0919, are you still intending to review the article? (t · c) buidhe 22:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Harry S. Truman's 1948 campaign, arguably the most under-rated presidential campaign in American history. By various accounts, Truman was a fine man, who was nominated for vice-presidency by Franklin D. Roosevelt for his fourth term. Just 82 days after being inaugurated for his unprecedented fourth term, Roosevelt died. Truman ascended to the presidency, explaining the burden of the presidency as "the moon, the stars, and all the planets had fallen on [him]." In 1948, he tried to "earn" a term in his own right, but almost all predicted a victory of his opponent—the young and charismatic Governor of New York, Thomas E. Dewey. Various Democratic Party bosses wanted General Dwight D. Eisenhower (considered the most popular man in America) to run, and drafted him. Due to his unpopularity, Truman even agreed to run as Eisenhower's running mate! Eisenhower declined. Truman had to face division withing his own party; two new parties were formed by influential Democratic leaders challenging Truman in the election. Truman campaigned around 22,000 miles, gave 352 speeches, and traveled almost the entire nation (except deep south). Almost all polls predicted a "landslide" for Dewey. Elmo Roper discontinued polling way before election, saying "My whole inclination is to predict the election of Thomas E. Dewey by a heavy margin and devote my time and efforts to other things." The top 50 political writers were asked their opinion about the election. All predicted a victory for Dewey. On the election day, Chicago Tribune printed the headline "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN", boldly anticipating a victory for him. Truman won! He won by a margin of over 2 million popular votes. Truman's picture, holding the erroneous headline of Chicago Tribune has been described as "greatest photograph ever made of a politician celebrating victory".

This article was copy-edited by @Twofingered Typist, reviewed for GA by @Maile66, and peer reviewed by @Hog Farm and @DanCherek. Any constructive feedback is more than welcomed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Caption grammar could use some improvement
  • Keep in mind that captions should end in a period if a complete sentence, and otherwise not. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Tried.
• Instead of "See caption", suggest "refer to caption" for alt text
• Don't duplicate between caption and alt text
  • Done till here. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Don't use fixed px size
  • Removed the fixed px size, but the info-box image now appears unnecessarily large. Can we fix it? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I moved the alt to its specific parameter, see Special:Diff/1050616001. If you wikilink the file, it will typically display at full size, but if you just pass in the name the infobox should automatically resize to fit. Zetana (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• File:Harry_S_Truman,_bw_half-length_photo_portrait,_facing_front,_1945.jpg: why specifically is this believed to be PD?
  • The image record on the Library Of Congress states "No known restrictions". Also, it was published in 1945, so maybe {{PD-US-no notice}} should also apply. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • The image descriptions states that it was "copyrighted" in 1945. Is that not the case? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
      • @Nikkimaria – It is indeed copyrighted, which was not renewed. Library Of Congress states that it was "Copyright by Edmonston Studio", "No copyright renewal", currently having "No known restrictions". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• File:Harry_S._Truman's_1948_Democratic_presidential_primary_result.tif: it doesn't seem that the colours in the legend quite match up with the colours in the actual image? See MOS:COLOUR
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• File:Alben_Barkley,_pensive_(cropped).jpg is missing link to the LOC image record
  • Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• File:Eubie_Blake_-_Just_Wild_about_Harry.ogg: commons:Commons:Hirtle_chart#Sound_recordings suggests this would not yet be PD
  • And yet it is a featured sound! Removed for now, will add after 75 days (on Jan 1, 2022). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• File:Political_Cartoon_by_Jim_Berryman,_"Down_by_the_Station"_(cropped).jpg: why is this believed to be a US government work?
  • Changed to {{PD-US-no notice}}. Truman Library claims it to be in PD. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• File:Truman-Dewey-polls-1948.jpg: in what paper(s) did this cartoon appear?
  • Unclear, but Clifford Berryman (the author of the cartoon) used to work for The Washington Star from 1907-49. National Archives claim it to be unrestricted for further use. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • If this is unknown, how do we know there was no copyright notice in the original publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I meant, it is also unclear that if that cartoon was published in a newspaper or not. All we know is that it is created by Clifford Berryman in 1948, and it is a part of his cartoon collection, compiled by the "U.S. Senate. Office of Senate Curator". NARA claim it to be unrestricted for further use. As we don't know whether it was copyrighted or not, I have changed the licence to {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Does that help? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Since that is also not specified, I would suggest using a more generic tag with the NARA claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
          • @Nikkimaria – Okay, so I decided to double check everything. It was difficult to find, but I finally got this October 19, 1948 edition of The Evening Star, Washington. Indeed the cartoon appeared in this newspaper on that date. Don't know why NARA doesn't say that ... And it was published without any copyright notice. I have now changed it back to {{PD-US-no notice}}. Is it fine? Also, Berryman (the author) died in 1949, i.e. more than 70 years ago, so it is surely in the PD anyways. And I guess, rest all the image licencing concerns are resolved. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
            • That's fine. Thanks for tracking that down. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• File:Deweytruman12.jpg needs a stronger FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Tried. I do want to note here that there are three images of the same incident on Commons. I had discussed about copyright status of those images here, and it was concluded that they should be deleted from commons. There is a deletion request underway. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria – Replies above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Pamzeis — Support

As you probably know from Daisy, I am very inexperienced/naive in the field of politics and probably will screw something up.

• In 1948, Harry S. Truman and Alben W. Barkley were — who are they and why do they warrant a mention?^{[just kidding]}
  • In 1948, almost all media companies and pollsters were thinking the same!
• and former vice president under — per MOS:PERSONOROFFICE, I think "former" can be removed
• and urged former Chief of Staff of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower to — WP:SOB?
• wanted Supreme Court Associate Justice William O. Douglas to — same as above
• however, Douglas declined, claiming a lack → Douglas, however, declined, claiming a lack (MOS:HOWEVER)
• and impressed Truman. Truman selected — repetition of Truman
• received some notable endorsements — WP:EDITORIALISING
• Initially leading in the popular vote, Truman defeated Dewey — given what the rest of the sentence says, I believe this is referring to Dewey leading the popular vote. Though I'm not that well-versed in grammar, I think this makes it grammatically as the verb in the dependent clause at the start (i.e. leading) is tied to the noun of the next phrase (i.e. Truman); if Dewey led, I would revise it to: "Initially leading in the popular vote, Dewey lost to Truman", or "Initially losing in the popular vote, Truman defeated Dewey", etc.
  • Well, Truman was initially leading in the popular vote. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• By July 1918, became commander — missing word
• Roosevelt believed that Roosevelt might not live — "he" (for the latter "Roosevelt") seems fine in this case as this (probably) could not refer to Truman or another man
• The incumbent Vice President Henry A. Wallace was viewed as too far to the left and too friendly to the labor by most of Roosevelt's advisors. → Most of Roosevelt's advisors viewed the incumbent Vice President, Henry A. Wallace, as too far to the left and too friendly to the labor.
• I'm not ask you to change anything about it but I'm interested: what does "on his ticket" mean?
  • Well, a ticket in politics, especially in this particular case about American presidential election, comprises on the presidential and vice presidential nominee. When Roosevelt decided to replace Wallace from his ticket, he meant to replace him with any another candidate as the vice-presidential nominee. In American presidential election, voters vote for a ticker, not for a candidate. That is, if someone votes for Truman, he is actually voting for "Harry S. Truman for president and Alben William Barkley for vice president". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Though he showed little interest in being the vice president, the 1944 Democratic National Convention chose him — I think this is another grammatical error as the beginning bit (i.e. Though he showed little interest) is linked to the 1944 Democratic National Convention. Might need rewording
• nominee of Eisenhower, if Eisenhower so desired — repetition of Eisenhower
• four possible Republican nominees including Dewey — to my knowledge, "include" means as part of a whole. Since all four are listed, however, I would replace "including" with a colon or something
• "Americans in 1948 had to render [...] conventions really mattered." — per MOS:BQ, blockquotes should not have quotation marks
• initial choice was Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. — WP:SOB

That brings me to #Democratic convention... Pamzeis (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pamzeis – Done all, or replied above. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pamzeis – Just a courtesy ping that all previous comments were resolved. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay, I've been kinda busy lately with... managing my time poorly. I'll finish this review by Sunday. Pamzeis (talk) 07:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

More comments:

• Unlink Howard McGrath in #Democratic convention per MOS:DUPLINK
• did not mention his opponent Thomas E. Dewey, he — I think a comma is needed after "opponent"
• "ascendancy of the visual, propelling images as well as words immediately into the homes of millions of Americans." — I can't tell if this is a full sentence or not but if it is, per MOS:LQ, move the full stop outside the quotation.
• The were soon nicknamed → They were soon nicknamed
• William Batt headed a new — who is William Batt?
  • Specified. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Truman's close friend, Oscar Ewing, advised — unless Truman only has one close friend (that'd be sad), remove the commas around "Oscar Ewing"
• In early August when the special — I'm unsure about this but I think a comma is needed after "August"
• had been a "do-nothing" Congress → had been a 'do-nothing' Congress (MOS:QWQ)
• was to carry the fight to them [Republicans], to — I don't see any quotes here so I'm unsure why "Republicans" is in square brackets
• travel in all 48 states but — ...doesn't the US have 50 states? To my knowledge, "all" means every single one... I'd recommend removing all
  • Well, in 1948, US has total 48 states. Alaska and Hawaii were not yet states, so I guess its fine as it is. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• deep south states which heavily favored — I wouldn't bring this up if this article was in British English but, from what I've read, in American English, you need to use that and not which in a defining clause.
• train stops featured a local brass band which played — same as above
• York Herald Tribune later characterized — comma after "Tribune"?
• November 3rd. Truman's triumph — per MOS:BADDATE, remove the "rd"
• On its cover Newsweek called — comma after cover?
• Truman's victory "startling", "astonishing" and — per MOS:QUOTEPOV, I would recommend not add quotation marks around one-word quote material
• Time magazine later called — unlink Time per MOS:DUPLINK
• 30%. 18 days after the New Hampshire — per MOS:NUMNOTES, avoid starting a sentence with a figure
• appeal to middle class Americans — I think a hyphen is needed between "middle" and "class"
• Republican senator from Massachusetts argued that — comma after Massachusetts?
• do for them if elected." — I think the full stop should be outside the quotation

I think that's all of it from me. Ping me once these are resolved! Pamzeis (talk) 07:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pamzeis – I think I have addressed all your comments, or replied as above. Changes can be seen here. Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support – great work! BTW, I'd appreciate any comments here. Pamzeis (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Will try to pay your PR a visit soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27 — Support

One thing I'd change, though, is how journal articles only list the year of publication. I think it's much more elegant – and, furthermore, more useful – to also list the month. Up to you. Also, I'll try to add links to these sources where possible, such as JSTOR and the Internet Archive. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: I also went ahead and added links to the book sources where possible. Hopefully this helps things feel more accessible for casual readers (like myself). TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Just mentioning that I have added remaining links to books and authors, to make it consistent. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi TheTechnician27, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Gog the Mild. Right now, I'm saying tentative support, but I want to give it one more read before I say 'Support'. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Kavyansh.Singh: This might be a little out there, but by any chance is there a map of the stops Truman made? The numerous stops he made were such a massive part of the campaign that I feel it would be incredibly illustrative for just how many there were. I think this exceeds even FA criterion 3, but I still would love to see something like that – maybe an SVG map with dots like over at List of U.S. jurisdictions banning conversion therapy. It'd take a lot of work, and it's just a thought, but I'm going to keep giving this article a second reading. So far it's a support unless something comes to mind while I'm reading it. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Nice idea. There does exist a photo map in the Truman Library (whose copyright status is not clear). Also, I do have sources that discuss have a list of places where Truman visited during his whistle stop tour from September 6, 1948, till election day. So, it is possible to create a map. While I have requested the Map workshop, I think it'll take some time. As it is not majorly a part of FA criterion 3, I think it won't be an issue even if this map was created/added after this FAC. I'll escalate this discussion about the map to the talk page soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• @Kavyansh.Singh: Two things come to mind when it comes to en-dashes and em-dashes. The first is that they need to be standardized. It seems like the article primarily goes with em-dashes, so I can change the en-dashes as I find them. The second is that there are places where a dash replaces a comma or a colon preceding a quote. However, WP:MOS#Punctuation_before_quotations does not include such a use for the en- or em-dash. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC) (Done)
  • Thanks for helping with the dashes. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Another thing is in 'Early developments'. The sentence reads: "The same day, Truman watched the parade". However, you never actually introduced to the reader that there was going to be a parade. You also don't really explain why the public might think the auditorium was open to 35th Division vets, because you don't exactly introduce that Truman was speaking to 35th Division vets in the first place. Those two sentences just feel kind of confusing with the lack of context. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree, and I added context about the auditorium part. I'm not sure about the first part saying "The same day, Truman watched the parade". Do I need to introduce that he was going to watch the parade; I feel that to be a bit reluctant. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Kavyansh.Singh: I think it could be a good idea to have the same sentence, but with "Truman watched a parade", since that would be the sentence introducing the parade. Sorry if I'm getting nitpicky. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• @TheTechnician27 – No issues, I have now changed 'the parade' to 'a parade'. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27 – Thanks for your comments. I think I have gone through everything, and thanks for fixing up much yourself. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: I don't know how much of the article you wrote or fixed up, but it really is fantastic so far. It's like I'm back in 1948 following along with the coverage of Truman's campaign but with the hindsight of the modern day. It's an easy Support for me. I'm going to keep going through and nitpicking (for example, "Democratic National Committee" is mentioned 7 times, whereas it's usually just abbreviated to 'DNC'), but having already read it through once, nothing I find is going to make me change my vote. Just saying, by the by, that if you do have a list every stop Truman made, I can learn how to make an SVG map and go through all of them. If you have every stop Dewey made too, I could do blue dots for Truman, red for Dewey, and purple for both. TL;DR: Support. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. It took me little more than a week, but I can say that I wrote this article from scratch, and published it on 4th of July!. This is my first attempt for WP:4. Appreciate all your edits and help! I have list for Truman's all visits, but will have to find it for Dewey. Will let you know soon. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: One more thing I would add to the article is Bess Truman's quote to his friend Tom L. Evans: "Does he really think he can win?" in Ferrell (2013) page 270. I think it's impactful and noteworthy that even Bess had basically given up on his chances. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Done! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Dugan Murphy

• With such an extensive Works cited list, is the Further reading section necessary?
  • Not necessary, but this section is optional. Wikipedia:Further reading states that "Further reading is primarily intended for publications that were not used by editors to build the current article content, but which editors still recommend." (emphasis mine). The two journals listed in this section are minor publications (both under 20 pages), don't add anything major to the topic. It being or not being on the article is just a choice, and I think that it benefits the reader. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "too friendly to the labor" doesn't sound right. Labor movement?
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• It's not clear to me what "reward of service" is.
  • I check back in the book, and "reward of service" is used withing the quotations, so I've added the quotation marks.
• It's not clear who said "groom the general to follow him". The prose itself should make attribution clear and I believe there should be a citation right there at the quote to make clear where it came from, as is the case with citation 38. But having said all that, I don't think it is necessary to include this information as a quote. I think paraphrasing would be better.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Truman's all efforts" looks like a typo. Truman's efforts or all efforts?
  • Done. ('all efforts') – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think "Progressive" needs to be capitalized.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Howard McGrath, officially" would be easier to read as "Democratic National Committee Chair Howard McGrath officially"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Truman's candidacy on his behalf" — What does it mean for a candidacy to be on someone's behalf?
  • Here, 'his behalf' means that McGrath announced Truman's candidacy on Truman's behalf, instead of Truman himself announcing it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • In that case, I think "on his behalf" is extraneous and leaves room for misinterpretation. I recommend deleting those three words. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Truman won the support of unpledged New Hampshire delegates unopposed." I think I know what this means, but I had to read it a few times. Can you reword to make it easier to understand, especially someone who doesn't read a lot about political primaries?
  • Rephrased, and linked 'unpledged delegate' – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "76 speeches" is followed in the next sentence by "eightieth Congress". Any reason not to be consistent on how numbers are written out?
  • Done, now consistent. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "clung into the roofs" — Is that really the quote?
  • Yes, indeed. The crowd "clung into the roofs" maybe because it was first visit by any president to Los Angeles in around 13 years. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Really what I'm wondering is if the original quotes uses "into" or "onto". "Onto" would make more sense to me, but if that's what was said, that's what was said. Can you confirm? Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Fixed the quote - "clung to the roofs of buildings". I really can't understand how I misread it two times! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• What's the "Eisenhower coalition"?
  • Group of people who supported and campaigned for Eisenhower's presidential candidacy. See Draft Eisenhower movement. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • The article's use of "Draft Eisenhower movement" as a phrase is defined and clear, especially because the movement has its own Wiki. "Eisenhower coalition" as a phrase is not clearly linked to the movement, and especially because it is in quotes, it makes the casual reader wonder if there's a separate entity being referred to with that phrase. I recommend rewording to either define or remove this additional phrase. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Reworded. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• "it became clear the Truman would be chosen" — "the" should be "that"?
  • Fixed the typo. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Southern" is sometimes capitalized and sometimes not. I think every instance it currently shows up in the body of the article deserves capitalization. Same goes for "the South". Same goes for "Congress".
  • Done all three. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I found a few you missed and capitalized myself, plus added a Wikilink to Deep South. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• I see Southern United States is Wikilinked twice in the body. Per MOS:DUPLINK, the convention is to Wikilink any one article only once in the body, plus once in the lede, plus where helpful in captions and tables. There may be other duplicate links I didn't notice.
  • Fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Per MOS:FRAC, "651½ to 582½" should be "{{frac|651|1|2} to {{frac|582|1|2}}". Same for "947½".
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• You've got 11 instances of two citations adjacent to each other and 2 instances of three. I recommend using Template:Sfnm to reduce clutter.
  • I understand that it looks better when using Template:Sfnm, but I thinks there is no issue in using multiple citations adjacent, as long as it is consistent internally (means that no citation used Sfnm). I dislike using Template:Sfnm, though I consider it when it really is an issue (4 or more citations together) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Barkley was nominated as the vice-presidential nominee by acclamation." Could you clarify what this means?
  • Linked in the article. It means that there was no formal vote, and all the delegates unanimously votes in a Voice vote for Barkley. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Truman began his speech electrifying the delegates" — Would this read better with a comma after "speech"?
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "from the radio age to the," — the comma isn't necessary.
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "at dedication of the Idlewild Airport" — Looks like "the" is missing.
  • Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "vice-presidential" is sometimes hyphenated and sometimes not. I believe it always should be.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Why is "high-profile" in quotation marks? Consider rewording (perhaps "high-ranking" or "well-respected") so you don't need a phrase that seems to need quotation marks.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Who said "home of [the] advertising industry"? The prose doesn't make that clear.
  • Well, New York City is generally regarded as "home of [the] advertising industry"; but as it is not necessary here, I removed it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • If the DNC moved its HQ to be closer to the advertising industry, you should consider adding that information back in (so long as the citation backs up that claim). Just say in in clear prose rather than a quote if nobody is being quoted. But if you feel that info is extraneous, leave it out. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Did Truman say "dangerous move", or someone writing about him? Is it necessary to use this quote? I'm not sure that it does much to illustrate beyond what paraphrasing would accomplish.
  • Truman considered it a "dangerous move". I have now paraphrased it. –
• "he attacked Republicans claiming that" — there should be a comma after "Republicans".
  • Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "83-foot (25 m) long train" — "long" is extraneous.
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "The tour was divided into three segments—first cross-country to California for fifteen days, a six-day tour of the Middle West followed by a final ten days in the Northeast with a return trip to Missouri." is a little confusing, perhaps because it is lacking a couple commas the way it is written.
  • Done, now all the three segments are separated by a comma. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• I'm a little confused by "Truman was forced to make some campaign promises primarily because Dewey raised no issues that would force him to respond." Because Dewey raised no issues, Truman had nothing to which to respond, so he made campaign responses instead?
  • Dewey's campaign strategy was to act presidential. He rarely attacked Truman by directly mentioning his name, and often discussed problems, but didn't offer his solutions. As Truman had nothing major to respond to Dewey, he was forced to make campaign promises to galvanize support
    • I just reworded this sentence based on what you said. This makes more sense to me, so hopefully it still conveys what you want it to. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• This sentence has multiple issues: "The major reasons for Truman's victory are given as his co-ordination in handling a single-handed campaign, despite most of the polls and political experts predicting victory for Dewey; and his direct appeal to middle-class Americans, which earned him the vote of farmers, who traditionally voted for the Republican Party." It's too long and cumbersome. The semicolon isn't being used correctly. The first half doesn't make sense to me. And why is "co-ordination" hyphenated?
  • Rephrased. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I just rephrased again, so please check my work to make sure it still says what you want it to say. I removed the piece about pollsters predicting the wrong outcome, since the paragraph starts out with that information and it doesn't contribute here. I focused on the use of "single-handed" and "coordination" so those words are used the way I think you mean to use them. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Looks better! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• The LBJ quote isn't long enough to justify a block quote.
  • Keeping my preference aside, I am happy to fix this by inducing the quotation in the prose. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• The lede is already pretty long, but doesn't include anything from the Aftermath and legacy section but the inauguration date. It seems important to at least include something about how the campaign is remembered for the failure of polling to predict the election outcome.
  • Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Great article. Without verifying any of the references or checking for plagiarism or close paraphrasing, I like that they are consistently formatted and the works cited represents a wide breadth of sources. The prose is engaging but neutral. It seems to me to offer comprehensive coverage of the topic without going into undue detail. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dugan Murphy – Thanks a lot for your comprehensive and helpful review. I think I have fixed everything. Do let me know of any other issues. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I've still got a couple minor issues above I recommend you look at, but this article is already in a state to warrant my support for FA status. If you feel like getting back on the other side of the table, this FAC nomination is in need of another content reviewer. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I have fixed the remaining issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Recusing to do the sr. Hog Farm _Talk 18:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Farley 1989 - publisher should be Julian Messner. Also, this looks like it might be a children's book. Does it meet the stricter "high-quality RS" standard for FA
• "Eisenberg, Lucy (2016). "Harry Truman and the Election of 1948" (PDF). Constitutional Rights Foundation. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 23, 2020. Retrieved June 23, 2021." - This is meant to be classroom read-and-learn homework. The same question of RS vs high-quality RS applies to this one
  • For the above two sources, I find them reliable, but maybe they are not what we consider "high quality reliable sources", so just to be on a safer side, I have replaced their citations with another more reliable source. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Recommend adding ISSNs to the journal sources, if available - check Batt & Balducci, Bogardus, Holbrook, Lee, McDonald et al., Murphy, Sitkoff, Visser,
  • Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Link Communication Research (journal) as the publisher in McDonald et al. 2001
  • Linked. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• "After Eisenhower declined to run yet again, it became clear that Truman would be chosen as the Democratic nominee" - recommend in-text attribution, since you're using a primary source for this.
  • Not sure how The New York Times is a primary source. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
    • It's contemporaneous news reporting of a historic event. While it's independent, it's primary from the sense that it lacks the benefit of any sort of hindsight view
      • Okay, so I added a book source for a phrase of the sentence. For "it became clear that Truman would be chosen as the Democratic nominee", I could not find better source, so I think we should be fine with The New York Times, but I rephrased it as "but many Truman supporters soon believed that Truman would be chosen as the Democratic nominee", which makes it more clear and the fact is directly cited by the news article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Aside from points above, everything looks okay from a perspective of reliability/formatting. So far as I can tell, the range of sourcing used is pretty comprehensive and representative

Spot checks:

• "The president's discretionary travel fund covered the costs because of a lack of donations to the Democratic National Committee" - can you quote for me what Baime says here? Assuming the page number in Bray is correct, Bray just makes general comments about the state of DNC funding, not referring to Truman's travel fund paying or this specific incident at all
  • Sure. Bray indeed make comments about the state of DNC funding, but rest of the incident is cited in Baime 2020, p. 124. See this preview on Google books. He says "[...] meaning it could be paid out of the president's discretionary travel fund. Truman was such an underdog, the Democratic National Committee was broke. ..." Does that help? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
    • This works
• "Initial counting showed Truman leading in the popular vote, but news commentators predicted a Dewey victory" - Bray p. 38 only mentions the commentators, not the initial counting
  • Added "McCullough 1992, p. 706", which was cited in the just previous sentence. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• " Truman began his speech, electrifying the delegates by directly attacking Republicans, and praising Barkley—who was considered the most popular man in the hall" - Not sure about the "directly attacking the Republicans" - this seems to be based on "“Senator Barkley and I will win this election and make these Republicans like it—don’t you forget that", which isn't an unequivocal direct attack. The next page does discuss the attacks on the Republican platform, though
  • Specified, and added page 4 in the range. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• " American author and historian David Pietrusza later wrote that Truman's speech transformed a "hopelessly bedraggled campaign" into an "instantly energized effort capable of ultimate victory in November"" - checks out
• "Although he did not mention his opponent, Thomas E. Dewey, he criticized the Republican platform, charging them for actions of the eightieth Congress" - source says that he contrasted the platform and the actions, not charging?
  • I indeed wrote "contrasted" in the initial version of the article, but it was changed during rounds of copy-editing, and mics... Fixed now. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• "He blamed the Republican-controlled Congress for not passing his legislative measures like the Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill" - page number's wrong - should be 259, not 256. Source also doesn't name the bill, just referring to "failing to pass vital legislation for housing" - is it WP:OR to assume that Lee is referring to Taft-Ellender-Wagner?
  • Fixed – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• "July 26 is referred to as Turnip Day in Missouri, as Turnip crop is traditionally sown on that day. Truman himself was a farmer for 11 years prior becoming a politician" - checks out
• "The number of campaign stops (238 for Truman and 40 for Dewey) are from September 3 till the election day. It differs from the number of days spent in the state, or his overall number of tours" - source says September 2, not September 3
  • Fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Truman campaigned much more actively than Dewey. Although the candidates had only a slight difference in the number of states visited, Truman had a clear lead in the number of campaign stops, having made 238 stops to Dewey's 40" - checks out
• "Clark Clifford edited and presented the forty-three page confidential memo to Truman" - source doesn't seem to say that Clifford edited the memo?
  • As mentioned in the article, James H. Rowe wrote the initial memo, which was edited by Clifford , as also mentioned in Baime 2020, p. 95 and 96. This source is for supporting that fact that Clifford "presented" the memo. His editing is mentioned in Baime source, cited at end of that sentence. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Recommend adding a cite to the Baime source at the end of here then
      • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Truman became the first candidate to lose in a Gallup Poll but win the election" - checks out
• "Even many Democrats strongly anticipated a victory for Dewey and did not campaign to obtain votes for Truman" - checks out
• "His direct approach stood out more favorably compared to Dewey's strategy. Truman discussed specific issues and solutions, while Dewey mostly discussed general problems and did not provide the solution or his approach" - not sure where "and did not provide the solution or his approach". Best I can find is on p. 80 is "hewed to the line of generalization", and it seems to be a bit of a stretch to pull "did not provide the solution or his approach" from that
  • "hewed to the line of generalization", "Governor Dewey's aloofness from domestic issues", and other instances from page 81, etc. leads me to believe that "Dewey mostly discussed general problems and did not provide the solution". Is you think that "did not provide the solution or his approach" seems a stretch, I can remove it. Your thoughts?
    • I'd recommend removing the phrase, then, if that's the case
      • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Truman single-handedly coordinated his own campaign, making a direct appeal to middle-class Americans and farmers, who traditionally voted for the Republican Party" - can you point out where "single-handedly coordinated" is on pages 81 and 82? Or where middle-class are specifically referred to - I'm seeing the source mainly talking about minorities, farmers, and housewives
  • Source mentions "[..] of his own personal courage in making an almost singlehanded bid for support and of the let-down in the opposition's efforts due to overconfidence.", " The President made positive proposals where the people's needs were greatest, namely, in connection with the interests of labor, of the farmer, of the veteran seeking more reasonable housing ...", " Truman won farmer votes away from Dewey." (emphasis mine) Fixed duplicate citations and pg no, though. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Still not sure that any of this directly supports the middle-class, although the rest is fine. Hog Farm _Talk 07:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Spot checks did not give me confidence. Hog Farm _Talk 06:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm – Fixed the minor issues of page numbers, etc. Have responded to the spot check review above, and fixed almost everything mentioned. There are few places where we disagree on source interpretation, but I have tried to make it clear in the prose by removing details which may otherwise be considered doubtful. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Replies above, will take another look in the morning but this is coming along nicely. Hog Farm _Talk 07:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Hog Farm, I fixed everything mentioned to the best I can. Do let me know of any other issues with spot-checks, which I'll surely fix. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Except for Louis H. Bean and Survey Research Center's (SRC) polls, most of the other polls conducted during the fall campaign polled Dewey having a decisive lead over Truman" - where is Bean mentioned in the source? Source says "it turned out that only the SRC had correctly gauged the mood of the nation."
  • Added another source. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Apart from Truman and his campaign team, about 100 other officials boarded the train, including many journalists" - probably ok
• "In a busy schedule, Truman delivered four or five speeches a day" - checks out
• "252 of which were given from the rear platform of the train, which had covered 21,928 miles (35,290 km)" - Not sure what the list of speeches is supposed to support here. It lists 252 speeches, but #249 is said to be in an auditorium, #250 from his house, #251 at the election victory party, #252 at the White House, 239-244 are all from various places in NYC, and many more
  • In that case, claiming them to be from "rear platform of the train" would be erroneous, so removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Truman's 1948 campaign and the election are most remembered for the failure of polls, which predicted an easy win for Governor Dewey" - checks out
• "Clark Clifford, David Bell, George Elsey, and Charles Murphy were responsible for writing Truman's major speeches" - checks out

Fixed both. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Pass on source reliability and formatting, but this one needs further spot checking. I couldn't spot check the books, and the problem rate in the journal/web sources was higher than I was comfortable with. Hog Farm _Talk 22:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

That is a fair call. To whoever does more spot-checks: All the books except Baime 2020 are available on Open Library or Google Books. I have tried to do some spot-check myself (I know that wouldn't count), but I'll definitely resolve further concerns. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Colin Robert Chase

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Most scholars are known for their conclusions; Colin Chase, by contrast, was known as the driving force behind "one of the most important inconclusions in the study of Old English". In a career cut short after 13 years, Chase nevertheless produced major works including The Dating of Beowulf, which put paid to the idea that the date of that epic poem was settled.

This article began as a two-sentence stub, then was expanded and given a good article review by The Rambling Man. I've expanded it further since, particularly with reviews of Chase's major books. Concise and complete, the article is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• The lead image is of very poor quality= - are there any possible alternatives? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria, unfortunately this is the only photograph of Chase I have been able to find. I may try reaching out to Roberta Frank to see if she knows more about it and could provide the original, or to Chase's family, although the latter approach would require some legwork. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments I made a couple of edits to the Lead. This sentence needs work to deal with the repetition of "balanced" and clarity of meaning: "Each chapter took a different perspective, such as historical, metrical, stylistic, and codicological; Chase's chapter suggested that the poem could be dated by its balanced attitude towards heroic culture, balanced between appreciation and admonition, reflecting a time when heroic culture could be seen positively, but without romanticisation or infatuation." I'm concerned about the "comprehensive" criterion and Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Are there any sources about Chase? I don't think a list of Chase's publications is enough for FA. Graham Beards (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Graham Beards. I've reworded that sentence as follows: Each chapter used a different approach, such as historical, metrical, stylistic, and codicological, to attempt to date the poem; Chase's chapter looked at the poem's balanced attitude towards heroic culture, reflecting both appreciation and admonition, to suggest that Beowulf was written at a time when heroic culture could be seen positively, but without romanticisation or infatuation. As for whether there are "any sources about Chase", the answer is yes: indeed, the very first source used in the article is his obituary from Old English Newsletter. This obituary, like the article as a whole, covers Chase's life and career, and should resolve any concerns about "comprehensiveness," however understood. (In any event, that criterion is best understood as requiring a comprehensive survey of the extant secondary sources, which this article unquestionably does.) As for notability, this is a surprising place to raise it, given that the article has survived years, and multiple reviews (including creation, DYK, and GA), without question. But while Chase's early death may have robbed him of the opportunity to collect some of the indicia of academic notability, such as a named chair, his work clearly had "a significant impact in [his] scholarly discipline"—even leaving aside his other work, he put together "one of the most important inconclusions in the study of Old English", with many hundreds of citations to its name. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I am surprised this has not be raised before now and since it hasn't, it should be raised here; this is FAC after all. So all we have is a short obituary in a low-profile journal. Having read it, I think it's enough but the article needs expanding with regard to the methods Chase used to date Beowulf since this seems to be his main claim to fame. To me, the article seems incomplete for a FA. I am open to convincing to the contrary, but in the meantime I oppose the promotion.Graham Beards (talk) 07:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Graham Beards—glad we can get at least one issue out of the way. As to expanding discussion of The Dating of Beowulf, are you thinking about more coverage of the book (and all its chapters) as a whole, or of Chase's chapters in particular? The reason the book is currently dealt with in overarching fashion is because its conclusion—that credible arguments exist for ascribing Beowulf to many centuries, not just one—is more important than any one of those arguments. With that said, I'm happy to add more about it. How about adding a two- to three-paragraph subsection somewhat like this one, first starting with a paragraph summarizing the book and its arguments, and then getting into its reviews and impact? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Just Chase's chapters with his ideas and arguments. I think this would be an improvement; especially the reviews and impact as these would relate to Chase. The article does seem incomplete at the moment. Graham Beards (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Graham Beards, how does it look now? I've removed the section on the book to its own paragraph, and added both a summary of Chase's contributions and a sense of where they fit into the broader dialogue over the date of the poem. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's certainly an improvement. I have retracted my "oppose" and I'm interested to see what other reviewers have to say. Did you have any luck in obtaining a better photograph? Graham Beards (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I've sent an email to Frank regarding the photograph. Still haven't been able to find much beyond the names of Chase's children, meanwhile, so haven't been able to reach out to them. (One possibly edited the page last year—see here—but doesn't have emails enabled, and may not get talk-page alerts.) --Usernameunique (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Wehwalt

• " His best-known work, The Dating of Beowulf, was credited with challenging the accepted orthodoxy of the dating of the Anglo-Saxon poem Beowulf, and leaving behind what was described in A Beowulf Handbook as "a cautious and necessary incertitude".[2][3]" Cannot this be made more direct? As in "... Beowulf, challenged the accepted orthodoxy of the dating of the Anglo-Saxon poem Beowulf, leaving behind ..."

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Is "classics" really a field of study at American universities? Obviously the disciplines that make up the term "classics" are, but looking behind to my mis-spent undergraduate days at university, which was reasonably well-regarded, I don't remember anyone who said they were studying "classics".

• The source, which is Chase's Old English Newsletter obituary, says that "Chase received his B.A. at Harvard in 1956, and for five years attended a Jesuit seminary, studying classics and philosophy". On the sixth page of his dissertation (link; should be available as part of the free preview), he mentions having studied "English Literature", "Elizabethan & Jacobean Tragedy", and "Philosophy", although he seems to skip over that five-year period spent at a Jesuit seminary where he apparently studied "classics". Absent a better source, I'd be inclined to stick with how his obituary terms it. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• "His father, Robert Lamont Chase, was a newspaper executive, and his mother Mary Coyle Chase, a Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright.[4][5]" shouldn't the mother have a comma before her name too?

• Yep, fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Can anything be said about his pre-university schooling or life?

• Not much, unfortunately, although I did just find a brief piece written by his mother, leading to: Chase grew up in Denver, where he attended Teller Elementary School. The success of his mother's play Harvey led to some bullying in fourth grade, leading his mother to write a guest column about it in the Dunkirk Evening Observer. Tried to also find a way to work in Chase cutting up his mother's pink satin wedding dress to use as a Superman cape, though not sure where it would go... --Usernameunique (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Does the Jesuit seminary have a name?

• See above. The obituary is the only place I've seen this mentioned. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Chase's own attempt" what is this?

• Clarified: "Chase's own attempt at dating". --Usernameunique (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

That's it. Very interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt. Responses above --Usernameunique (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This nomination is into its fourth week and has received just the single general review. Unless it sees more activity over the next few days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now.....

