Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC) Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR) Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

How to nominate an article Nomination procedure Toolbox Analysis Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead. Commenting, supporting and opposing Supporting and opposing To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice. For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Nominations

NERVA

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about NERVA, the NASA nuclear rocket project. Unlike its forerunner, Project Rover, it developed entire engines and not just reactors for them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Image review—pass no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 03:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• Vanamonde93 do you feel that your opposition at the last FAC still applies, or have the redundancy issues been resolved? (t · c) buidhe 04:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Late Registration

Nominator(s): K. Peake 14:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about American rapper Kanye West's second studio album, Late Registration (2005). The album marked a distinctive change in style from West and was a widespread critical success, which has also received much retrospective acclaim. Five singles were released for promotion, including the international hit "Gold Digger", while the album performed well commercially in countries such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The GA review of this article came about way back in 2012 before I was even a user of this site, though I have kept on eye on it these past few years. I have consistently added edits whenever I saw the need over this timeframe and recently, around two weeks have been spent by me preparing the article for FAC! K. Peake 14:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

John Minsterworth

Nominator(s): SN54129 19:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is another—although probably the last—about 14th-century failures, medieval madcaps or bizarre barons. This chap goes to France, gets roundly up his boss' nose, sneaks away while his comrades get roundly beaten by the French, tries to blame everyone else, then eventually deserts to the French and supports a Welsh invasion, is picked up by the English, and, not unsurprisingly, paid a high price for his escapades. Hopefully, you'll join me in getting Minsterworth the promotion that is most certainly not his by right of conquest! Cheers, SN54129 19:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 19:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Cerro Tuzgle

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a rather unremarkable volcano in Argentina, which is mostly important because it is one of the few recently active volcanoes in the Puna. There are some ideas to use it or its neighbour Tocomar for geothermal power generation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Image review—pass no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 18:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Mount Price (British Columbia)

Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 03:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a mountain in the Canadian province of British Columbia. Mount Price is also an andesitic stratovolcano that began forming 1.2 million years ago. A vent on its western slope (Clinker Peak) was the source of two thick lava flows that ponded against an ice sheet within the last 15,000 years. These lava flows were one of the first described occurrences of lava having been impounded by glacial ice. Volcanoguy 03:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Image review—pass images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 05:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• While I don't know whether the article complies with 1c and 1d of WP:WIAFA, but everything else seems to fit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The Holocaust in Greece

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 18:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This article went through a thorough GAN by Hog Farm and an ACR with comments from CPA-5, Nick-D, Catlemur, and Gog the Mild, and a copyedit by Twofingered Typist, all of which are much appreciated. I subsequently expanded the article from a couple newly published sources, and I think it's ready for FAC. (t · c) buidhe 18:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the first two maps, and see MOS:COLOUR
• Some of the captions include claims that warrant citing
• File:Prisoners_sorting_confiscated_property_at_Auschwitz_II-Birkenau.jpg: the description indicates author is unknown, but the source credits authors? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Scaled up maps. All info in captions should be cited already in the article or image description page. The photographers of the Auschwitz Album are unknown, but there are some theories. The museum puts down two of the hypothesized photographers, but I think it's fine to say "unknown". Thanks for the review! (t · c) buidhe 03:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Indy beetle

• The Jewish community reported that 12,898 Jews fought for Greece in the war; 613 died and 3,743 were wounded There wouldn't happen to be any unique info on what happened to Greek Jewish POWs, would there?
  • All the Greek soldiers including Jews were released after a month. (Bowman 41) Should this be mentioned in the article? I didn't think so because the treatment of Jews appears exactly the same to Orthodox Greeks.
• The collaborationist Greek government began to see Bulgaria as the main threat and did all it could to secure German support in restraining Bulgaria. From annexing its territory?
  • Pretty much, clarified based on the source
• some went mad Is there a better medical term for this?
  • All the source says is, "Several people went mad along the way, and virtually no one was able to stand up on arrival"
• but there is no record of him taking action to prevent the deportations, except two letters of protest written after they had already begun. Is it known on what grounds the Greek authorities protested? That the Jews were Greek citizens? It's curious considering the PMs previous comments about solving the "Jewish problem".
  • The "Jewish problem" comments were from Logothetopoulos' predecessor. The cited source says that the letters were an example of Greek collaborators hedging their bets and continuing to collaborate while creating exonerating evidence in case of an Allied victory. Source does not elaborate on the content.
• By June 1944, 850 Jews had escaped to Çeşme, despite obstruction from British intelligence. The f was Britain doing obstructing refugees fleeing from an Axis-occupied ally to a neutral nation?
  • It was part of their attempt to reduce the number of Jews arriving in Palestine, since the Turkish government was not admitting Jewish refugees but merely allowing them to pass through on the way to the Levant. Nevertheless, these efforts do not seem to have a significant effect and explaining them would take WP:UNDUE space, so I removed this bit.
• All of mainland Greece was recaptured from Axis occupation by November 1944. Recaptured? I'm having trouble finding info here but it seems the Germans mostly withdrew so they could go fight the Soviets on the Eastern Front.
  • True, the source is not completely clear on this point. Reworded.
• In Salonica, Jewish camp survivors were often called "unused cakes of soap". Yikes. No further comment.
• Jews found themselves sleeping in improvised shelters Who established and managed these shelters, the Greek government?
  • No, the source specifically says that the government did nothing and the survivors had to improvise for themselves. Clarified
• Holocaust denial is illegal in Greece since when?
  • After looking at some sources it seems that there is no law against Holocaust denial in particular, although it has sometimes been prosecuted under racial hatred laws with limited success. Rewrote accordingly.
• The Holocaust was obviously an event which focused on Jews, but is it known what happened to other marginalized groups? For example, the article on the Porajmos suggests few to no Roma people were killed in Greece.
  • I've tried to integrate the related ethnic violence (e.g. against Chams or Macedonians), but the Romani people are unmentioned in the sources.

-Indy beetle (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for your review! (t · c) buidhe 01:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• Storage building owned by the Voliotis family in the village of Lachonia near Pelion, where members of the Hakim family lived and hid during the Nazi occupation This caption is too long for addressing a subject not specifically mentioned in the article. Technically, it doesn't even suggest why the Hakim family was hiding. Could be shortened to the effect of "Storage building in Lachonia where Jews lived in hiding during occupation" or something of the sort. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  Done. (t · c) buidhe 03:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

55 Wall Street

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a building in Manhattan, New York City, whose long history can be seen just by looking at the two tiers of colonnades on its eight-story facade. The lower section was constructed for the Merchants' Exchange in 1841 and also housed the New York Stock Exchange and the United States Custom House in the 19th century. The upper section was built when National City Bank took over in the 1900s. At one point, the bank was said to do "more business in its head office than is done under any other nongovernmental banking roof on the face of the earth". The building's massive cruciform banking hall is now an event venue, with people living in condo apartments above.

This page was promoted as a Good Article almost two years ago after a Good Article review by one of FAC's very own coordinators, Hog Farm, for which I am very grateful. In addition, the page received a GOCE copyedit a few months ago from Rublov, whose efforts I also appreciate. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
  • I have done this now. Epicgenius (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• File:(King1893NYC)_pg790_THE_OLD_MERCHANTS'_EXCHANGE_ON_WALL_STREET.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: The author of the book, Moses King, died in 1909. However, this is already public domain anyway in the U.S., since the book was published in the U.S. in 1893. Epicgenius (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Is the author of the book the creator of the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

      I cannot say definitively. In the King’s Handbook of New York City, it does not seem that artists for each illustration were individually credited. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

      • In that case I would suggest removing or replacing the life+70 tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Time in Finland

Nominator(s): LunaEatsTuna (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the history and geography of the time zone used in Finland as well as its maintenance. As far as I know, no time zone-related article has yet to achieve FA status, and so I really wish to expand and improve the coverage of this niche yet highly important subject (It indirectly involves almost all 7.9 billion people!). Additionally, the quality of Time in X articles (even important ones such as the United Kingdom) is rather poor at the moment, and so I also hope that perhaps this article could help towards possibly setting a standard for future Time in X articles I wish to improve. This reached GA in January 2022 (thank you Mujinga) and received a PR in March (thanks to Buidhe). It has changed significantly since it achieved GA status, and I think it is worthy of nomination for FA now. Lastly, I also wish to thank LPfi, whose lengthy edit to the history section in October last year unknowingly inspired me to work on this article. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Image review—pass no licensing issues found. (t · c) buidhe 02:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "In the 19th century, a single time zone across Finland was to be needed" => "In the 19th century, a single time zone across Finland was needed"
• "between Finland its western neighbours" - think there's a word missing there
• "Finland's observance of Eastern Europe Time, while other countries to the west used Central European Time at UTC+01:00 caused" - need a comma before "caused"
• "with the adjustment made one hour earlier at 0:2:00 EET" - that time doesn't look right
• "Hours can be marked with leading zeros especially for the early hours of the night where necessary for clarity [...] but the hour after midnight and later in the morning, the leading zero is usually omitted" - I don't understand this, the two parts seem to contradict each other......?
• That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Done! And I reworded the sentence you mention last to be more comprehensive. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a cantata by J. S. Bach. I tried to bring it to FA quality in 2018, but failed. Thanks to all who commented then, which helped to improve the article. This cantata is a solo cantata from Bach's third cantata cycle, - both aspects not yet covered in a FA. It is a beloved piece, and one of few that Bach called a cantata. The article was began by Dgies and expanded by Mathsci in 2009. It received a GA review by sadly missed Yash! in 2015. On Bach's birthday, Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Image review

no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 17:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

The autograph manuscript was provided by me in 2018. I was the main contributor in 2009 (before infoboxes were instituted). If User:Gerda Arendt restores Bach cantata to its November 2015 version, that would be an improvement (she has already almost volunteered to do so). With no time pressure, I would be willing to help Gerda to add material from the WP:RS, W. Gillies Whittaker's Cantatas of J S Bach, to improve the section on musical analysis. Possibly freely licensed audio files of parts of the cantata are available (e.g. musopen). Mathsci (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer of more analysis and audio. I don't see any relation to Bach cantata which I unwatched, and which is not linked from this cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

You pinged me twice today. I would like to help. Perhaps to clear the air, it might be a good idea to chat in private by email. What do you think? Mathsci (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems you weren't in the mood to reply. Going numerically through the cantatas I found Ich habe genung, BWV 82. I added Gilles Cantagrel and William Gillies Whittaker as WP:RSs. I also found a 1950 public domain recording of Hans Hotter singing "Ich habe genug" and will add the slumber song. Mathsci (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

You suggested to clear air, and I knew of nothing unclear. You suggested email, and I believe openly here is more transparent. What reply did you expect? I think it would help to focus here on this cantata, and move comments for BWV 82 to that article's talk page, and comments regarding Bach cantata on that article's talk page, but with a ping please as I don't watch it. Please drop remarks about my mood which don't belong here. For my mood, look up #Ukraine on my talk. It doesn't belong here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

In this article page you quote "most-beloved" in Jones' 2007 book. However, Jones wrote "best loved", which is not the same. Today one of the lede Bach-archiv images, uploaded by me, appears as a FA on the main page of wikipedia. In your caption, however, you wrote that this was in Bach's handwriting. But that is untrue, as the copyist was Johann Andreas Kuhnau, as explained in the caption of the lede image. I have no idea why Schweitzer's Nobel Peace Prize is mentioned in this article. (It is true that, during WW2, an arrangement of BWV 680 for orchestra was performed as a prayer for peace.) Mathsci (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the subtle difference in meaning that I couldn't detect, and my mistake with the attribution to the copyist. - Schweitzer's peace prize is mentioned because some readers may not recognise that this is the same person. Feel free to discuss, and to make the language change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss? I looked for places where audio files have been used as external links in FAs, and found BWV 125 (Herreweghe). I also discovered that there was a February 2021 concert here, featuring Stephan MacLeod and Gli Angeli Genève. It might be useful for creating audio files. MacLeod has been a soloist in Suzuki's cantata group. Mathsci (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

two things:

• Discuss (with others) if Schweitzer's other role in history be mentioned or not.
• Audios would be nice, but my experience in creating them is zero, all assistance is appreciated. I just began the article on MacLeod. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The CD of MacLeod/Gli Angeli Genève has not yet been released. As the website states:[1] "This album has not been released yet. Pre-order it now. (Will be sent some days before release date)." On the other hand, if you look at bach-cantatas, you can see that only a fraction of CDs for BWV 56 are actually listed, e.g. recordings by Gérard Souzay, Hermann Prey, Bernard Kruysen, etc. For BWV 1, a separate article on the discography was created. A veritable Pandora's box. Curiosity killed the cat. Mathsci (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• The very first sentence is difficult to follow, probably due to its arrangement. How about:

  "Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen (lit. '"I will gladly carry the cross-staff"'), BWV 56, is a church cantata composed by Johann Sebastian Bach for the 19th Sunday after Trinity."

  I was like that, and was reworded in 2018, and I'll try it again as you suggest. --GA

• "Albert Schweitzer wrote in his Bach biography: "This is one of the most splendid of Bach's works."" — why not simply "Albert Schweitzer referred the cantata as "one of the most splendid of Bach's works."?