"'He additionally participated in the revision of Jack Ogilvy's Books Known to the English - given this isn't linked, is it worth a short sentence/clause on what it's about?

Done: "He additionally served as an administrative committee member at the early stages of the project to revise Jack Ogilvy's Books Known to the English and create a reference work mapping the sources that influenced the literary culture of Anglo-Saxon England."

Anything else to add about Two Alcuin Letter-Books?

Added some more details: "Collected for Wulfstan, Archbishop of York, two centuries after Alcuin's death, the letters were preserved in a manuscript from the Cotton collection at the British Library, and many were apparently intended as didactic messages rather than personal correspondence; others were "model letters" including 'thank you' notes and 'get well' cards, likely to help students learn how to compose letters in Latin." --Usernameunique (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise not finding anything to complain about.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Casliber. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok cool - additions are cool at rounding out the article a bit. nice work Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• Is there a reason to pull out those two particular chapters in Books? If so, suggest abbreviating the citation

• Those are the two that Chase wrote. He was the editor of the entire volume, but the other chapters were written by others. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, in that case suggest abbreviating. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Done, looks a lot cleaner now. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you include publisher and/or location for periodicals

• Added those which were missing. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• FN1: this isn't really a republication, it's just the online version of the same publication. Ditto FN18. (Conversely, FN5 is a republication)

• Changed both to "published online as". --Usernameunique (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• FN5? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• I don't have access to the original source, so am relying on the republication. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• What makes Oryx Press a high-quality reliable source?

• The authors appear to be reputable people who did their due diligence. They are an information specialist, and a professor of library administration at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. According to the preface, the work "was inspired by the difficulty we had as librarians when attempting to answer questions from students and library patrons about the people who won the award". --Usernameunique (talk) 06:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that would qualify them as experts on this topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Even if not, then writing the book on the topic would presumably do so. After all, there's a reason why "to write the book (on)" means "to be the original expert or authority (on something)". (Per the OED.) That appears to be a higher standard that what is called for, given that a work does not need to be by an expert to be reliable. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• FN27: page?

• Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• U of T is a publisher not a work

• Are you looking at #30? University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science is in the website parameter, which seems correct considering it is that department's website. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in when you include retrieval date.

• Added the one that was missing. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikkimaria. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

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)

Symphony No. 4 (Mahler)

Nominator(s): GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 12:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Gustav Mahler's Fourth Symphony -- not his most famous symphony, but certainly a brilliant work. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 12:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size
  • Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 00:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• File:Symphony_No.4_by_Gustav_Mahler,_Cover.jpg: where is that licensing coming from?
  • The cover was published c. 1911, so I updated the licensing accordingly. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
    • If the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 100 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Hm, I think I meant pre-1926 publication. I'll go fix that. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 03:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• File:Kaimssaal_duelfer_1895.png: where and when was this first published? Ditto File:Felix_Weingartner_LCCN2014692334_(cropped).jpg, File:First_recording_from_Mahler_Symphony_No.4_Hidemaro_Konoye_Scan10004.JPG
  • I've looked around on the internet and in Google Books, but I couldn't find the original publication year for any of the images :( GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
    • The first two of these images have tags stating they are PD because they were published pre-1926. Can any pre-1926 publication be confirmed? If no, are there other applicable tags? For the third, any sources confirming the given tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• File:Mahler_Symphony_No.4_in_G_major_1._Badachtig_Nicht_ellen_(Mahler)_European_Archive.ogg needs a tag for the music, and where and when was this first published? Ditto File:Mahler_Symphony_No.4_in_G_major_2._In_gemachlicher_Bewegung_(Mahler)_European_Archive.ogg, File:Mahler_Symphony_No.4_in_G_major_3._Ruhevoil_(Mahler)_European_Archive.ogg, File:Mahler_Symphony_No.4_in_G_major_4._Sehr_behaglich_(Mahler)_European_Archive.ogg. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I updated the licensing for both the music and the recording. However, I couldn't find the first publication year. Not sure whether that is a requirement for music sound files though, since for FA Beethoven Op. 110, the musopen recordings by Donald Betts didn't have any publication year listed on Wikimedia Commons. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Sound files

• None of them play any sounds on my PCs. Graham Beards (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Hm... Are you referring to the full recordings of the symphony, the score snippets, or both? Both seem to play fine for me. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• The snippets don't function in Google Chrome. They work with Microsoft Edge. Graham Beards (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I haven't stuck to the latest version of Chrome since it was laggy/buggy for me for different reasons. As of version 94 though, the sound files seem to work fine. Regardless, this seems more of a browser-related problem than a Wikipedia FAC problem. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 21:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I disagree. We should fix these issues because "FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work". If this problem remains, I will have to Oppose the article's promotion. Graham Beards (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I don't see how what seems to be an external, non-Wikipedia-related problem would affect an FAC promotion. Do other FA music snippets (like those in Mahler 8) suffer from the same problem, or is it just this article? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
        • The snippets in Symphony No. 8 (Mahler) work in Chrome. Graham Beards (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
          • I might just have to disable the sound files then. They were also causing some formatting issues per the GA reviewer, and annoyingly reload for some reason every time I open the page. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
            • I wouldn't give up so easily. They are valuable to readers who can't hear the sounds in their heads and have to use the piano. Perhaps ask for help? Graham Beards (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
              • I've already consulted the help desk earlier this month on the formatting issue, but they told me to check with WP:Classical music. I haven't taken it up there yet, but after some poking around, I at least figured out what was responsible for the scores reloading and what potentially may be causing playback issues on your end. If I remove Template:Listen from the article, the audio snippets load fine (without annoying reloads or formatting issues) just like on Mahler 8. However, I know of another FA (Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart)) that also uses both score snippets and the Listen template and also suffers from the same "reloading" issue, so I was wondering whether audio snippets on that article are also broken for you as well? If so, can you also preview either Mahler 4 or Mozart Piano Concerto No. 24 with the Listen music template removed and see if the audio snippets work again? If you can confirm my hunch that the Listen template conflicts with not just the audio snippet formatting on my end but the playback on your end as well, it would be easier for me to file just a single bug issue with whomever maintains music scores on Wikipedia. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 00:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
                • Yes, you are right, removing the template solves the problems with the snippets. How weird. And yes, I have the same problem with the Mozart concerto article.Graham Beards (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
                  • Thanks for the confirmation! I'll update here after I figure out who maintains the scores and the Listen template. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 14:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• GP, try the technical pump, it is the best place to find help with these issues imo. Aza24 (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • All right thanks, I'll take this issue there. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• This issue has been introduced at the technical pump. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Coord note

Approaching the three-week mark with no supports, this may be archived in the near future if we don't see momentum towards promotion. (t · c) buidhe 17:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Just noticed this. I'll review, tomorrow, I hope. Tim riley talk 21:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Tim for the review. Not really sure what to do about the image review or the score issue, but at least prose is something I can manage. I'll be addressing your comments soon. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 21:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment Support from Tim riley

Despite a lifelong detestation of Mahler's symphonies I feel I must comment on this article, not least because I don't like to think what my Wikipedia mentor, Brian Boulton – a strong Mahler man – would have said if I didn't. I think BB would have broadly approved of this article and he would certainly have had more useful comments to make than I can offer. But here goes with my meagre gleanings:

• However, the symphony's final form – this is the first of six "howevers" in the article, and in my view we could do without all six: they clog up the prose and add nothing of value.
  • Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• Mahler later finished the Fourth during his summer vacation in Maiernigg the next year – the "later" is superfluous: summer the next year is self-evidently later.
  • Removed. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• The British premiere on 25 October 1905 was a Proms concert delivered by Henry Wood, who conducted the Queen's Hall Orchestra and his wife, Jessie Wood, as soprano. – That's the wrong wife. In 1905 Wood was still married to his first wife, Olga. After she died he married his secretary (a bad mistake) in 1911, and finally Jessie was his third partner calling herself "Lady Jessie Wood" but never actually his wife because wife number two refused a divorce. All of which is a long-winded way of saying that this should read something like "Henry Wood, who conducted the Queen's Hall Orchestra, with his wife, Olga Wood, as soprano". (That is what the source actually says, and the BBC Prom archive confirms it.) Tangentially, "delivered" seems a strange verb here, and to an English eye "a Proms concert" looks odd: one would expect either "at the Proms" or "at a Prom concert", but I do not press either point.
  • I was wondering whether you could provide the citation for these sources? I am convinced that what you claim is correct (since you worked on the FA after all), but a search for "Olga" in the original source (Mitchell 1999) doesn't return anything, while Mitchell explicitly claims that the soprano was "Jessie Wood" on page 553. I believe the most likely explanation here is that Mitchell made a mistake, in which case the source needs to be substituted with the ones you provided (rather than just assume Mitchell meant Olga). I rephrased the sentence as well. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Plenty of reliable sources. Half a dozen or more contemporary press reports credit "Mrs Wood" or "Mrs Henry Wood" (that is, in 1905, Olga), as does Cox, p. 58 (Cox, David (1980). The Henry Wood Proms, London: BBC. ISBN 978-0-563-17697-8). For a specific mention of her given name, you can cite the BBC Proms archive in its listings for that concert. Tim riley talk 08:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks, the correction has been made. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 12:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• nine concerts during which Mahler's complete opus was played for the first time – really everything he ever wrote? Or do you mean just the symphonies?
  • Blaukopf writes: "offered the entire opus of Mahler" without any further clarification. The Mahler 8 article, though citing the same source and page, claims that this meant "Mahler's completed symphonies and his major song cycles". I believe, however, that this can be substantiated by Langford 1920 by simply counting which works he mentions in his review. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Blaukopf is unequivocal, I agree, and so I'm happy with the sentence as drawn. Tim riley talk 08:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• transferred to Boosey & Hawkes, but Boosey & Hawkes's 1943 edition – perhaps "the latter's" or "their" the second time?
  • Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• For the complete discography, see Mahler Symphony No. 4 discography – my italics, meaning do you guarantee that our discography is in fact complete?
  • Nope, changed. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• The symphony was first performed by boy soprano in 1983 – first performed on record or tout court? If the latter I think you need a very solid reference for such a sweeping statement.
  • The only other source I could scrounge for this is the one used by the James Westman article (So 1998) to substantiate its similar claim. However, nowhere in this source does it actually mention him being the first. Furthermore, the same source claims that he first performed with the Boston Youth Chamber Orchestra, meaning the performance with the BSO wouldn't even be the first tout court. If it's okay with you, I'll simply opt for removing this claim altogether. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
    • The citation to the Mahler Foundation page is definite enough that this was the first performance with a treble soloist, and I have no further quibble on this point. Tim riley talk 08:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• The piano and voice score of "Das himmlische Leben" was completed on 10 February 1892 while the orchestra and voice score was completed on 12 March 1892 – something done in Feb is not done while something is being done in March. A simple "and" (or semicolon) would be preferable to "while" here.
  • Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Those are my few comments. The article seems to me to cover the work fully and the prose serves its purpose. I expect to be adding my support at my next visit. Tim riley talk 00:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

All looking good. I'll be back (later today I hope) after a final read-through. Tim riley talk 08:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Support. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 16:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Despite the unresolved problems with the sound templates? Graham Beards (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Have I misread the exchange? It looked to me, and still does, as though the matter is a technical one, not within the nominator's gift to influence. Or have I completely misunderstood? Tim riley talk 19:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

A potential cause has been identified. What steps have been taken to fix the issue? We would not allow links to broken images. This article is not fit for the Main Page as it stands. Graham Beards (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, and I may be wrong, this article (in my view) represents the best WP has to offer, and qualifies for FA. If WP has technical problems displaying it properly on certain browsers, that is not, I think, a reasonable pretext for opposing its promotion. Tim riley talk 23:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

A task has been filed to address this issue. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 00:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aza24

Looking now. Aza24 (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• "perceived inferiority to the Second Symphony" — maybe "perceived inferiority to the 'popular/well-recieved' Second Symphony" or something?
  • Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• It seems a little backhanded (which I know was not the intention) to name Mengelberg and Walter but not Hidemaro Konoye and have "Japanese rendition" instead. Not finding a huge issue with this though, but worth considering
  • Konoye is now mentioned in the lead. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• I would think the premiere soprano should be included in the lead and infobox?
  • I'll include it in the infobox, but I haven't included names of more notable soloists in the lead, so I'll keep the lead as is. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• You could consider linking to Movement (music)
  • Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Donald Mitchell could use an adjective ('scholar', 'musicologist' what not)
  • Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Linking 'war' to WW2 seems odd, perhaps just going to the Post-war article is more to the point?
  • Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• If you're capitalizing "Death" as the 'personification', a link to Death (personification) seems warrented
  • Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• "triple fortissimo" (3 x ff) would mean ffffff, I think you mean triple forte! This happens twice later in the article (do link the dynamic as well)
  • I was confused by this as well when I was writing, but this is the exact wording La Grange uses on page 768 of his Mahler biography/analysis, and didn't give it much thought. However, I just checked the score and you are correct in that Mahler denoted a triple forte "fff" instead of "ffffff". Fixed and linked. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• " poetry collection of the same name" could use some modification to make the folk aspect clear (i.e. just saying "folk poetry collection...") so it doesn't sound like its a set of poems by a specific poet
  • Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• I personally prefer ill links for outside wiki articles (i.e. Felix vom Rath), so I thought I'd propose it as an option
  • I originally had interlanguage links for pages like vom Rath, but the GA reviewer didn't like them :( GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• There are quite a few dup links, not sure how many of them are accidental, and how many are on purpose
  • I'm not sure which ones in specific you are concerned about. I did link some articles twice in the body, but I believe that was usually if the term hasn't been mentioned for a long time in the prose. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Do we know who the soprano was for the Weingartner tour?
  • I don't believe La Grange mentioned that. I'll take a look again. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• I am some what astonished that Kathleen Ferrier sang the soprano part for this work!
  • That was a mistake on my part; that should have been for Das Lied von der Erde. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• I really think that the links in the instrumentation would be far more effective if to the section articles, i.e. String section instead of String instrument
  • Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Got to III. Ruhevoll, poco adagio, more later Aza24 (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado

I'm very pleased to see this being proposed. Elly Ameling's recording with André Previn was my introduction to Mahler and remains one of my favourite recordings of anything.

• Composition
  • "Das irdische Leben": suggest mentioning that this appears in Des Knaben Wunderhorn

    now done, thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Premiere
  • footnote about Margrete Michalek? She was not just a random choice, according to the Mahler Foundation she had an affair with Mahler and also sang in the world première of his second symphony.
  • "Despite this, the premiere left many in its audience incensed,[39] and the Munich press was quick to report.[45]": I think "as the Munich press was quick to report" is the natural idiom and would relate the two phrases better.
    • Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Instrumentation
  • "and the work is absent of trombones and tuba": clumsy phrasing, perhaps "and there are no trobones or tuba"
    • Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I have made the following edit: accessibility: definition list instead of bold pseudoheadings, no blank lines separating list items
    • Looks good to me. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• III. Ruhevoll, poco adagio
  • is "an Appendix" what is later referred to as "the coda"? I got a bit confused reading this section
    • This is the terminology Floros uses to describe the section. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Looking at Floros, this section is not wrong, but it is rather difficult to understand. I suggest the following changes (or similar), to help the reader visualise the structure during the first reading of the content:
      • parenthesise the contents of bar form just as already done for the five main parts, so it is clear that the Appendix is not part of the bar form:
      • --> "Floros views part A's structure as a bar form (two Stollen – the first theme followed by its variations – and an Abgesang) and an Appendix."
      • Describe the coda in a separate paragraph, following Floros, starting at "Floros calls the coda's..."
• Footnotes
  • The Konoye image can interfere with the multicolumn notes on wider displays, perhaps no columns would be better
    • I tried using {{Clear}} instead. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

      That is fine, thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

In response to comments from others:

• Midi extracts: using chrome on linux, the sound plays fine but the credits button in the dialog hangs forever (it is possible to close that tab and reload). As long as problems with this dialog are being raised, I don't see that we should throw away the midi links.
• Inter-language links. I agree with Aza24 (above) that we should provide ills when available. Apart from offering background information to the interested reader, they are one way of suggesting needed articles.

--Mirokado (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Kererū

Nominator(s): Ambrosia10, Marshelec & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

This chonky borb I brought to GA in 2007 but then forgot about it...has then had a very thorough GA review to the point where I reckon it is within striking distance of FA-hood. Thanks to Mover of molehills for going over it with a fine tooth comb. Have at it folks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz

• consider glossing taonga in the lead - as well as linking - this is a specialized word

I will defer to @Ambrosia10 and Giantflightlessbirds: over the exact best translation as they are locals...otherwise I'll do some reading and guess... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Complex, commonly translated as "treasure," māori dictionary says: "Treasure, anything prized - applied to anything considered to be of value including socially or culturally valuable objects, resources, phenomenon, ideas and techniques." Dracophyllum 06:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Reference 7 - James 1995 - this is a MSc thesis which I haven't found online. This isn't acceptable as a source - better sources are available.

replaced (was harder than I thought!) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Reference 39 - Dijkgraaf 2002 - this is a PhD thesis. This isn't ideal as a source - is the information available elsewhere? Important results from a PhD thesis are usually later published in refereed journals. PhD theses are not refereed and are often difficult to access.

in process of reading - HANZAB has a huge dump of plant species which is possibly not helpful to include. I have found this which is mentioned in other papers. Will add tomorrow as I need to sleep now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

ok added the field guide as a good summary of fruits preferred. The Kelly paper seems to challenge the thesis anyway so have dispensed with it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• The article in HANZAB (1996) is available online from New Zealand Birds Online here. Perhaps this can be used to replace the poor references above.

Took me a while to find the link on that one....but now we're in business... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• NZ birds also has the relevant pages of: Heather, B.D.; Robertson, H.A. 2005. The Field Guide to the Birds of New Zealand. Viking, Auckland

added fruit eaten Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• A cladogram would be useful. Why is the cladogram on the talk page not included in the article?

laziness. added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Distribution and habitat

• mention local movements - see HANZAB p. 1018, Clout et al 1991 and possibly Powlesland et al 2011 here

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Breeding

• mention that both parents build nest

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• how large and what colour is the egg?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• mention that clutches can overlap - incubating on one nest while feeding a chick on another

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• at what age do they start breeding?

HANZAB says unknown Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• how long do the birds live?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thorsen et al 2004 "Parental care and growth rates of New Zealand pigeon (Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae) nestlings" might have useful info. available here

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

More later - Aa77zz (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 12 (Falla et al 1979), Ref 16 (Ward 2019), Ref 26 (Robertson & Heather 2017) - the titles of these three references link to the entry at WorldCat. I expect a title link to take me to an open-access version of the article/book. Note that the OCLC number already links to WorldCat.

delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

- Aa77zz (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC) Lead

• "It is the only remaining New Zealand bird capable of swallowing large fruit..." Not in body of article - needs source.

removed - forgot about lead. that was in body but cited to a thesis and actually challenged by subsequent fieldwork so not strictly true. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Breeding

• consider mentioning that these pigeons are monogamous and the pairs remain together when not breeding - the pair-bond probably lasts from one breeding season to the next.(HANZAB))

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

References

• Ref 45 Cousins 2010 - a Master's Thesis that should be replaced.

replaced Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 73 Renganathan 2004 - a Master's Thesis that should be replaced.

removed sentence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 78 "Supplementary information for subsistence practices, ..." - needs authors

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Refs 21, 22, 23, 61, 67, 79, 84, 86 and 88 are all cites to the website "Stuff". Why is this a reliable source?

It is a website, Stuff, owned by Stuff (company) (previously Fairfax media) so has a reliable publishing pedigree Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

- Aa77zz (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead is unbalanced - it mostly covers the conservation and the relationship to humans: it contains very little on the behaviour of the bird itself.

breeding and some measurements added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Figure captions

• File:Hemiphaga_novaeseelandiae_spadicea.png - consider adding the author (John Gerrard Keulemans), the date (1907) and that the lithograph was based on a preserved specimen in the Natural History Museum at Tring (see Plate 21 here

duly captioned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:Keulemans, John Gerrard 1842-1912 -New Zealand pigeon. Carpophaga Novae Zealandiae. (one-half natural size). - J. G. Keulemans delt. and lith. (Plate XXIV. 1888). (21014153784).jpg - Walter Buller should be linked. The lithograph was published in 1888 and was again drawn by John Gerrard Keulemans. (This image adds very little to the article).

Diet

• Ref 35 - Bell (1996) - the specific name is misspelled. The page number should be 37 rather than 87. It is a single page - available here. I suggest deleting this reference - there are 3 other cites to support the short text "The kererū feeds on many species with tropical affinities, including the Lauraceae and Arecaceae".

ref removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

In Māori culture

• Possibly mention: Walter Buller in his A History of the Birds of New Zealand published in 1888 mentions that large numbers of birds (8000) were snared near Lake Taupō and preserved in their own fat. See: Buller, Walter (1888). A History of the Birds of New Zealand. 1 (2nd ed.). London: Buller. p. 234.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 49 - Best 1977 - this is a reprint of a book by Elsdon Best (1856-1931) that was published posthumously in 1942. (need author-link=Elsdon Best and orig-date=1942)

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

- Aa77zz (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Formatting references - rather than listing changes here I've edited the article myself.

Support - thanks for all your good work. -Aa77zz (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

thx for the thorough review - article is better for it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• What is the purpose of including an image gallery?

Wasn't me who added. Removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Suggest adding alt text

mostly done but group image template proving difficult and not sure about movie clips Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:Hemiphaga_novaeseelandiae_spadicea.png needs a US tag, and what's the author's date of death?

added US tag - he died in 1912 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:The_Great_Kererū_Count_2021.jpg: why is this believed to be CC? The source site has an "all rights reserved" notice

Removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:Keulemans,_John_Gerrard_1842-1912_-New_Zealand_pigeon._Carpophaga_Novae_Zealandiae._(one-half_natural_size)._-_J._G._Keulemans_delt._and_lith._(Plate_XXIV._1888)._(21014153784).jpg: can more specific tagging be added? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

you mean adding the US tag? done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Stuartyeates

• Remove the image gallery unless those images actually add something to the article.

Removed. Am contemplating adding an image of bird with extended wings to body of text but article is pretty image-heavy as is and not sure it trumps any of the other images alreayd there Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Suggest changing "Spelling Māori loanwords with macrons—that indicate a long vowel—is now common in New Zealand English." to "Spelling Māori loanwords with macrons—that indicate a long vowel—is now common in New Zealand English, where technically possible." The change is already supported by the references.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• It would be great to get an image of a korowai with Kererū feathers, but all of the instututions I checked didn't do CC.

yeah that would be good.....sigh Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

- Stuartyeates (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Funk

• I'll have a look soon. Should Norfolk pigeon be merged into here, as is usually the rule for subspecies with short articles? FunkMonk (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

was sort of distinctive subspecies. Will look at content of both. Have incorporated the date and cause of extinction, and differences in plumage as the salient points. A merge discussion can take place later (given the distinctiveness there is a case for a separate article which is best discussed in a structured format) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• There are some duplinks (not counting those in the cladogram).

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• The alt text has replaced the caption in the second image.

fixed now I think....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• The video thumbnails seem a bit uninteresting, you can pick a specific frame with the parameter I've used at for example thylacine in the video under description.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• I see the article is a bit crammed, but always good to show the egg[8] when we can?

what would you propose removing...? This is tough.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I saw you ha a double image with the juvenile and the video before, perhaps make it with the egg instead? FunkMonk (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

egg added now (removed 2nd kuelemans lithograph) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Bold its name in the cladogram?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• I agree there could be a photo showing spread wings, but as you say, the article is a bit crammed. Perhaps under distribution?

see above Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• What should "Carpophaga" link to?

looking but not sure - original name combination to be for wompoo pigeon but not listed as junior synonym for Ptilinopus, which I think it is - need a source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reworded now - Megaloprepia is Ptilinopus, still looking for where Carpophaga should go..I think Ducula but I can't find any references (!) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• "with the end of the genus name Carpophaga introduced by English naturalist Prideaux John Selby in 1835" This is a bit confusing, as it reds as if Selby used the name for this species, so you should specify if it was for another.

have reworded this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Link Columba?

You mean one of the ones in the binomial names? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Either that or somehow work it in like "was first placed in the genus Columba as C. novaeseelandiae" or similar? FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The extinct Norfolk pigeon (H. n. spadicea)" Could specify subspecies for clarity.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The kererū is a large arboreal pigeon weighing 550–850 g (19–30 oz),[25] and can be" That can be? Not sure, but seems incongruent now.

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Details on the extinct Norfolk Island subspecies are scant" But does this apply to its plumage, considering many specimens are preserved?

the original wording was the ssp. was "poorly known" - but you are right it is misleading as is. Will move that elsewhere Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Kererū make occasional soft coo sounds (hence the onomatopoeic names)" I think it should already have been stated the name is onomatopoeic when you discussed the common names then.

I didn't add that source so just removed it. I haven't seen that written elsewhere so will look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Kererū remains have been recovered" Specify if these are fossils.

just changed to "bones" as simpler Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Although sedentary, kererū move can move" Double move.

move removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "travelled up to 100 km." Convert?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• I think one of these photos[9][10] of fighting individuals would add more to the article than the low quality feeding video, and it would work to both show the wings spread and behaviour.

Agreed Dracophyllum 05:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree too - and changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "kererū are able raise" Able to?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Mention the word subspecies in the caption of the image showing the extinct one?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• "They are only restricted by moulting" How does this restrict them?

I think because of energy requirements and ability to forage for young, but not clarified in this source. reworded to "They do not breed when moulting" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• You give scientific names for plant species, but not animal species mentioned.

This seems to be the last unanswered point. FunkMonk (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

oops - on it... think I got 'em all... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• "On Norfolk Island, the subspecies was last seen in 1900" Add "the local subspecies" for clarity?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• " The reason for the kererū's iridescent green-blue and white plumage is because" Add "according to this legend"?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• "New Zealand pigeon: A History of the Birds of New Zealand, Buller, 1888" Link Buller?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• "along with moa, extinct New Zealand quail" Since both are extinct, perhaps say "along with bones of the extinct moa and New Zaland quail"?

reworded --Gertrude206 (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Everything looks good to me now. One last comment, maybe the first two images should swap their alignments (left/right) so that the birds look towards the text rather than away from it?

aaargh - if I right-align the lithograph, it will be displaced downwards on wider monitors (left-aligning the chick is ok). I thought for a moment you meant swapping the chick image and lithograph but that takes the chick away from its reference text...frustrating. You're not bothered by image displacement? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to show what I mean, on a small screen it would look like this:[11] FunkMonk (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

okay switched now 12:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support - everything looks nice to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• The lead identifies the stoat as an invasive mammal, but that claim is not cited and not repeated in the body

Good pickup (how did we leave that out??), and added now to body Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how you format refs to IUCN red list
• Be consistent in when locations are included and how these are formatted
• Be consistent in whether you use website name or domain name as work title for web refs, and whether publisher is included. Compare for example FNs 10 and 14
• FN12 is identified as a juvenile work at OCLC - what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
• Compare publisher formatting in 15 vs 16
• Don't mix templated and untemplated citations
• Be consistent in how edition statements are formatted
• Be consistent in when you use |via=
• How does FN51 meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP
• FN57 is very oddly formatted. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

TRM

• "native to the New Zealand mainland" but the distribution section says it's found on Stewart Island and "offshore islands"?
• "egg clutch" the "clutch" term could be linked and is not used in the main article.
• "although it also ... Although widespread" repetitive.
• Could link Māori culture.
• Department of Conservation is normally just referred to as DOC so consider adding (DOC) after the first use and then using the initialism thereafter.
• "genus Columba (bird) as" do we need (bird) in there??
• "found in mainland New Zealand" see above.
• "which is a member of a different genus." this is unreferenced.
• Link mantle.
• "around Invercargill crossed" link.
• "ritualised 'billing'" what does this mean?
• ("... can cause the bird to become intoxicated ..." this sounds brilliant, pity we don't have more on pissed Kiwi pigeons...!)
• "Breeding and lifespan" this para appears to suffer from image sandwiching.
• "breeding, and likely breed together in subsequent breeding" triple-breed.
• You mentioned "billing" (unexplained) earlier but not here.
• "(mostly kānuka (Kunzea ericoides), which" looks to be missing a closing paranthesis.
• Link Rotorua.
• "egg (museum specimen)" would think this should be "Egg..."
• "success.[48][46][49][50] " ref order.
• "150 square metres" convert.
• "from Auckland city" link.
• "causing them to become drunk" you've already mentioned this, although you used the slightly more encyclopedic term of "intoxicated"...
• "containers).[67][48][69]" ref order.
• " kaka, kakapo " why aren't these having their diacritics honoured?
• "birds collected by the Department of Conservation.[83]" linked here? Do it first time and as noted above, then go for DOC.
• Ref 84 spaced hyphen should be en-dash.

That's it for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Croatian Spring

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a period in history of Yugoslavia and Croatia marked by a peak in a wider and longer-lasting conflict between centralisation and decentralisation of Yugoslavia. The period saw a rise in Croatian national sentiment and nationalist forces framing their objectives around economic issues of (de)centralisation. At the same time, those advocating decentralisation embraced (to a degree) support from the nationalists. Actions of the leadership of the Socialist Republic of Croatia drew response from Croatian Serbs and caused ethnic tensions. The period ended when the Croatian leadership was removed from power following an intervention by Yugoslav president Josip Broz Tito. Croatian Spring and associated events had a significant impact on the final years of Yugoslavia. Tomobe03 (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Looks pretty solid. I copyedited the article several months ago and it looks like it's improved since then. I may have more to say later. (t · c) buidhe 18:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the map
• File:Aleksandar_Ranković_(1).jpg: the given source doesn't seem to match up with this image. When and where was this first published?
• File:Deklaracija.jpg: the Croatian tag wouldn't cover the artwork in the middle of the page, and it's unclear why PD-self would apply
• File:Savka_Dabcevic_Kucar.jpg is tagged as lacking description
• File:Oton_Ivekovic,_Dolazak_Hrvata_na_Jadran.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Franjo_Tudjman.jpg, File:Milka_Planinc.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I plan to quickly fix those images that are comparably simple to get in order and (temporarily) remove others until issues concerning them can be addressed. I need some feedback though for a couple of them:

(1) Would it be better to cut out just the non-PD artwork from the Deklaracija.jpg and keep the rest of the page in the image or cut the image in such way that only the relevant article and newspaper title are in it? Apparently the artwork is not a part of the article.

If that is possible that would fix the Croatian tag issue. The PD-self issue is still a question. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

That's certainly possible. I believe the uploader misunderstood the "self-made" work as referring to the uploaded file. I see no other reasonable explanation.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

(2) Oton Ivekovic...jpg has in its description the year of publication of 1905 and according to the Croatia PD notice works of known authors who died before 1949 became PD in 1999 (i.e. after 50 years). Iveković died in 1939, so the 50-year period expired on 1 Jan 1990 or at least on 1 Jan 1992 after the 1991 Croatian Copyright Act came into effect - in time not to be covered by 1 Jan 1996 URAA application. I see the commons page has the two PD tags and 1905 date, so I'm not sure what else needs be added in that case. Could you please advise?

Is 1905 the year of publication, or the year of creation? If the former, in which country was this published? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

That's year of creation (in Austria-Hungary at the time). In 1905-1908 Iveković worked as an art teacher in a Zagreb high school and then moved on to lecture at the Art Academy of the Zagreb University, and it is reasonable to assume the work was created and first exhibited in Zagreb considering his academic position. Since it is an oil on canvas, what would constitute its publication?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Under US law exhibition alone does not constitute publication - there's an explanation here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh thanks, that clears up things a bit. If I understand correctly Circular 1 referred to in the document you pointed out, specifically "How Long Does Copyright Last?" on p.4, a non-published, non-pseudonymous/anonymous, not-made-for-hire work receives US copyright protection for a period of author's life plus seventy years. Pseudonymous/anonymous or works-for-hire receive 95 years protection starting from publication or 120 years protection from creation (whichever is shorter) in the US, but this is not such work since author is known and the work was not commissioned. If I got everything correctly, that would make this particular work US-PD since 1 Jan 2010 because Iveković died in 1939. (Under Yugoslav copyright law, the copyright expired after life+fifty years so the work became PD on 1 Jan 1990 in Yugoslavia.)--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Is this work non-published? What is the first publication that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll see what instances of (presumably lawful only) publication can be found. I have no idea right now - not even sure how would any successor to the copyright go about it in communist Yugoslavia. Perhaps they published in the West. I'll get back to you on that one.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to check - I should be looking for an exhibition catalog or an art review containing a reproduction/photo of the painting, right?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I did some more digging: According to Circular 40 publication of a work of art is achieved only when multiple reproductions are created and publicly distributed. While the particular painting (and others of similar topics by Iveković) were likely reproduced in late 1960s and early 1970s due to their popularity, I'm not aware of any participation of Iveković's heirs in that, none of it has any impact under Article 103(a) of USC Copyright Law or Article 3 of Croatian Copyright Act unless done lawfully, i.e. with consent of the copyright holder. Considering the Circular 40, that would mean the work of art is unpublished unless demonstrated otherwise - and I can find no evidence of any lawful publication. Consequently, per Cicular 1, the work became PD on 1 January 2010 under the US law (and 20 years earlier per Yugoslav copyright law).--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

(3) Aleksandar_Ranković_(1).jpg is a better quality version of a PD image - I've updated the Commons info in that case. Could you please take another look at that one?

That's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll get to others shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Replaced Tuđman image with a different one of him. While I'm convinced the photo in the JNA uniform was taken pre-1967, I'm unable to reliably determine if it was published at all. Until this changes, another image will do, I trust. Also replaced Planinc image with image of the monument/bust in Metković since it is explicitly mentioned in the prose. Moreover, after some searching of images of Milka Planinca, I'd say the image previously used in the article was taken in 1980s and could not have been PD - although I could not reliably determine its publication date.

I'll fix the Deklaracija image (under 1 above) (by cropping) and Savka Dabčević-Kučar description shortly (after some more googling it) and get back to you.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Cropped the Deklaracija image. I have also located another image [12] which I'd love to use instead of the existing image of Dabčević-Kučar. I spotted it in this [13] newspaper article, and if its caption is right, it was taken in 1969 or 1970, but I have not been able to find its publication date yet, but I'm working on that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Added a brief description of Dabčević-Kučar image for now. My local library does not have a copy of the above book so I'll see if I can get a Zagreb-based editor to check that source. I'll wait for the the verification before swapping the images of course.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

This is 18 days in and showing little sign of gathering a consensus to promote. Unless this changes considerably by hte three-week mark I am afraid that the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild we don't really have a lack of consensus, we have a lack of interest, because only images were reviewed so far, nothing else. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

This is true, but as a coordinator I can't archive a nomination for lack of interest/reviews. I can archive for "consensus for promotion has not been reached". I accept that this is frequently a matter of semantics. You could try sending neutrally phrased requests for reviews to anyone whom you think may be interested in the topic or to editors whose nominations you have previously reviewed (and so may be sympathetic), but I suspect that this may be a little late for this nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, no harm done I suppose - if there's no interest, there's no helping it. I was hoping for feedback on how to improve the article some more, so that's a bit disappointing. At least image licensing was sorted out thanks to Nikkimaria's comments.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I hope you re-nominate the article in two weeks. Sometimes when it gets bogged down in image review, people are less likely to comment. This is an important topic so it should get its fair share of reviewer attention. Unfortunately, I do not have time to review right now. (t · c) buidhe 20:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from SnowFire

Nice work, looks overall solid to me.

"The complaints initially concerned economic issues such as the retention in Croatia of a higher proportion of hard currency earnings by companies based in Croatia rather than their remittance to the federal government."

In general, I'm quite sympathetic to using technical language in technical topics, but if there's one area to ELI5 it, it's the lede section. Also, this is really describing a proposed policy change (keep more cash here), not a "complaint" directly. Maybe something like "Complaints initially concerned economic nationalism. The reformists wished to reduce transfers of hard currency to the federal government by companies based in Croatia."?

Good point. I revised this along the lines suggested. Actually this is very helpful advice - I'll make sure to look out for that in other articles too. --Tomobe03 (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

While the Slovenes advocated in favour of the People's Republic of Slovenia—a constituent republic of Yugoslavia—the Serbs sought to preserve the central government's monopoly on decision-making and the distribution of tax revenue to less-developed republics, including the People's Republic of Serbia.

"Advocated in favour of" is a bit vague (maybe increased centralization would be good for Slovenia, from some perspectives!). They were specifically advocating for more devolved powers, right? Also, is this saying that Serbia was economically backward in this era? Say so outright if so. (Although it's a little surprising since other sections talk about the banks from Belgrade being rich & powerful & expanding.) "The Slovene delegation advocated for devolving power and authority to the constituent republics. The Serbs sought to preserve the central government's monopoly on decision-making and the distribution of tax revenue to economically lagging republics; this would benefit the People's Republic of Serbia."?

True, the financial power of Belgrade-based banks in the 1960s was disproportionate to the "average" level of development of Serbia for two reasons. Most importantly, the most powerful banks had little to do with Serbia directly. Those were federal banks authorised to handle all of Yugoslavia foreign payments and foreign credit as well as distribute certain federal funds protected from competition by law. They were based in Belgrade since it was the capital of Yugoslavia. As far as the level of development is concerned, Slovenia and Croatia were most developed Yugoslav republics in 1945 (in terms of GDP per capita and most other economic indicators) and the gap from the least developed areas only increased throughout the following four and a half decades. I have tweaked the above sentences along the suggested lines, but I'm wondering if other readers will conclude that the banks being based in Belgrade means "Serbian bank", so I tweaked that bit in "Grieavances" to make it clearer. The other reason for the disproportion was, of course, that Serbia was never uniformly developed with Vojvodina and Belgrade itself being considerably ahead of other areas in Serbia.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

She attributed this to years of economic austerity, political repression, unsuccessful investments in underdeveloped regions, broken promises, and to a form of protest against the dominant role of federal officials who were generally considered in Croatia to represent Serbia's interests.

Okay, but is Batjer actually correct on anything here to be an authority worth citing? Economic austerity might make people unhappy, but why would it spark nationalism? (Catalonia is arguably one of the most prosperous regions of Spain, the Basque Country one of the poorer regions, and yet both are pretty separatist, for one example.) For that matter, shouldn't political repression have reduced nationalism? Considering what happened after the repression stopped, with an explosion of nationalism and separatism.... Every government everywhere has "broken promises" and bad investments, the causal link to increased nationalism isn't obvious at all. The one thing that does link up is anger at officials perceived to represent Serbia's interests. I don't want to misrepresent Batjer's views, she was on the ground and I wasn't, but... eh. (Feel free to say I'm wrong and Batjer was probably right, just raising the issue - I'd be okay with citing Batjer just for the increase in Croatian nationalism and skipping her diagnosis of the reason behind the rise myself.)

I see your point. I agree it is difficult to determine if Batjer was right or wrong (and by how much). However, I still wanted to include her view, and clearly say it was hers, as a non-casual observer on the ground at the time whose reports were likely read by governments abroad. I think nationalism was always present (at least it was in a considerable measure since at least 1920s) and disappointment with austeriy measures/broken promises is easily channelled to nationalist goals if there's someone to blame: in Yugoslavia/Slovenia/Croatia it was the "Serb-dominated federal government" and there was no shortage of officials/public persons with access to media to make this claim publicly. I doubt that anyone read a taxation reform proposal and went on to become a die-hard nationalist that afternoon, but if one reads about being economically exploited as a group (or as a nation) in media constantly for few years, they'd probably be more likely to listen to a nationalist speech blaming a particular nation for all ills thinking "this makes sense". All this being said, I don't think Batjer's diagnosis actually adds much to the article: I'd say everything included in the "diagnosis" is already represented in some form elsewhere in the article, so the "diagnosis" may well go.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The SKJ discussed the failures and blamed the Serbian leadership for resistance to the reforms.

Is the discussion really that relevant? If so, keep as is, but otherwise, "Reformists in the SKJ blamed Serbian members of the leadership." or the like.

You're right. Edited accordingly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The June 1968 Belgrade student demonstrations erupted against authoritarian aspects of the Yugoslav regime

I have to ask since the timing is so close - was this inspired / related at all to May 68 in France? Or just a coincidence? (Maybe off-topic since this is happening in Serbia anyway.)

It appears from Madigan Fichter, Student Rebellion in Belgrade, Zagreb, and Sarajevo in 1968, [14] that it would be fair to say that the students drew inspiration about the method of fight/tactics, and organisational structure from May 68, and the article cites examples of use of same slogans as used by students elsewhere in Europe including absurd ones - for example a slogan against German publisher Springer which was not present in Yugoslavia at all. Perhaps it would be unfair to link the protests to May 68 specifically, but I added a reference to Protests of 1968.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

SKS leadership assembled around Petar Stambolić was removed on Tito's initiative for failure to prevent the demonstrations

I assume that Stambolic's "side" was the strong central government pro-communist / Praxis protesters, but you never know, sometimes people get removed just for being unlucky. Can Stambolic's affiliation be clarified? Apparently Nikezić and Perović were on the reformist side from later events, but it's not clear that Stambolic was a centralizer, so maybe this was just some chair-shuffling within the reformist faction.

Both Stambolić and Nikezić were communists - there was no other way to be in power. It is certanly true that Nikezić favoured reforms more than Stambolić. According to Miller (cited in the article now) Stambolić held views blending communist dogmatism and Serbian nationalism, while Nikezić was (as already noted) a reformist. I have added a sentence to explain this.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for the clarification, although now I guess we're in "be careful what you wish for" territory - the article now spends even more text on what's essentially a detour to Serbian politics. Not sure if that's easily fixable. Also, can you clarify "assembled around"? Does this mean that Stambolic was removed and the SKS leadership rallied around him anyway, or that Tito fired both Stambolic & SKS leadership allied with Stambolic? SnowFire (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Edited to clarify - Stambolić and few others were sacked.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, yes Stambolić affair is tangential, but the protest and consequent removal of Stabmolić led to appointment of reformist leaders in Serbia who activelly cooperated with the SKH leadership. This is significant because Serbia always played major (if not decisive) role in Yugoslavia. Not that dissimilar grievances were raised by Croatian leadership in 1990 - with two major differences: no all-powerful arbiter (Tito) and no like-minded leadership in Serbia (Milošević instead of Nikezić/Perović). I edited the paragraph a bit to shorten it - trimming off information not really contributing to understanding of the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, the situation was worsened by a genuine perception among Croatian nationalists of cultural and demographic threats to Croatia from the following policies

Apologies on this one, I am not trying to troll here or light nationalist fires, but... the word "genuine" seems a bit loaded here. They perceived these cultural and demographic threats, and this was accurate in that yes, things like Serbs intermixing in Croat lands were real threats to Croatia? I'm personally not a fan of "genuine" in that case - just stick to perception/belief. Or move the word "genuine" to the actual events that were really happening. (Cards on the table here, I'm an American, things like "This neighborhood used to be inhabited by ethnic group X, now it's inhabited by ethnic group Y, and that's terrible" aren't very convincingly a true "cultural threat".)

No apologies needed, reviews are meant to point out what's wrong. I meant to say they actually thought the threats were real, but I said it wrong. I'm not a native speaker of English, so... well, I removed "genuine".--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

" a campaign to make Croatian language more like Serbian,"

This might be an English varieties issue, but shouldn't this be "the Croatian language"? Also wasn't there officially no distinctions between Croatian & Serbian at all as far as the government was concerned in this era, i.e. they'd already shotgun marriage'd them into Serbo-Croatian, per the later section? So it'd be more like "a campaign to standardize Serbo-Croatian in a way that favored Serbian dialects", perhaps? Feel free to adjust the wording.

I have edited this sentence along the lines of your suggestion. The official position was not that there were no differences between Croatian and Serbian (omission of the noun on purpose), the dispute was if the differences were sufficient to qualify them as separate languages or not with the latter implying that there is only one standard dialect of the language. The first national authority to promote and codify the latter was the Kingdom of Yugoslavia as a means of achieving Yugoslav national unity. The project was apparently abandoned in 1945 when new Yugoslav constitution omitted naming any official language(s) even though it was read in the Parliament in four different ones when it was adopted. The Serbo-Croatian was an aspect of Yugoslavist campaign undertaken in late 1950s and early 1960s. The dictionary project was started then and Serbo-Croatian introduced in the constitution as the official language in armed forces. The Yugoslavist campaign (in political terms) was abandoned in mid-1960s, but the dictionary project went ahead. First published in 1967, it favoured Serbian expressions over Croatian ones, echoing the policy of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia on the matter defining Serbian as the standard form of Serbo-Croatian and everything else as dialects.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Hrvatski tjednik [hr] (Croatian Weekly), which adopted a particularly radical editorial policy.

Radical how? "Radical" can mean a lot. I checked the Google Books preview, so maybe "Hrvatski tjednik, which enthusiastically promoted Croatian nationalism", perhaps?

Yes, that's better. Amended as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

SKH factions

To be clear, this is not a criticism, but there's a lot of names here. I'm not sure there's any good spin-off article to stick this in, as the list of people Zanko denounced in his article is surely relevant to stick somewhere, but this article is definitely trying to give a crash course on the Sabor & the SKH leadership in two paragraphs.

Also, it might be worth discussing more explicitly Tito's role in this. In December 1969, he orders Zanko's arrest, where Zanko is a communist denouncing others for nationalism. But then he's ordering the arrest of students in December 1970 and non-communist challengers to student positions, as well as someone Zanko denounced? If Tito changed his mind and decided to support the communist faction at some point in the middle of 1970, this is surely worth talking about explicitly.

There are several points relevant for Tito's role and changes of position: (1) Žanko criticised the SKH leadership and Tito criticised him back. I think it is reasonable to assume Tito approved or otherwise accepted the recently appointed SKH leadership and he could have interpreted Žanko's words as indirectly criticising his poor judgment. If that happened, Žanko's removal would be unsurprising. Unfortunately I have no source that would allow me to write this explicitly, but it sounds reasonable. (2) Tito requested arrests of student leaders on 20 April 1971 and backed down later. The SKH adopted an action programme to combat nationalism in August (noted in the article) and discussed it with Tito in September when Tito expressed his satisfaction with the work of the SKH. (also noted in the article) (3) Brijuni Islands meeting with Brezhnev call to imply potential Soviet intervention (noted in the article). (4) There are July 1971 talks Tito held with Tripalo (noted in the article) offering him a federal government position; (5) Bugojno meeting 12-15 November where Tito is persuaded to act against the SKH (discussed in the article), and of course (6) Karađorđevo meeting on 1 December (also in the article). I wish there were more on the student arrest demands in April, but I found nothing so far. I would not expect many details on day-to-day governing by the federal government since the federal government was hardly involved in this - being the League of Communists matter and the League of Communists of Yugoslavia generally consisted of republican communist parties which largely kept away from the matter. Tito was nearly 80 years old by that point and lack of day-to-day involvement in politics does not surprise me. In addition to the above, there were state visits to USSR in September and US in October.

Fair point on Tito's age. Would it be fair to adjust the Infobox's "leadfigures2" to something like "Josip Broz Tito (December 1970 – 1971), though? It really seems like he was not actively helping the centralizing side earlier. SnowFire (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

He is already included in that field - although with "(from November 1971)" note. Would it really be fair to say he was helping the centralists in December 1970? I wouldn't add him to the column before the student elections (3 April 1971) or the arrest request (20 April) at the earliest. There was also his intervention against Veselica and Đodan, but that was even later - in July.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I somehow missed the "(from November 1971)" part - I'm used to seeing such dates on the same line rather than above, that's on me. Feel free to revert to the old version if you like, or keep it the changed style if Tito notably changed policy in April. SnowFire (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The predominance of Serbs in these positions led to widespread calls for their replacement by Croats.

I realize that hard statistics dividing Serbs & Croats likely weren't kept in the era (nor are they clear when there's intermarriage, travel, etc.), but are there at least wild guesses as to how disproportionate Serb representation was in this kind of role? i.e. was this just nationalism (about the same proportion as Serbs in Croatia), a slight overrepresentation, or a major overrepresentation?

There are some figures available in reliable sources and I have just added them. The Croatia-specific figures actually pertain to 1980, so I did not specify exact figures because they might have been a bit different though. Army figures pertain to 1971, and civil service to 1969.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, interesting. From afar, since Tito was not a Serb and the Serb-dominated Kingdom of Yugoslavia was defeated in the civil war, I really assumed that Socialist Yugoslavia would have been far less Serb-dominated than it seems it turned out by the 60s. My only suggestion: is there really a significant digit to the tenth of a percent? I have to assume that ethnicity measuring was not a super-exact science, so maybe going with "accounting for 67% and 9% of civil servants respectively" might be more reasonable than 66.6% / 8.9%. Same with the other added figures. SnowFire (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Good point. Rounded off now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

This decision made Dabčević-Kučar very popular in Croatia.

Wait, she defied a direct order from Tito and told people about it and wasn't removed from her position? (Well, not until another two years passed, at least.) Not sure if there's room, but that sounds like an interesting story.

True, but there's very little in terms of sources to allow such an expansion. The student body elections were in April 1971 and she was removed in early December. A similar delay may be observed in removal of Stambolić (June–November 1968). I'm not sure if that's coincidence, at least sources do not say.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The Serbian philosopher Mihailo Đurić said that the constitution of Croatia only specified Croatia as the national state of Croatian nation and failed to mention Serbs. This remark sparked another series of public arguments in March 1971. The SKJ responded by bringing charges against Đurić and imprisoning him. Matica hrvatska proposed an amendment to the constitution further emphasising the national character of Croatia. The SKH dismissed the proposal and drafted its own amendment specifying that Croatia is the national state of Croatian nation, the state of Serbian nation in Croatia and the state of minorities living in Croatia

This story has some holes...? Why is a Serbian philosopher spouting Croatian nationalist lines then getting imprisoned for it - or did he mean that statement as a criticism, and that the Constitution should mention Serbs? The Mihailo Đurić article seems to imply he got imprisoned for opposing the 1971 amendments, not his statement about the existing Croatian constitution. The last sentence is very unclear, and seems to dive into linguistic quibbles that would fly over people's heads. Politically, what was the SKH pushing with this amendment? Which faction was happy? Not the extreme nationalists if Matica hrvatska's proposal was declined, but moderate Croatian nationalists? Communist centralizers? Nobody and the amendments didn't help?

As regards the Đurić remark: Yes, he meant to say it should mention Serbs in the same context as Croats. I edited the passage to clarify.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

As regards Đurić's imprisonment: Ramet (2006, cited in the article) at p.239 says "The [Đurić's additions to the amendments] made explicit the rights of the Serbs in Croatia, but they also compromised the national status of the Croatian republic. Djurić's intervention was not welcome to the LCY [League of Communists of Yugoslavia] establishment, however, and he was put in prison as a result." Indeed Đurić made the remark about Croatian Constitution at the time of debate on June 1971 Amendments to the Yugoslav Constitution (later largely preserved in the 1974 Yugoslav Constitution). Republican constutions (each of six had one) were normally amended shortly after the federal constitution - and Croatian Constitution was amended in February 1972. I have edited this to clarify.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

As regards who was happy with the amendments: Centralists certainly had nothing to be happy about because the 1971 amendments and a new 1974 constitution left the federal government in control of defence, foreign affairs and very little other than that. Nationalists did not get their way with the proposed amendment because the Croatian 1972 constitution introduced that complicated sentence on Croatia being the national state of Croats and state of Serbian nation in Croatia. Unsurprisingly, the sentence became very hotly debated in the run up to the Croatian War of Independence in 1990–1991 as people argued it granted the Serbs living in Croatia the right to block Croatian independence from Yugoslavia, or break away variously defined territories from Croatia, that it meant nothing at all, and several interpetations falling somewhere in between those. I have edited the passage in an attempt to clarify what was meant and that the amendment was designed as a compromise between Croatian and Croatian Serb positions. Since that particular amendment was not that significant to the (de)centralisation I'm unsure if that aspect should be emphasised here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the addition. I suspect that the actual linguistic parsing will still fly over the heads of most people not familiar with the politics of the area, but these disputes about how exactly to phrase the status of X in Y can be very important (Filioque for one example that Catholic Croatians & Orthodox Serbs could argue about), so fair to include. SnowFire (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

following the invasion of Czechoslovakia.

Nit: Might be worth saying "1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia" - casual readers may assume this was a contemporaneous event rather than one a few years earlier.

Added.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Some Serbs called for the constitution of Croatia to be amended to make Croats and Serbs of Croatia equal, and create a Serb committee in the Sabor. Those ideas, as well as other forms of revanchism, were defeated by Grbić

Does this really qualify as "revanchism"? I'd think revanchism would be, say, denouncing deposed Croatian nationalists and taking their stuff. Merely asking for equality and representation sounds like something they'd ask for normally, not some special revenge for the Croatian Spring.

Oh, I meant something different and this came out wrong. Equality in terms of representation or civil rights was not the issue here. I meant to say that there were calls to redefine constitutional (political) position of Croats and Croatian Serbs (i.e. revisiting the complex sentence in the amendment debated in 1971) by Croatia being defined as the national state of the two or dropping the national adjective. I've edited this passege to clarfy.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The Croatian Spring was the most significant event in Croatia's history under Communist rule,

I think a powerful claim like this is going to require more than one citation to show it's not one eccentric academic who thinks this. Do other Croatian historians agree with Bing?

I saved this for the last to let me think some more about it while addressing other issues: While I'm confident I could turn up few more sources explicitly supporting the claim, I'm also sure I could find others disputing it. Remembering that superlatives are difficult to determine unless measurable in an objective manner (and this is not such an example), I think it should suffice to leave the second part of the sentence saying the event was significant for the entire Yugoslavia.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Up to you on this one. As another alternative, since it is a spicy catchy line, can always attribute it - "According to historians XYZ and ABC, the Croatian Spring was the most significant event", etc. But it's certainly also powerful to just directly note its influence on the rest of Yugoslavia. SnowFire (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea. I'll look into further sources supporting or disputing the claim first thoguh.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Maspok: A portmanteau of masovni pokret meaning mass movement[1]

After reading through this article, was this really an accurate term? This article spends an overwhelming amount of time on political machinations in the SKH (and to a lesser extent, the SKS and SKJ), but the only time it really gets into a "mass movement" is the pro-nationalist strike in 71, and things like high rate of subscribership to nationalist newspapers I guess. Were there other "mass movementier" events happening that got glossed over? Or just that the SKH leadership was perceived as favoring decentralization precisely because of its popular support, rather than of their own initiative?

I just added a bit more on popularity of the SKH leadership to the previously existing note of a 200.000 strong rally in Zagreb by noting their rallies drew large crowds. Unfortunately the source does not specify at least approximate number of such rallies. Regarding the second part, the SKH seems to have genuinely pushed for greater decentralisation at least in the banking sector. It is pure guesswork to deduce how much of that was meant as a bargaining position considering they were removed from power.

As regards accuracy of the term maspok - multiple sources back it up. It is actually not that uncommon in Croatia. Of course "mass movement" will be fairly small in a small country.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't questioning the term, just curious if there were any mass rallies similar to the November 1971 incident. Fair enough. SnowFire (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Apologies in advance for any mistakes in my knowledge of Yugoslav history. A very interesting read. SnowFire (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

SnowFire thank you for taking time to review this article. I am confident it will be improved as a result of this. I think I have addressed all of the above issues in my comments here and I have edited the article in relation to most of them - noting what was edited in the comments above. Could you please have a look at the progress? Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Yep, looks good. I made one tiny grammar edit, feel free to adjust / revert. Made a few replies above, but overall looks good, will presumably support after the last set of replies. SnowFire (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe I addressed the remaining questions and commented briefly at relevant places. Could you have another look?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• LGTM. Support. Nice work! SnowFire (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Funk

• I'll review soon, hope it can delay archival, and give more time for other reviewers to arrive. FunkMonk (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• At first glance, Croatian language seems to be WP:duplinked in the intro.
• Not crucial to me personally, but it is recommended that images of people are aligned so they face towards the text rather than away from it.

FunkMonk thanks for the comments. I have removed the overlinking and moved a couple of images as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment from peanut gallery: Not a big deal, but I don't agree on the Croatian language link - it's linked in the infobox once, and it was linked in the lede once, but infoboxes are explicitly separate in the Duplink guideline. So I'd argue the link in the lede should be restored, and it is not problematic. SnowFire (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, the infobox link wasn't counted. The language is the very first link in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I see where you're getting that from, the {{lang-hr|Hrvatsko proljeće}} link that doesn't come up from CTRL-Fing the source. IMO, such links shouldn't "count" for duplinks (as they're essentially like footnotes, most readers will naturally ignore this, yet a link to Croatian language is Actually Relevant later in "content"), but this is a wider issue than just this one article, so I won't derail any further here. SnowFire (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

As another thought, perhaps the earlier link could be replaced with {{lang-hr|link=no|Hrvatsko proljeće}} to avoid the link there, and then restore the link to the later section of the lede where it is more relevant IMO. SnowFire (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be far more useful to have the link at the place where readers are more likely to look for it, i.e. in the prose. However, it follows from MOS:REPEATLINK that the link should be at the first instance. MOS:LEADLANG says nothing on whether to link the term in the template or otherwise, but the example of the template used there has the link is suppressed. All in all, I have no idea if the link should be moved or not. --Tomobe03 (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Can't say this is an issue I feel strongly about, so I'm fine with whatever outcome, but nice if the discussion can bring clarity. FunkMonk (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, apologies for derailing on a comparatively trivial issue here - took up the discussion elsewhere, we'll see if people have thoughts there, but it's fine no matter what solution is picked. SnowFire (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Seems more terms in the infobox could be linked? Such as Croats and Croatian orthography?

Done. I just linked the two terms you pointed out as well as Culture of Croatia and federation --Tomobe03 (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Give a date in the caption for the newspaper article shown in the infobox?

Added as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Link more names and terms at first mention in image captions?

Linked as suggested. I've omitted repetitions of terms within captions though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• "the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia was a federation according to its constitution" Could it be stated here, perhaps in parenthesis, what the member states were?

Added as suggessted and wikilinks to the six moved to this (now first) mention.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• There is inconsistent use of WP:engvar, with both UK and US spellings, ise/ize, while words like favour would indicate UK spelling. ize is accepted in UK English too, but then you should be consistent throughout, so the entire text should be checked for this.

I ran the Peer reviewer for this one and it found several instances -izat- and -ize- in the prose and a couple in the reference titles. I fixed the prose and left the reference titles as-is. I also checked few other typical searchable AE/BE pairings and I think this issue should be ok now. I'll re-read the entire thing though once again though after I fix other issues you raised here and get confirm here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• "were inspired by the protests of 1968" You could add "worldwide".

Added as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• "The Declaration on the Name and Status of the Croatian Literary Language was announced in the Telegram, a contemporary literary newspaper." Give date in caption?

Added as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• "to standardise the Serbo-Croatian in a way" Missing "language" after Serbo-Croatian?

Correct, un-piped a piped link left over in error.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Šegedin accused the Yugoslav government of attempting to assimilate Croatia" Assimilate into what, if it was already part of Yugoslavia?

The accusation was made about cultural assimilation. I have edited the relevant sentence to clarify and linked the term there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Many people in Croatia believed these to be substantive threats intended to weaken the republic, and rejected alternate explanations of them as economic phenomena or results of modernisation." Missing "such as" before "economic phenomena"? Or does the current wording convey the intended meaning?

I edited the relevant sentence to clarify. What is meant that the changes were explained (by some/a minorty) as economic phenomena and/or results of modernisation, but most people believed otherwise. Could you please take a look at the revised wording to see if it is any clearer?

Clearer, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Within days, there were also several denunciations of the declaration on the Name and Status of the Croatian Literary Language from the SKJ within days." Starts and ends with "within days".

True. Removed (the first) one as redundant.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "The works of Oton Iveković (Arrival of Croats to the Adriatic Sea depicted) gained popularity during the Croatian Spring." Give date for the artwork for context?

Specified in the caption now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Oton Iveković's paintings, depicting events from the national history, became very popular." Likewise, could give a rough time ran e of when these were from.

I have given years of birth and death for Iveković as relatively simple to implement. Most such works he produced in 1900–1910 but there are also his earlier and later such works. This particular one is from 1905. I have provided a reference (Batović, 2007, p.162 for the date range, but it also supports the year of the work (shown in the caption, see above).--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "and outnumbered the Yugoslav flag by ten to one" Where, in what context?

It is meant to say that on average or overall there were ten times as many flags of the Socialist Republic of Croatia flown in Croatia at the time than the federal Yugoslav flag. The flag usage laws at the time required government institutions to fly three flags on bank holidays (Yugoslav, republican (Croatian in Croatia), and the flag of the League of Communists), but in civilian use (including the use by state-owned shops etc.) it was also possible to fly one flag - Yugoslav or Croatian, and the bulk of these in Croatia were Croatian and not Yugoslav. I have edited the relevant sentence to clarify.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• One thing that I'm left wondering is when and by who the term "Croatian Spring" was coined? During the events, or retroactively?

Good point. I have added now a short passage on the matter. Unfortunately it appears impossible to trace the term to a particular person - other than to say it was preferred by those took a favourable view of the events, while the opposite is true for "maspok". Could you take a look at this please?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "predominantly ijekavian, or an ekavian-ijekavian blend, to predominantly ekavian" Should such names be capitalised?

True. Fixed now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "was the state of Serbian nation living in Croatia" A bit oddly worded? But not sure what the alternative should be.

I'm afraid there's no obvious way of helping there. The matter concerned precisely the convoluted wording of the amendment and the definition it contained. The specific wording, being differentiated by addition of the word "national" and specifying it refers to Serbs "living in Croatia" and implicitly not to others living elsewhere became a legal issue in the run-up to the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1990s. SnowFire already touched upon this in their review comparing the matter to Filioque - certain to be too technical for some readers, but the point of the issue is this "technicality". I have tried to clarify the issue then, but at one point it is impossible to further clarify without a broader explanation.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I have rephrased the relevant passage, hopefully making it clearer. FunkMonk, could you please take another look?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Were anyone killed during these events?

There appears no verifiable information linking any fatalities directly to the events - a least to the time frame until 1 December 1971. There is some information of few civilians taking up arms, but it appears nothing specific came from that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps add a trantlation of the titke Lijepa naša domovino?

That's certainly possible, but the term is wikilinked to the anthem's own article. I'm not sure if the translation would be useful for understanding of this article either. Should there be a translation?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Probably not. FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• "this led to a month of skirmishes" Perhaps add "deadly" if people were killed during them?

Added.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Any word on how this influenced the later Balkan wars? Mention the Croatian War of Independence?

As far as I can tell from the sources used in the article, not directly. It played a role in weakening the federal power or at least co-existed with the same political powers that contributed to greater decentralisation of Yugoslavia, replacement of one set of political figures with others etc. Some Croatian Spring figures took up politics again in the run up to the Croatia's independence too. Both these aspects are included in the article, and there does not appear to be anything reliably sourced beyond this.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Not sure, but is it worth mentioning that Tito himself was from Croatia? One might think this could have had an effect on non-Croats in Yugoslavia?

I added a Ramet's remark though saying that Tito became the ultimate arbiter in disputes not otherwise resolved by the republic. There was, actually still is, a perception among a certain (I have no idea about share of population) perception of Tito pushing anti-Croatian agenda among the Croats, and anti-Serbian agenda among the Serbs which I did not get the feeling had anything to do with the place of birth, but with perceived disliking/hatred/etc. for the particular ethnic group. I could look up if there is a published work on the topic, but wouldn't that be slightly off-topic?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

If there is anything relevant to this particular subject, otherwise probably not. FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• "The Croatian Spring as the term was" A bit oddly worded, perhaps say "the term Croatian spring was"?

Amended as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I think the article looks really good now, and didn't encounter more Engvar issues. FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Low (David Bowie album)

Nominator(s): – zmbro _(talk) 18:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about... David Bowie's 1977 album Low, an album widely considered his greatest and with good reason. Side one is full of incomplete songs while side two is full of ambient pieces. Sometimes compared to Radiohead's Kid A, it's easy to understand why critical reception was so divided initially (though not commercially, to the label's surprise). Nevertheless, the influence this album left was almost immediate. Without this album, we wouldn't have Joy Division or the majority of post-punk. In my opinion, this album really is an experience. I've worked all year on this article and fully believe it's ready to become featured, especially after a thorough PR, copy-edit, and GAN. I'm looking forward to any comments or concerns. Happy editing. :-) – zmbro _(talk) 18:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Procedural note -- I don't know how I missed this earlier but, Zmbro, per the FAC instructions you're only permitted one solo nom at a time, unless your current nom is very close to promotion (i.e. source and image reviews plus several reviews supportive of promotion) and you've checked with a coord about a second. Usually we simply remove out-of-process noms but as this one is a few days in and has reviews, we'll let it go, but remember next time pls. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose My apologies I was not aware. I'll keep that in mind from here on out. Thanks. – zmbro _(talk) 14:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now....

After years of drug addiction and personal instability while living in Los Angeles... - not fond of "personal instability"...maybe just "burnout"? or leave out altogether (as implied by drug addiction)?

Removed that part.

was at the end of my tether physically and emotionally and had serious doubts about my sanity. - this is used twice - once at end of Background and inspiration section and then (split) in 2nd last para of Recording and production' section.

Wow you're right, that's embarrassing. Removed the second one.

Low is noted for its unique drum sound - not a fan of "unique" here as strictly speaking just about everything is unique..or it isn't "unusual" or maybe leave out an adjective altogether...

'Unusual' works.

Bowie was flattered by the symphony and gave unanimous praise to it, - a single person can't give "unanimous" praise. Need another adjective.

Just removed it since "gave unanimous praise" is already used earlier.

Retrospectively, Low has received critical acclaim - this is redundant if you stick a "later" in the next sentence

Removed that and partially reworded per FA Aftermath (Rolling Stones album)

Above are just quibbles really - a nice read and comprehensive. Within striking distance of FA-hood. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Casliber Thanks for the kind words! Queries taken care of. – zmbro _(talk) 19:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

(chuckle) I recall an interview with Bowie years ago where he reminisced about him and Iggy leaving LA to get away from drugs and then chuckling about Berlin (the implication was something like out of the frying pan into the fire..)...but you got me to listen to the album which I'd never done before and it was good. kudos/all good on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, something like "I moved from the coke capital of the world to the smack capital of the world", wasn't it...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Heh, yeah that was it XD Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

• I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I had participated in the peer review for this article, and all of my concerns were addressed there. Best of luck with this FAC and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Are there any better-quality replacements for File:David_bowie_05061978_01_150.jpg and File:Stephen_Morris_performing_with_New_Order,_2012.jpg?

• For the first no. That's literally the only photo of Bowie from '77–'80 that WP has. – zmbro _(talk) 18:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• For the second, the only photos of him available are here, and I don't think many of those are better than the current one. Please let me know if you think otherwise and I'll change it. – zmbro _(talk) 18:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• I think File:New_Order,_Chile_2019_(32870460658).jpg at least gives a clearer view of his face? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• You're right. Changed it. Nikkimaria – zmbro _(talk) 01:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:David_Bowie_Breaking_Glass.ogg: given the length of the original, this exceeds the guidelines set out in WP:SAMPLE. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria My bad. I uploaded a shortened audio clip of only ten seconds that solely highlights the drum sound. – zmbro _(talk) 18:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Ian

Recusing coord duties to review...

• Copyedited down to Side Two -- although it's really down to being time for bed where I am, it seems appropriate given the album's celebrated dual structure to stop the first part of the copyedit at this point.
• My initial impressions are that we could cut some detail, and paraphrase or lose a few quotes with which the article is laden. Both these issues are understandable given the amount of literature on the album and its importance in the Bowie canon but we need to summarise a bit more I think. I'll sleep on it and come back with further edits to the rest of the article and suggestions for cuts or paraphrases overall.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Graham Beards

I made some edits to the Lead [15], which perhaps need explaining since one was reverted.

• This "After years of drug addiction living in Los Angeles," needs a conjunction because drug addiction did not live in LA; Bowie did. I changed it to "After years of drug addiction when living in Los Angeles, Bowie moved to France in 1976". "While" might be a better choice.
• This needs a proposition "Sessions began at Hérouville's Château d'Hérouville in September 1976 and ended in October at Hansa Studios in West Berlin, where Bowie and Pop had moved." You can use "to where (they) had moved" or the more ugly "moved to". Either way, it needs a preposition otherwise it just means they were moving (around and around) there. I don't know why the nominator thinks "to where" makes no sense. (Take a look at Preposition stranding).

• This "Grounded in art rock and experimental rock, Low features Bowie's first explorations in electronic and ambient styles, influenced by German bands such as Tangerine Dream, Neu!, Harmonia and Kraftwerk." I thought doesn't flow well, so I combined the appositive to "Grounded in art rock and experimental rock and influenced by German bands such as Tangerine Dream, Neu!, Harmonia and Kraftwerk, Low features Bowie's first explorations in electronic and ambient styles." As a suggestion.
• Here "its drum sound was widely imitated" I changed the tense to the past continuous because it is still imitated.
• There was redundancy here, "It has been cited as a forerunner in the development of the post-rock genre of the 1990s", so I changed it to an appositive phrase, " A forerunner in the development of the post-rock genre of the 1990s, Low has been reissued several times..."

I think there is still work needed on the prose.—Graham Beards (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Such as...? – zmbro _(talk) 14:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

See the improvements that have been made to the article since I wrote the above.Graham Beards (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Popcornfud

I've stayed out of FA/GA stuff for a few years now, but as I seem to have caused some upset by making copyedits to this article recently, and zmbro suggested I comment on the FAC instead, so here are my two cents.

I think this is a really thorough and well researched article that has the basis for a really great article. I coincidentally just checked out the article as I was listening to Low for the first time recently (yes I know, I hang my head in shame for this lateness), and it definitely enriched my appreciation of the album. As a gearhead, the stuff about the pitch shifter on the drums I found especially interesting.

I agree with comments above that the prose could still use some sharpening, which I've attempted to help with. I have apprehensions about the information hierarchy with the "Overview" heading, which in my view is redundant - an artificial fix to address anxiety over "Drum sound" sharing equal heading weight with the "Tracks" sections. As the drum sound information seems to more describe the process by which the drum sound was achieved rather than describe the music, I suspect it could be integrated into the Production section instead. Cheers. Popcornfud (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The Drum sound section belongs under production. Graham Beards (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I initially had it under there. The issue I have is that there's enough info on it to warrant its own sub-section, but imo you can't put it at the end of recording because then it interrupts flow. I would like to separate recording into sub-sections ala Station to Station but I can't find the right grouping. If drum sound can manage to go under recording in a good way then the overview sub-section can go. – zmbro _(talk) 20:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Bilorv

All ref numbers as of Special:Permalink/1054642237.

• What makes National RockStar (ref #74) reliable (or I suppose, significant for opinion)?
  • I found it on Rock's Backpages and wanted to get as many reviews as possible. I personally think "his most bizarre and adventurous LP" is pretty good to have. – zmbro _(talk) 18:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, we should work out the significance/reliability of the source independently of how desperately you want to be able to use it. I've found a bio of the journalist here and despite his somewhat gutter press affiliations in later life, including work for a fake news outlet, I'm happy enough that he was a professional journalist and his opinion is significant in the given context. — Bilorv (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• I am satisfied of the reliability of all other sources—books, magazines, newspapers, encyclopediae and websites. It's a very impressive reference list.

• Thank you! I tried my best :-) – zmbro _(talk) 18:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Rolling Stone should be linked in ref #56, I think (appears you're doing linking on first occurrence only).
• Ultimate Classic Rock should be linked in ref #68, not #69.
• In ref #80, I think Red Bull Music Academy should be linked and not in italics (publisher, not website).
• Refs #144, #162 and #237 shouldn't link Billboard.
• Ref #160 is missing a closing quote mark.
• In ref #197, The Guardian should be linked.
• "a.k.a. J. Peter Robinson and Paul Buckmaster who had worked with Bowie on The Man Who Fell to Earth soundtrack" – Can we have a comma before "who"?