  That's for those who don't immediately know him and what he did, adding weight to the statement. --GA

• "and its film adaption Brother of Sleep." — perhaps mention the year in parenthesis

  I'm not convinced that it is lead-worthy for the cantata. --GA

• The lead section should preferable be no longer than 4 paragraphs.

  We have intro - text - music - publication - recordings and legacy, and clarity should be of higher value than guidelines, no? --GA

  Yes, but the last lead para is just 1-2 lines long, and can be merged with the previous one (without compromising the clarity, I think) --K.S

• "Bach was appointed by the town of Leipzig as its" — perhaps "Johann Sebastian Bach was appointed by the town of Leipzig as its"

  As in biographies, once it's clear which person, we only use surnames after the first introduction of the complete name. --GA

  Yes indeed, but the prose should be independent of the lead, not a continuation. We have "Johann Sebastian" in the lead, but never in the prose text. --K.S

  Interesting. Did you know that I never repeat the full name in the prose. Kafka. Jessye Norman. BWV 1.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Ref#21: "Corall 2015, pp. 11" — should be 'p.'

  You are welcome to change all minor mistakes! easier for you than describing. Formatting Corall. --GA

• Ref#31: "Wolff 2001, p. 8–9" — should be 'pp.'
• "Ambrose, Z. Philip. "BWV 56 Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen". University of Vermont. Retrieved 22 October 2014" is listed but never used.

  used it now, and fixed the page nos. --GA

That is on a quick read of just the lead and general source formatting. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for helpful finds! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Olive Morris

Nominator(s): Mujinga (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Olive Morris was a Black activist in the 1970s and no doubt would be better known had she not died tragically young. She grew up in South London and became a squatter activist, involved in Black liberation groups such as the British Black Panther Movement, Brixton Black Women's Group and the Race Today Collective. When she studied in Manchester, she was quick to become involved in local campaigns, and upon returning to London her activism continued before being cut short at the age of 27. Her legacy has recently been invigorated by the Remembering Olive Collective and with the help of other contributors I've hopefully improved the page through a Good article review and a peer review. Special thanks go to Amitchell125 and SusunW. I think the article is now in a state ready for the front page, so all constructive criticism is welcome and I hope to reply to any actionable points as promptly as possible. This is my first submission to FAC. Mujinga (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Olive_Morris_died_1979.jpg needs a more expansive FUR, and is any more information available on provenance? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment, the rationale has been expanded. Re provenance, I already contacted the Lambeth Archives and they said "The ownership/copyright status of the Olive Morris collection at Lambeth Archives is complex. Therefore, sadly, Lambeth Archives isn't in a position, to assist with this request." Mujinga (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

    Just to add, Victuallers has helpfully emailed Remembering Olive Collective, Fawcett Society, Blackpast.org and the National Archives on 17 March to ask if they can supply a free picture. Mujinga (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Spot check - pass

I did an extensive examination during the peer review and spot checked every reference. I can confirm that the information in the article is supported by the citations. SusunW (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• thanks for that! Mujinga (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Susun W

• In the second sentence in Adult life and activism, we need context. To avoid repeating 1960s and 1970s, perhaps insert "in the last half of the 20th century".
  • rejigged Mujinga (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• "not only notions" begs a comparison. Not only British, "but Caribbean"?
  • hmm yes and "style" is repeated from a few sentences earlier .. i'll come back on that one. feel free to adjust since you were already adding stuff here Mujinga (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I added it with the citation to the Windrush fashion source, as I noted another reviewer also commented that it seemed to be lacking a comparison. SusunW (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
      • nice! and i rejigged it a but to avoid using the word "style" so much. hopefully it's better now :) Mujinga (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• flip the references after "his arm was broken" and "ain't no girl" so that they are in numerical order.
  • done Mujinga (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• "later beaten in police custody", perhaps "while" in?
  • for me that reads ok, happy to see what others think Mujinga (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• flip the references after "radical feminist" to fix numerical order
  • done Mujinga (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• ditto for after "activities without any public funding", "Olive Morris Manuscript Collection at the Lambeth Archives"
  • done - thanks for the eagle eyes on this! Mujinga (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Overall, great job. I would like to see a bit in the legacy section on why historians believe she was a significant figure, but others may disagree. SusunW (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely^^^ legacy is more than buildings and street names, but who was influenced and how; the former might be demolished and renamed, but the latter rings through the ages with ripples still seen today. SN54129 15:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed on this, but it's been quite hard to find stuff talking about her historical significance since she is still very much a marginalised figure - as is shown by the problems finding a photograph of her and indeed her political comrades such as Beverley Bryan, Elouise Edwards, Altheia Jones-LeCointe and Liz Obi Mujinga (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Go back to the peer review where I wrote "Longley p 131 says examining her life", several scholars I noted there analyze her significance. SusunW (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I was replying more to Serial Number 54129 but I do remember that peer review discussion. Longley is talking about the narrative about Morris presented in the archives and her reaction to that. I was hoping the Bettocchi PhD might have more on her legacy but I didn't see much there. Caeciliusinhorto is also asking about legacy below so I'll have to go back into the sources but I don't think there's a huge amount there to be honest. Having said that I'm sure I can find something and perhaps flesh out the work of the Remembering Olive Collective a bit too. Mujinga (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I've had another look in the sources: I've added a quote from Fisher and some more info from Ford; I didn't see much more to add from Bettocchi and Longley. I note I recently added a source from Bristol University for Black History Month about the contributions of Obi and Morris. See what you think! Mujinga (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Based on everything I have read, you are correct to not make her "the figurehead", as you said below. The legacy I have in mind and maybe Caeciliusinhorto will look this over too, is something like this very rough first stab at it: An examination of Morris's life provides insight into the collective Black experience in Britain during the 1960s and 1970s.(Longley 2021, p 131; Ford 2016, p 8)(Bryan, Dadzie, Scafe 2018, pp 151, 155) The erasure of the Black community from British history of the period has been challenged by 21st-century scholarship which has examined individual lives of community members like Morris.(Reilly 2019; Longley 2021, p 131; Bettocchi 2021, pp 97-99) Analysis of her life by the Remembering Olive Collective and academics like Ford has brought to light the common struggle of British Black women with women across the African, Asian, and Caribbean diasporas against classism, colonialism, and sexism and the need for more comprehensive study of these intersections.(Reilly 2019) Harrison argues that uncovering Morris's participation in the squatting movement was significant as it showed a lack of academic research into the politics of housing.(Fisher 2012, p 75) Both Harrison and Bettocchi note that Morris's experiences reflected how the politicization of housing and homelessness impacted the Black community, as well as single and/or childless people.(Fisher 2012, p 75)(Bettocchi 2021, pp 99-100) I also see that (Perri W 2019) says her campaigning was successful in motivating the Lambeth council to buy abandoned flats in 1973 to address housing issues. SusunW (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! I don't really feel the article needs this, I think there is already enough on her legacy dotted through the article and we have (with your peer review suggestions) contextualized the time of Black liberation struggles in England in which Morris was active. But maybe I can't see the wood for the trees any more. I left it a few days to wait for other opinions, now I'll ping Caeciliusinhorto to see what they think and I'll also ask Carbon Caryatid. Mujinga (talk) 09:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from GhostRiver

I will take a look at this later. — GhostRiver 17:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• In the infobox, "London UK" -> "London, UK"
  • done Mujinga (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• "she was beaten up" -> "she was assaulted"
  • is this a BrEng/USEng thing? Beaten up seems more appropriate to me Mujinga (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Brixon, South London" potential MOS:SEAOFBLUE concerns?
  • I don't think two in a row is seaofblue, could lose "south" i suppose and not link London, but the benefits of mentioning south outweigh this Mujinga (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• "squatted buildings" or "squatted in buildings"?
  • former reads fine to me, happy to supply academic sources to back that up Mujinga (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• "another was used" -> "while the other was used"
  • she squatted way more than two buildings, so then it's more saying: one .. another .. (unspecified others) Mujinga (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Her life and work have been commemorated both by official organisations – Lambeth Council named a building after her – and by the activist group Remembering Olive Collective (ROC)." -> "Her life and work have been commemorated both by official organizations like the Lambeth Council, who named a building after her, and by the activist group Remembering Olive Collective."
  • I am not a big fan of dashes, don't use them myself, but don't see much difference here Mujinga (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• "and has featured on lists of inspirational Black British women" This feels like quite a vague statement
  • it's summarising the mast paragraph which says she appears in the Voice and Evening Standard lists Mujinga (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• "and then followed them" -> "before following them"
  • hmm maybe it's not clear the way it is that the grandmother was in Jamaica? Mujinga (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Migrants are affected by both local and transnational factors." Sentence doesn't flow as the header of the paragraph; the second sentence feels like a better start
  • sentence removed Mujinga (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• "access to housing and jobs was"; awkward syntax. Could be read as "access to X and (to) Y" for the singular, or "access to X (thing one) and Y (separate item)" for the plural, if that makes sense
  • changed "jobs" to "employment", hopefully that helps Mujinga (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Just over five feet tall, she gained a reputation as a fierce activist." Is this where I make a no correlation joke? (In seriousness, the connection between her height and reputation is only implicit as currently worded)
• "She was described as other activists" -> "Other activists described her"
  • then the second part reads funny so I haven't changed it Mujinga (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• "wrote up"
  • i prefer wrote up, happy to hear other opinions Mujinga (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• "and several other people" -> "and several others"
  • done Mujinga (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• "trumped up charges" unencyclopedic phrasing
  • Another BrEng/USeng thing perhaps? Could change to "fabricated" Mujinga (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• "the prosecution case" -> "the prosecution's argument"
  • since both case and prosecut- are previously mentioned, I've just chopped that phrase Mujinga (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Why was she sent away from the hospital?
  • Here's what the source says (Longley p130): When interviewed by the ROC, Gerlin Bean (2009, pp. 5–6) spent time recounting her experience of Olive’s sudden deterioration in health: ‘She’s always messing around and laughing and carrying on, and then she starts rolling around on the floor, and said: “oh, such a pain”. And I said: “Olive stop messing around” and she said: “no, I really have this pain”’. They urgently took a taxi to King’s College Hospital: ‘we went and then they told her, you know what they told her? That she has gas [laughter], and they gave her some tablets and things and said go away’. But the pain persisted, and it was only after some time that they discovered the true cause of her illness, non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Mujinga (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Mostly very nitpicky prose stuff to cut out fluff, or areas where there's some confusing syntax. Overall very good and informative! — GhostRiver 18:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I've implemented changes for some and queried others Mujinga (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• Publisher locations are missing from Fisher; Ford; and Scafe.
• When citing books or journal articles it is usual to give only the year of publication. (The latter may also have the volume and/or issue.)

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixed, much obliged Mujinga (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto

I made a few comments at peer review, but it looks as though the article has expanded quite a bit since then. On the first readthrough this looks good: two quick comments on prose:

• "Her personal style choices challenged not only notions of what it meant to be British" - suggests that we're going to get some sort of "but also challenged foo", but it never comes, and the paragraph ends leaving us hanging.
  • Indeed! That the sentence/section has been rejigged Mujinga (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Black" is mostly capitalised throughout, but Longley is described as a "black history researcher" and there's one mention of Morris' "blackness", both lowercased – is this intentional?
  • good spot, capitalised these two for consistency. Mujinga (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Will comment properly later Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Please do return! Your comments at the peer review were helpful and like you said the article ended up expanding rather nicely Mujinga (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Reading through the article again, a somewhat nitpicky point:

• "[Morris was] charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm ... she was accused of kicking an officer. The jury found her not guilty on that charge." - implies to me that there were multiple charges: if so, do we know the verdicts? If not, just "The jury found her not guilty" is probably sufficient.
  • You are picking up on a point where the source (the Howe biography) is a bit vague, since it says "As a result, the judge instructed the jury to retire and reach a verdict on the charges facing Morris and Macintosh relating to the assault of PC Reid. Although he provided no formal direction, it was clear that he was asking the jury to find Morris and Macintosh innocent prior to their defence. Conspicuously absent was any direction regarding Howe. The jury found in favour of the defendants, Macintosh was discharged, Morris faced two further charges" (p173). I looked into it a bit further and this BBC source says all three were acquitted so that solves it, the other charges must have not stuck either, so I'll rephrase Mujinga (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Hmm, that's all very vague, isn't it! Good job on finding the other source Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I also have a few questions where I suspect the answer is "the sources don't say" but I'll ask them anyway:

• When Morris went back to college to study for her O- and A-Levels, I don't suppose we know where? We list her schools and her university.
  • no couldn't find this information Mujinga (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• The article quotes Longley mentioning Morris' "long-term white-skinned partner", and there are two mentions of Mike McColgan (presumably said partner) in Morris' last year, but do we know anything else about this relationship? When did they meet?
  • the closest we've got is his recent obituary (RiP) where it says they met in the mid-1970s Mujinga (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I didn't expect you to find much on these points, but it's always worth checking – ah, well, if the sources don't say something, then there's not much we can do... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Finally, for the section on legacy, has anyone discussed the question of Morris' long-term signficance in the context of the black rights, feminist, or housing equality movements? The Voice "listed eight Black women who have contributed to the development of Britain" and included Morris, but how? Did her campaigning lead to any sort of legal change, or inspire a change in how activist groups organised or campaigned? The Voice doesn't say, but perhaps someone has...