• Above seven fixed

• The Rolling Stone source cited doesn't seem to verify It was released in CD, vinyl and digital formats, as part of this compilation and then separately the following year.

• Replaced with Uncut and Pitchfork, which verify the release formats, and trimmed the latter half of the sentence as I couldn't verify that. – zmbro _(talk) 19:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• A quote box says I was in serious public decline but "public" isn't present in the Telegraph's quotation.

• Fixed

• Ref #228 doesn't work for me ("Whitelabel Error Page").
• Some book sources taken on good faith, but checked a couple of the ones I could access, as well as some of the media sources and charts. No issues other than those above.

— Bilorv (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy with the other responses, just waiting on a solution to the musicline.de deadlink ("Whitelabel Error Page"), unless it's just on my end that the page isn't loading. — Bilorv (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv It's erroring for me too. The chart template is being used for that one so I'm not exactly sure how to fix that. Any ideas? – zmbro _(talk) 15:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Ugh, another reason I hate the chart template. You can manually write a reference using a parameter in the template—see Template:Album chart#Manual referencing. However, I'm not quite sure what the intended reference page is. Wayback Machine doesn't show anything on the target page, while a search within the website brings up these two pages for Low, but I can't see that either verify any chart positions: [16][17]. — Bilorv (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv Hmm. If we can't verify the positions should we just remove it? – zmbro _(talk) 16:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Fine by me. — Bilorv (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv Done. – zmbro _(talk) 16:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Great, that's a support on sourcing from me then. — Bilorv (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Vuelve (album)

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Co-nomination with آرمین هویدایی and Tomica. This is my first non Luis Miguel album article in a long time. I worked extensively along with the editors mentioned and am tackle ready to tackle this for FA. Whatever issues the article presents, I am ready to address and any questions that might need to be answered. Erick (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size
• Might the article benefit from a non-free sample?
• File:DracoRosa3.jpg: source links don't appear to be working. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, how does the media files look now? I uploaded two samples, each one to represent the uptempo and slow tempo tracks of the album, respectively. I used the tracks that were not released as singles so I don't have to justify its inclusion on this article in addition to their usage on the article about the song. If two samples are not suitable and one of them has to go, which one would you recommend keeping? Erick (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on the FURs, particularly the purpose of use item? That would help justify having two. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: How do the FURs look now on the "purpose of use" section? Erick (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

For transparency, I had participated in the last peer review for this article. My comments are below:

• I have a question about the following sentence: Vuelve is a Latin album composed of 14 songs, consisting mainly of "red-hot" Latin dance numbers and "melodramatic" pop ballads. This specifically defines the genre as Latin dance, but the infobox only includes Latin. Shouldn't it be the more specific Latin dance since this is brought up in the above sentence and in the lead, and would be a more useful descriptor than the more generic Latin identifier?
• I have a question about the translations. Apologies if this is rather obvious. I have not worked with materials from other languages so I am not familiar with this. A majority of the Spanish titles are translated, but there are a few instances, such as A Medio Vivir and "Marcia Baila", that do not have this. Shouldn't it be consistent for each Spanish title?
• In the "Critical reception" section, there are three instances in which the star rating is included in the prose. This is an example, The Los Angeles Times' Lechner gave the album three-and-a-half out of four stars. I do not find this rating to be particularly useful in the prose. It is already in the professional ratings box, and I think the prose is best left to actually discussing what is in the review. I'd remove the star ratings from the prose for all three instances.
• What is the structure for the "Critical reception" section? Right now, it reads more like two paragraphs with reviews somewhat randomly listed without any real rhyme or reason. See WP:RECEPTION if you would like a good resource on how to write a reception section.

Great work with the article. I do not that many notes for the article, and once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. I hope that this review encourages other editors to look at this FAC as it has fallen rather down the list (at least at the time of me typing this out). I hope you are doing well and staying safe! Aoba47 (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments as always Aoba47. I've addressed everything but the last part and I'll admit I was taken back a bit since this I never had this problem on my past FACs. One idea I have is the first paragraph would be for what critics liked about the album and the second paragraph what critics didn't like about it. This would be consistent with the opening lead since the overusage of ballads was criticized and would be useful on the second paragraph. Erick (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your response. To be clear, I did not mean for the final comment to come across as rude or offensive. I greatly admire your work on Wikipedia, and you have done a great job with this article. With the last comment, I was more so asking about your approach for this section, and I should have worded that more clearly. I was just somewhat uncertain of this section was structured. For instance, there are three critics who dislike "No Importa la Distancia" (i.e. Promis, Burr, and Tarradell), and it may be beneficial to organize these critiques together. I think your idea of separating the positive reviews into one paragraph and the negative into another makes sense to me. Please let me know if you have any further questions about this. Aoba47 (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Oh no no no, I greatly appreciate your feedback and I'm actually glad you brought that section up. This will help for future FACs. I should've said "surprised", instead of "taken back" and I do apologize if I came across as offended. Erick (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• I just wanted to make sure. Let me know when you have revised that section. Aoba47 (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Magiciandude: Apologies for the ping. I just wanted to check in on the progress for this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey there @Aoba47:, I was working on the critical reception on a sandbox of mine and just finished revamping it. How does it look now? Erick (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Four weeks in and there is little sign of a consensus to promote forming. Unless this nomination attracts considerably more interest over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Pamzeis

Will take a look soon. Pamzeis (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I've made a few tweaks myself; feel free to revert anything you disagree with. I only have two comments:

• "asked him to write a composition for" — WP:EGG?
• Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works should be italicised in citations

So, yeah, I support. BTW, I'd appreciate any comments here. Pamzeis (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your support and making the tweaks. I changed "a composition" to "an anthem". آرمین هویدایی (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Cerro Blanco (volcano)

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a volcanic caldera in remote northwestern Argentina. It is well known for three reasons; firstly, the wind-formed landscape at Campo de Piedra Pomez that has been used as an analogue terrain for Mars and is also a local tourism destination. Secondly, for its major eruption 4,200 years ago that distributed volcanic ash across the region. Third, because satellite images have seen that the caldera is actively deforming to this day. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
• File:Cerro_Blanco_volcano_(AVA_Granule_L1B_20000916145757).jpg: source link doesn't appear to be working. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  Done and added an archive. Given the notice on this page I think this may work again in the near future. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Placeholder for non-expert prose review. Will try to start this soon. Moisejp (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Calderas and lava domes:

• "The Cerro Blanco caldera is about 6 kilometres (3.7 mi)[1]–4 kilometres (2.5 mi) wide": Does this mean the width ranges from 4–6 kilometres? Or possibly different estimates or different interpretations of what is included in its boundaries? This point is not very clear. Also, should the 4 come before the 6?

  It's a width range from disagreeing sources, which is why each dimension has its own source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if there are conventions for this in geographical-related articles, but I think if it were me, I would probably write the following differently:

• "13 by 10 kilometres (8.1 mi × 6.2 mi) caldera" → possibly "13- by 10-kilometre (8.1 mi × 6.2 mi) caldera" or "13- by 10-kilometre (8.1-mi × 6.2-mi) caldera"
• "a 2.7 by 1.4 kilometres (1.68 mi × 0.87 mi) wide lava dome" → "a 2.7- by 1.4-kilometre (1.68 mi × 0.87 mi) wide lava dome" or a 2.7- by 1.4-kilometre (1.68-mi × 0.87-mi) wide lava dome"
• "1.2 kilometres (0.75 mi) wide and 20 metres (66 ft) deep vent" → "1.2-kilometre (0.75-mi) wide and 20-metre (66-ft) deep vent"

The hyphens are possibly discussable, but I'd argue that in cases like these where there's a noun (caldera, dome, vent) following the unit of measure (kilometre, metre) then the unit of measure should be singular. Unless there are regional differences regarding this point, in which case the regional difference is of course valid. (Just to be clear, the instances I'm talking about here are only the ones where there is a noun following. In "6 kilometres (3.7 mi)[1]–4 kilometres (2.5 mi) wide" above there is no noun at the end so the s on kilometres is good and definitely no hyphen is needed.) Moisejp (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, the main reason why there aren't hyphens is because {{convert}} does not automatically add them. I am agnostic on whether to add them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: {{convert}} can indeed automatically add them: {{convert|1.2|km|mi|adj=mid|abbr=off}} → 1.2-kilometre (0.75-mile). Volcanoguy 06:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo. I'm really sorry, but something has come up in real life and I need to break off this review and take a Wikibreak. I appreciate the source and image reviews you've done for me in the past. I hope to continue reviewing some of your articles in the future when my life has gotten less busy again. Best of luck on your article. Best wishes, Moisejp (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Volcanoguy

I will be reviewing this in a bit. Volcanoguy 21:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I've made several changes to the article while I was reviewing it so I didn't have to list all of my concerns here. Volcanoguy 22:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

Nearly three weeks in and no signs of a consensus to promote forming. If this doesn't improve considerably by the three week mark I am afraid that the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging the reviewers at El Tatio to see if they want to comment on this one: @Wtfiv, Kusma, Femkemilene, Nikkimaria, Chidgk1, Volcanoguy, and TheDoctorWho: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Funk

• I'll have a look soonish. At first glance, there are a lot of duplinks which can be highlighted with the usual tool.[18] FunkMonk (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• No more relevant images that could spice up the latter part of the article? Looked at Flickr? There seem to be some more interesting images in this Commons category?[19]

  Flickr has nothing for Cerro Blanco that is about this volcano and for Campo de Piedra Pomez most images are already on Commons. Regarding the Commons images ... eh, most of them look all pretty much alike. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Any reason why the infobox image is framed ina way that it has a lot of black borders? Can't it be cropped to a square? If it's because it has the right north south directions or something, I don't think it's that necessary, since it's not apparent from either the image or the caption.

  I think that's an artifact of the way it was created. I don't know of any crop tool that can remove partially rotated borders, but I'll ask at commons:COM:GL/P Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I use Microsoft Paint for cropping. Volcanoguy 10:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I can do it for you in Photoshop, Paint diminishes image quality, I think. Should I just update the current file? FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Better in a new file since the rotation means that we need to specify that the top is north-northeast and not north. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, seems it was already done on top of the original file. You can always reupload it as a new version, or upload the old version separately again. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems you might want to adjust the caption accordingly, if directions have changed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Done; there wasn't much to change. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• I wonder if the meaning of the two common names should also be explained in the article body? There is no explanation for the second one.

  Um, I am not sure what the "common names" here are. If you mean the toponyms, I haven't found any source that discusses them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes, mistakenly used the term used for animals hehe. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Link tectonic?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think technical terms like aeolian and cryptodome could be explained in-text.

  These two are footnoted now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• "It was among the finalists in the "Seven Wonders of Argentina" contest." When?

  Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• "and at eastern end" There are many places where you don't use definite article before directions, while you do in other places, any reason for this? Reads a bit odd without.

  Added a "the". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

There are other cases, but I don't know of whether it is really incorrect. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Link yardangs in caption.

  Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• "the first was in the middle Miocene and the second began 7 million years ago" Why give geological age for one and number in years for another?
• "initiated about 8 million years ago" Again here, I think you could give both geological age and age in numbers for each mention, now it's a hodgepodge of either throughout.

  (Discussing both things above) That's going to be impossible; sources sometimes use numerical ages and sometimes age periods. I am unkeen to convert the one into the other because it assumes/negates specificity when it isn't/is present. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Anything on the wildlife of the area?

  As far as I can tell, nobody has discussed the fauna of the volcano's area. The wider region, yes (for example), but I am not sure about using that on an article specific for one location. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• "The oldest[j] volcanic rocks related to Cerro Blanco are the over 750,000 years old so-called "Cortaderas Synthem"; its outcrops are" Strange change from plural to singular. Which is it?

  That's something I'll need grammar advice on - the "are" refers to the "volcanic rocks" but the "its" to the "Cortaderas Synthem". Is there a better formulation? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

As usual, I'll see if Gog the Mild has something to say on this. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Me as a grammar expert! Ha! Nope, you can't say that, good spot FunkMonk. Maybe 'The oldest volcanic rock formation related to Cerro Blanco is the over 750,000 years old so-called "Cortaderas Synthem"; its outcrops are'? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

That works; it's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• "which were erupted a long time apart" Is the "were" needed?

  No; I've removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• "They contain pumice and fragments of country rock" I'm sure that's not the article you want linked under country rock...

  Aye, thus delinked it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• "he 4.2 kiloyear event occurred You could add "climatic" to make t clear what this is.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• You link some countries, not sure what the guidelines are, but I've been told we shouldn't.

  Delinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• "No[p] eruptions have been observed or recorded at Cerro Blanco" Add "historically?

  Did that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• "A recent eruption occurred 73,000 years ago" By what standards is this recent? You mention a much later eruption too, but don't call it recent.

  It is recent by the standard of regional volcanic activity, but yes it's unclear by layman standards; changed this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• "These ripple marks are among the most extreme on Earth" In the article body you just say "largest", "extreme" seems hyperbolic.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support - that's it from me, as usual with such articles, it can be a bit hard to follow with all the unfamiliar terms, but I think this is the best that can be done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

HF

I'll look at this later today. Hog Farm _Talk 16:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• " El Niño is sometimes referred to as a scarp." - link or gloss scarp? It's not a well-known term to a lot of readers (including me)

  Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• "A site southeast of the Robledo caldera is known as Robledo" - "site" is rather vague; can you be more specific?

  Well, the problem is that it is just a point on a map and so frequently mentioned that I can't omit a mention, but also totally unexplained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Wind has also formed demoiselles[h] and yardangs in the ignimbrites" - Why name both, if you're equating the two items in the note?

  I'm investigating this, stand by... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  Think I resolved this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• The lead says "Unlike dunes, they do not migrate with the wind and are stationary", but then the aeolian landscapes section discusses " Their wind-driven movement is fast enough that trails abandoned four years before are already partly covered with them". This seems contradictory

  Resolved this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Cerro Blanco is part of the Andean Central Volcanic Zone (CVZ), and one of its southernmost volcanoes" - unclear what this is trying to say. Does it mean that Cerro Blanco is one of the southernmost volcanoes, or that it is part of one of the southernmost volcanoes?

  It means that CB is one of the most southern volcanoes of the CVZ. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Don't need to link the Central Volcanic Zone is back-to-back sentences

  Delinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• ""Purulla Supersynthem"." - Is this a typo in the source, or is Supersynthem a technical term?

  It's a technical term. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• "its outcrops are limited to an area Laguna Carachipampa" - missing word(s)?

  Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Not an expert on this topic, so these are largely prose concerns. Hog Farm _Talk 03:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Nonexpert support, Hog Farm _Talk 13:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Harry

• Something I often find myself picking up on: round conversion of measurements that aren't intended to be exact figures.
• afterwards came a 2 million year long hiatus need hyphens as a compound adjective (two-million-year-long is modifying hiatus) and I believe "two" should be spelt out per MOS:NUMERAL

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• range between 600–820 °C don't use dashes for ranges if you're using "between". If you want to keep the endash, go with "in the range of"; or keep between and use "between 600 and 820". Btw, to my non-expert eye that looks like quite a large temperature range. Do we know why there's such a wide range?

  Done; AFAIK estimating the temperatures of rocks before they solidified is not a very exact science. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• is the over 750,000 years old so-called "Cortaderas Synthem" is a little awkward; can we restructure the sentence?

  I've split it, but honestly I don't find it too awkward. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• source vent for this eruption has not been found, there is no agreement whether I could be misreading but that looks like a comma splice, or you're missing a word like "and" or "although"

  It was intended to be a comma splice, yes. I see it's bad style so I've put an "and" in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• approximately 4200 years ago I'd have said that should be 4,200 years but I double checked and MOS:DIGITS says it's optional for four-digit numbers as long as it's done consistently so I'll leave it to you.

  Standardized to 4,200 anyhow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• up to 30 metres (98 ft) thick deposits needs hyphens; you can use |adj=on in the convert template to produce the first one.
• temperatures range between 32–67.4 °C (89.6–153.3 °F) same observation as above

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• ranked Cerro Blanco eight in its scale of hazardous volcanoes eight out of what? Is that high?

  Eight most dangerous, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Scientific interest has risen in the 2010s we're in the 2020s now! Switch to past tense.

  Done, although I worry a little that people will misread it as "then but no longer". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• You have a lot of footnotes, which can be distracting. Can anyone of them be culled or incorporated into the text?

  Maybe footnote p could be incorporated, but the others are mostly needed to explain concepts and would disrupt the flow if incorporated, or leave things hard to understand if removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Nothing major. Very well written and informative as usual. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• LGTM. Nothing left that's worth quibbling over. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Coord note

Did I miss a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Not seeing one, either, so I've added it to the source review requests box. Hog Farm _Talk 14:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• Not a sourcing issue, but from my understanding the "listing" in the infobox is meant to refer to a notable list (eg Seven Summits) rather than a Wikipedia list

  See parameter description in {{Infobox mountain}}: "Name of a relevant list of mountains that the peak belongs to." That could refer to any list and from what I have seen this parameter is most commonly used for Wikipedia lists. Volcanoguy 08:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, that seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  The parameter links to the list of notable lists. If it's being used for Wikipedia lists as you suggest, that doesn't make a lot of sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  I have to confess that I don't understand that infobox enough to say how it works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Lead says over 170 cubic km of tephra, text says about - which is correct?
• The heights and wavelengths of the ripples differ significantly between the lead and text - which is correct?

  Matched lead to article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in when/whether you include retrieval date. Ditto ISSN, publication location

  I am pretty sure the article does use retrieval date only for non-academic sources. Added ISSNs but removed locations. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  For example retrieval date is included for FN23 but not FN1, ISSN for FN57 but not FN48. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  That's all done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• All-caps should be normalized

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• FN81 is dead - what is SCN?

  Replaced, might want to check that the archive works & verifies the content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  PDF is not opening for me. Is there a concern that it would not verify the content? If so, why is it being cited? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  No, the concern is that the PDF takes a long time to load and sometimes the website is just offline. That's why I added the archive, but it too takes a long time to load. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Conde Serra is missing publisher

  There apparently isn't one? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  Who was this report submitted to? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  The SEGEMAR archive, I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Fernandez-Turiel ref is incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  I am not sure I see it... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  It appears that the link is offline this week, but IIRC it seemed to be a conference paper. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  The citation does not show that. Additional detail is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  Added some detail. Until the website comes back, I don't think any further detail will be forthcoming. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Legend Entertainment

Nominator(s): Shooterwalker (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a video game company that had a good run in the 1990s, mainly in adventure games. They were heirs to the highly acclaimed interactive fiction studio Infocom, and showed early signs of impact with this successor company. But they were always lesser known compared to Sierra and LucasArts, who competed in the same space, before the adventure game market collapsed in North America in the late 1990s.

A lot of these types of articles slip through the cracks because the subjects were effectively "gone" by the time the internet hit mainstream. But I see these types of subjects as essential to Wikipedia's mission to preserve knowledge, as readers would otherwise have to cobble the story together from various online and offline sources. I've done the work of assembling those sources, and I believe the article is very well-sourced, thorough, and complete. I also recently completed a peer review to get it ready for FA. (Big thanks to IceWelder and Urve for their reviews.) The last FA was closed on a procedural issue when I jumped the gun, but I'm confident the article meets the FA criteria as is. I'll continue to work on this to help it reach even higher standards. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks for the review! Shooterwalker (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from IceWelder

I haven't found the time to re-review the article yet. Please ping me if I don't by Sunday. IceWelder [✉] 12:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Content

Most of my concerns were already resolved during the peer review. I did a few quick fixes just now that were faster done than spelled out. These are my remaining thoughts:

• The infobox lists American Systems Corporation as Legend's parent for four years but the article does not make clear whether the company had a controlling interest in Legend. Please clarify whether is this was a minority or majority holding. In the former case, it should not be considered a parent.
• Of the many designers noted in the History section, why are Meretzky and Lindner specifically pointed out in the infobox as key persons? For example, did Lindner have a greater impact on the company than Mark Poesch?
• The first sentence of the lead reads that Legend is "best known for their complex and distinctive adventure titles". This rather bold statement does not appear to be explicitly mentioned/sourced in the article body.
• I still question whether the article really needs the accolades column in the games table. As I stated in the PR, the individual qualities of the awards are not clear, so a listing like this might incorrectly represent the quality of the games based on a few hand-picked awards. Removing the awards column would also make the table much more concise and accessible. Please reconsider whether such a column is necessary.
• The external link to korseby.net feels superfluous as it is just some game reviews, and I believe that it should be removed. The inclusion of waitingforgo.com should also be reconsidered; in my opinion, MobyGames should suffice.

Sources

I have performed a source review and found that most of the sources are reliable. Outliers are the unreliable TechRaptor (part of ref #5), which should be removed/replaced; and the questionable Adventure Collective (ref #7), although it likely still passes as it appears to be a legitimate interview. I have performed several fixes on the cite templates themselves and repaired the publication dates of two misdated GameSpot articles. I have not performed spot checks for verification due to time constraints.

Regards, IceWelder [✉] 12:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I tried to address all of these. The "parent company" thing is a little ambiguous. The best I could find is this article that suggests ASC provided most of the funding, which is elaborated in a (questionably/situationally reliable) interview at the Digital Antiquarian. The list of key people includes anyone at Legend who has a Wikipedia article (and meets the WP:GNG), and Mark Poesch doesn't quite appear to make the cut (though he does get mentioned as a director at the company). I am not too picky about infoboxes and find that readers get more from reading the actual information in context. So I'm fine as long as the article WP:PRESERVEs information about these people/partners in prose, if you still want to adjust the Infobox for precision and accuracy. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

In that case, I think the infobox is fine. Also thanks for your other changes. I would still like to know your stance on the accolades column, since I see you've kept it just now. IceWelder [✉] 17:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

My preference is to err on the side of WP:PRESERVEing factual information there. Adding a column to the games list seemed like an efficient way to present it. There are other ways to present it, but this seemed better than a stand-alone list (deprives readers of context, which only comes from comparing the list to the article), versus in the prose itself (calling out each one individually starts to clutter the narrative). Just in case you're suggesting we remove it completely, I generally don't think it's a good idea to start removing WP:VERIFIABLE accolades from third party sources. In this case, it would prevent readers from understanding what this studio contributed to the industry and artform. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this insight. I usually advocate for listing such quantities of awards only the games' separate articles, not the developer's. It is generally uncommon to list any product-specific awards on the developer's article unless contextually relevant or impactful (as in BAFTA, TGA, AIAS, etc. awards), otherwise the scope can get wildly out of hand. However, if you believe that the list in its current form is for the better of the article, I shall not stand in your way and am happy to support the nomination. IceWelder [✉] 09:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I figure this one works because it's a relatively short list. Thanks again for the review, and happy editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Review Support by David Fuchs

Forthcoming by this weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping on this, and take your time. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• General and prose:
  • The team would continue to expand their game engine, adapting to the popularity of the mouse and the increased media storage of the compact disc.—this line feels weirdly placed considering the next subsection specifically talks about being the first to take advantage of the compact disc, and talks about the shift from traditional text adventures to point-and-click games. Feels like you're giving us a short version of information you then repeat immediately afterwards.
    • Consolidated this into the following section. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sold on the quotes from Bates; at times, they feel like they're excessively privileging his POV by being quoted verbatim, and they have the side effect of feeling kind of awkward in the prose since it has to fit around his constructions rather than summarizing the information.
    • I removed some of the quotes and re-worked others. Bates was the head of the studio, so I tried to emphasize areas where he was thinking on behalf of the company in a business/strategic role. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think we need the specific mentions of what awards CGW gave to Eric the Unready, especially since it's repeated in the table at the end of the article.
    • Consolidated this for flow. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
    • On that topic, I find the games table a bit tough to read. I would place all the awards in a single cell for each game, and divide the large Legend Entertainment publisher and repeat it for each game so that you can easily scan left-to-right and figure out what games belong to what entry on the right.
      • Tried to fix this. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• Media:
  • Images appropriately sourced, tagged, and licensed.
• References:
  • Checked statements attributed to current refs 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 15, 18, 24, 26, 30, 35, 37, 40, 60, 66
    • There are some refs to books that don't have page numbers, e.g. refs 1, 4, 12, etc. While they do link to the Google excerpt or book overview, they should still include the page numbers.
  • Ref 6 gives Bates the quote ...told investors that "there was still life in the adventure genre, but that it needed more than just text" but I think the quotes imply this was literally what he said verbatim to the investors, when the interview is years later Bates talking to another publication.
  • Not sure refs 15 and 16 adequately support "became one of Legend's most critically acclaimed titles".
  • Did not otherwise spot issues with close paraphrasing or improper attribution/failed verification.
  • There's no source for co-development support note [a] on Terminator 3. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Shooterwalker, are you going to attend to these? TBH I'm close to archiving this as it seems to have stalled but if you can get right onto it there might be cause to leave it open longer... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know his this completely slipped my mind, but I'm eager to still bring this up to FA and finish this up. Working on it immediately. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• David Fuchs: Worked through these one at a time. I added some responses in-line, just for your own clarity. I do get different advice on how to format the table, but hopefully that's an improvement from what was there before. Thanks for the review and let me know if there's anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

No no, I wasn't just completing the problems for you before I had an edit conflict with you that solved everything I just did. I wasn't here at all, actually. Panini!^🥪 17:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The attempted save is appreciated. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy to support with the above addressed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks again for the review. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment from nominator

This has been open for a month, and I wanted to see how the process was doing. Willing to work on this more if need be, but I feel confident that it's close to done. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Now that it has a second general support I have listed it for another general review and for the sourcing to be checked. Let's see if either gets picked up. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Will do. Hog Farm _Talk 14:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• This is more of a negotiable question, as I don't know the firm answer, but is GOG.com (what looks like a distribution platform ala Steam to me) a great source? Open question
• " Robinson, Spider (December 7, 2000). "An essay on the making of the CD, "Belaboring the Obvious"". Archived from the original on November 14, 2006. Retrieved March 7, 2021 – via Spiderrobinson.com." - yes, this is self-published, but you could put (self-published) or use the website it comes from. (Is okay from a reliable perspective as Robinson is a reasonable source on this topic)
• Recommend checking on worldcat to see if Computer Gaming World, Compute, etc. (all of the magazines, periodicals, etc) have ISSN or OCLC identifiers. Useful for identifying exactly which publication is being cited, especially since some of those older computer/video gaming publications have similar names

Spot checks:

• "who created a new division called Random Soft to enter the multimedia software industry" - checks out
• "This led to new opportunities for Legend, working with publisher Take-Two Interactive for Callahan's Crosstime Saloon, and working with Accolade for Star Control 3" - checks out
• " In 1998, Legend released a game adaptation of John Saul's Blackstone Chronicles, which ultimately became their final adventure game release." - checks out
• "By the end of 1992, Legend were able to buy back American Systems Corporation's stake in the company" - source only says that they intended to do so, not that they did
• "The team would continue to expand their game engine, adapting to the popularity of the mouse and the increased media storage of the compact disc" - checks out

No copyright issues detected. Hog Farm _Talk 02:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. GOG is appropriate in some circumstances, but this was easy to change with more independent sources. I tweaked the reference template for the Spider Robinson comment, but if I'm doing it wrong, I might need you to spell out the exact form to present this. I also tried to add a few ISSN/OCLC numbers where I could find them. The buy-back seems to be supported by the source, which refers to a purchase agreement. Hopefully with those changes, we're good enough to pass the review. Let me know if there's anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Passing source review - the new formatting for the Robinson cite works. AGF that ISSNs, etc. are included appropriately. Hog Farm _Talk 06:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

• "based on Demons Don't Dream" could say who wrote this, likewise Gateway.
• "Infocom had stumbled" bit colloquial.
• "notably experienced developer and author Steve Meretzky" could you expand on why you call him "notably experienced"?
• "adventure game engine at" put "game" into the link.
• "in the company,[9] and the company" repetitive.
• "the company was selling enough games to easily sustain themselves" singular company so presumably that should be "itself" rather than "themselves"?
• Is there a reason why the portrait images aren't upright?
• "would continue to" -> "continued to".
• "less than 25,000" fewer.
• "seemed to" according to whom?
• "Writer Steve Meretzky also" You've already introduced him so just "Meretzky also" is fine here.
• There seems to be a lot of repetition of first names for unambiguous repeats of people, typically we just use surnames in subsequent namechecks.
• Table could use a caption.
• In a sortable table, usually linked items are linked every time because after a sort, there's no guarantee the linked item will appear first.
• ISBNs could be represented consistently.

That's all on a quick read. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• I was able to incorporate your suggestions. Thanks for the review, and let me know if there's anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Happy to support the nomination. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks again. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Space Shuttle Challenger disaster

Nominator(s): Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the 1986 disaster during the launch of the Space Shuttle Challenger that killed all 7 astronauts aboard. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Support with regard to FA Criterion 1A. Graham Beards (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

  Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:RogersCommission-v1p57_cropped.jpg: if I'm understanding correctly, the Rogers Commission as an entity is separate from NASA, and therefore this should not have a NASA tag

  Tag changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:Challenger_explosion.jpg: neither of the Photo ID links are working for me, and the Flickr link has an NC license. Is there an alternate link?

  I dug around on NASA Images and couldn't find one; I think the only option is to use it under WP:FAIR. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  From the FP nomination I found this, which looks like the original source, not copyrighted. I would suggest to revert to the original image, though, or state clearly that this is an edited version. —Kusma (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  Looks like this is still pending? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Missed this. I'll replace the photo with the version supplied by Kusma. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Updated the infobox photo. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:Booster_Rocket_Breach_-_GPN-2000-001425.jpg: none of the source links appear to be working. Ditto for File:STS-51-L_Recovered_Debris_(Burn_Marks_on_the_SRM)_-_GPN-2004-00004.jpg, File:Space_Shuttle_diagram.jpg and File:Rogers_Commission_members_arrive_at_Kennedy_Space_Center.jpg, as well as the source image for File:Challenger_breakup_cabin.jpg

  Added new links for STS-51-L_Recovered_Debris_(Burn_Marks_on_the_SRM)_-_GPN-2004-00004.jpg and File:Rogers_Commission_members_arrive_at_Kennedy_Space_Center.jpg. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  Removed File:Challenger_breakup_cabin.jpg. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Where is "File:Space_Shuttle_diagram.jpg"? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  It was in the navbox that was removed per below. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  I have added the archive URL of the source image [20] that was then used to create File:Challenger_breakup_cabin.jpg. The latter can be used now. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:Challenger_Memorial1.JPG needs a tag for the memorial itself

  I'm a little confused; are you asking for the license info to be added to the permission parameter? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  No - the licensing given is that of the photographer, but the memorial itself could potentially qualify for copyright protection, and the US does not have freedom of panorama, so a separate tag is needed to cover the copyright of the memorial. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  I couldn't find the license for the memorial; I removed that photo. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:CCCP_Buran.png: don't see that licensing at given source.

  Removed that navbox. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I think I have addressed all of your points. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Support by Eewilson... pending other reviews

---

Pending other reviews (sources, etc.), I support. Eewilson (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

---

I am reviewing spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence structure, and related things. It's a long article, so likely to take it in pieces.

• Explain or link "aft" - or "aft field joint attachment"

  Looks like it's already linked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  Not in the Lead. That's where I was looking. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  Linked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The exact timing of the death of the crew is unknown;" The exact timing of the deaths?

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Should Morton Thiokol be hyphenated or unhyphenated? Shouldn't it be consistent throughout the article?

  McDonald's book doesn't use hyphens; I've standardized the article to "Morton Thiokol". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Is "lift off" two words or a compound word?

  "liftoff" is a compound word in the Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionaries. Standardized to one word. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Each field joint was sealed with two rubber O-rings around the circumference of the SRB and 0.280 inches (7.1 mm) in diameter." Unclear sentence.

  Reworded. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "extruded" - clarify or link to Wikipedia or Wiktionary

  Linked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "tang and clevis" or "tang-and-clevis" - hyphenated or not? Might depend on usage. Check it.

  According to McDonald, it is a hyphenated word. Only use in the article of an unhyphenated version is when describing how the tang and clevis bent away from each other. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Joint rotation, which occurred when the tang and clevis bent away from each other, up to .052 inches (1.3 mm), which reduced the pressure on the O-rings and weakened their seals, making it possible for combustion gases to erode the O-rings." This needs a little tweaking to be an actual sentence.

  Changed wording. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Verification/Certification Committee" - is that the actual name of the committee and can you specify with whom the committee was associated? Was it independent? Did it consist of NASA employees? Morton-Tiokol?

  It's the actual name (p. 125 of the Rogers Commission). I added that it was a NASA committee. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "further tests on joint integrity, to include testing in the temperature range of 40 to 90 °F" The comma after integrity can be removed.

  Removed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• This sentence has some confusing pronoun/noun and verb tense usage, thus making it unclear: "McNair and Resnik would deploy the Shuttle-Pointed Autonomous Research Tool for Astronomy (SPARTAN) satellite, which has previously flown aboard Discovery in June 1985, would photograph the comet for two days and then be recovered and returned to Earth."

  Split into two sentences. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. I did a bit of grammar correction, but good. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Additionally, Onizuka planned to observe and photograph the comet from Challenger flight deck." Either "from Challenger's flight deck" or "from the Challenger flight deck".

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Based upon O-ring erosion and blowby that had occurred in warmer launches" What's a "blowby"?

  Removed. "O-ring erosion" should explain the problem well enough. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  So we've still got a couple of instances of the word "blowby" in the Rogers Commission section, and there is no explanation of what blowby is. Can you remedy that? Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Took the term out entirely and just said it was gas blowing by the O-ring. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Haha... I just Googled "blowby". So apparently, it's pronounced with a long I at the end (as I'm sure you know), and I was pronouncing it "blow-bee". <eyeroll> No wonder it wasn't making sense to me. Maybe instead of "gas blowing by the O-ring", clarify whether the O-ring was blowing the gas or whether the gas was blowing from somewhere else and near the O-ring ("blowing by" could mean either). Eewilson (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Whoops! Understandable mistake; it's not a common word. Changed it to "blowing past". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Very good. Check. Eewilson (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Wow, this whole event was a sad circus of error and hell. I will never forget it. :( Continuing later...

Eewilson (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC) FAC

• I don't see where the acronym "SSME" is spelled out the first time it is used.

  Spelled out. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Spell out "max q" as "maximum dynamic pressure (max q)" the first time it is used so the reader doesn't have to click the link to understand the term. Also "g-force," "apogee,"

  Explained. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Acronym "LOX" at "LOX tank" needs to be spelled out first time.

  Spelled out. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  OH! That makes sense. :) Had no idea. Check. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "...until the range safety control officer initiated their self-destruct charges..." It is unclear here who and where the range safety control officer was.

  Added the RSO is on the ground; is that what you are looking for? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. That's good. However, in the section "Vehicle breakup", text is written like this: range safety control officer, in lowercase with no acronym. Later, in the "Recovery of debris and crew" section, it's spelled in title case as Range Safety Officer (RSO) with the acronym and wikilinked. If these are the same thing, put the wikilinked part with the acronym RSO up higher in "Vehicle breakup" and just use the acronym later (if you choose to use it at all - otherwise just leave it out of the article all together). Also, is it an actual title? Then it should be title case. If not, then not. Be consistent with that. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Standardized and changed to lower-case; inconsistency between sources resulted in this, but I'm going with the wording from the Rogers Commission. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "middeck" hyphenated or one word?

  Still waiting on this... Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Hyphenated. Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "but this system would not have been usable during an explosion during ascent" See if you can change one of the "during" to a different word

  Still waiting on this... Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Changed the first "during" to "in". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  There must have been 3 "during"s in that sentence! Look in section "Space Shuttle Challenger disaster#Prospect of crew escape", second part of the final sentence in the paragraph. See what you can do with that one, but if you think it needs both of the during, then it should be fine. Eewilson (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Think I fixed it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Looks good. Check. Eewilson (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "All nine joints on each SRB were disabled, which many of the broken sections subsequently breaking into smaller pieces." Something is wrong with this sentence.

  Still waiting on this... Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Decided to remove the entire sentence; it doesn't add to the narrative. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  That's fine. Check. Eewilson (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Resnik's remains were not recovered or were not identified? No mention of her burial. If this is the case, perhaps that should be mentioned in the Funeral ceremonies section.

  As far as I can tell, Resnik's family has never publicly stated what happened to her remains. I found a forum post (definitely not WP:RS) that said she was buried at sea, but couldn't find anything else. As I couldn't find any sources that specifically said her family refused to share what happened to her remains, I decided the best course of action was to make no mention of it at all, rather than attribute the lack of information to her family. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  I can see your point on that. Probably best to be kept as you have it. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• I made some minor cleanups.

Without source review, it appears factual without POV or OR. I did not study the relevance of any of the prose, any needs for editing or rewrite, or sources.

Eewilson (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC) FAC

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

General

• Is there a reason why we have both this article and STS51-L? It seems that the two could be merged.

  I think there could be differences between the articles. Doing a quick skim of STS-51-L, there's not much information that isn't in the Challenger disaster page, but the page could, in theory, have more information about the mission itself (experiments, crew, crew selection, training, etc.), much like how there are separate pages for STS-107 and the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. I understand there are differences in that comparison, as STS-107 was an entire mission that ended in disaster while STS-51-L only lasted for 73 seconds, but I think there is information that belongs on an STS-51-L page but not the disaster page. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  It falls in between STS-107 (which went for two weeks, and for which two articles makes sense) and Apollo 1 (which never left the ground and has only one article) but obviously closer to the latter. Fair enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• I find it jarring that "O-ring concerns" comes before "Space Shuttle mission" but maybe that's just a matter of taste.

• This came up during the GA review. The body of the article started with information about the mission and then went into safety concerns, but the feedback was that it jumped chronologically, as the mission section discusses the run up to launch, followed by a jump back in time to the dangers of the program and the decision to launch. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• I would prefer if instead of "the tenth flight for the Challenger orbiter" it said "the Xth flight of the Space Shuttle and the tenth flight of the Challenger"

  Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• I think there is a bit more to say about the impact of the disaster. The Space Shuttle Program was re-oriented away from the launch of commercial satellites.

  Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Unlink orbiter.

  Why shouldn't this be linked? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Ooops. Unlink the second link to Space Shuttle. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Unlinked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Link reentry

  Linked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• "the orbiter has no escape system" -> the orbiter had no escape system

  Someone else updated this one. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

O-rings

• Link Space Shuttle

  Linked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Space Shuttle mission

• Split the second paragrah after "Onizuka planned to observe and photograph the comet from the Challenger flight deck"

  Split. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Link mission specialist, payload specialist Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Linked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Recovery of debris and crew

• Unlink Inertial Upper Stage, TDRS-B, Gregory Jarvis

  Unlinked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• "USS Preserver (ARS-8)" -> "rescue and salvage ship USS Preserver"

  Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Gregory Jarvis" -> Jarvis

  Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Public response

• Indent Roger Commission so "U.S. House Committee report" is not a subheading

  I think Rogers Commission belongs as a top-level heading due to its significance as the official investigation of the disaster. The reason the House investigation is a sub-header is that it appears to mostly be a review of the Rogers Commission rather than a completely separate investigation. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Unlink Johnson Space Center

  Unlinked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

NASA response

• can we say what changes were made to the Space Shuttles, to procedures, and to management?

  The article mentions the redesigned SRBs, use of pressure suits, and establishments of the safety office. What else are you looking for? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  • The article says that "the Space Shuttle program resumed its flying schedule". As noted in the previous paragraph, that isn't quite right. The flight rate was greatly reduced.

  Changed the wording to say that it resumed flying. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Dick Truly was appointed adminstrator

  This was several years after the fact; I can't find a source that indicates this was because of the disaster. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  • The SSMEs were modified.

  Added, along with some other Space Shuttle modifications. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Plans to launch from Vandenberg AFB were scrapped.

  I feel like I've always heard that SLC-6 was cancelled because of Challenger, but I can't find any good sources that indicate it was closed because of the disaster. I'm sure the temporary shutdown of the Space Shuttle program didn't help, but it seems like there were already numerous delays and setbacks at Vandenberg AFB before then. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Shuttle-Centaur was abandoned.

  Much like SLC-6, I think of this more as something that was cancelled during a bad time as NASA; not one that was cancelled as a direct result of the disaster. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  • The Teacher in Space Project was cancelled (although it was later revived and McAuliffe's backup, Barbara Morgan later became an astronaut).

  Added this. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  • The number of Criticality 1 and 1R items was reduced

  I can't find anything that supports the reduction in Criticality 1/1R items; where did you see this info? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Unlink Jay Greene, who should just be "Greene"

  Unlinked and abbreviated. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Media

• "General Kutyna" -> Kutyna"

  Shortened. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• "In 2009, Allan McDonald, along with space historian James Hansen, published his memoir Truth, Lies, and O-Rings: Inside the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster.[91][2] McDonald's book focused on his personal involvement" Having jsut said he didn't write it, this read oddly. Suggest: "In 2009, Allan McDonald published his memoir written with space historian James Hansen, Truth, Lies, and O-Rings: Inside the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster, which focused on his personal involvement"

  Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Legacy

• Resnick and MacAuliffe also have craters on Venus named after them

  Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Unlink Johnson Space Center

  Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 I have addressed your points. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Kusma

I did a thorough read through of the article as GA reviewer, and the further improvements since then take it to FA level. I just have one observation:

• A film, The Challenger Disaster, was released on January 25, 2019; it depicted fictional characters participating in the decision process to launch.

This directly follows a line about a different production also called The Challenger Disaster, which is slightly confusing. Naming the film maker and using active voice would fix this. —Kusma (talk) 09:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't come up with a good way to convert this to the active voice; I kept getting stuck on how to say "released" as media cannot release itself. But I added the director for the 2019 movie; I couldn't find the director for the BBC movie from a reliable source. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

It's fine now. —Kusma (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

ReviewSupport by Neopeius

Lead

• I'd put the first sentence of the second paragraph as the last sentence of the first paragraph.

  Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

O-Ring Concerns

I feel like this section throws the reader into the article abruptly. Perhaps 1. renaming the section "Pre-mission concerns (O-Ring issues)" and 2. An introductory sentence to the section: "Almost from conception, the Space Shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters, particularly the O-Ring reinforcements for each of their four segments, were noted as an item of concern." Or something along those lines.

I'm not a fan of the new section title; I think that makes it seem just like STS-51-L specific terms (as discussed under "decision to launch") and this should be specifically about issues with O-rings that were noted and discussed prior to STS-51-L. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I think your version of the intro throws a lot of information at the reader without explaining it. I've tried to think of a good way to lead with the O-rings, but I keep feeling like the paragraph then has to backtrack to discuss things that were mentioned in the intro (What does an O-ring do in an SRB? What do the SRBs do for the Space Shuttle?). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Then how about "Concerns over the systems that ultimately caused the Challenger disaster dated back to the early 1970s." Then the reader knows we're about to be talking about the systems that failed.

Added with a few extra words. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• In December 1982, the Critical Items List was updated to indicate that the secondary O-ring may not provide a backup to the primary O-ring,

In December 1982, the Critical Items List was updated to indicate that the secondary O-ring could not be relied on as a backup to the primary O-ring,

Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• In August 1984, a post-flight inspection of the left SRB on STS-41-D revealed that soot has blown past the primary O-ring

In August 1984, a post-flight inspection of the left SRB on STS-41-D revealed that soot had blown past the primary O-ring

Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• The January 1985 launch of STS-51-C was the coldest Space Shuttle launch at the time

The January 1985 launch of STS-51-C was the coldest Space Shuttle launch to date

Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Space Shuttle Mission

No issues

Decision to Launch

• Suggest deleting the first sentence of the first paragraph, moving the next two sentences to start the next paragraph, and moving the last two sentences to the start of the fourth paragraph.

  I kept first sentence and brought it to the next paragraph, but otherwise made this change. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It just seems weird to describe the temperature on 1-28 and then go back to the conference on 1-27. How about:

"Weather forecasts suggested that a launch the morning of January 28 would occur during record-low air temperatures for a Space Shuttle launch. Previously, the coldest O-ring temperatures..."

This is what I went with "The air temperature on January 28 was predicted to be a record-low" I think this helps with chronology, as it's a prediction, not the actual temperature. The actual temperature is addressed at the end of the section. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Suggest then deleting The weather forecasts predicted record-low temperatures for a Space Shuttle launch so from the second paragraph (which is now part of the first paragraph). Make "A conference call was set up on the evening of January 27..." its own sentence.

  Change made. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Launch and failure

Prospect of Crew Escape

• Launch escape systems were considered during the Space Shuttle's development

Launch escape systems had been considered during the Space Shuttle's development

Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Recovery of debris and crew

No issues

Public Response

White House Response

• Three weeks before the State of the Union address was to have been given, NASA officials suggested that Reagan mention Challenger launch and Christa McAuliffe's flight in his speech.

Three weeks before the State of the Union address was to have been given, NASA officials had suggested that Reagan mention Challenger launch and Christa McAuliffe's flight in his speech.

Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Media Coverage

• To promote the Teacher in Space program with McAuliffe as a crewmember, NASA arranged for many US children to view the launch live at school.

To promote the Teacher in Space program with McAuliffe as a crewmember, NASA had arranged for many US children to view the launch live at school.

Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Rogers Commission

• It also recommended that the Space Shuttle program's management should be restructured to keep project managers from being pressured by the Space Shuttle organization

Pressured to do/not to do what?

Added " pressured to adhere to unsafe deadlines" Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• In the appendix, he lauded the engineering and software accomplishments in the Space Shuttle's development, but he argued that multiple components, including the avionics and SSMEs in addition to the SRBs, were more dangerous and accident-prone than original NASA estimates.

In the appendix, he lauded the engineering and software accomplishments in the Space Shuttle's development, but he argued that multiple components, including the avionics and SSMEs in addition to the SRBs, were more dangerous and accident-prone than original NASA estimates had indicated.

Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

U.S. House Committee Report

• The committee agreed with the Rogers Commission on the failed SRB field joint as the cause of the accident, and that NASA and Morton Thiokol failed to act despite numerous warnings of the potential dangers of the SRB.

The committee agreed with the Rogers Commission that the failed SRB field joint was the cause of the accident, and that NASA and Morton Thiokol failed to act despite numerous warnings of the potential dangers of the SRB.

Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

NASA Response

No issues.

Legacy

• Onizuka carried a soccer ball with his personal effects that was recovered and later flown to the International Space Station aboard Soyuz Expedition 49 by American astronaut Shane Kimbrough.

Onizuka had included a soccer ball with his personal effects; it was recovered and later flown to the International Space Station aboard Soyuz Expedition 49 by American astronaut Shane Kimbrough.

Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Media

Books

• Trento's book argues that the Space Shuttle program was a flawed and politicized program from its inception.

Trento's book argues that the Space Shuttle program had been a flawed and politicized program from its inception.

Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Film and Television

• The movie was criticized by the widows of Smith, McNair, and Onizuka for an inaccurate portrayal of events.

The movie was criticized by the widows of Smith, McNair, and Onizuka as an inaccurate portrayal of events.

Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Further notes

This is a great article that just needs the above polishing. I have not done a citation review, and there are lots of citations to review. I leave that to the next person (I would not recommend support until that be done).

@Neopeius: I have addressed all of your points; thanks for the review! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Will review the review tomorrow so I have fresh eyes. :) Thanks for your quick work! --Neopeius (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Personal note

I was nearly 12 on January 28, 1986. About an hour before launch, my dad was driving me to school, and a report came on the radio. The announcer noted that it was the coldest launch ever, and that technicians were chipping ice off the wings of the shuttle. I told my father, "They shouldn't launch today. It's too cold. Something's going to happen."

An hour later, our social studies teacher wheeled a TV into our classroom and we watched the replay of the disaster...

The disaster was a few years before I was born, so the Space Shuttle was the launch vehicle I grew up with. I learned about the Challenger disaster as a kid, but after reading so much about it, especially the news coming out immediately after the disaster, reminded me of all of the uncertainty and confusion in the news following the Columbia disaster. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

--Neopeius (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Okay, I got some spare time before the weekend. :) I made suggestions that should be better for you. Other than that, looks good! Thanks so much. And congrats getting a source review. I suspect you'll be good to go by early next week! --Neopeius (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Neopeius: Thanks for the review; I think I have addressed all of your points! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review

• Please run the External Links tool and fix your broken stuff.

  This was run not too long ago. I ran it just now and added archive links, but it doesn't look like it marked any refs as dead links. Is there a broken one in particular? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• What makes AmericaSpace a reliable source? Looking for information on their editorial/fact-checking process, authoritativeness of authors, reference to them from other reliable source referring to them as authoriatiative and reliable.

  Replaced with a better source/removed information not in the new source. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Fn 13 is missing a publication/work.

  Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Fn 15 - "Item no longer available"

  Not sure what the protocol is with a book's website going offline, since the book itself hasn't changed. Regardless, updated the reference to the newer edition of the book that is already used throughout the article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Fn 35–36, 43, and others - need consistent italicizing of The New York Times.

  Standardized. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Titles of newspapers and magazines in general are inconsistently formatted.

  I've standardized the news articles with one another. The scholarly journals should also be in line with one another. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• New York Times I believe has the same paywall model as the LA Times (which you marked as requiring a subscription) so please make sure they're consistent.

  LA Times won't let someone without a subscription read the article, while the NY Times allows a few free articles without one. This is only from my personal testing, but using a cookie-free browser allowed me to read NY Times articles and no LA Times articles. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• What makes collectspace.com a reliable source?

  Replaced with a better source. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise looks good! --Laser brain (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Balon Greyjoy. I think the issues I saw with the External Links tool must have been temporary because it's coming up clean now. Please consider the source review concluded. --Laser brain (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the source review! Always good to know that no matter how standardized and perfect I think my refs are, there are issues I've missed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

Oppose for now. I have concerns about prose (1a). I'm mainly looking at readability and flow, but I'm also seeing what looks like excess detail in places.

I'm breaking these into "addressed" and "not yet addressed" sections to avoid the wall of text. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Not yet addressed

This is quite a long list and some are only examples. The good news is that the prose improved further down the article and some of it is fairly easily addressed. I'm out of my depth on the physics so focusing on prose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Requests for further comments from Harry

@HJ Mitchell: I added this sub-header for any comments or corrections for which I hope to get some feedback. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC) @HJ Mitchell: I think I have addressed all of your points, to include some requests for more comments. Please let me know what you think! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• The disaster resulted in a 32-month hiatus Why 32-month? For the lead, would "a hiatus of almost three years" not suffice?

  I don't think 32 months is too detailed for the lead, since it is still 4 months away from 3 years, and "almost three years" is a wordier phrase than "32-months". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  I don't feel strongly about this. If you prefer it your way, keep it like that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Suggest briefly introducing the Space Shuttle program.

  How would you recommend working this in? I added a Space Shuttle overview section, but are you looking to go over Space Shuttle components in the lead? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  I think your introductory section is sufficient. That's the kind of thing I was looking for. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• The whole O-rings section feels like excess detail. You have four chunky paragraphs but still direct the reader to a "main article". In my opinion, some of the detail should be culled and the remainder should form part of the background section I propose above.

  I removed the "main article" template since I don't think the SRB page gets into more detail about the O-ring concerns. I moved the first paragraph in the section, which discusses the SRB field joint, into the previous section and combined it with the SRB paragraph. I think this shortens the O-rings concerns section. Other than your comments for this section, is there anything else you view as excessively detailed? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• three tang-and-clevis field joints need to explain what these are. Only needs to be a few words, but this is quite a vital point.

  I added "with each joint comprising a tang from the upper segment fitting into the clevis of the lower segment"; I don't love the wording but it at least explains the joint layout. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Middle paragraph of that section is very choppy and contains a lot of redundancy and repetition. Can you see the problems here: The primary mission of the Challenger crew was to deploy a [satellite]. The satellite [...] would have been the second satellite in the TDRS constellation to enable constant communication with orbiting spacecraft. A secondary mission for the crew was to study Halley's Comet as it passed near the sun. The mission was scheduled to deploy the SPARTAN satellite on the second day of the mission and retrieve it three days later.?

  I shortened this and cut down on redundancy, please let me know what you think. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• estimated to have been between 12 and 20 times that of gravity (g) can we say how this compares to the g forces the crew would have been expected to withstand? Or to the limits of what humans can endure without losing consciousness?

  I can't think of a good way to incorporate this. The maximum g force during a shuttle launch was typically 3 g, and while 12-20 g is enough to cause momentary loss of consciousness, there's nothing definitive if they stayed unconscious, and if it was the result of high g forces or depressurization. I think I help qualify this number by ending the paragraph stating that this isn't enough to cause significant injury. Let me know what you think. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Flow is not great. There are a lot of sequences of short sentences, a lot of them starting "these were" or similar where the sentences could be easily combined.

  I think I've addressed many of your wording comments; could you point me to the sentences that still need some work? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Lots of technical terms lack inline explanations.

  I'm probably not the best judge for what requires an inline explanation for a Space Shuttle article; what concepts/terms do you think I should expand upon? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• The flow in the last two paragraphs of this section gets choppy again.

  I really struggled with this; I want to summarize what the commission's findings were but am not sure how to get away from a sentence after sentence stating findings/conclusions, since they don't really build on one another, and I don't want to be too detailed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Addressed

• This led to the separation of the right-hand SRB's aft field joint attachment and the structural failure of the external tank Why wait til now to link aft and structural failure? Again, this needs a copy edit to reduce redundancy/repetition and simplify.

  I shortened this slightly; it should be less redundant as the previous sentence has been shortened significantly. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Following the explosion, the orbiter was broken up by aerodynamic forces Explain what the orbiter is, either here or earlier on. I clicked the link earlier on and managed to figure out that it's the bit the crew sit in and therefore its breakup is not conducive to their good health, but we shouldn't make readers click away to be able to understand the article (and that link is easily missed among the large number of links in the opening sentences).

  I added that the crew compartment was in the orbiter. I'm going to add a Space Shuttle overview section in the body that should better explain what the orbiter is. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• The disaster began after a joint in the Space Shuttle's right solid rocket booster (SRB) failed at liftoff. The failure was caused by the failure of the two redundant O-ring seals used in the joint, in part because of the unusually cold temperatures at the time of launch. The seals' failure caused a breach in the SRB joint Too many "fail"s too close together.

  Combined some sentences; think it flows better and is less redundant. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• allowed pressurized burning gas from within the SRB to reach the outside and impinge upon the adjacent SRB's aft field joint attachment hardware too much jargon/technical terminology, especially for the lead: Reach the outside of what? What does "impinge upon the adjacent SRB's aft field joint attachment hardware" mean? Wikipedia needs to be accessible to a general audience; this sounds like the sort of thing one would expect to read in a technical report.

  I think I rewrote it to be more accessible. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• A short background section (a paragraph or two) would be useful, I think. You can use this to briefly introduce the space shuttle program (mentioned but not explained, so lacking historical context) and some of the technical stuff, like the shuttle components.

  I added a background section; let me know if it is sufficient. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• that ultimately caused the Challenger disaster dated back to the early 1970s Too early in the article for a definitive conclusion like that.

  Removed this sentence. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• The disaster resulted in [...] the formation of the Rogers Commission, a special commission [...] to investigate the accident. The Rogers Commission found Lots of redundancy there and scope for tightening. You could drastically cut your word count with no loss of meaning, which also improves flow. Also, an investigation isn't really is a result of an accident, even if it logically follows it. I'd have one sentence for the hiatus (possibly including the reason for it and when/how it was announced) and one for the commission and its most headline findings.

  Split the first sentence and then made a single sentence about the formation of the commission. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• had been key contributing factors to the accident redundancy: "contributed to the accident", for example, is half the number of words for the same meaning.

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• found that issues with NASA's organizational culture and decision-making processes had been suggest using active voice (eg "The Rogers Commission criticised NASA's organizational culture and decision-making processes); also, not sure the link on "organizational culture" is of much value.

  Changed and unlinked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• potentially catastrophic flaw in the SRBs O-rings apostrophe needed on SRBs?

  Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• this was not addressed use active voice whenever possible

  Converted to active voice. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• corrected by NASA or Morton Thiokol Who is Morton Thiokol and what do they have to do with it? We're saying they should have addressed something but this is the first time they're mentioned in the narrative.

  Added they they manufacture the SRB. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• As a result of the disaster, NASA established the Office of Safety, Reliability and Quality Assurance to better address safety concerns within the organization redundancy: you could lose "within the organization" and still preserve all meaning.

  Removed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Additionally, commercial satellites It's odd to see an "additionally" starting a new sentence when this is the third fairly short sentence in a row, making for a choppy read.

  Combined it with the previous sentence; removed excess words. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Additionally, commercial satellites would subsequently be launched Do we need to tell the reader that this is both additional and subsequent? And is it strictly speaking "subsequent" (as in, part of the same sequence of events) or just "later"?

  Removed "subsequently". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• The lead doesn't seem to explain the cause of the disaster; it tells me that an O-ring failed and that the weather was cold (a temperature would be helpful) but doesn't explicitly connect the two.

  I added a sentence connecting the low temperatures and the failed O-rings. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• As the colder temperatures lowered the elasticity of the rubber O-rings, the engineers feared that the O-rings would not be extruded to form a seal at the time of launch. That's the first time you explicitly make the connection between temperature and O-ring efficacy in plain English. That's the sort of thing I was looking for in the lead.

  Added this to the lead. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• To replace Challenger, construction of Endeavour was approved in 1987, and it first flew in 1992 little bit sloppy: by a strict reading, "it" is "construction", not Endeavour.

  Changed the sentence to say "the new orbiter" Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Subsequent Space Shuttles launched with redesigned SRBs "subsequent" again. The flow is fine here but this one I'm pretty sure you just mean "later".

  Changed to say "later". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Each SRB was constructed in four main sections at the factory in Utah and transported to Kennedy Space Center (KSC). The four sections were then assembled in the Vehicle Assembly Building at KSC Flow and redundancy: instead of using four words and a full stop, just use a comma.

  Combined the sentences. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• These were required to contain the hot, high-pressure gases The field joint, the O-ring, or the SRB? "These" could be taken as referring to any of those.

  I specified that this is referring to the O-rings. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• as failure to seal in the hot gas would likely cause the destruction of the Space Shuttle and the loss of its crew largely redundant, but if you want to keep it, it could be shortened.

  I removed this part of the sentence. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• "the [radar] filter has discreting sources" you need a reference after a direct quote, and what doe this mean in plain English?

  I removed this as I couldn't find a source that explains it in plain English. It means that they are detecting individual pieces rather than the entire Space Shuttle stack, as the spacecraft is disintegrating. Unfortunately, I cannot find a reliable source supporting that, so I took out the quote.Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• could result in the destruction of the vehicle and loss of life redundant: this is mentioned two sentences earlier.

  Removed the previous mention of it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• the coldest Space Shuttle launch to date, with a 62 °F (17 °C) air temperature at the time avoid the ",with" construction to join a sentence.

  Moved the air temperature to the next sentence, and then made a single sentence with only temperature info. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• completed in 1990, with its first flight ", with"

  Changed to say "and it first flew" Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• While recovering the remains of the crew, Jarvis's body floated away and was not recovered until April 15 reads as though Jarvis was doing the recovery

  Fixed to clarify that this occurred during the recovery operations. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• that the O-rings were not creating an adequate seal redundant to the previous sentence.

  Removed and reworded. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• The air temperature on January 28 was predicted to be a record-low for a Space Shuttle launch; previously, the coldest O-ring temperatures at launch You've jumped here from discussing air temperature to O-ring temperature (and haven't really explained the significance of either or the difference).

  I removed the record-low O-ring temperature; it's not really relevant and the dangers of the cold temperature are discussed below.Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• engineers to evaluate if the improved field → whether

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• did not have enough data to determine if if → whether

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Kerwin's report concluded that it is unknown → could not determine?

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• stated that the launch should not occur redundancy; suggest "recommended against launching" (three words instead of seven for the same meaning) or similar.

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• supported by Joe Kilminster use active voice if possible

  Switched to active voice. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• commercial satellites would subsequently be launched on expendable launch vehicles Is this relevant to the Challenger disaster? You haven't told us what the mission was so this comes out of the blue to the reader.

  I added the mission overview to the lead, but STS-51-L wasn't scheduled to deploy a commercial satellite; this change was because of an increased perception in risk to Space Shuttle missions, so it was viewed as a needless risk to astronauts' safety to have them deploying commercial satellites. Is adding the mission enough here in the lead? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  I'd say that solves the problem here. If you can source it, "it was viewed as a needless risk to astronauts' safety to have them deploying commercial satellites" would be a good addition to the legacy section. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  I added sourced info to the legacy section. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• set up on the evening of January 27 by Cecil Houston active voice

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Lawrence Mulloy, the NASA SRB project manager,[2]: 3  subsequently called Arnold Aldrich "subsequent" again; this one adds nothing and can just be eliminated.

  Removed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Ditto flights in 1985, with erosion of both

  Changed to "and". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Some of the detail in "space shuttle mission" seems like it would be better placed in the mission article if this article is to focus on the disaster. For example, the delays could be distilled to "it was postponed several times" or even removed entirely if the delays aren't relevant to the disaster (I understand delays aren't uncommon in space launches).

  I shortened to delays to what you recommended, and removed the sentence about the rainfall. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• The commission's report was published passive voice

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• More repetition and flow issues: as three of the four recovered Personal Egress Air Packs (PEAPs) on the flight deck were found to have been activated. PEAPs were activated for Smith [...]. The PEAPs were not intended.

  Combined sentences and used more pronouns. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• increased through the day, with a total of 12 aircraft and 8 ships ", with" again

  Fixed and shortened sentence. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• of the White House with a speech written by Peggy Noonan the Oval Office is a sufficiently famous metonym that it doesn't need qualification, and do we need to know who wrote the speech?

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Reagan had intended to mention the launch in his remarks.[35][36] Three weeks before the State of the Union address was to have been given, NASA officials had suggested that Reagan mention Challenger launch and Christa McAuliffe's flight in his speech. repetition; also too many "officials" in this paragraph.

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• In March 1986, The White House released a copy of the original State of the Union speech as it would have been given before the disaster redundancy

  Reworded. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• On February 3, 1986, President Reagan MOS:SURNAME

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Considering the commission has its own article, the first two sentences would seem to be better presented there.

  I removed the mention of the executive order, but still want to include its name, nickname, and members. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• On February 10, a hearing was held that discussed the issues with the O-rings The date is excess detail and the passive voice could easily be eliminated; suggest "one hearing covered issues with the O-rings".

  I combined the sentences discussing the hearings; I think it makes it less repetitive and removes excess detail. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that I'm watching the article and the FAC with great interest and I'm very impressed with the improvements so far. I haven't reviewed all the changes yet but you're definitely on the right track. I'll be back over the next couple of days to reply in more detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Glad to hear that I'm headed in the right direction! I'll make some more edits today, but I'm leaving for the long weekend, so I won't be making any edits between Wednesday night and Monday morning (UK time). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Mu'awiya I

Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) and AhmadLX (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Mu'awiya I, the founder and first caliph of the Umayyad Caliphate. Though his family led the opposition to the Islamic prophet Muhammad, he became the Prophet's scribe after the conquest of Mecca. He was sent as a commander in the Syrian conquest two years later and gradually governed that conquered region, where he secured a strong power base among its Arab tribes and mostly Christian bureaucracy. He defeated the 4th caliph, Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law Ali in the first Muslim civil war, bringing the caliphate under his rule. Considered controversial in Muslim tradition for seizing power, being less religiously devoted than his predecessors and establishing dynastic rule, unprecedented in Muslim politics, he is also admired for his competence, leadership skills and mild rule. Al Ameer (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up all maps
• Some of the maps present a concern wrt MOS:COLOUR. Additionally for File:Map_of_expansion_of_Caliphate.svg it is unclear even for a non-colour-blind person which portion of the map is being referred to as "red" in the caption.

• I defined in text the areas shaded in particular colors in the captions on all the map images; also re-colored the expansion map (new upload called File:Age of the Caliphs-recolored.png for clarity).

• File:Seal_of_Muawiya_dismissing_Abd_Allah_ibn_Amir_as_governor.jpg: where is the CC0 claim coming from?

• This issue is outstanding. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• File:Map_of_expansion_of_Caliphate.svg: source link is dead

• Added archive links. Al Ameer (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:Greek_Muawiya_inscription_of_Hammat_Gader,_663_AD.png: what is the copyright status of the photo? Ditto File:Lead_seal_of_Mu'awiya's_dismissal_of_Ibn_Amir,_ca._664.png

• This issue is outstanding. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• File:Arab-Sasanian_coin_of_Muawiyah_I,_struck_at_the_Fasa_mint_in_Darabjird_(Fars).jpg needs tag(s) for the status of the coin itself

• Tag for US status of the coin still needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• File:Statue_de_Okba_ibn_Nafi_al_Fihri_en_Algérie.jpg: where specifically is this statue located?

• I do not know. I could only assume somewhere in Tunisia, possibly Kairouan. Removed for now. Will try to find out from author in meantime but not hopeful. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:Tomb_of_Caliph_Muawiya_Bin_Abi_Sufyan.jpg will need a tag for the original work, and where is the CC claim for the photo coming from? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• I removed this image for now as it is not clear where the CC claim is from. The source link does not indicate that the author has given permission to use the image. I may try contacting either the uploader or the author to get clarity on this. Al Ameer (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Iazyges

Reviewed the article at GAN recently, will support once the issue with the ref "Ali 1974, p. 82" not having a bibliography is fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Issue has been fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Thank you for supporting and again for your efforts during the GAR. Al Ameer (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Funk

• Nice to see this here, marking my spot for now. FunkMonk (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Would it make sense to mention that he was pagan or what exact beliefs he had before becoming a Muslim? I can imagine many readers would have no idea what Arab religion was before Islam.

• Yes, I think it would be best to note that his tribe was polytheistic for context. Will add. Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Link Muslim and Arabia, Mesopotamia, Arab, Byzantine, other such terms in article body?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• The link to Arabia should thereafter be removed form the later "Moreover, the focus of Arabian tribal".

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "against Byzantine Cilicia and proceeded to Euchaita, deep in Byzantine territory.[17] In 644, he led a foray against Amorium in Byzantine Anatolia." The first areas are also in Anatolia, so perhaps mention it earlier?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "principal Arab allies, the Ghassanids," Perhaps add they were Christian?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Although Syria's rural, Aramaic Christian" You could say "Aramaic-speaking" to avoid the contentious ethnic issue.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "the historian J. W. Jandora" Full name like the others?

  Name is John W. Jandora, added full name in bibliography. Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "According to the historian J. W. Jandora, "Mu'awiya was thus confronted with a population problem"." Does it need to be a quote or can't it be paraphrased?

• Decided to remove altogether unless you think otherwise. It would be a bit complicated to paraphrase because I would need to get creative on what Jandora means when he says "population problem". My understanding is that in Syria's critical urban centers, Mu'awiya had to contend with either a depleted and/or outright hostile population. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, in that case, I think it could stay, but up to you. FunkMonk (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "to pay a tribute equal to that which they paid the Byzantines" But did they have to pay both? Or should it be "which they had paid the Byzantines"?

• Revised to "had paid". Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "and they bested the Iraqis" Is that term appropriate in this context? I can understand Syrians, as the region was called that, but was Iraq in the modern sense used then? And in any case, didn't Ali and his army come from Arabia? How do the sources distinguish the factions?

• In this context, Iraq is also the appropriate term and was used by the early Muslim sources to refer to the region that is southern/central modern Iraq. The sources actually identify the sides as Syrians and Iraqis, something of a theme of rivalry between the two geopolitically important regions throughout the early Muslim period. As for Arabians, the "Syrians" in this case were also Arabians, some being tribes established in Syria in centuries prior and others having arrived with the conquest armies. Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "greeted Mu'awiya as amir al-mu'minin" Could need explanation.

• Clarified that this was in effect a signal of their recognition of Mu'awiya as caliph. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "was aborted as a result of Ali's assassination by a Kharijite" I believe there is an article about this that could be linked, Assassination of Ali.

• Linked.

• "This year is considered by the traditional Muslim sources as "the year of unity" What does "traditional Muslim" mean? I doubt Shias agree with this, so specifically Sunni?

• Maybe, but I am not sure "traditional Muslim sources" should be synonymous with Sunni sources. @AhmadLX: Thoughts on this? --Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

IMO, the historians were not strictly "Sunni"/"Shia" in a sense scholars of hadith and jurisprudence were. It was more like some being pro-Alid historians and some not so pro-Alid historians. I remember seeing a source expressly saying that "Muslim tradition calls the year, year of jam'a", but at the moment I can't find it. The sources cited in the article name Tabari and Khalifa. Now, both of these historians were in the category of not so pro-Alids. I think, one can just add in the article "considered by some of the traditional Muslim sources..." for now. When a source listing other primary sources or expressly calling it a year of unity is found, we can change it back. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

That could work, I think it's important to note it was not the universal opinion. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Generally not a fan of the word "some", but have modified accordingly for now. Al Ameer (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• "the caliph's name is preceded by a cross" Any images of these coins to show?

• None unfortunately. Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• "the spring in Jeddah [sic]" What does the sic denote?

• Fixed. The source used the less common spelling of "Juddah". Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• "In the Yamama in central Arabia" You could add "region".

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• "During the reign of Mu'awia" Missing y from the name.

• Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• "According to Hinds, in addition to Yazid's nobility, age and sound judgement, "most important of all was the fact that he represented a continuation of the link with Kalb and so a continuation of the Kalb-led [tribal] confederacy on which Sufyanid power ultimately rested" Does this need to be a quote?

• Revised. Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Mu'awiya's grave was a visitation site as late as the 10th century." Is its location known today?

• Not really. There's a tomb supposedly containing his tomb in the Bab al-Saghir cemetery but this is a relatively recent "rediscovery". His "real" tomb may be hidden somewhere in Damascus. As of the 19th century, his tomb in the cemetery had disappeared. I will check to see if there are sources that mention its existence later than the 10th century. Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• You are somewhat inconsistent in whether you present historians by occupation or not.

• Please let me know if this has been addressed now. Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks better. FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Mu'awiya died of an illness" Any further details or context? How long was he sick, etc?

• No details here. Many of his Umayyad successors died from illnesses that a modern source proposes were recurrences of the plague of Amwas, but Mu'awiya is not included among them.

• "after the decade-long civil war" You could add "second".

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Caliphate" is sometimes capitalised, sometimes not.

• Caliphate has been capitalized when referencing the state/empire, lowercased when referencing the office of the caliph. Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• "This has led some modern historians" Could they be named?

@AhmadLX: Does Hoyland mention any specific historians? If not, I will modify the wording. Al Ameer (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, added names in a footnote. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Mu'awiya and the Umayyads are given the title of malik (king) instead of khalifa (caliph), though the Abbasids are recognized as caliphs." Specify if this is by the aforementioned writer.

• Attributed to the Islamic tradition. Al Ameer (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• "A Syriac writer notes that he did not wear a crown like the traditional kings" and "The Maronite Chronicles also maintain that Mu'awiya "did not wear a crown like other kings in the world"", seems to be the same info, is one redundant?

• Possibly; removed just in case. @AhmadLX: Objection? --Al Ameer (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Certainly not;) AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Afterward, Mu'awiya became one of Muhammad's scribes." This doesn't seem to be specifically stated in the article body until way down under Assessment?

• It is mentioned in the Origins and early life section "Mu'awiya was made one of his katibs (scribes)". Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, must have overlooked. FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "condemned Mu'awiya and other Umayyad caliphs" The article body doesn't seem to clearly state he was Umayyad until this point far down?

• There are earlier mentions of him being an Umayyad family member, but I added a sentence in the "Early military career ..." section about him and the Umayyad caliphs, as well as their differentiation from the first four caliphs who are considered the "Rashidun". Al Ameer (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• "considerable admiration for Mu'awiya in the sources" Add "contemporary"?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Rashidun" don't seem to be mentioned by this name outside the intro.