• SusunW is also pressing this point above so I'll have another dip into the sources, I am uneager to make it seem that Morris was THE figurehead of black liberation in the UK but it seems I do need to add more. Thanks! Mujinga (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, if the answer turns out to be "nobody has discussed this and overegging Morris' long-term signficance wouldn't be neutral" then that's fine! If the current state of the article is a genuine reflection of Morris' legacy, then I'm happy with that – but again I just thought it was worth asking. If I find anything potentially worth using, I will let you know! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll have a closer look at sourcing over the weekend, but so far the article looks to be in excellent shape and I'm anticipating supporting. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, looking at sourcing now:

• There are a few uses of primary sources, but these all seem to be acceptable either as supporting citations for things backed up by secondary sources, or uncontentious statements of fact.
• The use of radical magazines and books published by independent radical presses seems to be appropriate, and balanced by Mainstream Scholarship^TM
• Overall I'm not seeing any sources that I'm super concerned about the usage of in the abstract.

Going to spot check a few sources, chosen at random (actually random, using a random number generator, not just arbitrarily!). I'm referring to them with the numbers as of this revision.

• 5, the National Archives source: used in discussion of Dick Shepphard School. Supports the claim that the school closed in 1994. Doesn't support that the school was girls' only or that Morris attended it, but the accompanying citations do support both those facts. "Other sources such as BBC News,[4] Brixton Black Women's Group[3] and the National Archives,[5] give different school names" – the BBC news source supports that Morris went to Dick Shepphard School, and presumably the school records held in the National Archives would confirm that, but the source cited is the National Archives' catalogue information for their records on the school, which doesn't support this.
  • In the note, 5 is being used the first time to show the school is called Dick Sheppard School, second time to show it closed in 1994. As you correctly observe, other sources are used to show Morris went there. Shall I removed the first mention? Mujinga (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Gah, I've just spent an hour trying to work out what is going on with schools here, and it's all a muddle. A convenient local government publication called something like "Schools in Tulse Hill, 1955-70" is proving frustratingly elusive! There's an archive catalogue entry in London Metropolitan Archives (https://search.lma.gov.uk/SCRIPTS/MWIMAIN.DLL/300073541/2/11/575371?RECORD&UNION=Y&URLMARKER=STARTREQUEST) which suggests that Dick Sheppard School was also called Tulse Hill Comprehensive, not to be confused with the boys' school which is Tulse Hill School (previously the Strand School). Lavender Hill Girls' School clearly existed in some form, and the fact that it was a girls' school suggests a secondary to me. I'd be inclined to throw my hands up in defeat and cut the note back to something like "The ODNB says that Morris went to Heathbrook Primary, Lavender Hill Girls' School, and Tulse Hill School; the BBC says Lavender Hill Primary and the Dick Sheppard School." (With a Wikipedian fear of original research, we might even note that the fact that Tulse Hill School was boys only in 1974 doesn't preclude it from being mixed when Morris was there, though a comprehensive school going from mixed to single sex would be odd!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Yes working through the school stuff is a bit of a nightmare! We got into it at the bottom of Talk:Olive_Morris#FA_nomination in case you didn't see that already. I'll take another look now. Mujinga (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
      • I have chopped the note a bit, now I'm wondering whether to chop it more and to just say in the article "Morris went to several schools in South London" and then only have the first half of the note saying "The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography states: "Olive attended Heathbrook primary school and then Lavender Hill Girls' Secondary School and Tulse Hill secondary school." A BBC News article says "Lavender Hill Primary School and Dick Sheppard School in Tulse Hill"." The alternative is to leave it as is and say the names of then schools in the article but then have the note to explain why the sources differ. I blame the ODNB factcheckers for this mess by the way! Mujinga (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• 17, "The Psychology of Windrush Style": doesn't explicitly discuss Morris' personal style choices, but there are two other citations (which I do not currently have access to but have requested) which may do that. As a supporting citation it is okay for the claim that the fashion choices of Carribean-British people in the 1960s and 1970s challenged ideologies of Britishness.
  • Happy to send over any sources you need! Mujinga (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• 40, "Black Women's Groups". We write: "Locke had set up the Manchester Black Women's Co-operative (MBWC) in 1975 with Coca Clarke and Ada Phillips; Morris got involved and members later recalled her vigour.[40]: 2, 15". Looking at this version of the article, linked on the CUP website, I think the correct page numbers are 1, 15, and 17? I'm also not immediately seeing support for Morris' involvement in *MWBC* in this article; it talks about her joining *BWMA*, and the two groups seem to have overlapping membership but are distinct entities?
  • Damn I printed the open access version of the article and it has 28 numbered pages so there will be differences, I'll fix that now using this authoritative version with 21 pages. On page 14, it says "When discussing the conflict between the MBWC and Ron Phillips over the mismanagement of company funds, Tsele noted that Morris ‘was not in with those sorts of fights, those were just for us, grassroots’, noting that she ‘just used to come and help us with the intellectual bits, about how the system was working’" - so that shows Morris was involved with MBWC (as well as BWMA) Mujinga (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• 40 is also used to support the discussion of the collapse of MBWC and its reformation of Abasindi; it supports the first part of this sentence.
• 41 also used in the discussion of MWBC/Abasindi: along with 38 and 40, this supports the claims made.
• 54: along with 55, supports the claims made about Breeze Yoko's Olive Morris mural.

Other less systematic checks I have done while reading the article for the PR and this FAC didn't bring up concerns, so the main worry is the pagination of ref 40, and whether you've confused MWBC and BWMA in that paragraph? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that I've think I've answered everything (and note that I recently added another source answering other comments so after 29, numbers are +1). Mujinga (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Harry

Not a subject I'm familiar with but I'll give it a go. I probably owe you a couple of reviews from my police shootings. At a glance, looks good.

• At the age of 17, she was beaten up Personally, I would say "beaten up" is bordering on too informal for an encyclopaedia but I won't push it if you disagree because it at least succinct and understandable.
• following an incident That's not a lot of detail, even for the lead. Is there anything else that can be said without bogging down the lead?
• She joined the British Black Panthers... The lead doesn't explicitly say that this is a result of the Nigerian diplomat incident, but the placement implies it. Can we be clearer?
• I'm guessing you would have included it if there was, but is there anything much to say about how/why she or her parents moved to Britain? Were they part of one of the mass migration events from the Caribbean?
• at the Victoria University of Manchester between 1975 and 1978 This is pedantry really, but hey, pedantry is what FAC is all about! By a strict literal reading, that sentence means "in 1976 and 1977", but I'm assuming you mean "from 1975 to 1978".

Very little to criticise really. A succinct yet comprehensive and well-written article. I'll doubtless support once you've had a chance to look over my nit picks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

1993–94 Gillingham F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

After eight successful promotions and one which looks like it's nearly there, here's another season from the history of English football club Gillingham F.C. This will probably be the last one I nominate for a while, as I have finally exhausted my collection of old editions of the Rothmans Football Yearbook :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 19:42, 15 March 2022 (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

• until the eighth league game of the season, but in the next game - this is a bit clunky, are we saying they won away from home in their ninth game of the season? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• first time since March 1992 - might be better to also say the rough date when they did win. I'm guessing it was around October 1993. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• knock-out competitions - pipes to a redirect. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Prose

• Is it preseason, or pre-season? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Per the first two results of this Google search, I think either is valid -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• For access issues, could we use:

{| class="wikitable plainrowheaders sortable" |+Results{{sfn|Rollin|1994|p=232}}

instead of

;Results{{sfn|Rollin|1994|p=232}} {| class="wikitable plainrowheaders sortable"

• • Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Rochdale pipes to a redirect in the table. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Gillingham played away to Plymouth Argyle of the Second Division and lost 2–0 to their higher-division opponents - seems a little throwaway. Could we get just a tad more info? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I can't really find any more to say, it seems to have been a pretty uneventful game..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I was just thinking about mentioning the stadium name or number of spectators or something. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
      • @Lee Vilenski: I thought to check one of my old programmes and managed to add a few extra words -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2022 (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)} 10:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: - all done, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Happy to support this promotion, with the regular previso on issues being raised by other nominators. Good work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Support. I had a few comments, but it was easier to fix them myself. Another very competent article; not much to criticize. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Sargon II

Nominator(s): Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most successful ancient Assyrian kings. Sargon II was an imperialist conqueror under whom the Assyrian war machine tightened its grasp on the Middle East but he was also unusually progressive, especially for his time. He worked to maintain justice in his empire, increased the status of women and minority groups, and fostered good relations with both foreign rulers and the peoples he conquered. His primary goal was to initiate a new world order and be remembered for eternity, a dream which was trashed when the theologically problematic manner of his death made his son conduct an extensive damnatio memoriae campaign. Sargon's dream of reverance and remembrance among future generations was not fulfilled until his capital city Dur-Sharrukin was rediscovered by modern archaeologists in the 19th century and he was remembered once again. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Sargon II proclaimed king.png, File:Capture of Carchemish.png — need to state author's date of death to use {{PD-old-70}}. Not old enough for {{PD-old-unknown}}

I will see if I can track down the name and date of death of the artist. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Added the artist's name and date of death. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Personally I am not convinced that all of the images help the reader understand the subject better, and think the article would be better off with somewhat fewer of them. I would remove some of the reliefs. (t · c) buidhe 14:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I've removed two images; I don't want the article to feel too barren of images at any point either - are there any particular images of the ones left that you feel should be removed? Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Other comments

• I am not really sure what is meant exactly by "new world order" here, since Sargon only controlled a relatively small part of the world. This phrase has virtually no usage in English before the twentieth century, so I guess it seems a bit out of place in an article about ancient history. (t · c) buidhe 14:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Elayi (2017) p. 207 states The inscriptions relating to Khorsabad evoke a kind of new golden age initiated by Sargon, the foundation of a new world order and a new Assyrian Empire so use of the term in relation to Sargon is not something I made up. I would argue that Sargon's actual area of control has no bearing on his wishes or aspirations to inaugurate a new world order – the Assyrians also believed that the Neo-Assyrian Empire did cover the majority of the world. He expanded the Assyrian Empire by quite a lot (in his mind getting closer to completing the world conquest), instituted various quite sudden changes in policy and founded a new enormous capital named after himself. I think "new world order" describes all this pretty well and can't come up with an alternative term that carries the same effect. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review

All the sources look acceptable to me. There is a heavy reliance on Elayi 2017, but I cannot find other sources to cite. Spot checks tbd (t · c) buidhe 23:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Only one page from Melville 2016 is cited. Why is this book being ignored compared to Elayi?
• This book by Grant Frame could also be used to diversify referencing. I have access to it and could send chapters as desired.
• I'm concerned that these omissions affect the comprehensiveness and neutrality of the article. For example, Frame has a different theory on Sargon's lineage than is presented in the article; he argues that there's no evidence of illegitimacy. (t · c) buidhe 01:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The reason why the article heavily relies on Elayi is that Elayi's book is the only one I can access in its entirety. I'm not sure neutrality is greatly affected; the article does say that Most historians cautiously accept that he was Tiglath-Pileser's son and it is true that most regard him to have been a usurper (which does not imply that no one regards him to have been legitimate). I agree that adding in these different viewpoints would be good from a comprehensiveness perspective. As for Frame's book, is it not largely a collection of translations or is there a large amount of relevant historical content as well (you're welcome to send if there is and I can incorporate it into the article)? Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I can send you the introduction, which does give an overview of Sargon's life. Wikimail me and I'll attach the pdf. (t · c) buidhe 12:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I have sent a wikimail :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Replied (t · c) buidhe 18:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Melville 2019: this is a book review, which is not really ideal, but acceptable imo if you can't access the original source.

I also have access to the original source; it is a book review but it also contains some of Melville's own research and analysis. Svärd and Melville in a few cases slightly different views on the influence and power of Assyrian women so it felt good to source both since they agree on the statements made here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• • "which grew in size and diversity under Sargon's successors. These units were part of the military might of the empire and participated in campaigns." don't think this supported

It is supported by the sources cited: Svärd (which is also cited here) writes extensively on the growing size and the extra units being added to the queen's forces over the course of the reigns of Sennacherib, Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal on pages 163–166. On page 166 she writes ...seems plausible that these units were more than just an honor guard of the queen — they were part of the military might of Assyria. Melville, referencing Svärd, writes on page 691: As an example, let us consider the queen and queen mother’s association with military units. Svärd has pointed out that the Sargonid period saw a progressive increase in the number and types of troops attached to royal women, and further, that these were active combat units, not just bodyguards. As an example of partaking in military campaigns, Svärd on page 164 mentions the chariot driver Marduk-sarru-usur, part of the queen's forces, who partook in defeating Ashurbanipal's brother Shamash-shum-ukin. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Bagg 2016, pp. 59, 71.
  • I don't see how page 71 has any bearing on the content. Page 59 does have a table, but it seems synthy to derive this statement from a table rather than prose. Also, a statement like this should probably be dated since it is always possible that more inscriptions may be discovered in the future, right?
  • "In terms of the variety of acts enacted against enemies, Sargon's inscriptions make him out to be significantly less brutal than many other Assyrian kings" I don't accept that this is supported since the cited source just has a table of recorded acts; it does not say that Sargon is less brutal than others.

You're right - page 71 does not seem relevant here. I agree that the writing of the passage in question is somewhat synthy based on the source. I've replaced it as follows: Atrocities enacted by Assyrian kings were in most known cases directed only towards soldiers and elites; as of 2016 none of the known inscriptions or reliefs of Sargon mention or show harm being done to civilians - the first part is supported by the prose and the second is supported partly by the prose and by the table (no longer says less brutal or makes a comparison of its own, just that neither medium records damage to civilians). I've also added a more proper mention of this to the lead. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

As a sidenote I've tracked down one source that explicitly calls Sargon "more lenient and less oppressive" but it's a weird fringe historical revisionist book so that can't really be used to cite anything. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is out of 7 refs checked. (t · c) buidhe 02:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Marvel Tales and Unusual Stories

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a pair of magazines published by a dedicated science fiction fan in the 1930s. William Crawford's ambitions outran his financial resources, but his two semi-professional magazines were a pioneering effort to expand the new science fiction genre beyond the limits set by pulp magazine publishing standards. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Image review–pass it's asserted that the license wasn't renewed, and I am agfing that a thorough search was done. (t · c) buidhe 16:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

• I would include ALT text for File:Unusual Stories initial announcement.jpg.
• For the lead sentence, would it be more beneficial to expand science fiction to science fiction magazine?
• I would link pulp magazine in the lead just to help readers who may be less than familiar with the subject.

This is more of a placeholder. My above comments are limited to the lead, but I will attempt to do a full review either this Thursday or Friday as those are my "weekends" (i.e. when I have time off work). I look forward to reading this article as I do enjoy reading about these kinds of magazines. One of these days, I should really try my hand at one of these articles. Aoba47 (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

All done; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is a super nitpick-y comment. For this citation title (The Time Machines: The Story of the Science-Fiction Pulp Magazines from the beginning to 1950), I would capitalize Beginning.

  Surprisingly that's lower case both on the cover and the title page -- see here, though I see Amazon decided to capitalize it in their listing. I'd be inclined to leave it the way the publisher has it. Or is there some MoS rule about title case for book titles? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for the explanation. I agree that it is best to go with how the book and publisher represent it. I do not believe there is a MoS rule about this, but I am not the best person to ask about that. Aoba47 (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I have read through the article, and I believe this is the only thing that I have noticed. I will re-read through the article again though in the next few days just to make sure though. Aoba47 (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for your patience with my review. I support the FAC based on the prose. If you have the time or interest, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks! I had a look at your FAC, and I see there are currently three supports; I know more is better but I think I'm going to take a crack at a couple of other FACs that don't have three supports yet -- I hate to see something get archived for lack of commentary. If "Mindful" is still languishing in two or three weeks feel free to ping me again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for your response, and I agree that it is best to help other FACs who have not received as much commentary. Aoba47 (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• "A Pennsylvania fan, William L. Crawford, was an early science fiction fan" - any way to avoid repetition of "fan"? Maybe change the first one to "A Pennsylvania native"....?

  I decided to just cut the mention of Pennsylvania; it's in the bibliographic section but here it's unnecessary detail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Refs in multiple places in the second paragraph are not in correct numerical order

  I've fixed this, because I know it annoys some people, but I don't think it's a requirement -- I don't usually bother because citation numbers aren't very stable -- if you decide to remove a citation early in the article it cause half a dozen cases of out-of-order citations. Anyway, fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• "increased the size from digest to pulp format" - is it possible to clarify what these sizes actually are (eg give the dimensions)?

  Done, in a note to try to avoid interrupting the text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• "reprints of two round-robin stories" - what is a "round-robin story"?

  A story in which multiple authors take turns at the writing. I've linked it; is that enough, or do you think a note in the text is needed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Doesn't the Bibliographic details section just repeat content from the previous section?

  Well, not exactly -- the point of that section is to include all the fiddly little details that would clog up the flow if I were to put them in running text. It's common in magazine reference works to have a section like this, and I think readers familiar with the field expect something like this. If anything I'd rather remove some details from the rest of the article if it feels too repetitious -- perhaps drop the mentions of the page counts, for example? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  ChrisTheDude, pinging in case you didn't see these replies. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  • @Mike Christie: - not a problem at all, sir. Might I enquire as to the possibility of a little QPQ review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1993–94 Gillingham F.C. season/archive1 should you have the time.....? ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

    Sure -- probably some time this weekend. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review - pass

• Everything looks fine in terms of reliability and formatting, although I find linking publishers on their first instances usually helpful, should wiki-links exist for them. FrB.TG (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'll make that change this evening. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Léon Degrelle

Nominator(s): ♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a traitor to his nation, a turncoat to his people, and an apostate before God – a Nazi. Léon Degrelle, Belgium's own home-grown Quisling, began his public life as a student journalist associated with a political Roman Catholic youth group. By the end of it, he was a idol of the international pantheon of far right politics, forbidden from ever returning to his homeland. I began work on this article with some wiki-comrades last September and am quite pleased to now present it to FAC. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• Previously: GAN, A-class review. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

It has also slipped my mind until to mention that this is a Vital Article (level 5). – ♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Image review &Charleroi image is missing alt text

• File:Degrelle,_Leon.jpg: why is this work believed to be in the public domain?
  • According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/France, a published image enters the public domain 70 years after the date of publishing; the newspaper scan that image was clipped from is from 1937. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
    • If the copyright expired in 2007, it would probably still be copyrighted under US law (see the Hirtle chart). (t · c) buidhe 11:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

      i hate image copyright i hate image copyright – ♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• File:Léon_Degrelle_à_Charleroi_-_02.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I do not know. Should I remove the image? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I think it has to be removed unless we can show it's public domain for some reason. Currently the licensing claims publication at least 70 years ago. (t · c) buidhe 11:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

      Axed. – ♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review and comments by Buidhe

I'll do another read-through. FYI I have a review open at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First homosexual movement/archive1—another interesting topic in German history. (t · c) buidhe 11:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• The article currently relies heavily on the 1993 Conway book. I wonder why the book in further reading isn't cited? Other sources that may be worth considering:
• Explains Degrelle's antisemitic views. Oddly antisemitism is never mentioned in the text of the article, which seems like an oversight. This may also help.
• Another biography, which seems like a RS
• This source might be helpful expanding a bit on his adoption by post-1945 Nazis

(t · c) buidhe 12:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I am unaware of how to access these, though thanks to TWL I do have a means of looking for more Francophone sources. On my quest to find the de la Croix biography, though, I discovered that Martin Conway thoroughly rinsed de la Croix's book in 2017. At this point if there's anyone I trust to know Degrelle, and I know from the bibliograhies of other works discussing Degrelle that I'm not alone here, it's Martin Conway. I'll look for some more stuff to break up the wall of Conway and see if this time I can fit in the evolution of Degrelle's antisemitism (I previously didn't discuss because the sources thus far used, Trimbur 2015 excluded, didn't dwell on it either and Degrelle played with his cards very close to his chest anyway). –♠Vami_IV†♠ 13:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The degruyter source linked above is in TWL. The last one mentioned is on academia.edu, not linked because I don't know if it's a copyvio. (t · c) buidhe 13:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/ielapa.121105496812907 another possible source (t · c) buidhe 16:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Have read the paper; I'm going to rule it out. It's a comparison of mostly pre-1943 writings by pro-German Francophone Belgians. – ♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Re the personal life section, I disagree with splitting it out to make it more prominent and I think it makes more sense in something resembling chronological order. Currently you have the section under "Exile in Spain, 1945–1994" even though everything in the section occurred before 1945. (t · c) buidhe 07:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  This has now been (re)affected. – ♠Vami_IV†♠ 13:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Definitely an improvement, but now I'm curious what happened to his five children after the war. Did they stay in Belgium? Also, did Degrelle get divorced after being permanently separated from his wife? (t · c) buidhe 16:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Tempting as it is to do a "where are they now" on the Degrelle brood, I must confess some ignorance - I have not gone looking. One of his children died in a car accident, I forget when. Another is the daughter whose marriage Degrelle attended in '69 in SS uniform. I know nothing else about his other children. As for Marie and Jeanne, the two women Degrelle was married to: I forget when Degrelle and Marie were divorced or when he married Jeanne. I do know though that she was also a divorcee, having been married to a French Nazi exile. Marie remained in Belgium and was sent to prison for a while (covered in Conway 19993 iirc). I could include this in a footnote. – ♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Shouldn't the second wife get a mention in the postwar exile section? How did he reconcile remarriage with traditional Catholic beliefs? (t · c) buidhe 20:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  I have, with the aid of the French Wikipedia article, found and included details on Jeanne and dates for the... "divorce" with Marie Lemay. As it turns out, she died a few months before Degrelle married Jeanne. As for reconciling marrying a divorced woman... it's Degrelle. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  What about Degrelle's children? I see it claimed in various questionable sources that they were separated from their family and later reunited in Spain, is this true? (t · c) buidhe 17:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, but I recall nothing about where I read that except that it's none of the sources I used for this article (edit: and was able to read; it's been a nightmare to track down French-language works). At least three of his children joined him in Spain; one, a son, died in a car accident, and two of his daughters got married in Spain. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Note: I am still planning to do a full source review, but I don't feel that all my comments above about sourcing/comprehensiveness are addressed, specifically with regard to antisemitism (this source, again is on TWL) and legacy with neo-Nazis (covered in this source, which would be more difficult to access, but you could try WP:RX). (t · c) buidhe 23:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  I've thankfully found a PDF of the second source on Academia. I'll re-read the De Gruyter source and see what more I can add to the article with it; at the moment I'm seeing a "Beliefs" section under #Personal life. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by review by CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

I think that there are some images that can be included to the article, such as File:Léon Degrelle à Charleroi - 01.jpg. Other than that, well done! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of prior discussion about image copyright. As far as I know, since this picture was taken in 1 April 1944, it should be in the public domain. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not how it works... (t · c) buidhe 09:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I hate copyright... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

me too comrade –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Some smaller things: CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• prior to -> before
• with a view to studying -> to study
• 1904, and -> 1904 and
• Lengthy sentence: "That year, Degrelle joined the Catholic Action for the Belgian Youth (Action catholique de la jeunesse belge, ACJB), a militant clerical youth organization dedicated to Catholic Action founded by the priest Louis Picard, whom Degrelle had met while studying in Namur."
• time period -> time OR period
• On 26 September 1936 he met -> On 26 September 1936, he met
• apparently demonstrating
• Another lengthy sentence: "Degrelle returned to Brussels on 30 July, and found that Belgium had been placed under a military administration and that Rex had in his absence been revitalized, reorganized, and formed a militia known as the Combat Formations (Formations de Combat)."
• weaken local government -> weaken the local government
• a pact, though only so as to not alienate Abetz, -> a pact, though to not alienate Abetz,
• be an inferior people -> be inferior
• 6 July, -> 6 July
• Province of Málaga -> province of Málaga
• following his death Belgium forbade the repatriation of his remains. -> Belgium forbade repatriation of his remains.
• place at Auschwitz, and -> place at Auschwitz and
• with regard to -> about
• then ambassador -> then-ambassador
• had standing to -> had the standing to
• Franch-language -> French-language

I have now worked these in. ––♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

A bunch more technical stuff: CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Check Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout to change the order of templates
  • Can I have specific examples? ––♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

2021 World Snooker Championship

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the 2021 version of the World Snooker Championship. Third times the charm! 15 other events are at FA level, so I'm looking to get the latest version up to level. Let me know what feedback you might have. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Sportsfan77777

I'll review the article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Did you have anything for me Sportsfan77777. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead

• , that took place from 17 April to 3 May 2021 <<<=== I don't think that comma is needed.
• for the World Snooker Championship to be held ===>>> the World Snooker Championship was held
• , and was the 15th and final ranking event of the 2020–21 snooker season. The tournament was ===>>> The tournament was the 15th and final ranking event of the 2020–21 snooker season. It was
• There were 128 participants in the qualifying rounds, with a mix of professional and invited amateur players ===>>> There were 128 participants in the qualifying rounds, consisting of a mix of professional and invited amateur players.
• , with 16 players reaching the main stage of the tournament where they played the top 16 players from the snooker world rankings. ===>>> The main stage of the tournament featured 32 players, the top 16 players from the snooker world rankings and an additional 16 players from the qualifying rounds.
• , defeating Kyren Wilson ===>>> , at which he defeated Kyren Wilson OR where he defeated Kyren Wilson
• with an additional 106 ===>>> and an additional 106
  • Replaced Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Background