• Added. Al Ameer (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Only a few unanswered points left before I can support. FunkMonk (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• @FunkMonk: Please let me know if there is any other point that needs to be addressed. Thank you for your patience. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks good, now Caliphate ("to shore up support for the Caliphate") seems to be a duplink of Rashidun Caliphate, I think you could just make it a link to the general Caliphate article? FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Apparently the preceding "caliph" in this section links to Caliphate, so I will leave "Caliphate" un-linked, unless you think otherwise. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support - everything looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Borsoka

• ...a prominent Meccan merchant who often led trade caravans... Is "often" necessary?

• Removed. Al Ameer (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• ... preeminent leader... Is the adjective necessary?

• Removed. Al Ameer (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• ...during the early stages of its conflict with the Islamic prophet... Perhaps "the Quraysh's/Banu Abd Shams' conflict"?

• Went with "Quraysh's" Al Ameer (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• ...Mu'awiya and his father may have reached an understanding with Muhammad... WP:WEASEL. You may want to say that they reached an agreement as it is demonstrated by the marriage of his sister to Muhammad in 629.

• Had to keep "may" as the source does not make it certain or even likely.

• If the source does not make it likely, why do we need to mention it? What is sure that Muhammad wed his sister in 629. I assume they must have reached an understanding before the marriage. Borsoka (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• I revised this passage. I hope it is clearer and less weasely now. Let me know. Al Ameer (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...with his tribesmen... Perhaps "with his Quraysh tribesmen"/"with the Quraysh"?

• Revised. Al Ameer (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• ...The family... Who? (He, his father and his brother were mentioned. Do you refer to the three persons?)

• Changed to Abu Sufyan's family as it may have included the rest of his surviving children and wife. Al Ameer (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Checking back on the source, it says "Abu Sufyan and the Umaiyids". Just kept Abu Sufyan. Al Ameer (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• ...Yazid, whom he later dispatched... Is "later" necessary?

• Removed. Al Ameer (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• ..., where Abu Sufyan already owned property in the vicinity of Damascus, in return for the loyalty of the Banu Abd Shams. Unclear sentence. When and from whom did they receive the property?

• Need to do further research on this and will update you here. He owned property, according to the Muslim sources, in Syria (various sources mention the "vicinity of Damascus", "the Balqa", or a particular village in the Balqa) from before his conversion to Islam. None of the sources mention from whom he received it though.

• In this case, why are we sure that they received it for their loyalty? Borsoka (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Abu Sufyan obtained this property before Islam and before the conquest, it was not given to him by Muhammad or Abu Bakr. The point the source is suggesting is that Abu Sufyan had economic interests in Syria and to obtain Abu Sufyan's and his family's backing, Abu Bakr gave them a prominent role in the conquest of Syria. Al Ameer (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Consider deleting the text ", in return for the loyalty of the Banu Abd Shams" - it is misleading, because the context suggest that he received it for his loyalty towards a Muslim leader.

• Consider introducing Abu Ubayda ibn al-Jarrah, Iyad ibn Ghanm and Umayr ibn Sa'd al-Ansari.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...Umar's efforts to curtail the influence of the Qurayshite aristocracy in the Muslim state in favor of the early Muslim converts. This is a statement out of the blue. Perhaps "Umar's well documented/otherwise obvious efforts"?

• Revised to "well-known". Al Ameer (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Are you sure that the statement is about Umar (not about Uthman)? Please also check whether Umar or Uthman is the subject of the paragraph. Borsoka (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes it is Umar, not Uthman that is being discussed. Cplakidas below raised a valid question about "well-known"; perhaps, I need to tweak the phrasing again. Al Ameer (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...Medina consistently courted the Kal....Medina's entreaties... Perhaps the central government/the caliph instead of Medina?

• Revised. Al Ameer (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Could the statement "Medina consistently courted the Kal..." also be changed? I am not sure that all readers could easily realize that Medina refers to the Caliph or his government. Borsoka (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• It is not unusual to use a state's capital when referring to its government or leadership. In the "Origins and early life" section Medina is mentioned "as the seat of the Muslim government". Should this suffice for further mentions of Medina in this context, until of course it was replaced by Kufa? I will mention in the article that Kufa became the new seat under Ali. Al Ameer (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• ... the Byzantine emperor practically conceded when he withdrew from Armenia... We were informed that the emperor had moved to Sicily not to Armenia.

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• ...Uthman's confiscation of crown lands... Is "confiscation" the proper term?

• To me, "confiscation" would be the correct term as these were lands that belonged to the "Community", i.e. the Muslim settler troops, and they were seized by the caliph for the treasury. This is still a specific area I am not too clear on though. @AhmadLX: What are your thoughts on this? Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

IMO "confiscation" is correct. Borsoka what would you suggest? Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 11:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• To me, the term "confiscation" refers to the transfer of property to the fiscus (or Crown), not from the fiscus (or Crown) to an individual. Borsoka (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. Now, Umar's view was that these lands were in principle state assets, but were de facto controlled by the warriors. Uthman's argument was that they are state assets and as state head he can use them the way he saw fit. He did not declare them his personal property.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 11:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

If you say confiscation is the proper term in context, I will accept your decision. I am not a native speaker. Borsoka (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...his alleged nepotism drove the Quraysh ... to oppose the caliph... The footnote states that he preferred the Quraysh.

• @AhmadLX: Also on this. Uthman gave favor to his own clansmen, i.e. specifically the Umayyads/Banu Abd Shams, and this was opposed by the rest of the Quraysh, i.e. Zubayr, Talha, A'isha, Amr, Ibn Abi Waqqas etc. While his motive is not fully understood (whether it was to make it easier to rule the new vast empire by relying on close relatives or if it was simply to empower and enrich his own family), it is undisputed that he gave political and economic favor to his immediate relatives and Umayyad/Abd Shams clan. For reference, Donner 2012 pp. 152–153, Kennedy 2004, p. 74, Madelung 1997, pp.86–87. So I am thinking to change "Qurayshite control" to "centralized control" to avoid the confusion pointed out by Borsoka. Opposed? Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I have to disagree here. Several Quraysh including Talha, and Zubayr, who eventually opposed him for whatever reasons, were among the beneficiaries of his grants. Amr's opposition was likely due to his removal from the office. MOreover, this is what Hinds and Donner say. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 11:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Borsoka it was like this: Umar diverged from Abu Bakr's policy of relying on the Quraysh in governing the caliphate. Uthman tried reversing it but in that favored his own Umayyad clan more than other Quraysh. This has been interpreted by the traditional sources as sort of nepotism and influence of his secretary Marwan, an interpretation accepted wholesale by Madelung. Other historians, including Kennedy, Hinds, Donner etc see it as centralization and stabilization effort in view of the enormous size of the empire and anarchist nature of Arab Bedouins of central Arabia, who were in the majority in the garrisons. These were angered by decreasing of their prestige, while the non-Umayyad Quraysh were dissatisfied with the increasing Umayyad influence. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 11:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...to the east and west... Is this necessary? I am not sure that Egypt is located to the east west of (early medieval) Syria.

• Removed. Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Himyar is linked to the article "Himyarite Kingdom" and it ceased to exist in 525 AD.

• Will have to expand that article to include the Himyarites' Islamic descendants. Plan on doing this over the next few days. Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka, how are you going with this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I will continue the review in a couple of days. I have been realy busy in RL. I think the article is very close to a FA. Borsoka (talk) 11:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• ...some of the traditional Muslim sources... WP:WEASEL: "some" and "traditional". Could we say "the earliest/widely accepted sources" or something similar?

• Agree on "some", this was a little compromise reached above due to valid concerns raised by Funk about the universality of the sources' view of Mu'awiya's leadership of the politically united caliphate as the "year of unity". As for "the traditional sources"/"the Muslim tradition", this is generally used in modern literature about the subject to broadly refer to the early Muslim sources. Rarely are these sources "contemporary", the earliest usually date to the 8th century and most to the 9th and 10th, but also as late as the 15th. These sources cite chains of transmission that supposedly go back to people contemporary to the days of the Prophet Muhammad, the first four caliphs and the Umayyads. Understandably, it could confuse readers, so I changed it to "early Muslim sources" in most instances, exceptions being when the "tradition" is the subject of the section.

• ...Mu'awiya is credited by the traditional sources... Who? Could we say "the earliest/reliable sources" or something similar?

• Changed per above. Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...the crown lands that he confiscated in Iraq and Arabia... Did he confiscate crown lands for himself or did he confiscate lands for the Crown?
• ...the absolute government practiced by Caliph Ali... Could Ali's government be described as "absolute"? Based on the article, I understand he was not in control of significant parts of his empire.

• Removed altogether. Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...After Ziyad's death in 673, Mu'awiya gradually replaced him in all of his offices... Perhaps because of may poor understanding of English, but I cannot imagine how a dead person could be replaced with anybody gradually.

• Hope I modified to be clearer. Ziyad's son was installed to his father's offices gradually between 673 and Mu'awiya's death. Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...According to the Muslim traditional sources, the raids peaked between 668 and 669. Could we say "nearly contemporaneous/reliable/widely accepted sources"? For instance, an article published in a newspaper in 2021 is a more traditional source than an online article from 2018.

• Changed per above. Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...though the traditional Muslim sources offer divergent details... Again, I do not understand what a traditional source means. Perhaps "earliest/relieable/widely accepted/primary sources"?

• Changed per above. Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks @Borsoka:. Forgive my slow response time (real life's fault), but I will get to all of these asap. Al Ameer (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Borsoka: I hope most of these points have been addressed satisfactorily. I want to hear from AhmadLX regarding the "confiscation" question and the nepotism phrasing before addressing them. I will work on the Himyar article or create a new one about the Himyar tribe of the Islamic era to avoid confusion with the pre-Islamic Himyarite royal family, from whom the Islamic-era Himyar supposedly descended. Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you. I think there is a single pending issue in addition you mentioned above. Borsoka (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Back for the source review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

For sake of use, I'll separate these by category.

Standardization

• Decide if you are going to link the author at each mention, or only the first, there is currently a large mixture of them. I generally prefer to link only the first mention, but either one is acceptable as long as it is standardized.

• I also prefer a single link, but most of these are templates which provide the author-link. To make it simple, I just linked all mentions. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Decide if locations will be "Location, State", "Location, Country", "Location", or no location, and standardize to that.

Brill search

• Bosworth, C. Edmund (1991) links to a search within Brill, not to the article itself, change the link to this. Please note that I don't have full access to Brill, and if that changes the way the links would work, please disregard this. I'm also OK with changing these links myself if you'd prefer, as it's not very impactful (in the way changing dates might be) and somewhat tedious. Adding a url= parameter to the EI2 templates works and automatically adds the url-access parameter.
• Christides, Vassilios (2000) ditto, use this.
• Dixon, 'Abd al-Ameer A. (1978) change link to this.
• Gardet, Louis (1965), same as first two, as Brill search, use this
• Gibb, H. A. R. (1960 Brill search, use this link.
• Hasson, Isaac (2002) Brill search, use this link.
• Hawting, Gerald R. (2002) this
• Hinds, Martin (1991) this
• Hinds, Martin (1993) this
• Lammens, Henri (1960) this
• Shahid, Irfan (2000a) this
• Shahid, Irfan (2000b) this
• Sourdel, D. (1965) this
• Vaglieri, L. Veccia (1960) this
• Watt, W. Montgomery (1960a) this
• Watt, W. Montgomery (1960b) this

• I added the urls, though the versions I used were the (digitized) books. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Dates

• For almost all of these, use whichever date comes from the edition you used to write the article, and the orig-year as mentioned if needed. Most of them probably have google books links for different editions and I'm happy to hunt them down and add them if you mark which date should be used.
• Crone, Patricia (1980) and Crone, Patricia; Hinds, Martin (1986) both have links which lead to a 2003 reprint, although the ISBN is appropriate for both per WorldCat; may wish to change the date to 2003 for both with original-years of the 1980 and 1986 (use |orig-year=); however, if the edition you used for this is the original, retain 1980 and 1986 dates with no original year.

• Done on Crone-Hinds 1986. I could do this as well with Crone 1980 by replacing the templates and writing out a full citation. @Cplakidas: Would it make more sense to modify the template? Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: I can modify the template so that |year= is editable when |orig-year= parameter is provided, that should cover it. Constantine ✍ 17:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• de Goeje, Michael Jan (1910) where does the 1910 date come from, given that the work itself is from 1911? I've been unable to find a 1910 edition of it.

• Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Donner, Fred M. (1981) Link gives the year of 2014 but ISBN is appropriate for both, I suggest the usage of 1981 original-year and 2014 date year.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Donner, Fred M. (2010) The link gives the 2012 date, ISBN is appropriate for both, suggest the original year 2010 the date year 2012.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Elad, Amikam (1999) link gives a date of 1995, WorldCat gives 1994; suggest using an original-year of 1994 and a date of 1995 (unless you used a physical book with the 1999 date, in which case retain 1999 as the date with 1994 as the original-year.

• The link I have is for the Second Edition and it shows publication year of 1999. See here. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Ende, Werner (1977) my German is not flawless (or even good...) but it looks like the publishing year was 1974, if so, use the original year of 1974 and date of 1977.
• Foss, Clive (2010) In a complex situation the link gives the date as 2013, and WorldCat as 2016, although 2010 is also an appropriate date for the ISBN; if you wish to retain 2010 date, change the link to this; you also may wish to change the date to 2016 and orig-year the 2010 date, and link to this, in line with WorldCat, which would also give the publisher as Routledge, rather than Ashgate; I would generally consider Routledge to be of higher quality than Ashgate, but I will admit limited experience with Ashgate, and I won't challenge Foss as HQRS in any academic source.
• Hawting, Gerald R. (2000) link gives a date of 2002, and ISBN is appropriate for both; you may wish to change the date to 2002A (and the current Hawting, Gerald R. (2002) to 2002B) with an orig-year of 2000, or more simply just change the link to this
• Kaegi, Walter E. (1992) link gives the date of 1995, suggest a date of 1995 and orig-year of 1992

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Kennedy, Hugh (1998) firstly, link author at first mention, secondly, the link gives a date of 2008, suggest using that date and orig-year of 1998.
• Shaban, M. A. (1971) has an orig-date of 1971 and linked date of 1976; suggest the date of 1976 and orig-year of 1971.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

IDs

• Crone, Patricia (1994) three IDs seems somewhat excessive, suggest dropping S2CID 154370527; also decide if all or only one mention of the author will be linked.
• Miles, George C. (1948) again, three IDs seem excessive.
• Sprengling, Martin (1939) same.

• Removed the SCIDs from all. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Author-links

• Ende, Werner (1977) may wish to authorlink to the de:Werner Ende page.
• Kohlberg, Etan (2020) may wish to author-link to de:Etan Kohlberg.
• Miles, George C. (1948) fr:George Carpenter Miles

• Linked. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Notes

• Hawting, G.R., ed. (1996) Link was broken, I have changed URL to a working one.
• Humphreys, R. Stephen (2006) Oneworld isn't ideal as a publisher but I'll accept on author's merit.
• Jankowiak, Marek (2013) while Academia.edu is very useful, it does at times host information without authors permission; it does look like the work was uploaded by the author themselves in this case.
• Kennedy, Hugh 2004, 2007 and 2016 all have publishers that aren't ideal, especially De Capo press, but I will accept on the author's merit.
• Hasson, Isaac (1982) and Lilie, Ralph-Johannes (1976) I've added the translated titles.

• @Al Ameer son: that is all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Iazyges: most academic publications hold the copyright to what they publish and don't allow authors to post the final versions of the work on sites like Academia.edu, so it would legally be a copyright violation. The author's work (preprint) they are usually allowed to publish, but the final version should be cited anyway. (t · c) buidhe 10:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

    @Buidhe: That is fair, should it be presumptively removed then? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

    Yes, that's what I would recommend based on the requirement not to link to copyvio. (t · c) buidhe 21:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

• Not my area, so comments will be general. It looks pretty good, and well-sourced.
• Lead: only 3 paras, but the 4th is very long, but the first para is pretty short. Split? At "Although Mu'awiya confined the influence of his Umayyad clan to the governorship of Medina ..." Probably. Several other paras lower down are pretty long. Or is another new para needed? The final section of the article "Muslim views" is important, and not really covered in the lead.

• I broke the third lead para. Further down in the article, I broke up two particularly long passages in the "War with Byzantium" section and one para in "Assessment". There are a couple others I noticed, especially in "Early military career" and one in "Assessment", but I believe in those cases it would be better not to split. Al Ameer (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Lead. Would a mention, or more emphasis here, that M was much less closely associated with the Prophet than his Rashidun predecessors, until the last 3 years?

• Added the following sentence: "Unlike his predecessors, who had been close, early companions of Muhammad, Mu'awiya was a relatively late follower of the Islamic prophet." Al Ameer (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Ali turned his attention toward Mu'awiya, who, unlike the other provincial governors, had a strong and loyal power base, demanded revenge for the slaying of his Umayyad kinsman Uthman and could not be easily replaced" at the least, needs a comma after Uthman.

• Definitely. Broke up the sentence, and added the comma as well.

• The Commons category is not linked, not that there's all that much in there.

• Linked in article now. Al Ameer (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• The pic captioned "Lead seal announcing Mu'awiya's dismissal of Abd Allah ibn Amir from the governorship of Basra, which occurred in 664 CE. He was replaced by Ziyad ibn Abihi" duplicated the one in the infobox (not the same piece I think.

• They are different pieces, same subject though. Should I remove one? Al Ameer (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe - they are not that informative. Aren't there any decent photos of buildings he would have known? Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• More later. Johnbod (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Johnbod, any idea when the further comments might be coming along? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Soonish, but they haven't dealt with the first lot yet. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Continuing: "...holds that Mu'awiya had further developed a mosque originally built by Caliph Umar on the Temple Mount and received his formal oaths of allegiance there" - isa this the Al-Aqsa Mosque or another?

• Nothing of the structure built under Umar and/or Muawiya is known to be archaeologically extant, but modern sources consider it something of a precursor to the Aqsa Mosque, which was built by the Umayyad caliphs Abd al-Malik and al-Walid (690–715). Let me know if the revised wording properly reflects this. Al Ameer (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• How big was the standing Muslim army during his reign? Do we have estimates?

• There was no standing army in his time. There were various important garrisons, mainly those of Basra and Kufa in Iraq; Fustat and Alexandria in Egypt; and across Syria–Upper Mesopotamia, presumably including the soldiers along the frontier area with Byzantium. Numbers mentioned by the early sources are generally unreliable. Hugh Kennedy, author of Armies of the Caliphs cited in this article, proposes 100,000 combined in Iraq, about the same in Syria, and 40,000 in Egypt. They were composed of tribesmen and their clients. These were not professional troops that could be mobilized upon command by the caliph as a standing army, though the tribal soldiery in Syria were the closest thing to that, being more organized, disciplined and motivated to heed Mu'awiya's orders. Al Ameer (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Mu'awiya died of an illness in Damascus in Rajab 60 AH" better say something vague about his age.

• Added. Al Ameer (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Ok, that's it. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks @Johnbod:. Please let me know if my changes suffice. Al Ameer (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Constantine

Good to see this here, will review over the next couple of days. Constantine ✍ 17:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Per MOS:SINGLE, glosses of words, e.g. for Rashidun, should be in single quotation marks.

• Fixed. Mentions of the "Rashidun" were the only instances I saw. Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think this includes terms translated from Arabic and denoted as such, e.g. "Night of Clamor", "the year of unity", etc.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• who led trade caravans to Syria. perhaps add here that this was part of the Byzantine Empire at the time?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yazid, whom he dispatched I'd recommend replacing the comma with a full stop, and separating the two conflicts (Ridda wars and the conquest of Syria).

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• contradicted Umar's well-known efforts to... 'well-known' to whom? Why is it even relevant that they are 'well-known'? Perhaps rephrase to 'contradicted Uma'rs efforts to otherwise...'?

• Agree. Changed to "otherwise"; discussing this above as well.

• central government's entreaties which central government? Presumably Medina is meant, but this is not entirely clear.

• I prefer Medina; currently discussing this above. Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I recommend redirecting 'Greek Christian' to Rûm, esp. since Eastern Orthodoxy is an anachronism for the 7th century.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Link 'garrison cities' to Amsar

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in the capitalization of Caliphate when referring to the state vs. caliphate when referring to the office (e.g. maintain the caliphate's influence on the island)

• Ran through them again, should be good now. Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• The rest to come Constantine ✍ 19:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you @Cplakidas:. Looking forward to the rest of your review. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "early Muslim" is used in two different senses in the text: on the one hand for the first followers of Muhammad (e.g. "early Muslim converts"), and on the other for the early Muslim period (as in "early Muslim sources", which however are much later than the events discussed). In "early Muslim commander" or "early Muslim elite", I am actually unsure what sense is meant. I recommend changing the first case to something else, like "earliest Muslim converts" or "first Muslim converts". In the case of "early Muslim elites" perhaps "nascent Muslim elite" or simply describe them as the Ansar or Muhajirun or the specific group they belonged to.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• enabling the governor (optional) for some reason it feels odd to read of Mu'awiya as 'the governor', especially if just mentioned by name. Perhaps 'the governor of Syria'?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• nascent Muslim community link "Muslim community" to ummah

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• collapsed and by then... "collapsed, but by then..."?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• wrap italicized Arabic terms with {{transl|ar|}}

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Ham House

Nominator(s): Isaksenk (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a 17th-century stately home which sits along the Thames on the outskirts of London. The house and its gardens form a rare picture of the style of the courts of Charles I and II, as the family who owned the property sought (over the centuries) to preserve the grandeur of the era. Over the last year, a group of National Trust volunteers, who would normally be sharing the stories of the house with visitors, have spent the time in lockdown documenting the details of the house, gardens, collections and the people who lived there. As a highly-researched property, there is a wealth of academic literature upon which to draw, and we have done our best to provide a complete survey of the property and the people who created it. Isaksenk (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review—pass

You're lucky that in UK there is freedom of panorama for publicly accessible interiors. In some pictures there are also artistic works visible, but all of them look to be either de minimis, old enough to be out of copyright, or both. However, there are some harv errors in the references that need to be fixed. (t · c) buidhe 20:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Buidhe I believe the harv errors are addressed now, but please let me know if I've misunderstood.Isaksenk (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it looks like it's been fixed. (t · c) buidhe 22:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment

I've only browsed, but the section on the National Trust could be bulked up. It would be helpful to include stuff about tourism (it receives ~70,000 visitors a year), conservation of the building and collections, curation and interpretation (eg: exhibitions, grants), etc. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Richard Nevell appreciate your feedback. We didn't delve too deeply into topics around the current curation & experience as we wanted to avoid any whiff of promotion, given that we are a group of NT volunteers at the house. We could expand this section, but wanted to err on the side of caution. However, willing to take advice on that. Thanks. Isaksenk (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

That approach makes a lot of sense. It might be worth preparing some text which could be added in and seeing what the FAC crowd think. The declaration at the start of the nomination means the editing community can decide if text is neutral or promotional. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• I would agree with Richard. A short additional paragraph on the end of "National Trust" covering what happens at the property right now would seem to be in order. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Richard and Gog the Mild I suspect that a statement regarding current curation, conservation efforts and exhibitions would require the involvement of NT HQ - not something I am able to provide in short order unfortunately. Isaksenk (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

You may be looking too deeply into this. Sadly you can't use the NT's own web site or guide to the house as it would be a primary source, but I don't think that we are asking for much more than is probably in there. (I haven't looked.). But is there not a local council guide or similar? ("Stately Homes in Greater London" or whatever.) Or something in a reputable newspaper. The fact that the information is lifted from NT material, possibly a press release, doesn't matter; the editorial control and independence makes it a secondary source. So long as it is "reliable" in Wikipedia terms, you can cite to it. Does that help? Richard Nevell may have a different view. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a great believer in the imprimatur conveyed by local press repeating a press release. Obviously, when there is opposition to plans, as there so often is with the NT, that is where they come into their own. One thing I'd like to know is if there is any RS coverage of the horrible accident a few years back, when a falling temporary Lely reproduction took out a mantelpiece-full of oriental porcelain. That won't be on the NT website, we may be sure. In the case of the easily accessible visitor figures (see current bottom), the only feasible source is the NT themselves, & it is fine to use them. Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild Most recent press dwells on more specific topics such as the slavery & colonialism report, the "siesta" policy and our resident cat. I did find this article which does actually address the topic of curation, but obviously it's more of a historical survey. I'm aware of the conservation projects due to the volunteer communications, but of course it's not something for which I can provide sources. I'm not sure what else to offer. Isaksenk (talk) 06:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I’ve added in the 2018/19 visitor numbers. I think Richard N is quite right in thinking we should have them, as they are an important element of the Trust’s stewardship. I’ve used the Annual Report as the source. I appreciate that some may think this a primary source, which it clearly is, but I think it is acceptable. It is the published record of the Trust’s yearly activities, signed off by its management board, and independently audited by the Trust’s auditors. It think it should therefore meet the requirement for reliability. KJP1 (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Good - "primary" is a non-issue, as the NT is the only possible source for visitor numbers, and recycling them through any secondary source will only reduce their reliability. It's the same with the sizes of paintings, as owners don't let passing art historians bring their own ladders and tape measures. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

I reviewed the article for GAN and thought then and think now that what emerged was ready for FAC. At 8,600 words it's quite a biggie for an article on a single house (and garden) but I don't see any superfluous material. I press-ganged my friend and colleague KJP1 into adding his input at GAN, and I look forward to his expert comments here, but from my own, less expert but greatly interested, viewpoint this is a first-class article, well written, comprehensive without going into too much detail, balanced, well proportioned and beautifully illustrated. It has been no hardship whatever to reread it for the current review – quite the opposite. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 19:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Tim riley we do appreciate your guidance and support. Isaksenk (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from KJP1

I had the pleasure of commenting on this article at Peer Review/GA and Isaksenk and their Ham House colleagues have done a superb job of taking a detailed, but weakly-sourced, article to the excellent state it is now in. I shall comment shortly and hope other editors will join in reviewing an excellent collaborative effort. KJP1 (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC) As indicated above, I commented on this at peer review and at GA and, for disclosure, made some minor edits myself. I think it is a grand article that fully warrants FA status. The editors, led by Isaksenk, who have worked on it have created a well-written and comprehensive study, that is also well-illustrated and well-cited, which gives readers an excellent overview of the house, its history, architecture, and its collection, which is arguably more important than the house itself. On the matter of citations, there are just three areas where I think further citation would be helpful:

• Elizabeth and John Maitland, 1st Duke of Lauderdale - the third para. ends with a sentence on jib doors. I think this would benefit from a cite;
• North Drawing Room - the third para. ends with a sentence on the popularity of Four Seasons tapestries. Again, a cite would be good.
• Queen's Apartments - be good to end with a cite. I would hope these can be quite easily picked up from existing Sources, probably Rowell.

As to other comments, there is very little. I think the suggestion above to add a bit more on the National Trust's ownership is excellent. Visitors numbers/conservation/research/etc. I do not think it needs to be that much, and it would fit well at the end of the History section. I'd be pleased to take a look at any suggested wording, in order to address any perception of "promotion". Aside from that, nothing, except a regret that the sources do not make it possible to say a little more on the architect of the first building, and the potential involvement of the Smythsons. I would add thanks to retired editor User:Hchc2009 for their excellent plan. A most helpful addition. Overall, it is a splendid article, and a fine addition to Wikipedia's canon on important buildings. Isaksenk and their fellow editors should be proud and I'm pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks KJP1 your support is greatly appreciated. I believe I've now addressed the 3 points above and have also made a small expansion to the end of the History section with the references at my immediate disposal. If more is desired, I'll need to head to the library to seek additional sources. That will take some time however, as my schedule is a bit full at present. Happy to take advice on remaining gaps. Isaksenk (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that looks good. The only bit I might add is visitor numbers but, oddly, I can’t find it in my usual source, [21]. That said, the 2019/20 numbers will be so atypical that they may not add much. Perhaps Richard’s 2009 number? All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Kavyansh.Singh

Viewing Cullen House on the main page as today's featured article reminded me of this one. I gave some minor comments in its peer review, and was astonished by this article's comprehensiveness. The only major issue was citations, which now seems to be tackled. The article is well written and well researched, appropriately illustrated, and is neutral. You and your team have done a great job of improving this article, and I am more than happy to add my support for promotion of this article as a Featured article. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Formatting comments - Resolved

• The titles of works should be in title format, eg Cripps.

Sorry, but I don't understand what's being requested here. Isaksenk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, in Cripps for example "biography" should have an upper case "B". That is the only case I can find in Sources, but in References a few upper case letters could usefully be inserted for the sake of consistency. Eg in cites 52, 100, 152. Does that help? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Gog the Mild. However I assume that references to articles, such as cites 234 and beyond can remain as they are? Isaksenk (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

No. They should adhere to MOS:TITLECAPS. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild OK, I think I've addressed them all now. Thanks.Isaksenk (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Malden needs a publisher, a publisher location, an OCLC and a page range.

Done Isaksenk (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Sudeley - no publisher location?

Huntingdon Library indicates London, but publisher unknown. Should publisher just remain blank? Isaksenk (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, good question. Let's try that. (Your source reviewer may prefer "Publisher not identified".)

• Waterhouse: publisher location should be formatted 'New Haven, US; London, not "New Haven, US and London".

Done Isaksenk (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Cite 21: "p." → 'pp'.

Done Isaksenk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Similarly cites 28, 59 and others.

I believe I've corrected all of them now. Isaksenk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Why are some works listed in References rather than Sources?

I'm a little unclear as to the best approach for referencing format. I captured all books and journal articles used on the References section into the Sources list. I did not include other sources such as websites/online news articles. Should those also be included in the Sources section? Isaksenk (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

No, that is acceptable. Drives me crazy, but it is acceptable.

• Cite 4: no ISSN or JSTOR identifier?

That journal does not appear to be available on JSTOR. I've added the ISSN, but I cannot access the journal myself in order to ascertain page numbers. It was part of the original article - not something that I added. I'd need to get to the BL to determine precise citations. Isaksenk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Cite 190: number ranges should be separated by en dashes, not hyphens.

I believe another editor has used a script to address all the problematic hyphens. Isaksenk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Bradley needs a page range.

Unable to address at this time - I'd need to get to the BL to determine precise citations. Isaksenk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Now completed Isaksenk (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: this is not a full source review. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Isaksenk, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Gog the Mild I've been able to address a few now, and will be able to return to this at the weekend. We appreciate your guidance.Isaksenk (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I have responded to a couple of your queries. (My brother's family visited on Sunday on the back of my recommendation!) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild I've addressed those remaining comments that I'm able to address at this time. Thank you for your feedback. I do hope your family had a pleasant visit. Isaksenk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Iazyges - pass

• May wish to move the cited websites into a bibliography section and use sfn's, rather than whole cites, in the body.
• "Estates of the Tollemache Family of Ham House in Kingston upon Thames, Ham, Petersham and elsewhere: Records, 14th cent–1945". Surrey History Centre. Retrieved 5 September 2012." is a dead link.

Done Isaksenk (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Airs, Malcolm (1998)" link gives a date of 1995 by WorldCat, either use a 1995 orig-year parameter as used in other cites or switch ISBN to 9781858338330.

Done.

• "Greeves, Lydia (2008)" link gives publisher as Pavilion Books, may wish to switch the link to WorldCat, as it gives the correct publisher and the Google book is not accessible.

Done.

• "Ham House, Surrey. Swindon, Wiltshire: The National Trust. 2009" ISBN brings up the original year of 1992/1995, and 1997 and 2005 editions; possibly a fault of WorldCat, but double-check that the ISBN is correct.

Iazyges I have a copy of the 2009 version, which is copyrighted 1995. The ISBN on the inside cover is 978 1 54359 172 6, but when I try those digits, it generates a checksum. I don't know what to do with that. Isaksenk (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

That is... odd. It seems to be an invalid ISBN; it is suggested on the CS1 help page to check the cover and front matter to see if one IBSN is different from the other. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Iazyges The back cover has the number 978 1 84359 172 6, which, as you note above, doesn't actually reference the 2009 reprint. Happy to proceed as you advise. Isaksenk (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly weird, but nothing can really be done about it. Suggest retaining current ISBN as least bad option. Passing the source review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Jackson-Stops, Gervase (1979)" link is broken; this link works.

Done.

• "Rowell, Christopher, ed. (2013)" may wish to switch the link to this, as this WorldCat entry contains more details, including the date.

Done.

• "Sudeley, Ada (1890)" I'm generally against inserting "publisher unknown" in the bibliography, but you may wish to do so.

Done.

• "Summerson, John (1955)" I'm unable to find the source of the Harmondsworth, Middlesex location for the 1955 edition? I can only find it in a 1993 edition; suggest removing location unless I'm missing something.

Done.

• "Ward, Evelyn Svec (1953)" insert location of Cleveland, US.

Done. KJP1 (talk) 06:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• That is all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod, part 1

• I've enjoyed looking at this less than I expected. It repeats on a grander scale the usual faults of WP articles on historic houses, in particular too much on the family history and too little on the house.
• It would be tempting to suggest putting all the former, except a brief summary, below the latter.

Done - hopefully in a fashion that enjoys support. KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• The family history would be easier to follow if people's dates were given when they are first mentioned, and dates given to sentences like: "Lionel Tollemache, 5th Earl of Dysart succeeded to the title on his father's death." and "Wilbraham was aged 60 when he inherited the title.", even if the date is in the previous section.

Done - again, hopefully in a style that makes the choronology easier to follow. KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod more clarity is required before I can address this request, specifically on these points:

• What format is required, both for those with known dates as well as those with uncertain dates?
• Are references for the dates required?
• Is it only first mention, or when a mention is repeated? Only for repeats in a later section?
• Only family members, or other persons related to the story, like Charles I, Adrian Vanson or Ada Sudeley?
• We know from our research that there are some date conflicts between Pritchard & Rowell - how to address those circumstances?

If there is a style guide that addresses all these items, please point me to it. Otherwise, please state your requirements so I can proceed to address them. Isaksenk (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• The treatment of the exterior, which I see had to be prodded for at PR, is perfunctory.

Done - as far as the sources available to us allow. KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• The linking seems to give up almost completely about half-way through (during the rooms, until the filmography); there must a good 30-40 links missing. Even glaringly obvious ones like Mortlake Tapestry Works and Antonio Verrio are missing, but lots more.

Done - I thinking the blue-linking is now complete. Many thanks for those you picked up yourself. I'm sure a few more have been missed. KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• On points raised above, I agree pre-Covid visitor figures should be given, & I'm fine with the films & tv.

Done - visitor numbers now in and cited. We agree that the media appearances, although though don't find favour with all - including me! - should remain. KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• More later, but I won't do a full read through until work is done on the links. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod - Thanks very much indeed for the initial comments. First, you make a very good point re. the links. I’ve sought to address this and ended up bluelinking some 131 words/names/terms where I thought such links would help the reader. I don’t actually think I’ve madly over-linked, which rather makes your point! A few specific queries:

• Soho Tapestry Works - I can’t find anything better for this than Soho. Any ideas? - John_Vanderbank#Early_life seems best. Like Lambeth, I think these were breakaways from Mortlake. I'd do a redirect there for now. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Four Seasons decorative motif - I can’t find anything appropriate, although it does generate quite a lot of links. Thoughts? - Hmm Season#Four-season_calendar_reckoning doesn't help much. At Personification (itself a possibility), I used Deities and personifications of seasons also not much help. Really we need something like Four_continents#Iconography. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Flemish Baroque painting was the best I could find for the Flemish leatherwork in the Marble Dining Room. Better? - Leather wallpaper, the right subject, perhaps not the best title. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• On the actual link you mention, Flemish_Baroque_painting#Still_life_and_animal_painting would be best I think. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Secretary desk didn’t seem quite right for escritoire/secretaire. Is there better? -Probably not. If it doesn't have shelves above Writing desk may be better. All our furniture articles are terrible. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Pietra paesina has a link on the Italian Wiki but Ruin marble was the best I could find on ours. Ideas? - Is it natural formations? Or landscape Pietra dura? These seem the closest. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ok, natural, so yes, ruin marble is right. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Second, on your comments on the architecture of the house, you again make a fair point, although I think good use has been made of the available sources. I was surprised at the paucity of material available in the books I have. Pevsner was useful, but the Historic England listing, as an example, is oddly brief - a single, short, paragraph - for what it describes as an “important” Grade I listed building. Any other sources on the building which you can suggest would be much appreciated. I know User:Isaksenk will find your initial comments/suggestions of great help and we look forward to more. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• More:
• "is claimed by the Trust to be "a rare survival of 17th-century luxury and taste." - surely everybody agrees on this.