• with the final held at Camkin's Hall in Birmingham, England, and the title was won by Joe Davis. ===>>> The final was held at Camkin's Hall in Birmingham, England, and the title was won by Joe Davis. (the misuse of "with" issue)
• The event is organised by World Snooker ===>>> It is organised by World Snooker
• £500,000, from a total <<<=== don't need the comma
• highest-ranked players ===>>> higher-ranked players (it's too many for highest-ranked)
• given byes ===>>> given one or two byes
  • Hmm, I'm not so sure of this. You get two byes if your opponent was to quit in two seperate rounds, but generally, the wording is "given a bye until round X". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Defending champion Ronnie O'Sullivan <<<=== I'm supporting using his first name here because it's used in tandem with "Defending champion", in contrast to ChrisTheDude's suggestion below.
  • Can't say I care either way. I actually thought Sean O'Sullivan was playing, which is why I got confused. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• a maximum of 33 frames. <<<=== just repeat "best of"? Changing terminology makes it sound different, but I think it's the same?
• Maybe contrast the spectator situation with that of the previous year and/or what was normal for the rest of the events from the same season?
  • Hmm, I think we'd be WP:SYNTHing something together to get this to work, but I will take a read of some more sources. [2] doesn't actually cover it. It was (I believe) the only tournament with spectators, but there was (although weirdly limited to the first and last two days) fans in 2020. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Covered the ones that have no comments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Qualifying

• The defeat for White meant he was not ranked high enough to remain on the World Snooker Tour, but he was later given an invitational place for the following two seasons. ====>>> The defeat for White left him with too low of a ranking to automatically retain his tour card; however, he was later given an invitational tour card for the following two seasons. ("however" is useful for flow here. any reason for not using "tour card"?)
  • I don't like "tour card". If you know what it is, great - but it's unnecessarily jargony. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• named "judgement day", took place on 13 and 14 April and the winners qualified for the main stage ====>>> named "judgement day" because the winners qualify for the main stage, took place on 13 and 14 April. (lacks parallelism)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

First

• 112, to win the match 10–4 <<<=== don't need the comma
• Reigning Masters champion Yan Bingtao played Gould, making five breaks higher than 50 and tying the score at 4–4, having only played eight frames in their opening session. ===>>> Reigning Masters champion Yan Bingtao played Gould, making five breaks higher than 50 and tying the score at 4–4, ending their opening session after only eight frames. (I think? something is off grammatically.)
  • Yeah, the comment is that it was 4-4, despite first sessions generally being 9 frames. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Maguire commented that he would be fined for using bad language at the quality of his play <<<=== Rephrase. This wording makes sound like was fined or did use bad language. Or maybe just use the quote: "I’m frustrated. I don’t think there’s a word for how I played. If there is a word, I’d get fined!"
• the last three frames of the opening session to trail 4–5 ===>>> the last three frames of the opening session to only trail 4–5
• was leading 5–4 after the first session. ===>>> ended up leading 5–4 after the first session.
• Ding attempting a pot, only for the black to end in the opposite corner ===>>> in which the black ended in the opposite corner from where Ding was attempting a pot
• after the next session had ended ===>>> after the next session ended
• Identify the two qualifiers who won as qualifiers.
• At the end of the section, state how many qualifiers advanced.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Second

• 81, 105 and 138 as he led 4–1 ===>>> "81, 105 and 138 to lead 4–1" OR "81, 105 and 138 as he took a 4–1 lead"
• McGill forced a deciding frame ===>>> McGill forced a deciding frame,
• in the next allowing Lisowski ===>>> in the next, allowing Lisowski
• two frames later – a 13–9 victory ===>>> two frames later, a 13–9 victory
• praised Lisowski's play saying ===>>> praised Lisowski's play, saying
• In a replay of the 2018 World Snooker Championship final <<<=== Is "replay" actually used the same as "rematch"?
• 106–6 <<<=== Isn't it 109–6?
• but won the final frame of the second session to lead by three ===>>> but he won the final frame of the second session to lead by three
• At the end of the section, summarize the remaining seeds (e.g. All but three of the top eight made it to the quarterfinals.)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll finish the review in the next day or two probably. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• • Thanks for this. Looks like mostly minor wording changes, which shouldn't be a drama. Will start tomorrow. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• ChrisTheDude, MrLinkinPark333, you both took part in /FAC2, pinging in case you have any further comments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• "The tournament was sponsored by sports betting company Betfred, as it has been since 2009" - I'd be tempted to change this to "The tournament was sponsored by sports betting company Betfred, as it had been since 2009", so that it remains valid even after such time as Betfred's sponsorship ends
• "Defending champion Ronnie O'Sullivan" - no need to restate his forename so soon after he was last mentioned
• "serving a year-long ban for controvening betting regulations" - contravening is spelt incorrectly
• "World number one Judd Trump" - this is the first mention of Trump but he isn't wikilinked
• "Williams won three of the next four frames, all with breaks over 70 to win 13–7" - think you need a comma after 70
• "Selby's lead was cut to 8–6, but won" - Selby's lead didn't win, so this should be "Selby's lead was cut to 8–6, but he won"
• "The final was broadcast to a peak audience of 4.1 million viewers on domestic television, equating to 27 per cent of all viewers in the United Kingdom" - this is a bizarre claim as, if I have read it correctly, it means that only around 15 million people in the UK were watching television at that time, which seems a low figure for a country with a population of 67 million. But it's what the source says, so hey......
  • Ha, no one watches live TV anymore. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Think that's all I got this time round...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Cheers Chris, I'll get on this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
    • All done ChrisTheDude Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG

Generally not my area of Wikipedia-interest but saw that the previous two noms suffered from a lack of feedback.

• "It tournament was organised by the World Snooker Tour" - I think you probably meant "Its" here.
• The lead mentions Matchroom Sports as one of the three broadcasters but the coverage section says, "The tournament was broadcast in the United Kingdom on BBC Television and Eurosport".
• BBC → BBC Television (per coverage section)
• whilst → while - both mean the same thing so we should opt for the simpler one.
• "whilst Maguire commented that he was "frustrated. I don’t think there’s a word for how I played. If there is a word, I’d get fined!"." Use straight apostrophes instead of curly ones per MOS:'.
• "On the resumption of play, Williams won five straight frames to take the match 10–4, saying afterwards that he would "go for everything", indicating he would.." - two usages of verb-ing modifiers read a little strangely. I suggest connecting these two with a conjunction.
• "Higgins won the final three frames of the second session, but Williams won three of the next four frames, all with breaks over 70, to win 13–7." Three instances of 'win' in one sentence.
• "Williams commented after the win that he felt he was playing as well as he had during the 2002–03 snooker season" - I have a hard time understanding this sentence.
• "Bingham also won the next two frames, but frame 22 was won by Selby after the frame" - frame.. frame.. frame

That's all. FrB.TG (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've made the above changes (with a few modifiers) in Special:Diff/1078619309. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Your changes look good but I’d still like a clarification on Matchroom Sports. The lead mentions it as one of the three broadcasters while the body only says BBC and Eurosport. If the lead is true, it should also be included in the body. FrB.TG (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, that must have been deleted at some point. Basically, whilst there were minor coverage in other areas, which we shouldn't list all in the lede, matchroom covered it in any other areas. Now added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Support. Good work. I would appreciate comments on my FAC but this is obviously not obligatory in any way. FrB.TG (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment by MrLinkinPark333

Per Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2021 World Snooker Championship/archive2 and Talk:2021 World_Snooker Championship#FAC source review comments, I did not review Section 2 Summary to Section 2.6 Final as I had found a lot of unverifed / original research. As FAC2 was closed, I worked with Lee to go through the comments I had there on the talk page. Therefore, a source review of all sources for verification / original research issues is needed in all sections from Section 2 to Section 2.6 (Summary to final) is needed. I won't be doing this source review for FAC3 as I went through the ones I brought up with Lee in the talk page. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Tom Holland

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Having recently watched a lot of Marvel films, I chose Holland's article to improve due to my lack of time to undertake a bigger actor's article. At 3.3k words, this is the shortest article I have brought to FAC. That said, it is a comprehensive account of the movies Holland has done so far. Enjoy. FrB.TG (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "he bagged a supporting part" - "bagged" seems a bit slangy IMO
• "Holland resides in Kingston upon Thames in South West London" - you already linked Kingston a couple of sentences earlier, also would it not make more sense to clarify at that point that it's in SW London?
• "In 2017, he told Interview Magazine that he hopes" => "In 2017, he told Interview Magazine that he hoped"
• "Peter advised Holland" => "Darling advised Holland"
• "Made on a budget of 45 million" - 45 million what?
• "he and costars, including Chris Hemsworth lost" - need a comma after Hemsworth to close the clause
• "Brian Truitt of the USA Today wrote Holland" => "Brian Truitt of the USA Today wrote that Holland"
• "directors Russo brothers" => "directors the Russo brothers"
• "through November" - as Holland is British, this article should be written in UK English, and we don't say "through [date]" in the UK. "Up to and including November" would work.
• "reunited him with Avengers directors Russo brothers" => "reunited him with Avengers directors the Russo brothers", also no need to link them again
• "Holland reprised his role as Peter Parker" - no need to link again
• "In November 2021, Holland told GQ that he is doubtful" => "In November 2021, Holland told GQ that he was doubtful"
• "In December 2021, Holland confirmed that he is set to" => "In December 2021, Holland confirmed that he was set to"
• Everything in the first paragraph of the Image section should be in the past tense

I am not sure about the past tense here. Public image is usually about general observations made by other people about one's personality and style. Writing these in the past tense without giving a year does not seem correct. I checked similar FA-class articles to see how they do it. Amy Adams#Reception and acting style, for example, does this ("Hadley Freeman of The Guardian wrote in 2016", "The journalist Alex Bilmes believes that"):

• "He is currently" - better to give a specific "as of" date
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Chris. These are the changes I have made in response to them. FrB.TG (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Re the use of the past tense when talking about what someone said about him, my view is that the opinion is as at a point in time so should be framed accordingly. Consider this....if this article is still around in 2080, when Holland is pushing 90, would it be appropriate for it still to say "Jonathan Dean of The Sunday Times [..] takes note (present tense) of his maturity"? I dunno, maybe let's see what other people think...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I was wrong. It is in fact correct to use the past tense without having to specify a time. And what you say makes sense as well. I have changed it to the past tense. FrB.TG (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Panini!

You reached out to me by saying you have "another actor article" as if I wouldn't know who Tom Holland was. I'm wrapped up with another article, so I'll be back soon. One quick check-in, however: a reviewer is only allowed to have one FAC open at a time, and Leonardo DiCaprio doesn't appear to be completed yet. Did you get the greenlight to begin this nomination? Panini! • 🥪 19:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. FrB.TG (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead

• "Some publications have called him one of the popular actors of his generation." Is a "most" supposed to be here?
• Considering how you specify "the sequels", you can shorten the second movie titles to Far From Home and No Way Home.

Good idea. Done.

Life and career

• The last three sentences of the first paragraph cover similar stuff and gets pretty repetitive, and can be shortened; "Since his parents have creative professions he is often inspired by them; he considered his father a role model, who serves as his unofficial manager due to his experience in the industry."
• "In 2017, he told Interview Magazine that he hoped to direct films in 20 years because he likes working with actors." This doesn't really apply to his "early life". Could this find a home elsewhere in the article?

Definitely not in the No Way Home section. ;) Rearranged.

• "While his performance was praised, he visited the doctor the following day." The way these two statements are combined makes it sound like he did well because of the tonsilitis.
• "Bayona then arranged a meeting, and had Holland write a letter to his mother and recite it as an audition" - As in, the mother in the movie or his real life mother? Did he merely read it aloud or use it as a monologue?

We have only this info: "..the director pushed Holland to write a heartfelt letter to his mother and then recite it".

• "The Impossible premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival in September to critical success.[25] Made on a budget of $45 million, it earned $180.3 million worldwide."   -> "The Impossible premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival in September to critical and commercial success, earning $180.3 million worldwide against a $45 million budget."
• "Holland received critical praise" - For what specifically? This is a general statement, but only one cites one critic afterward.

The source is not a review of his performance but provides general info about the film. It says, "his performance as the strong-willed and determined eldest son is garnering critical acclaim."

• "and briefly appeared in Billy Elliot the Musical Live" - Was this a cameo? If so, I feel it'd be better to explicitly say so. "Briefly appeared" is vague in comparison.

Breakthrough as Spider-Man (aka the second half of career)

• "he directed a 3-minute short film called Tweet" - Since there's no article on this subject, could you give a brief description on what it is about?
• "and Peter Travers of Rolling Stone found him 'terrific'." - Simply put, this doesn't add much. If this is all that Travers says about Holland, I don't think it's important enough for inclusion.
• "he owned 30 costumes and bed sheet covers of the character." What a nerd.
• I'd prefer a link to the MCU character instead of the comic character for Ant-Man.
• Similar to my above comment, "having previously won for Captain America: Civil War and Spider-Man: Homecoming" can be shortened to Civil War and Homecoming.
• "He voiced roles in the Blue Sky Studios animation Spies in Disguise (2019), the live-action film Dolittle (2020), and the Pixar animation Onward (2020)." - Wo-wait-hold on-slow down there! These are three large movies spanned across two years that are breezed over in a sentence. It'd be great to hear his experience with these movies as well as what the critics thought, and although it should e kept short for balancing reasons I bet there's some things to say. I'd also like to note that he did a movie "alongside Avengers co-star Sebastian Stan", but he also did this with Chris Pratt and Robert Downey Jr. with two of the above.