Johnbod This was not included as a response to a dispute, but rather a fact of which most visitors are unaware. Moreover, it's the starting point for notability and a key reason that the Trust decided to accept the property into its portfolio. If you require an alternative statement or complete removal, please provide more-precise guidance. Isaksenk (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. I think what Johnbod is saying here is that the claim Ham is a rare survival is so uncontroversial and so generally accepted that it does not need the qualifier of the Trust saying it. I've tweaked the wording which I think will work. KJP1 (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it was especially "claimed" that provoked the comment, as that implies there is controversy or doubt. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• "move between the courts at Richmond, Hampton, London and Windsor as his role required" - can't see the sources, but normally there is only one "court" per person. Richmond and Hampton seem to have been mostly the bases of James' sons at this time, which perhaps Vavasour needed to keep an eye on. Maybe "move between the palaces at Richmond, Hampton, London and Windsor as his court role required"

Done Isaksenk (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Do we know who actually paid for the first construction? James I or Vavasour? Charlton House was built over the same years by James for Prince Henry and his tutor, though the tutor seems to have hung on to it (our article is not very clear on this).

Johnbod Rowell asserts that Vavasour was investing in the accumulation of land in the vicinity of Petersham during the early 1600s, but the source is the Tollemache family papers. He references a debate about the original motivation for the construction - some sources allege that the house was originally intended for Henry, Prince of Wales, but Rowell is skeptical. I cannot respond further without access to the BL. Isaksenk (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• "When her father died in 1655 Elizabeth became 2nd Countess of Dysart...", also the earl's coronet mentioned in the previous para. Her father being raised to the peerage has not been mentioned (rather confusingly, there are 3 possible dates for this). Maybe slip it in here, or when the coronet is mentioned.

Johnbod The earldom was conferred in 1643, but did not pass the Great Seal until 1651 according to Rowell, p. 116. After Elizabeth inherited the title, new letters patent were granted in 1670. Unfortunately Rowell does not provide a citation, so I cannot elaborate further at this time. What detail and dates are required for clarity in the section on William Murray? Isaksenk (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Since the article does not at present say so, you need to explain that he was (or was thought be by the family) made an earl before his death - the details can be skipped here, as his bio covers them. You might also explain that as a Scottish peerage his daughter could inherit it. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

KJP1 has described the original grant of the peerage, to which I have added a note on the dating. Isaksenk (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, fine. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The bedchamber itself was being referred to as "the Queen's Bedchamber" in 1674 which suggests that the Queen, Catherine of Braganza, a friend of Elizabeth's, had occupied it at least once." - Simon Jenkins (1,000 Best Houses", p. 495), says the visit was anticipated but "is believed never to have happened".

Johnbod I have been told by house managers that court records suggest she did visit the house, but that there is no evidence of a visit after the completion of the State Apartments. Rowell however states on page 85 that she did visit in 1674, soon after the completion, but does not provide a citation. So, without further primary source research I can't provide a more-definitive response. Isaksenk (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

So, are you happy with the current wording? I hope not. Can you think of an alternative one? Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I think this one is now resolved? KJP1 (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Works for me KJP1. I'll ask the house manager if she can get any further clarity from Rowell on his assertion. Thanks. Isaksenk (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: I found Rowell's citation elsewhere, on p. 122. From the Buckminster Park Archives, he has a disbursement records for the 2 cooks working in the kitchen during the Queen's visit in 1674. So while it doesn't proved that she stayed, she apparently used the suite after its completion. KJP1 - do we want to retain Jenkins' statement? Isaksenk (talk) 11:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Isaksenk - Have tweaked the footnote to reflect the ambiguity. That should work. Glad to be able to get back to this. Unfortunately, am in London three days next week - although not with sufficient time for a visit to Ham! - but I do think, subject to your own work commitments, we should be a position to close up the outstanding comments by the weekend. That will leave any further comments from Johnbod to be addressed. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sorted, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• More later. Johnbod (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Johnbod Thank you for taking the time to review the article and provide your thoughts and guidance. All feedback is a gift and yours has been extremely helpful. I'm sorry that you've found the article disappointing - we have tried our best to build on the work of previous contributors and tell the story of the property in a balanced and clear way. It's become clear to me that we're never going to be able to satisfy the requirements for FA, given the known gaps in source documentation. But your comments have helped me to realise that our team objective has already been achieved - we set out last year to expand the article to tell the story of the property in a more complete fashion, addressing the points which are most notable from a historical perspective or those which elicit the most questions from visitors. With the work already completed and the generous guidance from reviews such as Tim riley, KJP1, Kavyansh.Singh and others, we've already achieved what we set out to do. I'll now leave it to others to pursue the FA certification, if they wish. Thanks all for your generosity and support. I shall cancel this request for review as soon as I can figure out how to do so. Isaksenk (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Isaksenk, think you should stick with this, after you have brought it so far. JB said "less than...expected", but is now giving clear pointers to further improve so it might become "more than...expected", and a lot are about moving paras around, or expanding emphasis here and there...ie all highly actionable and doable. And I see there is a good team helping also, so have confidence this can be brought over the line. Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I think the article is certainly within reach of FA, & I don't believe "known gaps in source documentation" are the issue at all, but perhaps there is flagging enthusiasm. KJP1 has largely fixed the links. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Coord note -- If Isaksenk truly wishes to withdraw the article from FAC then the coords will act on that but given the reviewers' comments I agree that it would be worth sticking with it a bit longer; it is after all just over three weeks old and is, as KJP1 says, within striking distance of the bronze star. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Response from isaksenk - Appreciate the feedback, but, truly - it will take many months to address the points which have been raised above, not to mention whatever may follow by other contributors. For example:
        • The question of whether Catherine of Braganza visited has long been a topic of debate. I'd need to do extensive research on primary sources to establish what can be asserted.
        • Who paid for the original construction - same as above
        • Providing a clear explanation for the origins and history of the Dysart peerage in the 17C - it's complicated, and again more research needed
        • Vavasour's role at court & relationship with James's sons, including the location of their own courts - more research
        • A request to expand the content on the exterior architecture - more research
        • Reformatting and rearranging all the references to suit the varying request of all the FAC contributors - I'm a relatively-inexperienced editor and sometimes I don't even understand what's being asked in these comments - which requires additional research on my part. Then, to try and get it to a shape that satisfies everyone - significant time investment
        • NT visitor numbers, plus current projects/programmes/etc. - I suspect that this content would require the involvement of NT HQ, which will take significant time and correspondence
        • When we began the project last summer, we also thought about moving the family section below that of the house. However one of the original editors disagreed with the approach, so we chose to compromise on that point.
      • My enthusiasm for the property and its story remains as strong as ever. (I work full time, but give up my Sundays to volunteer at the house, and have been doing so for more than a decade.) The issue is simply time. We relied heavily on Rowell and other key secondary sources to expand this article and the questions being raised now would require many days back in the BL, trawling through Rowell's cites. And since he also had access to the Tollemache family archive, some of those sources will not be available. I'd need to take time off work in order to complete this research and the earliest I'd be able to do so is January. (Work has picked up, and business travel has started again.) It's for that reason that I'm asking for the review to be cancelled. There are many other FAC reviews which would benefit from your guidance. I'm simply unable to address all the concerns raised in a meaningful way. Thanks everyone. Isaksenk (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely appreciate the challenge that juggling real life with an FAC can pose. Obviously, if Isaksenk as nominator wants to withdraw it, that is their choice. But I think it would be a real pity. Like others, I think it is close to FA standard now and all the comments/suggestions received can be actioned. I’d be pleased to try to do so, ideally in conjunction with the nominator. Currently, I have a Real Life issue of my own, as I’m writing this from Spain. While the temperature, and Alhambra views, are delightful, I am without access to any offline sources. If the coordinators are willing to keep it open to, say early November, I’d be pleased to have a go at getting it over the line. And that would give Johnbod, and others, a further opportunity for comments. Whatever the outcome, Isaksenk and their team can be justly proud of their efforts, which have greatly improved the article already. KJP1 (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, personally. Or it could be closed now & re-nominated by you after the mandatory period of 2 weeks or whatever it is. I think the amount of work required is severely overstated by User:Isaksenk above - eg I wasn't asking for "a clear explanation for the origins and history of the Dysart peerage in the 17C", merely a mention that it existed by the time of his death. I should have suggested a draft, but then I did that on the point about Vavasour's role, one that should require no further referencing, and that is also complained about as requiring "more research", which I'd deny. And so on. At the same time, I've been reviewing FACs for well over a decade, & I don't recall ever seeing one with (over a long stretch of the article) such a lack of necessary links; you can't expect that to be overlooked at FAC (not if I'm reviewing anyway). It took KJP1 about 3 hours (taking time off for a well-deserved breakfast) to fix what looks like nearly all of them, & now that appears to be sorted - I added a couple, & may well find more as I read through, which I'll probably do myself. On the family history, another way of doing it, probably the easiest starting where we are, is to keep the top half where it is, as "Builders of the house" or something, then shove the rest, from Lionel Tollemache, 5th Earl of Dysart on to the last Sir Lyonel, below the house description as "Later Tollemache owners" or something. Their masterly inactivity needs covering, but not so high up, if done at this length. Of course, the article has had a vast amount of work and is hugely improved, & I think it's great we got the NT volunteers involved, which I've long thought is something we ought to be doing, or get the staff involved - which I was involved with for Waddesdon Manor, an initiative rather banjaxed by Covid & staff changes. As a local, I've always found the Ham House team especially friendly & helpful, & would thank them for their efforts. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

PS: NT visitor numbers are, I'm fairly sure, available online in the Annual Reports. 2019 is the one we want, obviously. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it took about 2 minutes to find: Ham House 2018/19: 127,195; 2017/18:118,187, page 76 here. Much harder to find what the actual period is, but it seems to be the year to 28 February, so the 2019/20 figures might not be much/at all impacted by Covid. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose While I've tried my best to address the open points raised above, it's clear that I do not understand what's needed to successfully navigate this process. I'll chalk that up to lack of skills and experience. Please accept my request to withdraw the nomination, thank you. Isaksenk (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Acknowledged, Isaksenk. Pls understand it's pretty unusual to archive a FAC with supportive reviews from some experienced editors and no outright opposition to promotion. Johnbod, do I understand that your outstanding points are more than the sort of tidy-up we sometimes allow after promotion to FA? I ask because I could well have three possible courses of action here: 1) archive per the nominator's request; 2) leave open for KJP1 to work on in a week or so; 3) promote if the remaining points are considered minor and could be dealt with post-FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Or 4) archive now & let KJP1 re-open at a moment of his choosing, as I suggested above - well I suppose that's 1). I can't really answer your question as my read-through comments so far only cover 3 of the 18 screens the article text takes on my m/c. Apart from a possible rearrangement of sections - very quick to do if agreed, and hoping more on the exterior can be sourced, they are individually pretty minor, but there may be a lot of them, I just can't tell. If it's left open I can carry on compiling them (or do that at article talk); I should be able to do that in less than a week. I'd like to hear how KJP1 feels. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Ian Rose. I've decided to continue with the review, to ensure that the content is as accurate as possible. Please note though that I will not respond to comments offered with taunts and ridicule. Finally, as said above, it will be some time before I'll be able to conduct additional research for the purpose of expanding certain topics. Please let me know if that's acceptable. Isaksenk (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Great news. There is obviously a lot of goodwill towards towards the work so far and this candidacy in the comments above. Ceoil (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Great news indeed. I’m confident that it will be possible to get this one over the line. Ian Rose, Ian, we will likely need a little more time which I hope will be acceptable. I think the key outstanding issues are:

• A few formatting/citation issues;
• A little more on the NT’s ownership/activities/visitor numbers etc.;
• A little more on the external architecture, if it can be squeezed from the sources. I can certainly check the Jenkins, which I’d not realised hadn’t been used;
• Perhaps the biggest, what to do about the Dysarts? Johnbod is right, the major contribution of the later Earls, with the possible exception of the 4th, was to do very little. It is that inactivity, masterful or not!, which preserved the house and contents in their remarkably unaltered state. So, should we flip the History and the Architecture? Leave as is, perhaps combining some of the latter earls’ entries? Or, try a split - The Builders of the House - The House, contents and grounds - The later Dysarts and their successors? I’ve no particular preference, but I can understand the view that the stretch from, say, the 5th Earl to Sir Lyonel and thence to the NT, might sit better as a conclusion? That said, I tried the House before the History at Chartwell and there was a strong view at both PR and FAC that History should come first. I’m very happy to go with the nominator’s view. KJP1 (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Only just seen the alarums and excursions above. I'm relieved that the nominator is going ahead, and I remain a firm supporter. Tim riley talk 13:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Continuing read through:
• No link for Earl of Dysart - the problem raised re the grant of this not being mentioned remains. It might also be explained that it was because it was a Scottish peerage that Elizabeth inherited it in her own right.

Johnbod - hopefully, this one, and the linked one above, are now sorted. KJP1 (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sorted, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Another benefit of transforming the house from single to double-pile" - last bit linked to List of house types, which is resolutely American, dealing with small early types there, like Single- and double-pen architecture and Shotgun house. I don't think these terms are common dealing with English architecture, & it would be better to explain what is meant rather than using this link.

Johnbod On p. 100, Rowell states "By adding an entirely new range...a fashionable double-pile house was effectively created." I'll defer to others with deeper expertise however. Isaksenk (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. But I think the link, though it does contain the information, requires too much hunting around Colonial America for the reader, & it would be better just to slip in "two rooms deep" or similar in there. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod - Agreed. Let me work up a sentence on single/double pile and I’ll slot it in. If I could only find my Pevsner Architectural Glossary, I’d just lift a quote. KJP1 (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Done - with a sentence cribbed from Curl. KJP1 (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Charlotte died, childless, in 1789 and although Lionel remarried he remained without an heir.[75] When this became apparent, the families of his surviving sisters, Louisa and Jane, reverted to the family name of Tollemache in anticipation of potential succession. Lionel's second marriage in 1791 to Magdalene Lewis, the sister of his brother Wilbraham's wife, also produced no children.[73] On his death in 1799 his brother, Wilbraham became the 6th Earl of Dysart.[76]" - repetition of the childless 2nd marriage. Should be rejigged more compactly.

Done. KJP1 (talk) 07:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Lionel Tollemache, 5th Earl of Dysart - he was presumably the one who sent George III (?) away with a flea in his ear when he tried to make a touristic visit? That must be in the sources & is worth mentioning.

Done that one, by way of a footnote. It is a great quote! KJP1 (talk) 06:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Yup! Maybe worth putting in the main text, as the contrast with earlier and later attitudes to visitors, royal or otherwise, is striking. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod - You could well be right. Such is my weakness for footnotes, that I sometimes bury information in them that would be better suited in the body. I shall have a go. KJP1 (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Done - now in main body and with stronger citation. KJP1 (talk) 09:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• more later. Johnbod (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod, part 2

• "He had the wall that separated [the garden of ?] Ham House from the river demolished and replaced by a ha-ha,[81] leaving the gates free-standing. [Where is this exactly? Not the "Back Gate" beyond the wilderness?] Coade stone pineapples were added to decorate the balustrades[82] [again, where are these?] and John Bacon's statue of the river god [at the front of the house], pictured here, also in Coade stone,[43] dates from this period." - needs explaining for clarity I think. If the pineapples at the front are meant, "stone pineapples were added to decorate the pillars supporting the railings at the front" or something might be better. Are we sure those ones aren't "pine cones" though? I know the form at the top resembles a pineapple better, but these are usually called pine cones in art, partly because their use in Western art long predates Colombus. So far, these changes, especially the busts, are the main new thing I've learnt from reading this article, & I think they should be moved to the architecture section. Do we have a more precise date for them? The busts on the front facade are a very striking and effective feature of the house. Though 19th-century, the sources no doubt cover their precedents from periods closer to the rest of the facade - Hampton Court Palace very close by (Card. Wolsey), but also Wollaton Hall (1580s) and Longleat (1570s), & I think this should be mentioned. Were the side walls with busts embracing the circular lawn at the front always there, or do they come from these changes?

Thanks Johnbod. The changes to the wall and gates completed by the 6th Earl were done at the north side of the property, facing the river. The 5th Earl had preferred a more-isolated home, which the 6th Earl opened to the river. Rowell refers twice to Coade stone pineapples (p. 360, 367). Regarding the busts, they are mentioned in the 1679 inventory, although the current arrangement is thought to be the work of the 6th Earl, and his redesign of the north front. The busts aren't pictured in the Hoskins miniature of 1649, but that doesn't prove they weren't there. However, the figure of Charles II certainly post-dates 1660. The flanking walls were in place before the 6th Earl's changes, but apparently some of the busts which had previously been in the front walls were relocated to the front of the house. Isaksenk (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

This isn't exactly what the article now says.

Johnbod OK, I've tried to expand the section with details for clarification. Isaksenk (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• National Trust section - do the contents (or most of them) still belong to the V&A? If so, this should be made explicit.

No, the contents were transferred in 1990, when the government relinquished the lease. The NT has sole control of the collections, but continues to collaborate with the V&A. Isaksenk (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but this should be said clearly.

Johnbod Done. Interestingly, the final transfer notice wasn't until 12 years later. Isaksenk (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• I still think that the later family history, from the 6th or 7th earl on, should be moved to the bottom. But the National Trust section should I think come after the earlier owners, with a quick summary referring people below for the rest of them.

Done - sort of. We can't see a way to have the NT in the first part, but the latter Dysarts in the second part. Hope that the re-ordering meets with general approval. KJP1 (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• The north facade could be described in more detail - the doorway for example. The number of planes in the swelling forward and then backward at the sides of the facade is unusual.

Done - as far as the available sources allow. KJP1 (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• "At the time the remodelling project was considered impressive" - which time, which remodelling? Presumably the Duke's, but clarity needed. New para for this?

I've tweaked the text to clarify. Isaksenk (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• "which were changed to black velvet upon the Duke's death in 1682" - just for the mourning period? Now back to crimson, from the photo.

The 1677 inventory referred to crimson velvet and damask wall hangings, of which these are a 19th century recreation. However the 1683 inventory, the year following the Duke's death, notes wall hangings of black velvet. The Brewer watercolour of 1886 appears to show some red textiles, but it's difficult to tell. Isaksenk (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• There are lots of references not after punctuation in these sections.

Johnbod I've looked through all the references and either I don't understand what's required or someone has corrected them already. Isaksenk (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• I've added/changed links & done some small rewordings.
• State Bed isn't a great link. ok - Baldachin#State_bed is needed - done
• I know the NT says it but in " 'Le Roi vestu de noir' given to 'Monsr Morre' [Murray] by the King, 'avec sa mollure' [in this very frame]'" - "framed" or "in its frame" is surely a better translation? Maybe reword to just say the frame is thought to be original. The workshop should probably be mentioned (for the painting), as the NT does, since they probably actually painted most or all of this repeat version.

Johnbod OK, I've tried to improve accordingly. Isaksenk (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Colonel The Hon. John Russell (1620–1681)" - aka John Russell (Royalist). Other sources say he died in 1687, & the birth date is approximate. Amazingly, he seems to have no ODNB article (unlike about 20 of his "John Russell" kin). The Wright is much rarer than the other paintings & should probably be bumped up in the list. It's also probably earlier than the Lelys.

Johnbod I've moved it up (thanks for the suggestion) but the 2009 guidebook (edited by Rowell) has the dates for Russell as shown. However if there's another more-relevant source, it should be amended. Isaksenk (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• "this room is a very rare survival of a room in the style of Charles I's court" - yes, and it's also (as it is now) very much in a feminine taste, & in the classic lady's closet position with a view over the approach to the house, to keep an eye on comings & goings. Sources must say this.

Johnbod Well, the room itself is really her father's creation - he had the ceiling raised to accommodate Cleyn's frescos and the east-facing window enclosed to reduce light exposure. The furniture and silk damask wall-hangings reflect his daughter's taste, but the rest of the decor is his. Charles I (as I am sure you well know) was the first great art collector of the British monarchy, and therefore a room like this (of which there were similar at Whitehall and other palaces) was apparently fashionable for the men of court for showing off their own art collection. It is believed that William Murray first cultivated an appreciation for art when he went with Charles I to Spain to woo the Infanta in 1623. It's my favourite room in the house and I can go on at length, but difficult for me to judge what's appropriate for this article. Isaksenk (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• "his Highgate house" - first we've heard of this. Was this occupied after his marriage, do we know? Link if the London Highgate.

Johnbod Link added. The house was sold not long after Maitland married Elizabeth. Isaksenk (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• "a Brighton book dealer, assembled a collection of books for a range of post-war country house sales" - for or "from"?

I think it is “from”, and have amended so. Isaksenk will revert if I’m wrong. KJP1 (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• "they reflect the latest innovations from France, where royalty received important visitors in the State Bedchamber, a practice known as a levee." - though the term acquired different meanings in the Anglophone world, this was not at all what Louis XIV's levees (in fact called the lever) were - they were his daily ceremonial getting dressed, normally only attended by a large but very precisely-defined group of upper courtiers, not visitors, plus Alexandre Bontemps, Premier valet de la Chambre du Roi ("First valet of the king's bedchamber"). I'd just drop "a practice known as a levee".

Gone. KJP1 (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• "The fashion for leather wall decoration originated in Spain and the Spanish Netherlands in the 17th century" - a bit dubious - the Freer Gallery of Art in DC has Spanish pieces apparently forming part of the stuff brought to England by Catherine of Aragon in 1509 - now incorporated in the Peacock Room. Leather wallpaper takes it back to the 9th century in Nth Africa, so "spread from" would be better than "originated".

Done. KJP1 (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• More later Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• Ok, read-through completed, but I will probably have some other comments, soon. There are lots of points left above. The lead is only 3 fairly short paras long; for an article this size it should be four. Johnbod (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. KJP1 (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

Always nice to see English architecture at FAC.

• The lead seems thin. A shortish lead is fine if it covers all major details but I don't think this does. By way of an example, the lead does not tell me what the house looks like or what architectural style it was built in. Is there a reason it was built where it was? There's no detail on the gardens. Who designed them? What do they look like? Do they follow a recognised style?

Done - we hope. Lead expanded to appropriate four-para.s and some more detail added re. garden and pleasure grounds. KJP1 (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• At first glance, I agree with John above that we could stand to lose some of the family history where it's not directly relevant to the house.

Done - we've tried a re-ordering that places greater focus on the house, as the article subject, and moves some of the, less directly relevant, later owners, to the end. KJP1 (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Considering the history contains quite a lot architecture terminology and architectural details about the house, might it be best to re-order the article so that the "architecture" section comes before the history, but after a section about the house's origins?

Done - hopefully in a way that gains support. KJP1 (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Elizabeth is thought to have become acquainted thought by whom? A statement like that needs attribution, and we try to avoid the passive voice anyway.

HJ Mitchell I've attempted to remove the passive voice, but I can't add anything other than the references already there. If it's still objectionable, then I propose removal of the entire sentence. Please advise. Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Repairs however did not begin until the 1740s "however" is a word to avoid because it's arguably editorialising (which is a no-no on Wikipedia).

HJ Mitchell Text amended. Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• At the front of the house the "Advance", a projecting frontispiece is "Advance" a proper noun?

HJ Mitchell The period documents treat it as a proper noun, which Rowell continues in his text. If it needs to be changed, please advise. Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• the 4th Earl had kept his son short of money during his lifetime, causing friction in the relationship; he married without his father's consent.[74] His wife, Charlotte, was the youngest illegitimate daughter of Sir Edward Walpole, second son of Robert Walpole, and niece of Horace Walpole who lived near to Ham across the Thames at Strawberry Hill.[74] As an example of what I mean above about family history details not directly relevant to the house: what does this have to do with the house itself?

HJ Mitchell Well, visitors often ask about the connection with Walpole and Strawberry Hill. Moreover, it's strange that the 4th Earl spent an absolute fortune on the estate, yet kept his son short of funds. But if you require it to be deleted, please advise. Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Lees-Milne saw the melancholy state of the house and grounds but, even though devoid of its contents, the splendour of the underlying estate was immediately apparent You can't use terms like "melancholy" and "splendour" in Wikipedia's voice; that's editorialising. What you can do is attribute them to the person whose opinions they are.

HJ Mitchell Text amended. If still objectionable, please advise. Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Sir Lyonel and his son donated the house and its grounds to the Trust Did the NT have to persuade them or did they give it up readily?

HJ Mitchell I've mentioned the fact that a lengthy negotiation was required. Isaksenk (talk) 10:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with John that the architecture section lacks detail. We get a brief description of the house's exterior, followed by some appreciation, and then it ends. I'd suggest looking at some of the castles and other old buildings on WP:FA to see how the architecture and history is balanced there.
• in "the English Gothic and Tudor tradition" who are you quoting? It needs inline attribution (or just remove the quote marks if it'll stand on its own as a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice).

HJ Mitchell It's a direct lift from Cherry and Pevsner - please advise how this should be amended, or whether to remove entirely.Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be removed. It's a useful bit of information and it's well sourced. The problem is that the quote isn't attributed (ie you don't say who you're quoting). You can fix this by removing the quote marks and making it a statement in Wikipedia's voice, seeing as it's short and factual, or you tell the reader who you're quoting, eg "According to architectural historians Bridget Cherry and Nikolaus Pevsner...". It's up to you which way you go. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, done. Isaksenk (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• The Great Staircase, described by the historian is "Great Staircase" a proper noun?

HJ Mitchell Rowell refers to it repeatedly as such. Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• No reference after the last sentence of "Round Gallery" or "North Drawing Room" and several more as we go down.

HJ Mitchell Is every paragraph required to conclude with a reference? I can see some which need additional referencing (like the Round Gallery, which I will sort out) but others, such as the first paragraph of the Queen's Bedchamber are simply a description of the actual room. Do we need to provide a reference for those as well, for something we observe directly on a regular basis? Isaksenk (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Done now, I think. KJP1 (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• I feel that there should be more to be said about the gardens and grounds. Are there any particular plants or flowers that are used? What's so significant about them that they're listed? Perhaps quote Historic England's appraisal if it contains any good details. What can be said about the buildings and structures in the gardens or that used to be part of the grounds? For example, you have a photo of Petersham Road Lodge but it's not mentioned in the prose.

Done - I hope. A little more added as an introduction to the garden and pleasure grounds, and Isaksenk has added quite a lot more detail on the structures etc. KJP1 (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• The "Access" section doesn't strike me as encyclopaedic. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It should be sufficient to tell the reader where it is (and we include maps and coordinates as well).

HJ Mitchell It was in the original article, so we've left it in place. If it needs to be removed, please advise. Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Personally I'm ok with these - such sections are common or normal in (near) country house articles. It is also typical of Wikiways that although the infobox gives the exact coordinates in case people want to arrive by parachute, or target the house with a ballistic missile, we don't give the postcode so you can set your satnav. Mind you, the coordinates might be useful if arriving by boat, but then there's no information as to moorings. Johnbod (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I have some concerns about comprehensiveness in places and excess detail in others but that's not impossible to address if you have the source material to hand. The rest of my concerns should be fairly trivial to address. This is very impressive for a first attempt at FA, and the prose is excellent. It's not often I find so little to copy-edit in such a substantial article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Update - as indicated below, we've tried a re-ordering, a lead expansion, and some more of the garden and grounds. Hoping that these meet the need. KJP1 (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod - Harry and Johnbod - Isaksenk and I are working through your comments - for which many thanks. As you say, I think many/most can be relatively easily dealt with and we shall push on with these. Three more major issues:

• The lead - we have looked to expand this, it just needs a little more work;
• The article's structure - having considered your comments, and after discussion, we have tried an alternative structure for the article, in short, The builders / The house / The later owners. This puts the focus of the article more squarely on the house, and we hope it meets with approval;
• The architecture - we have literally scrapped every source currently available to us, to provide as comprehensive a description as possible of the house's external appearance and structure. It is revealing that the Historic England listing is one paragraph long, and that the Pevsner entry devotes twice as much space to the interior and contents as it does to the exterior. We think this reflects the relative importance of the exterior, as opposed to the interior, the furnishings and the contents, which is itself reflected in the coverage. We hope you'll agree that the coverage of the interior and the contents is very comprehensive indeed. We'll continue to look, and any further suggestions would be much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Update and summary - KJP1

To attempt a summary:

• Supports - 3
• Image review - Passed
• Source review - Passed. Ian Rose - I think, as a first-time nominator, Isaksenk will need a sample check on the sources. I'll happily undertake this, indeed I arguably already have, as I reviewed many of the on-line and off-line sources, and they check out. However, I may be thought too closely involved.
• Comments, for which many thanks again - We have sought either to action all comments, e.g. re-ordering the article, or to respond to them where the sources available to us don't allow us to do more, e.g. more discussion of the building's external architecture. We hope that the reviewers are satisfied with the responses. If there are any areas where further work is required, it would be really helpful if these could be flagged. KJP1 (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi KJP1 I wouldn't say that you are too involved to do the spot check. Please let me know if you intend to do so or I can list it at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests. (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

New York Stock Exchange Building

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the home of the New York Stock Exchange, the world's largest stock exchange. It was built in the 1900s as a replacement for an older building, and then it was expanded several times in the 20th century. Its main facade, a colonnade supporting a giant pediment, is actually the NYSE icon, and the exchange building has become a famous tourist destination. Funnily the NYSE initially opposed official NYC landmark protection for the building for close to two decades. Even more funnily, the building did not have a standalone page until this year, despite being pictured in a myriad of literature about Wall Street, which isn't even where the main address of this building is located.

This page was promoted as a Good Article earlier this year and was recently copyedited through the GOCE, for which I am very grateful. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. (Gog the Mild has given me permission to nominate this page while another nomination is ongoing.) Epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Nitpicking time from CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Hello! Thanks for reviewing my article, and I would try my best to pick up any mistakes! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

There are some numbers that you shouldn't wikilink, such as in ...the city's first subway line (now the 4 and 5 trains), under Broadway. My bad, those are subway line num

Yep. We don't name our subway routes, we give them letters and numbers...which can sometimes be confusing to tourists, speaking from personal experience. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

These words should not be formatted as SMALLCAPS, such as containing the words stock exchange above the doors.

Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The sources and see also section should be incoperated in reference section. What I mean here is to put the links on these section directly to the article.

The reason for this is because of WP:CITEVAR. But actually, I realized the references need to be standardized, so I've done that. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The image's description should be more detailed, as well as right-justified to avoid sandwiching.

Done, for the most part (I'm still thinking about what to do with the colonnade image). Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Some sentences should be merged with the paragraph, or expanded. One example is New York Stock Exchange Building#Interior.

Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

There are many sentences that use passive voice, and the article would sound more fluid if switched to active. One example would be What became the NYSE was founded in 1792, when brokers signed the Buttonwood Agreement, forming an organization for securities trading. Previously, securities exchange had been intermediated by auctioneers.

I reduced the passive voice where I could, but in some cases it is very hard to remove without making the sentence flow awkwardly. Thanks for the feedback CactiStaccingCrane. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Positive comments

The article's grammar is very solid!

References are solid in first glance. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Instead of "see caption", use "refer to caption" in alt
  • Hi, I'm not the nominator but was just stopping by and reading through FAC.. this is minor so I've fixed this eviolite (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah... it has just occurred to me that blind people can't see captions. Thanks eviolite. Epicgenius (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• When and where was File:New_York_Stock_Exchange_LC-USZ62-124933.jpg first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • It appears to be from 1908 in the US, see LOC listing. eviolite (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    • LOC uses "created/published" for their dates, so it's not always clear whether that means it was created then or published then - that's why we often need to track down an actual publication. (They state their image is from a film copy negative). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

      @Nikkimaria If you're asking this to confirm US copyright expiration, the rule is that it must have been published or registered with the United States Copyright Office before 1926, and this was registered in 1908 (bottom right). The reference number in the description matches the one in the registration. I have updated the description on Commons to note this. Vahurzpu (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

      @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the image review. Vahurzpu, thanks for your addition of the link showing the US copyright expiration. Since you've kindly resolved this issue, I think all (well, both) of the points raised in the image review have been resolved. Epicgenius (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

      • Yep, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from HJ Mitchell

I've read through this thoroughly and the writing is excellent and it's undoubtedly comprehensive. If I had to criticise something, I would say that the history section could possibly be shortened by moving some of the material not directly pertinent to the building to the NYSE article, but I also realise that the history of the building is difficult to separate from the history of its occupier. Also, my only query is why the NYSE so vehemently opposed landmark status; the reason doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

In general landowners oppose landmarking because it reduces their flexibility and adds another layer of review/bureaucracy to changes they want to make. I'm not sure sources exist that directly talk about why any individual owners oppose their landmarking, but probably the best place for Epicgenius to look is the LPC hearing notes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

David is correct about this. For example, in 1976, when a property owner wanted landmark status, the NYT mentioned that landlords opposing landmark status was "frequent". In general, city landmark status means that the city has very strict oversight over the landmark portions of the building, and they cannot do so much as replace a window (well, a window design) without getting it through the LPC. From what I looked at so far, the NYSE Building is pretty much the same, but I could look at the LPC hearing notes.

As for material more relevant to the NYSE itself, I've tried to keep the scope as narrow as possible. There are some places where the added context would be beneficial, which is why I added such text. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Review Support from David Fuchs

Forthcoming this week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi David, is this still on its way? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey Gog the Mild, yes, still in progress. Hoping to get it done this evening but it might take until the next day. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

No worries. I was just checking. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Overall, I think the article's in solid shape. Initial comments as follows:

• Prose and general:
  • I performed a light line edit throughout, mostly just tweaking some agreements and trying to elide some transitions. Please check and make sure I didn't alter any meanings or disjoint any sources.
  • Eleven elevators were installed at 11 Wall Street; nine ran only to the 17th floor while the other two served the top six floors.—if this isn't the case now I think you can just simplify this.
    • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • In general, I think there's a bit too many figures and numbers given to the point where it can be a bit overwhelming. Stuff like the precise measurements of the steel deposit box that isn't there any more don't seem important enough to mention (at least the weight is a different measure and conveys a bit more of how hefty it is then its length and width.)
  • Likewise, sometimes I think the article dwells a bit too much on the minute architectural stuff for a general-purpose article.
  • Likewise, I'm left wondering why it's so important we know about the size of the caissons and that their constructor was John F. O'Rourke.
    • To all three of these points, I have simplified some of the measurements. The reason the measurements were included was because this article is mainly supposed to refer to the building's design, which are details that would've been pretty inappropriate for the main NYSE article. I've simplified some details a bit. Epicgenius (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I think it reads much more cleanly now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Media:
  • Images seem appropriately noted and licensed.
• References:
  • Don't have any issues with the sources used.
  • You've got some refs out of order for statements (e.g. [52][50] and such.)
  • Spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 17, 23, 31, 39, 47, 51, 54, 71, 75, 86, 89, 92, 110, 130, 135, 151, 174, 176, 182, 189, 190, and 198.
    • Don't see mention of the post-9/11 closure of stairs in Ref 5 on the quoted pages.
    • Ref 6 supports the proposal to close the Broad Street subway stairs and slab them over, but it doesn't support that they actually were.
      • I removed ref 5 and have used ref 6, which does say "One of the stairs has been closed since 2002 and the other since 2012 at the recommendation of the NYPD as part of the security perimeter of the Stock Exchange." This article no longer mentions slabbing the staircases over - the main point of this sentence is the fact that the entrances were closed because they were in the security perimeter. Epicgenius (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Ref 47 adequately cites For example, the trading floor requires 3,500 kilowatts of electricity, along with 8,000 phone circuits on the trading floor alone, and 200 miles of fiber-optic cables below ground but I think it should be made clear that this was in 2001 and thus the figures are illustrative but not necessarily accurate to the current function. (I would also move this mention towards the end of the paragraph so you're ending with the more 'high-tech' stuff instead of talking about plumbing and pneumatic tubes after fiber optic cables.)
      • I have clarified the sentence as being a 2001 statistic and moved it to the end of the paragraph. Epicgenius (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Don't see the cofferdam dimensions listed in Ref 54 (might be on another page?)
      • As per your above remark about minute architectural details, I'd removed this earlier, but I forgot to mention it until now. Epicgenius (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm a bit confused by the listed trading floor dimensions of 109x140x72 feet, when the explanatory note give different dimensions that don't correspond to those quoted dimensions. If you're using another set of quoted dimensions, that should probably be made clear (and if there's that much variation, maybe exact figures shouldn't be used or treated as definitive?)
      • I've moved this to the footnote as well, since the quoted figures vary quite a bit. Epicgenius (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
    • "Ivy Lee wrote"—who? It's been a long time since Lee has been mentioned in the body, and his title is a bit unclear. If he was a publicist connected with the building, it feels weird to privilege his opinion in such a way.
      • I clarified who he is. Thanks for the review David Fuchs. Epicgenius (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Support with feedback addressed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• My understanding is that "Classical Revival" and "Neoclassical" are not synonymous, eg [22]. Can the style in use here be elaborated?
  • It is indeed Classical Revival, as that is less strict than neoclassicism and also supported by sources such as the National Park Service. Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• "occupying two-thirds of the city block" - source?
  • I have removed this. It's not precisely two-thirds, but the map in the AIA Guide to New York City indicates that there is another structure occupying the southern end of the block. Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• "contains a pediment designed by John Quincy Adams Ward" - the text lists two designers, which is correct?
  • I've added Paul Wayland Bartlett's name to the lead as well. Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• "the Garage" or "The Garage"?
  • It uses sentence case. Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• FN2 includes NYC.gov and FN3 does not, FN4 includes mta.info and FN 6 does not - check for consistency throughout
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• FN39: why not cite the original source?
  • I was originally unable to find the original source, but I think in this case the LOC actually meant "From the NYSE..." Epicgenius (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• CTBUH is a publisher not a work
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• FN85 has a missing-URL error, and check formatting of quotes within quotes
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • I have removed all locations. Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• Ranges should use endashes, even in titles. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks for the source review Nikkimaria. Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

This is five weeks in and has only collected the single general support. Unless further signs of an emerging consensus to promote are evident within a day or two I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

TRM

• Why isn't Lower Manhattan linked in totality in the first sentence?
  • I've done that. I don't know why this occurred in the first place but it must have been an oversight. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• ", serving as the" -> "which serves as"
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• The lead doesn't appear to cover the "southern third" if there is one?
  • The southern section is part of another building, but it is probably not notable. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• Link facade in the lead (you link it in the main article).
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• "of the NYSE," put (NYSE) after the first use of "New York Stock Exchange".
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• "previous building ... previous building..." repetitive.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• "had become overcrowded" again, a touch repetitive from the previous reasoning for a new building.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Three more trading..." instead of "more" perhaps "additional"?
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• "NYCL No. 1529" doesn't appear in the prose.
  • Added. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• Any reason just two parameters in the infobox are inline referenced and the rest are not?
  • I've removed these per MOS:INFOBOXREF. They are all cited in the prose now. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• In the "Site" section, Lower Manhattan isn't mentioned at all.
  • Done. Sometimes I forget that the vast majority of people aren't familiar with NYC's geography. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• "the September 11 attacks of 2001" i don't think "of 2001" is needed to disambiguate here.
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• "the NYSE Building" use this abbreviation after the first instance in the prose, not the second.
  • Done, I think. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• "the Downtown Alliance proposed" what is that?
  • Clarified. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

That takes me to the "Design" section, more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: Thanks for having a look. I have addressed these points now. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• @The Rambling Man: Is there more to come on this review? (t · c) buidhe 12:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, just not able to focus much, a little under the weather. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• "It is at the same location ... on the same site" this feels like it's saying the same thing to me.
  • Removed the second instance. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• "primary structures. The southern structure" repetitive.
  • Reworded. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Isn't Revivalism (architecture) a better link than Neoclassical architecture which doesn't actually mention "Classical Revival" once?
  • I changed it. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• "137 feet 8.5 inches (42 m)" this feels odd, the imperial units are given to nearest half-inch, while the metric units to the nearest metre??
  • This was a weird effect of using "0" as the target unit in the {{convert}} template, rather than "m". Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• "podium made ... The podium is" repetitive.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• "are massive windows" massive feels POV.
  • Compared to regular windows, they are extremely large (about 100 times the size of a 6-by-8 foot window); the precise dimensions are given immediately afterward. Hence the use of the words "massive", "extreme", etc. That wording is also used in the sources. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• "representing Commerce and Industry" etc etc why capitalised?
  • I lowercased these. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Is there a link for balustrade?
  • Added. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• What is Georgia marble? Is it marble laid by the Georgia Marble Company?
  • Georgia marble is marble from the U.S. state of Georgia in this context. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• "several setbacks. There are setbacks" repetitive.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• "heavy cornice" literally or figuratively?
  • Literally. (Though many rooftop cornices are heavy in terms of weight, a "heavy cornice" is particularly deep.) Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• What is a transom?
  • I added a link. It can refer to two things: a solid bar or a transom window. In this case it's the former. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Link dumbwaiter.
  • Linked. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• "3,500 kilowatts" you've already used kW as the abbreviation.
• Any reason you haven't converted this?
  • Fixed both of these. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• "200 miles" and this?
  • Fixed as well. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• What are "employee rooms"?
  • These are specifically for maintenance employees in this context. In other contexts like houses, employee rooms are used to rest, eat, etc., as well as certain physical work. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• "floor.[50][18] The" ref order.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• "building had a steel safe" had? No longer?
  • I'm not really sure. The NYSE isn't really clear about that and, given the security concerns of today, I don't think they'll readily provide that info. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• " rock.[50][47][52] The" ref order.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• " an extremely high" extremely feels POV.
  • Reworded. Typically the water table in this part of Manhattan is a few dozen feet below ground, which is still pretty shallow, but it's almost at ground level here, since Broad Street used to be a canal. So it's unusually high even for the area. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• "excavated.[53][52] The" ref order.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

That takes me to "Trading floors", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• "The floor surface... The floor is ..." mildly repetitive.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "walls are clad in marble ... walls are clad with marble..." same thing twice, no?
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Link coffer. I see you link coffered ceiling but that's after this usage.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "baths" like literally baths to wash in or bathrooms?
  • Literally baths to wash in. (They had barbershops and doctors' offices for health, so might as well have bathing areas as well.) Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Link wainscott.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "space was converted into an event space" space space.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "The Stock and Exchange Board's membership ... The Stock and Exchange Board, originally..." repetitive.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "cost $1.25 million" inflate.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "The NYSE solicited proposals for a structure that had banking space on the ground floor, as well as those with none" reads odd to me, what are the "those with none"? proposals?
  • Yes, I've clarified this now. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "last day in ... eight days" repetitive.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "The New York Times reported" link this work here.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "led to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913" what does this mean in the context of the building itself? What was the impact?
  • Good point, I don't actually think this impacted the physical building. I removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "war stocks" what were they?
  • I changed this to "wartime stocks", which were traded during the war. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "assessed at $1.9 million" inflate.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "was to be connected" why "to be"?
• "were to be combined" similar.
  • Both of these indicate that, at the time, these were future plans for the building. I've reworded them. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "share prices on the exchange collapsed" for the Panic, you gave a numerical indication of the impact on the value, can you do the same here?
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "though this was kept secret" why?
  • The sources don't say specifically. For such a prominent structure, the fact that a marble decoration was being replaced with a metal replica wouldn't have gone over well with the public. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "women were allowed on the building's trading floor" to actively trade, it's not clear?
  • Yes. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

That takes me to "1950s to 1980s", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

I see an image review has not been done yet, so let me look through the media used.

• Images used are either under public domain or have Creative Commons licenses. No image copyright issues.
• ALT issues:
  • Infobox image needs an alt
    • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • File:New_York_Stock_Exchange_LC-USZ62-124933.jpg – Optional to add that the photograph is black-and-white
    • Since the primary purpose of the alt is to assist vision-impaired users (or users whose devices don't load images), this might be unnecessary. Epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • File:New York Stock Exchange Boardroom - New York - Flickr - hyku (6).jpg – Suggest more descriptive alt (e.g. A large elliptical/curved wooden table with two rows of seats in the boardroom)
    • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • File:New York Stock Exchange, 1909.png – shouldn't it be "colored postcard"?
    • In this case, "color postcard" is correct, as "color" is itself being used as the adjective, like color photography. It's weird, but that is how it is. Epicgenius (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • File:NYSE on Broad Street (1).jpg – Suggest that the caption be the alt text, while the caption to be about the NYSE leasing three floors at the adjcaent Commercial Cable Building on 20 Broad Street.
    • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • File:NYSE Xmas Time.JPG – Add that the columns have Christmas decorations forming the American flag
    • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • File:The fearless girl takes on NYSE (47406406981).jpg – Is it necessary to blur the sculpture? Can't just take a photo of the full sculpture from further away to fulfil De minimis? Otherwise, an alt for this image be: A sculpture (blurred) Fearless Girl in front of the New York Stock Exchange Building, with a large US flag across the building facade.
    • Unfortunately, the street in question is only about 15 meters wide, and the sculpture is on the opposite side of the street from the NYSE Building (there are only about 1-2 meters between the sculpture and the building behind it). I've clarified that the sculpture is blurred instead. Epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

That's all for now.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Issues above satisfactorily clarified. Passed.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Craig Bellamy

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about possibly one of the most polarising figures in modern British football, Craig Bellamy. A former captain of both the Welsh national side and Great Britain Olympic squad, he spent more than a decade in the Premier League with numerous teams. A managers' worst nightmare on occasion, his career has been blighted by injury and endless controversy. As usual, I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Quick comments

Nobody outside of Britain knows what "gobbiest" means, I reckon. Also, there's absolutely nothing about his playing style in the lede. The Style of play section too, has only a perfunctory mention of his "quick, bursting technique and calmness under pressure" before an extended managerial back-and-forth about whether he had a bad attitude or not. There's needs to be more on his stocky stature, finishing ability, the positions he played etc. I haven't read most of the article but some of this stuff must be in the lede and in Style of play.—indopug (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Indopug:, thanks for taking a look. In regards to the gobbiest quote, Robson is one of the most noted British managers of the last 40 years, so his quote is more than suitable I would suggest and would be commonplace in WP:BRITENG. The style of play features more than you seem to imply I would say, several of the quotes mention his intensity and commitment on the pitch which was a key factor in his style of play. I've expanded further to provide more though as well. In regards to this being in the lede, this not a common thing in football articles, see FAs such as Thierry Henry, Steve Bruce, Kevin Beattie, etc. The lede is generally used as a summary of the player's life and career. Kosack (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for providing those examples. Thierry_Henry#Style_of_play is actually exactly what I had mind with my comments above. Some things that impressed me in that article's section:

• what position Henry played in and how it changed over time
• the kind of goals he would score and the techniques he used for scoring
• who his heroes were and how they inspired his play
• other aspects of play like heading, passing and set pieces

Also, while Henry has one quote per paragraph, mainly to give flavour to the text, Bellamy's section has a quote in nearly every sentence, overwhelming the text.—indopug (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

While it's unlikely I'll be able to get into Henry's level of detail due to the sheer amount of coverage he has, I've added an extra paragraph from a few sources I dug up. I've also trimmed the number and length of quotes that are included as well. Kosack (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from WA8MTWAYC

• Ref 3 in the lede is not needed
• "was born on 19 July 1979 at" ==> the infobox and lede say 13 July
• Pentwyn Dynamos has a wiki page
• "2–2 home draw with Bury" ==> you could link draw here
• "leading goalscorers in the division" ==> was this division the First Division?
• "assisted Wayne Quinn" ==> you could link assisted
• "Goal of the Month for September 2009" ==> Goal of the Month has a page
• "In 2007, Bellamy was invited to visit Sierra Leone" ==> by whom?
• I'd move ref 216 to the end of the sentence
• I'd also reorder the honours by chronological order, so e.g. the Community Shield comes first under Liverpool (but I don't know if there are any rules about this...). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@WA8MTWAYC: Thanks very much for taking a look, I've implemented all of the changes noted above. Kosack (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I read Bellamy left Anderlecht last weekend and Kompany was quite emotional about it. I hope everything will be alright. Nevertheless, this is a great article, well done. I support. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

This has hit the three week mark with limited indications that a consensus to promote is forming. Unless this changes over the next 2 or 3 days, I am afraid that this nomination may be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
• Don't use fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Kosack ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, this is done as well. Forgot to mention. Kosack (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks like there is still an instance of fixed px size - this should be replaced with |upright=. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Kosack, could you fix this? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Z1720

• "Soon after, the under-10s side of local team Caer Castell FC, which included Bellamy – who scored all four goals in the club's first fixture – was formed." Awkward phrasing because of the two asides in a row. Maybe, "Soon after, the under-10s side of local team Caer Castell FC was formed, and Bellamy was chosen for the team. Bellamy scored all four goals in the club's first fixture."
• "In 1993, he met his future wife Claire after his brother Paul introduced the pair;" -> "In 1993, his brother introduced him to his future wife, Claire;"
• "Bellamy had previously travelled to Norwich by train on Saturday afternoons, played a youth match on Sunday morning before returning to Cardiff." Put "then" after the comma
• "although the decision was later overturned on appeal." Delete later as redundant.
• "he entered a downward spiral that culminated in an argument outside a Cardiff nightclub." Who was the argument with?
• "Robson's man-management ability" What's a man-management ability?
• "after fearing his own personal problems could leave him in a similar position." What did Speed die of? Did Speed's cause of death make Bellamy believe he would die a similar fate?
• "Bellamy agreed terms with Oxford" agreed to terms?

  Agreed terms is a pretty common phrasing in relation to football. Kosack (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• If that's the case then I'll withdraw this concern. Z1720 (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• " against a claim of bullying of a youth-team player." Delete of
• "They had their first child together—a son named Ellis—at the ages of 17 and 16 respectively." The sentence doesn't list the two people, so I am not sure which age refers to which person.
• "In March 2019, he was banned from driving for 18 months after being found to be over the permitted alcohol limit while driving in Cardiff early that month. It was Bellamy's second driving ban; in 2013, he failed to declare himself as the driver of a car that was caught by a speed camera." I think these events should be in chronological order, perhaps with the speed camera incident described before the binge drinking.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when everything is responded to. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: Thanks very much, everything has been addressed bar the one comment above. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

My concerns have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

TRM

• Kosack just a quick reminder that as soon as you've dealt with the open issues from Lee and Amakuru, I'm more than happy to get straight on with my comments. Feel free to ping me if I don't notice. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review – pass

Hi Kosack, starting source review:

• A number of pp's with single pages. I see at least refs 59, 61, 64, 84, 176, may be others I've missed.

  All fixed, I went through every usage to find any stragglers as well. Kosack (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• What is "Developments: One World a Million Stories, p 14 Issue 49 2010" that was published by the Department for International Development? Does it need any italics, quotation marks, or more punctuation in the "p 14 Issue 49 2010" part?

  I didn't add this ref so I'm not really sure. It wasn't formatted with a template, so I've added that which should fix the punctuation issues. Kosack (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• OK. I don't have a strong opinion about this, but if you didn't add it, and that means you're not familiar with the content in that source, one idea might be to remove it altogether, especially if the cited info is already covered by refs 217 and 218. Anyway, I'll leave it up to you to decide. Moisejp (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• For ref 9, I think Trevor should be Terry? Moisejp (talk) 03:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  Fixed. Kosack (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Does ref 13 support the statement "but left the school with no GCSEs"?

  Ref 13 doesn't, but it's not directly supporting the info. That would be 14, which does support. Kosack (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Apologies, I somehow got 13 and 14 mixed up when I was looking at them. Sorry about that. Moisejp (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• It's not a requirement, but do you have a system for which refs to include archived versions for? All things considered, it seems like it would be good to be consistent. Moisejp (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  I just use the auto archiver tool really. I don't manually archive anything. Kosack (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• All right, no worries. Moisejp (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• The linked page for ref 42 doesn't seem to list John May as the author, unless I've missed it. Moisejp (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  The article begins with the line "BBC Sport Online's John May charts the progress of Craig Bellamy". I took this to indicate he was the author of the piece. Kosack (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• You're right. There it is. Sorry about this mistaken comment too. ;-) Thanks for your responses so far. I'm going to try to finish this source review very very soon. Moisejp (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I fixed a couple of dead links. I also was not always 100% sure what constitutes a reliable sports source, but the ones I looked at seemed reasonably reliable-looking, so would like to give the benefit of the doubt on them. I'm satisfied with the sources. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Amakuru

• Very general comment: This article is on the long side. At 58kb of prose, it is within the 50–60kb range at which it "may need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)". I won't specifically mark it down on this, but I'd at least contrast it with Steve Davis, an FAC I recently opposed as too short. As one of the snooker greats, I'd expect more detail on him than our old friend Craig Bellamy, who was more of a "journeyman pro", all other things being equal. Kevin Beattie is another footballer FA with only 22kb of prose, so there is at the very least some inconsistency going on here. As such, while there's obviously there's no haste, and it doesn't have to be reduced in size, I may be on the look out for things that don't look necessary in the context of this bio article.

I can't really comment on the Steve Davis article but in relation to Beattie, Bellamy is a modern player making the availability of sources far wider than players of the older generation. I think journeyman pro is under-playing Bellamy a bit as his career has been certainly one of the most colourful in recent years. A more accurate comparison for me would be Robin Friday perhaps, which comes in at 41kb despite having less than a third of the playing career Bellamy did. Kosack (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Early life

• "The area was considered a traditional working-class environment and had been experiencing an economic downturn following the closure of the East Moor steelworks the previous year." - there's an example right there. Does this detail really help us to understand Bellamy? It would be sufficient IMHO to simply say "the Splott district of the city, a traditionally working-class areas" or similar, leaving out the economic downturn and the steelworks closure. - trimmed
• "He first attended Baden Powell Primary School before switching to Trowbridge Juniors where he joined the school football team at the age of seven.[5][11] Despite being younger than most of the other players, he was selected to play and featured in his first match against Gladstone Primary School" - do we need to know the names of his primary schools? We could possibly distil all this down to just that he joined the team at the age of seven despite being younger than most of the players.

It's relatively common information to include, pretty much any substantial page tends to have it? Kosack (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "his father instead offered to form a team if Bellamy could find enough players. Soon after, the under-10s side of local team Caer Castell FC was formed" - I initially assumed that the Caer Castell side was the one that his father had formed, but that might not make sense if he had to be "chosen" for it. Did the plan for his father to start a team not come to anything, or was it in fact the Caer Castell team?

The under-10s were the side formed, Caer Castell already existed as a club. I've dropped the chosen part to hopefully make that clearer. Kosack (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• All looks good in this section apart from that. I'll be back later to look at the following sections, although I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the length question. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Bristol Rovers and Norwich City

• "Bellamy had attended youth sessions organised by Cardiff City in Ely for a year after being encouraged by his father" - I don't think this needs to be phrased in the past perfect tense, just "Bellamy attended..." would be fine. Also it would be good to have some sort of dates or ages on this, so we can place it in the narrative. I might be tempted to put it in the "Early life" section too, since it doesn't pertain to Bristol City or Norwich.

  I've rephrased but I think it fits better here than in the early life section as it sort of segways with Rovers picking him up too. Kosack (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The club, however, took little interest in him as a youngster and, at nine-years-old, he joined Bristol Rovers after being spotted by former professional Stan Montgomery, who was working for the club" - two uses of "the club" in the sentence, and not referring to the same club!

  Reworded. Kosack (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Bellamy found the opportunity of better coaching and his own playing kit irresistible" - sounds a bit journalese, maybe reword

  Reworded. Kosack (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "He spent two years with Bristol" - probably more usual to spell out "Bristol Rovers" in full

  Done. Kosack (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Bellamy had previously travelled to Norwich by train on Saturday afternoons, then played a youth match on Sunday morning before returning to Cardiff" - I would put this earlier, and probably in the prior paragraph, since it relates to a time chronologically earlier than him moving to Norwich full time. It would also be good to clarify the times/ages again. I am slightly confused by what ages all these things happened at.

  Moved and added his age at the start of the following paragraph. Kosack (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Again, with the transition from YTS to reserves, and the contract for £250 per week, it would be good to know when this was.

  Added his age as dates aren't readily available. Kosack (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "He made his professional debut for Norwich on 15 March 1997" - did he play no games for the reserves before this? And would be good to add his age so that we can slot it in relative to the prior events

  He likely did but those wouldn't be professional games. Added age. Kosack (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Link Substitute (association football)

  Done. Kosack (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "2–0 defeat to Crystal Palace in the First Division" - I think it's usual to clarify on first mention that this is the second tier of the English football league system etc.

  Added. Kosack (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Two further appearances from the bench" - newcomers to football might not know what "from the bench" means?

  Changed to substitute appearances. Kosack (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Premier League side Crystal Palace" - they were in the First Division at the start of this paragraph. Maybe clarify that they had been promoted in the interim

  Added. Kosack (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "the experienced Peter Grant who" - probably needs a comma after "Grant"

  Added. Kosack (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

That takes me to "Coventry City".  — Amakuru (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Bellamy's form improved further after the arrival of his Wales strike-partner John Hartson" - I feel like another couple of sentences on the latter half of the season might be useful here, to provide some more detail on this point. Did he score more goals for example?

  The Coventry period has been a struggle to flesh out as it seems to be one of the more uneventful spells of his career. I could add a few mentions of goals, but they seem fairly routine moments? Kosack (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Newcastle United

• "Bellamy was involved in controversy when he was one of four players sent home from a winter training camp in La Manga after missing a team meal in honour of former chairman John Hall. The group claimed to be unaware of the significance of the dinner and had stayed on at a local restaurant" - I feel this could be trimmed down a little bit, just state what happened without saying it was a "controversy". Also, the word "claimed" should probably be amended to something else per MOS:CLAIM.

  Trimmed. Kosack (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keiron Dyer - spelling

  Fixed. Kosack (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Bellamy reacted to the defender pinching him, which resulted in a three-match ban" - this sounds like it might be the pinching that led to a three-match ban, so maybe reword slightly

  Reworded. Kosack (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Bellamy began suffering from tendinitis in his knee that continued to cause him problems" - tighten a bit, it feels redundant to say he began suffering and then immediately that it continued to cause him problems.

  Trimmed. Kosack (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "entered a downward spiral" - sounds slightly journalese / informal; see if it can be reworded more encyclopaedically.

  Reworded. Kosack (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "two qualifying matches for Wales" - qualifying for what?

  Added. Kosack (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Wales' matches" - MOS:'S advises us to say "Wales's"

  Done. Kosack (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "In March 2004, he reportedly threw a chair" - "reportedly" is a bit WP:WEASEL; you might want to attribute the statement, or reword

  Reworded. Kosack (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Graeme Souness era

• "In a disappointing start to the season" - disappointing for whom? Reword for NPOV*: Reworded. Kosack (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• "in a post-match interview claimed it was" - reword "claimed"

  Done. Kosack (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "With his Newcastle career in doubt Bellamy later" - comma after "doubt"

  Done. Kosack (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "stating that Bellamy would never play for Newcastle again while he was manager and consequently the club fined Bellamy two weeks' wages" - was the fine a consequence of Souness's remarks, or was it a consequence of the original incident?

  Original incident so I've removed consequently. Kosack (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "His last goal for the club came in a UEFA Cup group stage match against Sporting CP in December" - this doesn't seem to tally with Souness saying he'd never play for the club again, and his being exclude from training. Unless the Sporting game was before all that? Best make clear anyway.

  Reordered. Kosack (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Celtic loan

• "with Rangers win over Hibernian" - should be "a Rangers win"?

  Done. Kosack (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Blackburn Rovers

• In contrast to other sections, this one feels a little short for a 34-game stint, especially as the first sentences are about Everton.

  I've expanded a little but, similar to the Coventry section, there doesn't seem to many stand out moments as far as I can see beyond listing goals. Kosack (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "an awkward final meeting with Moyes" - this sounds like an opinion rather than an objective fact

  Reworded. Kosack (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Bellamy's efforts were rewarded" - journalese?

  Reworded. Kosack (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

That brings me to "Liverpool".  — Amakuru (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Amakuru, is there more to come on this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild: thanks for the ping. Sorry I should have been clearer, but I have sort of paused my review here, awaiting some resolution to Sportsfan's concern below. As per my comment above, I had also raised a concern about the article length, which I would probably be prepared to tolerate if it was just me who was concerned about it. But I think if Sportsfan77777 is going to outright oppose this FAC or demand wholesale changes, then it would be better for me to do a fresh review after that's completed. If that concern is satisfactorily dealt with and Sportsfan77777 is happy to continue, however, then I'll get right back on to the review. Hope that makes sense to yourself and Kosack, but feel free to ping me if there's anything further I can do. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Amakuru, that makes perfect sense to me. Apologies if I speed read your comments and missed that. Thanks for the prompt response. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Amakuru, Sportsfan77777 has said "I'm content with the nominator's responses". Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: thanks for the update. I will return to this early next week if that's OK, since as you know I'm spending my time trying to gather a last few points in the WikiCup, and hopefully Kosack won't mind as they're not involved in this phase of the Cup this year! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Amakuru ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Yes, I'm here! I even started adding some more comments earlier today, but I never got around to hitting save 😃 I will finish the review tomorrow. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Liverpool

• "to allow him permission to talk to the club" - the word "permission" feels a bit unnecessary here
• "paying £2 million to remove the clause" - it's not clear to me who would pay the £2 million here; it sounds like it's the club, but I'd have thought the clause benefits the club more than the player
• "As a boyhood fan of the club" - this is the first time anything like this has been mentioned; the "Early life" section gave the impression that he was a Cardiff supporter
• "18 yards (16 m) box" - this seems an odd construct, particularly with the conversion to metric. Might be better just to say "penalty area" and also link it.
• "Liverpool had a disappointing finish in the Premier League" - "disappointing" again
• "they reached the final" - I think it's usually better to link it as the final so that it doesn't look like a link to finals in general

West Ham United

• "Sam Allardyce, who was manager of Newcastle, was rejected over a suggested swap deal involving Michael Owen" - slightly odd passive wording here. Maybe something more active like "Newcastle manager Sam Allardyce proposed bringing him back to the club in a swap with Michael Owen, but this was rejected by Liverpool" or something.
• "Bellamy and his wife saw the birth of their third child" - encyclopedic wording. Just say the child was born, rather than that they "saw" it...
• "the club struggled for results" - phrase a bit more clearly, did they lose games?
• "Bellamy attracted the attention of several clubs" - this implies that Zola wanted to sell him, but it's not explicitly said.
• "Bellamy refused to hand in a transfer request" - "hand in" wording could be made more encyclopedic, and also why did he have to make such a request anyway? Was that a conract clause?
• "believing the club wanted to imply he had pushed for the transfer" - a few things here: (1) we shouldn't state that Bellamy believes something in Wikivoice, better to attribute it or make it a quote or something. Also, I found it a bit difficult to parse this with so many levels of indirection - believed / wanted / implied / pushed for... Maybe try to word more clearly
• "accepted from a third undisclosed bid from City" - shouldn't it just be "accepted", rather than "accepted from"? And I'd prefer "Manchester City" on every usage, not "City"... check the whole article at least and make it consistent throughout anyway
• "said to be around £14 million" -  — Amakuru (talk) 12:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• "West Ham, however, continued with the move and accepted Manchester City's bid" - going back to the previous point about him being required to ask for a transfer request, it sounds here like West Ham were free to sell Bellamy without his wanting to move

Manchester City

• "believed to be around £14 million" - we've already made the point that the fee was believed to be around £14 million in the previous paragraph, so probably could omit this detail here. Also as before, "believed to be" needs to be attributed per WP:WEASEL.
• "This took his career-total transfer fees to £47m" - not sure the relevance of this. If I sell you a pen for £1, and you then sell that pen to someone else for £1, who sells it on again for another £1, and that chain continues 10,000 times, then the pen has achieved an aggregate total of £10,000 in sales, but it's still only worth £1 😃
• "also arrived within a week" - repetition of "arrived"
• "it was his third appearance before scoring twice against FC Copenhagen in the UEFA Cup two weeks later" - what does this mean?
• "He argued with the group on more than one occasion" - seems like a repetition of the "with all of whom Bellamy clashed on several occasions" - from the last sentence
• "later named Goal of the Month for September 2009" - the linked article does not italicise this; I'd also clarify that it's the BBC one
• "18-yard (16 m) box" - can we just call it a penalty area (with a link) rather than this rather odd-looking unit conversion?
• "sent off" - on the first occurrence of this (which is actually up in the Newcastle section I think) there should be a link to Ejection (sports)
• "which angered Mancini" - probably not necessary and feels like it makes the sentence overlong; we know they argued already

Cardiff City loan

• "paying a large percentage of his wages to make the move" - sounds like it's missing a word; should it be "make the move happen" or something?
• "Reading" - link on the first mention, not the second
• "swelling profusely after games" - language sounds a bit overdramatic here!
• "brace" - probably worth rewording as non-football people might not know what this means
• "confirmed a playoff place for Cardiff" - elsewhere you say "play-off", and indeed that's what our articles on this subject say
• Link Volley (association football)
• "Cardiff manager Dave Jones' sacking" - we already know he's the Cardiff manager; probably just say "Jones's" (and note that 's per MOS:'S)
• "£4,000,000" - elsewhere we use the "£4 million" style

Return to Liverpool

• It would be good to say here who won the League Cup final between Liverpool and Cardiff, since we get as far as knowing it went to penalties!
• Links to appropriate articles for the League Cup and FA Cup finals would be good

That brings me to "Return to Cardiff City". More later today hopefully!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• "despite new Liverpool manager Brendan Rodgers offering him the chance to stay" - what does this mean? Why would Rodgers not have allowed him to stay? Was it a case of him having to be offered a new contract by Liverpool?

Youth and senior arrival

• "who was renowned for his unusual methods" - renowned by whom?
• "friendly game" - could link to Exhibition game. Although the first occurrence is actually up in the Bristol Rovers/Norwich section, not here!
• "Wales' manager" - Wales's
• "Wales defeated Finland before facing Italy" - maybe change Wales to "they" here, as we've had a few too many mentions of Wales in consecutive sentences
• "played-in Bellamy" - doesn't need a hyphen I would think
• "stating; "The height of Toshack's ambitions" - the semicolon doesn't seem quite right here. Either a colon, or maybe even no punctuation at all

Style of play

• "Bellamy has been described as having a dynamic style of play" - it would be good to say who described him thus
• "WalesOnline" - link

Personal life

• "their third, Lexi, in 2007" - more recent sources seem to spell the child's name as "Lexie": [23][24]
• "MMA gym" - if we're going to use the abbreviation, then put it in brackets after the fully-spelled-out version
• Apparently he also has another child called Orla, who is one year old. I've only been able to corroborate that in the Daily Mail though, so if it's not covered anywhere else then it's probably right to omit it, particularly as there's no other context.[25]

I think that's about it. A long read, as I already noted, but it seems well-written and comprehensive anyway. Cheers!  — Amakuru (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Kosack ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski

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

I've done a thorough read through, and I can't come up with much. It's a well written article. Below is all I could put together:

Lede

• becoming the club's record signing - should really explain this was transfer fee, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  Reowrded. Kosack (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• His time at Liverpool is arguably the height of his career, so could do with being fleshed out in the lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  Expanded. Kosack (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Prose

• • His full name could easily be sourced to the lede and not the infobox. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  I think it's generally preferred to keep refs in the infobox. Kosack (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• YTS - could we not just say "youth"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  I think YTS was the official name for the signing of youth players at the time. Kosack (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  It was the Youth Training Scheme, no? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  Bellamy does remark that he was offered a "two-year YTS apprenticeship" in the source. Kosack (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• There's quite a lot of whitespace on my screen before the refs, any reason for this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  I can't see anything obvious on my end, but I'm on mobile so the layout is always different for me. I've checked the coding in the honours and international goals sections for obvious excess space and can't find any? Kosack (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• There is a ref for the Express, isn't this unreliable? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure, I used the ref for his DYK a couple of years ago unless it's changed since then? I can remove it if needs be. Kosack (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• career high 19 goals in all competitions. - is this the highest he scored throughout his career? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah. Kosack (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• about £80,000) - could we inflate? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  Added. Kosack (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• AC Milan - A.C. Milan Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  Done. Kosack (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Lee, I've responded to all of the points above. Kosack (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Quick comments from Sportsfan77777

I'm leaning oppose for the article being too long, along the lines of what Amakuru has already said. All of the top athletes and other notable bios brought to FAC over the past year have been told to stay closer to 50kb than 60kb. Bellamy definitely isn't a top footballer, maybe not even a top Welsh footballer, so I don't see why his article should be this long when that's not even being allowed any more for all-time greats or important historical figures. With someone like Robin Friday, you can get away with having more detail because his career was short enough that even with so much detail, the article still isn't that long. If Friday had as long of a career as Bellamy, Friday's article wouldn't end up at 60 kb; it would be closer to 50kb and some of the detail currently in his article would end up being cut. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure it should be seen as a competition between how well-known someone is to how big their article can be and indeed Friday is a prime example of that. There are a stack of FA-rated cricket bios between 50-60kb and even 47kb articles on a single year in a player's career. We cover what is generally considered notable and covered by sources. As a modern day footballer with his considerable catalogue of incidents, Bellamy has probably received more print coverage than some of the world's best players combined from years gone by. As the availability of sources increases, so surely does the breadth of coverage we can provide. I have no doubt that there is probably some fine-tuning that could be trimmed here and there, as Amakuru is helping with above, but I think the article is of reasonable size for the subject.

In relation to Friday, I think it's an underestimate to say his article wouldn't hit 60kb. He played around 150 matches in his career, while Bellamy played nearly four times as much and holds a considerable international career to add as well. Kosack (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. Other FAs have certainly done that before, even if the recent ones haven't. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Another big problem is that the article doesn't seem focused. The club career section covers three main facets: his accomplishments, his controversies, and his injuries. The way it's written (in particular with the length), that seems like too much. I could easily imagine someone coming to this article just to get an overview of all of the controversies he has been involved in or an overview of his injuries (those are the first things I looked for after reading the lead), but there's no summary of either of those things anywhere in the article. You essentially have to read the entire >6000-word club career section just to understand why he is so controversial or how injuries have affected him. That's too much to ask of a typical reader who just wants to find some specific info on Bellamy. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

You could potentially mitigate that issue by splitting off the controversies into a separate section. I could understand why his rift with Souness is an important part of the club career section because it led to him leaving Newcastle, but most of the other controversies don't seem to have any big or longterm effects on his career. Relatedly, I have doubts that proper weight is given to each of the controversies. He was suspended three matches for a head-butting incident, but that only gets one sentence. Meanwhile, his fight with Riise gets a full 10+ sentence paragraph, even though he wasn't even suspended for that and there is no longterm significance (or at the very least, no longterm significance is mentioned). The missed dinner and police caution at Newcastle are examples of incidents that are worth mentioning and maybe have the right weight, but might be better off in a separate controversies section because no significance of these events is indicated towards his playing career or how he is perceived. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The article lists the events of his career in chronological order. Separating controversial incidents into their own section seems like bordering on WP:TRIVIA in my opinion and would possibly be adding WP:UNDUE weight and focus onto the incidents in relation to his career. Kosack (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

That's fair. I may be overestimating how controversial he is perceived to be. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Another thing I was wondering about was is Bellamy associated with any particular club? My impression from reading the article is that he is not associated or remembered for playing for any one or two clubs in particular because he played for so many different clubs. If that is correct, then nothing needs to be done to address this concern. But if he is best associated with say Liverpool and/or Cardiff (and/or Newcastle??), then that should be made clearer. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Probably not really, no doubt fans of those club's would see him as such, but I don't think he's synonymous with any one club. Kosack (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Sportsfan77777, do you have any further thoughts on this? Especially regarding the length. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Sportsfan77777 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I commented above. I'm content with the nominator's responses. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)