I've added about his costars and box-office performances of the films.

• 'methodical and thoughtful and sensitive', and called him a kind person" - Lots of "and" here.
• "Chaos Walking failed to recoup its budget and received poor reviews." - Anything critical about Holland?

Yes, two things. Added.

• "No Way Home quickly emerged as the highest-grossing film of 2021" - You link to 2019 in film here.

Not sure why I did that. I think it was Dr Strange time-travelling. Corrected.

• "a fortune hunter and bartender" - I went to see this movie, and I remember the bartender portion being barely relevant to the plot (although I may be forgetting something). Instead, could you one or two words to describe Nathan's personality in the film?

• I see now that the following sentence needs this bartender piece to make sense. I would say to include the bartender portion in this sentence instead: "Since the character is a bartender, Holland practiced bartending by working shifts at the Chiltern Firehouse, a pub in London."

I have left the treasure hunting part. For the bartending bit to make sense, I have tweaked the second sentence to "In preparation for scenes where his character is bartending, Holland practiced the work by working shifts.."

• I'd link biopic in "Upcoming projects"
• I like how the "Public image and personal life" section reads; Good Job! However, I think the paragraphs need to be reorganized; paragraphs 1 and 4 are about his public image and 2 and 3 are about his personal life. I'd move paragraph four up to the second paragraphs place to align with the order of the header.

That's all from me! Deal with this and I'll lend a support. Panini! • 🥪 23:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Panini, for your review. It was very helpful as usual. I think I have addressed all of your comments now. Let me know if I missed something. FrB.TG (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, shoot, did I never support this nomination? Because I Support this noination. Good work, as usual! Panini! • 🥪 13:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by DWB

FYI This is a solicited review but I am impartial about it as I know next to nothing about Holland or film actor articles in general. I have already removed two duplicate links. I am a bit wary of promoting such articles only because he potentially has so much future ahead of him that the article will inevitably expand and change significantly, but it appears to be as complete as it can be for this moment in time.

I totally understand your concern but I have previously written 10 FAs about actors in their 20s or 30s. One that I wrote was promoted six years ago, and so far I haven't had any problem maintaining any of them. In fact, this is partly why I write such biographies, i.e. they keep me active around here even when I'm not writing something new.

• I can see that Ref #50 is not archived, check for others to make sure this article remains verifiable.
• Ref titles are inconsistent, some are in Title Case and others are in Proper Case. Make it consistent.

I went for what they're called in the sources. Some refrain from title case so I did exactly that.

• Ref #60, Box Office Mojo isn't linked, and there are other instances of this throughout. My past experience is that every instance of a website/publisher/work should be linked where an article exists as the first instance might not always be the first instance.

AFAIK, there are usually two standards: linking works on their first instances to avoid overlinking (especially in ones that are crowded with references)—this is usually my preference—or link them every time, although I have seen some not linking publishers at all. It makes me think there is no set rule for this.

• You mention Holland's Instagram in the content, are we allowed to add it under External links?
• I would upgrade "upcoming projects" to a third tier head, there's no reason for it to be a subset of "2018–present: Blockbuster films and mature roles"
• I would maybe change "At one point, he considered becoming a primary school teacher, as he likes children." to "At one point, he considered becoming a primary school teacher, as he enjoys being around children"
• This line "He said she taught him how to properly interact with his fans and thought the media attention to their relationship breached their privacy." Did Zendaya say the attention on their relationship breached their privacy or did Holland?
• I May be alone on this and I'm willing to hear opinions from yourself and others who may want to weight in such as Panini! and ChrisTheDude, but my knowledge of actor articles suggests there is usually a seprate section to discuss awards/accolades/and reception instead of integrating it into his bio, or as well as integrating it. I can see there is a separate article for these, but I would like opinions on if there should be a subsection summary in this top-level article where that content belongs instead.

Reviews of an actor's each works (usually ones from reputable critics/newspapers/magazines that are representative of other reviews) are included in summary style in career section. Such reception section that discusses the themes, acting style and general reception of an actor's works do not always exist, especially in cases of young actors like Holland because they usually end up being WP:UNDUE quotes of excessive praise from costars or directors. And my research showed exactly this: praise from Spider-Man producers or costars about how excellent an actor he is. This can be done in 10 years or so when Holland begins taking on roles of greater substance and such general analysis can be written then (e.g. like how I have written Leonardo DiCaprio#Reception and acting style).

• That's all I have for now, it otherwise looks fine. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks, Darkwarriorblake. Some really insightful thoughts. Let me know if I addressed your concerns properly. FrB.TG (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Jews in Hong Kong

Nominator(s): — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 12:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The Jewish community of Hong Kong, although small, has played a great role in the development and history of the city. Taking root from two wealthy Baghdadi trader families of Sassoon and Kadoorie, the Jewish community experienced several waves of growth. As of 2019, there are about 5,000 Jews of different denominations living in Hong Kong.

I rewrote this article a month and a half ago. It was reviewed and passed as a Good Article two weeks ago and also as a Did You Know a month ago. Since then, the article has also been copyedited and I believe it may now meet the FA criteria. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 12:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• The following works are cited in the "Literature" section, but never used in the prose:
  • Chasin, Stephanie (2008). Citizens of empire: Jews in the service of the British Empire, 1906–1940. University of California Press.
  • Pluss, Caroline B. (1999). The social history of the Jews of Hong Kong: a resource guide. The Jewish Historical Society of Hong Kong. ISBN 978-9-6285-3391-6.
• Following are p./pp. errors:
  • "Ehrlich 2008, pp. 1186." : should be p.
  • "Carroll 2009, p. 74, 79." : should be pp.
  • "Ehrlich 2008, p. 1172, 1187" : should be pp.
  • "Tigay 1994, p. 209, 211." : should be pp.
  • "Gilman 2014, p. 99, 111." : should be pp.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Moved the unused books to a "Further reading" section.
• Fixed! — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 13:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
• File:Sir_Matthew_Nathan.jpg needs a US tag and information on first publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Done.
• Done. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 16:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• When and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• State Library of Queensland doesn't give any information about the author. Here they state that the original version is a photographic print from 1920, so I believe that's the first publication date. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 07:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Unfortunately 1920 appears to have been the creation date rather than confirmed as a publication date. Also if the author is unknown we can't claim life+70 - a photo from 1920 could easily have been created by someone who died after 1952. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've replaced the image of Matthew Nathan with a picture of Nathan road as State Library of Queensland doesn't give the required information about the picture. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 14:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Support Comments from a455bcd9

• Jews are one of the oldest communities in Hong Kong: what's the source for the opening sentence?
• A permanent Jewish community formed in Hong Kong in the 1850s.: do we know how many Jews were in HK at that time?
• The social life of the community revolved around the homes of the wealthy Sephardic families of Sassoon and Kadoorie: first time the Kadoorie family is mentioned in the article (outside the lede), shouldn't we describe who they are?
• which encouraged the influx of new Baghdadi and Mumbai Jews to Hong Kong: any numbers available?
• Wealthy Sephardim distanced themselves from the predominantly poor Ashkenazi.: first time the word "Sephardim" is used, should probably linked and/or explain that early Jewish migrants were Sephardic.
• Under his governance [...] the main street of Kowloon was named Nathan Road in his honour.: Could link to Nathan Road. The street was renamed in 1909, so not "under his governance"
• In 1911, the Jewish population of Hong Kong reached 230 people. From the early 1920s to the mid-1930s, the number of the Jewish community did not exceed 100 people.: This is weird, what explains the decline?
• In the first half of the 20th century: Shouldn't this paragraph be moved before the one about WWII to follow a chronological order?
• Another family of Baghdad Jews, the Kadoorie, successfully competed with the Sassoon family.: this sentence should be moved at the beginning when the Kadoorie family is first mentioned
• There were 250 Jews in Hong Kong (half Sephardi, half Ashkenazi) in 1954. The number dropped to 230 in 1959 and further to 200 in 1968 (130 Ashkenazi and 70 Sephardi). In 1974, according to the lists of the Ohel Leah Synagogue and the Jewish Club, there were about 450 local Jews living in Hong Kong.: do we have an explanation for these variations? Where did the ones who left go? Where did the ones who arrived come from?
• About 5,000 Jews lived in Hong Kong in 2010 [...] some 2,500 Jews lived in Hong Kong in 2015.: why such a difference in 5 years?
• Unlike other parts of China, where the Jewish community is prohibited from holding religious festivals: I'm surprised, because I can find other sources about the Jewish life in Mainland China or Chabad Beijing.
• The population of the colony was very fluid, and therefore the 16 oldest graves do not bear the names of those buried there, only identification numbers.: I don't understand this sentence
• during the reign of the Jewish governor Matthew Nathan: should we say "reign" or "rule" for a governor?
• the English-language press in Hong Kong has always been somewhat anti-Israel, which is explained by the general mood of the European press: this implies that the European press is anti-Israel, is that true and sourced?
• This source isn't cited, why?
• May be good to add a table with the evolution of the Jewish population

A455bcd9 (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@A455bcd9: Thank you for taking your time to review the article:

• 1. Goldstein, Jonathan; Schwartz, Benjamin I. (2015). The Jews of China: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. p.171. Quote: "Jews in Hong Kong followed a similar evolution. Jews were among the first settlers in the 1840s.."

Per MOS:LEAD: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.". So you should add this information in the article and correctly source it. Also, according to History of Hong Kong: "The region of Hong Kong has been inhabited since the Old Stone Age" so Jews were definitely not "one of the oldest communities in Hong Kong". May be better to follow the source and say that Jews were among the first settlers after Hong Kong became a British colony in 1841.. A455bcd9 (talk)

Done! — Golden ^{call me maybe?}

• 2. Unfortunately none of the sources present a number for the 1850s. Goldstein and Schwartz only generally mentions that the "Jewish community began to develop from the mid-1850s", while Tigay writes that "the community was organized in 1857.."
• 3. Done!

You wrote "another family of Baghdad Jews", but I think you should say that the Sassoon were from Baghdad. Otherwise it's weird. A455bcd9 (talk)

I'm sorry I don't really understand what you mean. Do you mean that I should inform the readers that both of the families are Baghdad Jews rather than only writing it for the Kadoorie? — Golden ^{call me maybe?}

• 4. Neither Gilman nor Tigay (two sources used for the sentence) give a number.
• 5. The first paragraph of the History section already indicates that the first settlers (the Sassoon family) were Sephardic. It's also made clear that the first Jewish residents were Sephardic with the sentence before the Ashkenazi Jews are mentioned: "In 1882, there were about 60 Sephardic Jews living in Hong Kong."

Indeed, thanks. By the way, are Baghdadi Jews Sephardic or Mizrahi? (Wikipedia says: "The term "Sephardim", from Hebrew Sefarad (“Spain”), also sometimes refers to Mizrahi Jews (Eastern Jewish communities) of Western Asia and North Africa. Although the millennia-long established latter groups did not originally have ancestry from the Jewish communities of Iberia") A455bcd9 (talk)

Both. They are a diverse group and include Mizrahi and Sephardim Jews. Here is a quote from the Baghdadi Jews article: Within these Baghdadi communities, the majority were of Iraqi Jewish origin, but families from Syria, [...] and a handful of Sephardic Jews [...] joined and assimilated into the Baghdadi community. — Golden ^{call me maybe?}

• 6. Fixed!
• 7. The explanation is provided right after those sentences: "During this period, there was an outflow of Jewish businessmen to the rapidly developing Shanghai". I've moved the sentence's place to make it easier to understand.

I would make things even clearer, for instance: In 1911, the Jewish population of Hong Kong reached 230 people. From the early 1920s to the mid-1930s, there was an outflow of Jewish businessmen to the rapidly developing Shanghai and the number of the Jewish community dropped below 100 people.

Done! — Golden ^{call me maybe?}

• 8. Done!
• 9. Done!
• 10. The source for the numbers, Encyclopaedia Judaica, doesn't give any explanation for the fluctuation of the number.
• 11. Unfortunately no explanation for the decline in the sources.

So most likely one source is wrong. I would merge the two sentences and add the source for the first figure: "According to X, about 5,000 Jews lived in Hong Kong in 2010; while According to the World Jewish Congress, some 2,500 Jews lived in Hong Kong in 2015." A455bcd9 (talk)

Done! — Golden ^{call me maybe?}

• 12. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency source you provided is from 2003, while the source in the article is from 2016. I imagine the Jewish life in mainland China must have changed during this period.

Here are more recent sources: [3], [4], [5]. So there's a problem with the 2016 source I think. A455bcd9 (talk)

Thanks for the sources. I've removed the "Unlike other parts of China.." part of the sentence. — Golden ^{call me maybe?}

• 13. The source for that sentence on Jewish Historical Society of Hong Kong website was hard for me to understand as well: "The Community was mostly without an official functionary and witness to the fact that the population was a transient one even then, sixteen of the oldest graves bear only a small, numbered marker, with no name". I've deleted the first half of the sentence now to only include the part about the sixteen graves.
• 14. Changed to "rule" since "reign" doesn't sound quite right.
• 15. The source describes the anti-Israeli mood of European press as follows: "[...] the local English-language press maintains a low-grade anti-Israeli stance. However, this may not be conscious editorial policy because most of their published stories relating to Israel are taken from the wire services [...] Thus, the biases in reporting seem to stem from the writers for the Western wire services." I've changed the sentence to better represent its source.
• 16. That source is used several times in the article. You can find it as reference #49 under the References section.

In that case the author is incorrect, it should be "Miriam Herschlag", and the publisher (or editor) should be "American Jewish Committee": Herschlag, Miriam. “Hong Kong.” The American Jewish Year Book, vol. 98, American Jewish Committee, 1998, pp. 375–85, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23605409. A455bcd9 (talk)

Fixed! — Golden ^{call me maybe?}

• 17. I did initially want to add a table, but in several cases the numbers are given for a general time period rather than a specific year (e.g. "By the beginning of the 20th century, 165 Jews officially lived in Hong Kong..") and almost all known numbers are estimates. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 21:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I still think a table could be useful. A455bcd9 (talk)

Added to the 21st century section. — Golden ^{call me maybe?}

Thanks a lot! I'm happy your changes have addressed my concerns. I'm glad to support the article. A455bcd9 (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Some additional sources on the number of Jews in HK:

• Our Community: "The Jewish community’s population, as of 2015, is estimated to be approximately 5,000 and is comprised of mainly expatriates originating from countries that include the UK, US, France, Australia, South Africa, Israel and Canada who worship in five congregations." (2015)
• Religion and Custom: "The site adjoining the Ohel Leah Synagogue, now containing a residential complex, also houses the Jewish Community Centre which serves all three congregations. The centre offers its 400 member families supervised kosher dining and banqueting, cultural and recreational facilities and operates a fully kosher supermarket, a wide range of activities and classes, as well as a specialist library covering all aspects of Judaica." (2016, three congregations)
• Why most Jews in Hong Kong are not involved with the protests: "Hong Kong, a one-time British colony now controlled by China and given limited autonomy, is home to some 5,000 Jews and a number of Jewish institutions." (2019)
• Hong Kong and the Jews: 6 Facts: "Today, over 5,000 Jews call Hong Kong home." (2019)
• Hong Kong Virtual Jewish History Tour: "The Hong Kong Jewish community experienced rapid growth as Hong Kong prospered, and the population now numbers between three and four thousand" (2020?)
• SYNAGOGUE HISTORY: "Kehilat Zion currently boasts more than 900 members." (2020, one community only) A455bcd9 (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the sources! I've added about the conflicting reports for 2015 and added the 5,000 number for 2019. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 13:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. As you already cite in the article the "Hong Kong Virtual Jewish History Tour" it may be worth adding their estimate as well ("3,000-4,000"). They cite "Jonathan Kaufman, “A Jewish Dynasty in a Changing China,” Wall Street Journal, (May 28, 2020)." So I assume the page is up-to-date as of 2020. (even though it was showing the same estimate in Feb 2017, but we can assume the # didn't change much between 2017 and 2020). A455bcd9 (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The Jonathan Kaufman source makes no mention of the "3,000-4,000" number. The actual source seems to be Encyclopaedia Judaica, p.518: By the mid-1990s the Hong Kong community was substantial in size. Its population was estimated at 3,000–4,000 in the mid-1990s and at about 3,000 in 2004. I added the 2004 number to the table. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 15:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

So I would add "3,000–4,000" in "~1995" then (based on Encyclopaedia Judaica). But I think "3,000–4,000" can be added based on "Hong Kong Virtual Jewish History Tour" for "today". And my point was that we can use "2020" for "today" as "Hong Kong Virtual Jewish History Tour" cites a source from 2020 (I didn't mean that the Kaufman source made mention of the 3k-4k figure). A455bcd9 (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Done! — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 15:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

White-headed fruit dove

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Another species of pigeon, this time endemic to the Solomon Islands. As you'd expect, the fact that it's endemic to the Solomon Islands means that little is known about it. No free-license photos either, but there is a nice illustration. AryKun (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Image review—pass

• File:Ptilinopus eugeniae map.svg appears to use the outlines of another map File:Solomon Islands adm location map.svg, with slightly different licenses but this seems to be ok per the Creative Commons license compatibility (t · c) buidhe 09:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Eviolite

Here's my set of comments (with the caveat that I am not too familiar with biology):

• Seems comprehensive, based on various searches on Google Scholar and that the format has been used on other similar FAs.
• "lowland, hill, and ridge forest" - this wording confuses me a bit, are "lowland", "hill", and "ridge" all modifying the word "forest"?

  Yes.

• Based on the source, it looks like Gray described it as in the genus Ptilonopus (with an o after the l) - they are likely just alternate spellings, but would still like this cleared up as Ptilinopus does not mention this spelling (or Ptilopus, which the catalogue calls it) at all

  Yeah, Ptilonopus and Ptilopus are misspellings of Ptilinopus.

• Also in the catalog, it seems there's something from 1855? Though I can't comprehend the string of abbreviations there, so maybe it's irrelevant.

  It's Iotreron sp., indicating that someone collected a specimen of this species, identified it as an Iotreron, and that it was subsequently identified as this species after Gould's description.

• "White-headed fruit dove is the official common name" - "White-headed fruit dove" (and "Eugenie's fruit dove" later on) should probably be formatted per MOS:WAW; italics makes sense since you used that earlier for the ancient Greek, but might be confusing with all the italicized scientific names. Not sure what the best way to do this is; I'm leaning towards quoting.

  Added quotes around the names.

• "others treat them as different species but treat P. v. vicinus and P. v. lewisii as subspecies of the white-headed fruit dove" - this is a bit confusing to me; based on the next paragraph, it seems that they reassign two of the several subspecies of P. viridus to P. eugeniae. I think this should be clarified because it was unclear to me that P. viridus had more than two subspecies.

  Attempted rewording.

• "white-breasted fruit dove" - presumably a typo

  Fixed.

• "A 2014 study of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA by Alice Cibois and colleagues" - would it be helpful to include institution/journal/something else, to have some idea about the credentials of this study (given Cibois does not have a Wikipedia article)?

  There's like five different institutions between the authors and adding an institution wouldn't necessarily be helpful since these guys weren't doing it for the institution.

• Not sure if "the lewisii subspecies of the claret-breasted fruit dove" is relevant here when you introduce P. v. lewisii in the paragraph before already

  Removed "of the claret-breasted fruit dove".

• "may either [...], or may" - either the "either" or second "may" is redundant

  Removed second may.

• What does "secondary forest" refer to?

  Forest that's regrown after logging. Linked.

• Any more details for "a juvenile was recorded in September", or is that all the source provides?

  That's all the source says.

• It is probably relevant to add that the population was thought to be decreasing "moderately rapid"ly in 2016 according to the IUCN Red List source (the article currently doesn't explicitly say thet the population is actually decreasing.)

  Added.

That's all, a generally nice article all around. eviolite (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Eviolite, think I've addressed all your concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AryKun (talk • contribs)

Thanks AryKun for the edits; happy to support. Great work! eviolite (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment (not a full source review). The Avibase site appears to be both used as a citation and itself cites this article, creating a circularity problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Avibase doesn't actually cite Wikipedia, it just shows a small excerpt at the top from Wikipedia, the "source" bit is just for the excerpt. The actual information on the site is by Denis Lepage and Birds Canada. AryKun (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Paper Mario: Color Splash

Nominator(s): Panini! • 🥪 21:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a video game published by Nintendo back in 2016. It's a part of the Paper Mario series, which you may have seen my work on in the past. This is the part where I try to lure reviewers in by talking about its importance and interesting aspects, but not only are there little positives to say about it, I have never played this game. If you were to ask, "If you have never played this game, why did you work on its article" I would probably respond with, "I don't know".

I was here before with Paper Mario: The Origami King about two years ago. I'm a little frustrated with myself on how I handled some things, and now that I've got a much better grasp of Wikipedia and its policies, things should hopefully go much smoother than last time. This article is currently a good article (review), and received a peer review a little while back (review). It is currently part of a good topic (review), and once this article and one other (probably this) are promoted, will be re-nominated as a featured topic. Panini! • 🥪 21:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

image review

• Suggest adding alt text
• Screenshot FURs need significant improvement - the purpose of use seems to have been copied from the cover image, but these images have a different purpose. Including multiple non-free media requires stronger justification for each. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikkimaria! I really appreciate the amount of review work you do around here. Alt text is something that should've been done without someone else pointing it out, so that's a little embarrassing.

As for your second concern, I could use your opinion; it seems my last FAC had this same issue, and in the end, one of the non-free images was removed. That article had one image of a battle sequence and one of the players just wandering, so there was a clear winner on what was removed. However, the whole paint gimmick is pretty big, but so is the combat... which image do you suggest removing? Or, with proper justification, should I keep them both? I'm doubtful about it. Panini! • 🥪 11:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest keeping the paint - it appears to be the more central gimmick, and "there are cards" seems to be a concept that is more intuitive to understand without seeing it. It might be possible to keep both, but you'd need very strong justification. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I've decided against keeping both for the reason you stated. I also went back and updated the other image rationale to better justify its inclusion. Please let me know if more clarification or expansion is needed. I've also completed the alt texts for the other images, and found a better image of the Wii U to use while I was at it. Panini! • 🥪 03:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG

• "Color Splash was announced via a Nintendo Direct in March 2016, and released the game worldwide in October 2016." See MOS:NBSP for March 2016 and October 2016.
• "On release, however, the game received generally positive reception from critics, praising the game's graphics, soundtrack, and improved dialogue." I suggest replacing "the game's" with "its" to avoid the repetition of "the game" in a close proximity.

• Fixed

• "Players traverse through a world map containing stages; the goal of each stage is to reach the Mini Paint Star." This could be condensed to "Players traverse through a world map containing stages, whose each goal is to reach the Mini Paint Star." Plus, we would eliminate the repetitive "stage(s)".

• This was similar to how I originally had it, but another user suggested the switch to a semicolon. I won't throw them other the bus, however, and I'll pretend it was all my idea just this once.

• "Depending on how the player collided with the enemy, the player or the enemy may be able to attack immediately." Player ... player, enemy... enemy

• Ah, a double redundar™!

• The plot section uses "reveal" a lot, whose usage I am not a big fan of in an encyclopedia anyway, as it creates an element of suspense.

• I believe it's because I didn't do too much work on this section; I haven't played this game, so I didn't want to mess with the Plot too much and accidentally misinterpret the plotline.

• "The focus of the Paper Mario series shifted towards" - should use "toward" instead as it is the preferred variant in American English, which the article seems to be using.

• Towed

• "Shigeru Miyamoto, the lead designer of the Mario franchise, insisted that only characters from the Mario franchise should be used for the game." Why is Mario franchise linked twice here? It should be only linked here: "...series would replace Paper Mario as the Mario franchise's role-playing series". Also, you don't need "Mario" in the second "Mario franchise" (§ Design and characters).

• "Why is Mario franchise linked twice here?" I have no idea. I've also clarified the meaning behind it a bit.

• "This led the team to create multiple Toads with multiple color schemes to represent their different personalities." multiple.. multiple.

• Multiplied

• "When creating characters, major emphasis went towards" - same as above (towards).
• "Nick Pino of TechRadar called the petition, "a frightening example of how quickly, and harshly, we judge games we know next to nothing about."[21]" The comma before "a" is unneeded.

• Uncomma'd

• "The game sold 20,894 copies in its first week of release in Japan,[30] the following month having sold 37,093 copies." → "The game sold 20,894 copies in its first week of release in Japan,[30] and 37,093 copies the following month."

• Changed

• "In 2017, the game was nominated for "Favorite Video Game" in the 2017 Kids' Choice Awards, but lost to Just Dance 2017." "In 2017" is unnecessary since "the 2017 Kids'..." also specifies the year.

• Uh-...fair point!

• "Writing for Nintendo Life, Conor McMahon considered the writing" - writing.. writing

• Rewriting

• " In opposition, Dan Ryckert of Giant Bomb disliked how every character was a Toad, and their individual traits weren't enough to keep them individually unique." Contractions (weren't) should be avoided in an encyclopedic writing; you could condense "were [not] enough to" to "failed to".

• Failed

• "They noted how the player purchases cards with coins that can be used in combat, and combat rewards" - repetitive usage of "combat".

• Combated

• "due to the loss of role-playing game (RPG) elements" - not sure why role-playing game is linked here and has the abbreviation in the parenthesis when there are previous uses. You could link it in its first instance and replace the following spelled out ones with the abbreviation.

• This may just be because I've worked on this article out of order, so linking issues may be common elsewhere.

That's it. Nice work. FrB.TG (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, @FrB.TG! I believe I've addressed everything. Panini! • 🥪 19:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind, there's one more; I'm not quite sure what it is you're requesting for your first comment. Panini! • 🥪 19:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

"... March{{nbsp}}2016 and October{{nbsp}}2016". FrB.TG (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I took the liberty of doing it myself. FrB.TG (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Support on prose. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment by CactiStaccingCrane

I don't have much to add here, but the references from 1 to 6 at this version is hard to verify by an outsider. I think that having a source that does not require you to buy the game would be more independent and reliable. I would also suggest to remove these categories: "Mario role-playing games", "Intelligent Systems games", and "Wii U games", because they are the parent of other categories listed in the article. Overall, it's real great work, the prose is solid, and the text-source integrity is preserved. I wish you the best luck on the FAC, though I don't support the nomination because my drive-by comment is not a complete review of any featured article criterion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane, per MOS:PLOTCITE, the game credits itself can be used as a source as it's considered a primary source within itself. Since I couldn't find a secondary source that mentions these staff members by name I had to cite the game directly. I've also removed the parent categories you've mentioned. Panini! • 🥪 04:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright, looks good to me! It's just a bit harder to verify the source, so I asked you for another independent source. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Kharijites

Nominator(s): AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Being Top Importance in WikiProjects Religion and Islam, this article is about the first Islamic sect. The sect appeared during the First Muslim Civil War in late 650s when a group from the army of the fourth caliph Ali seceded protesting against the proposal to settle the dispute with his opponent, the Syrian governor Mu'awiya, through dialogue. They weakened Ali's authority in his home base who then proceeded to defeat them. One of the survivors killed him in retaliation thus inadvertently assisting Mu'awiya's rise to the caliphate. They vigorously fought the subsequent governments labeling them unjust. The governments on their part severely suppressed them, which eventually caused their disappearance, except for one of their non-violent sect, the Ibadiyya, who survive to this day. I have been working on this article for about two years now. With content help from a subject expert and prose improvements by Al Ameer son, I think the article is now in a position to be judged against the FA criteria. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Drive by

• References should be in chronological order.

Thanks SN54129. I prefer ordering by last name, and then by year. They seem to be all correctly ordered. --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• You'll get a thorough source review—probably spot checks—but you've got a few p/pp anomalies in your refs, and some of your sources are missing publisher locations and/or page ranges for book chapters. SN54129 15:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  Apologies, AhmadLX I sent you up a blind alley: I meant, "inline citations should be in numerical order" (e.g., not [31][34][33], but check for more?). My poor choice of words completely mislead you. Sorry for the confusion! SN54129 12:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, there is no rule about whether inline citations should be in a particular order. (t · c) buidhe 12:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, the reason there's no rule about this (and so many other aspects of the process) is because WP:FA/ has very few rules about anything. However, it is clearly an acceptable request for a reviewer to make and in line with generally accepted custom and practice. See, for example, the following FACs: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]; [14]; that last is fresher than a duck's nostril. The point has been suggested by highly experienced FAC reviewers and as—if not more—pertinently, accepted by your co-ord colleagues as legitimate requests. Yes, you consider them cosmetic, and I don't necessarily disagree; but consistency, particularly of citation, is one of the few "rules" we have, and this has clearly become something of a community norm. SN54129 13:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  Hi, thank you for the feedback and the links. I sort citations based on authoritativeness of the sources, and if two sources are more or less equally authoritative, I give first the one which is more easily accessible. I think it too is a reasonable choice. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• I couldn't find any p/pp. issues. Could you please point out any specific instances?--AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Not SN54129 (of course), but I can help: Ref#43: "Wellhausen 1901, p. 17–18". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks Kavyansh.Singh. It has been fixed.--AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Publisher locations are missing for online publications (such as EI3 online or Oxford Bibliographies Online) and for journal articles (which do not need locations (AFAIK)). There were a couple other instances of missing loc, which I've fixed.--AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• Missing page ranges are also for online publications, where they do not exist/apply.--AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up maps and charts, and see MOS:COLOUR

Scaling done. Have to read MOS:Colour. Will get back on this afterwards. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• File:Allah-green.svg: what "public domain artwork" was this copied from?

It was in a template, which I've now removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• File:Balami_-_Tarikhnama_-_Battle_of_Siffin_(cropped).jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Nahrawan-Canal.jpg

Done both. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• File:Dirham_of_Qatari_ibn_Fuja'a.jpg needs a tag for the original work

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• File:خريطة_الدولة_الرستمية.jpg: what's the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Replaced map. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Constantine

Will review over the following days. Constantine ✍ 10:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations

Levantine Arabic

Nominator(s): A455bcd9 (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about Levantine Arabic, a variety of Arabic spoken in the Levant. (PR1, Sept 2021 / GA1, Dec 2021 / DYK, Dec 2021 / PR2, March 2022) A455bcd9 (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

FYI, here are the only 2 FA about a spoken language: Nafaanra and Nahuatl. A455bcd9 (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Image review—pass

• File:Modern Levant.PNG — file description states the accuracy is disputed
• File:Arabic Dialects.svg — The image description should include sources for the info displayed on the map
• File:Lebnaan Newspaper issue 686.jpg — I don't think this meets the non-free copyright criteria for use in this article, especially #1 and #8.
• Other images look fine. I don't see any sound files in the article, but if there are any they have not been evaluated. (t · c) buidhe 11:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Modern Levant.PNG: I don't see any dispute so removed that information in the file description. Otherwise we could use File:The Levant 3.png (sourced) or File:Levant (orthographic projection).png

File:Arabic Dialects.svg: I don't think we can find sources for such a map, I removed it.

File:Lebnaan Newspaper issue 686.jpg: I don't know enough about non-free copyright criteria, let me know if I have to remove it A455bcd9 (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

For 3, I went ahead and removed it. (t · c) buidhe 12:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Lots of duplicate links. You can detect them using User:Evad37/duplinks-alt. (t · c) buidhe 12:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  I removed most of them. A455bcd9 (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Buidhe: for "Arabic Dialects.svg", I've just realized that the image was present in Schmitt, Genevieve A. (2019). "Relevance of Arabic Dialects: A Brief Discussion". In Brunn, Stanley D.; Kehrein, Roland (eds.). Handbook of the Changing World Language Map. Springer. p. 1385. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-02438-3_79. ISBN 978-3-030-02437-6. as "Fig. 1 Major dialects of Arabic, by region. (Open source)". Could this be used as a source, a posteriori? (or at least a validation by a scholar that the information in the image is reliable) A455bcd9 (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  Works for me. (t · c) buidhe 15:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose at this time. There is considerable citation cleanup needed: many citations are incomplete and the formatting is inconsistent. There are also some issues with article structure, with a very long TOC, short and choppy subsections, and a significant number of one-sentence paragraphs. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please provide examples of incomplete citations? I checked during the last peer review and I thought it was okay. Same question regarding formatting. I'm a bit surprised because I only used the automatic citation tool in VisualEditor, and as it auto-formats, I guessed the resulting formatting would be consistent. Chris Capoccia also reformatted refs and used citation bot cleanup. Regarding the other points: I'll improve that later. A455bcd9 (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately automated tools don't necessarily ensure consistency. Some samples of issues (not a full list):

• Some references use the {{citation}} template, while others use cite templates ({{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, etc) - this will produce output that looks different. Also some references use no template at all, eg 278
• Many books are missing publisher - eg footnotes 3, 8, 102, 126, and others
• Some books include publication location (eg 27) while others do not (eg 123). This is an optional parameter, so you should decide to include or not include and then do that consistently.
• When someone translates a work, they should be credited using a translator parameter rather than an author parameter in the citation template
• Citations should generally include at least one of work or publisher - eg 155 has neither. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Crediting translators is optional, I believe, but if you are doing it, I would advise to use the translator parameter as Nikkimaria suggests. (t · c) buidhe 23:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I replaced {{citation}} templates, added publishers where missing in {{cite book}}, removed all "publication-place" and "location", added translators, added website for 155, and a template for 278 (I think it was the only ref without a template). Do you think citations are okay now? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The TOC is now way shorter (from ~60 sections and first-level subsections to ~40) and I removed many one-sentence paragraphs and "short and choppy subsections". I think the "Grammar" section is the only one where there may still be some work to do. What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Definitely work needed in Grammar, but not only that. For example, presently the Vocabulary section is only six paragraphs, and yet it has two subsections. With regards to citations, thank you for addressing the specific examples raised, but as noted that wasn't a comprehensive list of issues. For example, footnotes 147 and 148 are both journal references but look quite different; 267 includes "www" in the domain but 265 does not; 123 lists ProQuest as a publisher, but in 20 the platform is credited using |via= instead. Some of these are errors: 20 is the correct way of treating platform, 123 is incorrect. Some of these are simply a matter of consistency. But both cases need working through. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I think I addressed these issues. I understand that your list wasn't comprehensive, so I tried to address other issues I identified. Besides the Grammar section, is there still some work needed? If so, can I find a comprehensive checklist somewhere with the different criteria (such as "www" in the domain, credit platform with via, etc.) so that I don't bother you? A455bcd9 (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm not aware of a comprehensive checklist. WP:CITEHOW and the documentation for the templates will give you some of the information, but a lot of the time it's a matter of manually comparing citations to see where they differ. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I used the Wikipedia citation bot, not really helpful... I looked at WP:CITEHOW and improved several citations. Is it okay now? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Still problems unfortunately. More examples: footnote 165 is a harv error; some book references include locations while others don't; some journals include publishers while others don't. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Aargh sorry... "some book references include locations while others don't": which book references? There was one that I forgot (Cambridge, just removed) but otherwise the only 6 "location=" used are for conferences (Miyazaki, Istanbul, Doha, Brasov) as it seems to be expected by Template:Cite conference. I added the three missing publishers for journals. I think/hope we should be good now... A455bcd9 (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

By the way you wrote: "123 lists ProQuest as a publisher, but in 20 the platform is credited using |via= instead. Some of these are errors: 20 is the correct way of treating platform, 123 is incorrect." And I initially changed from "publisher=" to "via=" for this reference. However I double-checked and the document says: "Published by ProQuest LLC (2019). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author." So should I change back to "publisher=ProQuest"? A455bcd9 (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

No - ProQuest is publishing a reproduction, but the thesis itself is originally published by the university. |via= is the more appropriate position for ProQuest in this case. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

OK thanks. Let me know if citations are okay now. I also worked on the TOC and one-sentence paragraphs. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• To stay on the topic of sourcing, one inconsistency I'm seeing is that sometimes sources are cited with a specific page and sometimes not, e.g. ref 41, 107, 126. I am aware that it would be a huge job to fix that, but alas consistency is part of the FACR. Also is there any "systematic" reason why some sources are cited in "Sources" and referenced through {{sfn}} templates while others are cited directly in the "references"? JBchrch talk 22:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  Hi @JBchrch:,

  I checked all sources and added missing page numbers. I think the only sources cited without pages now are:

  • Online news articles (for which there's no page, e.g. this one or that one),
  • Articles from the Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics that are available online (e.g. here) without pagination,
  • "An illusionary power of seduction?" which is also an online journal, so there's no pages.

  Is it okay now? (I think so)

  Sources in "Sources" using sfn: long books cited several times at different pages in the article, and also the main references about Levantine Arabic in general. Sources directly in "References": shorter articles (often only cited once and about a specific point). Does this make sense? What are the conventions here? A455bcd9 (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  @A455bcd9 Thanks -- are you sure you've checked all of them? I still see that ref 104, 108 and 246, for instance, are quoted "in bulk". As for the "Sources"/"References" thing, there is no standard practice, since Wikipedia doesn't mandate a specific citation style, it just has to be consistent. One additional comment as I looked at the article once more: I see that sometimes you list the day-month-year of publication as its publication date, and sometimes only the year (e.g. Brustad & Zuniga 2019, Al Masri 2015). I think listing the year is sufficient, and it will also make it consistent. JBchrch talk 14:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  @JBchrch: I thought the only issue was consistency in terms of appearance (some references with p= or pp=, others without => now they all have this parameter, with a few exceptions I explained). But now I understand that it's not only about visual appearance but also about how accurate each page mention is and you would like each reference to specifically mention the exact page(s) related to the sentence they're attached to. So if it's a 10-page article and the information needed appears on page 5 then you want p=5 instead of pp=1-10. Am I correct? From WP:PAGENUM, I understood that specific page numbers were only required when citing "lengthy" sources. Should I still do it?

  Date format: I've just converted all dates to year in the "Sources" section. But do you think I should do that in "References" as well? Including for news articles? And for journals (for which the format is most likely Month Date)? A455bcd9 (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  @A455bcd9 Your understanding of my suggestion is correct. Given PAGENUM, you can probably attempt to get this through FAC without mentioning page numbers each time, but you would have an easier time getting the designation if the page numbers were cited every time. Also, pay attention to the fact that sometimes there are lengthy works that are cited without a specific page number, such as ref 41. About dates: the "classical" way of doing things is to keep day+month+year for news articles, but to mention only the year for scholarly articles (unless adding the month [and the day] is the only way to individualize the article in question). JBchrch talk 16:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  @JBchrch: OK so I changed all dates to "year only" for scholarly articles (cite book, cite journal, and cite conference) and kept day+month+year for cite news and cite web (when available).

  For the page numbers, just to be clear (before starting what may be a huge task haha), do you mean Given PAGENUM, you can probably attempt to get this through FAC without mentioning [specific] page numbers each time, but you would have an easier time getting the designation if the [specific] page numbers were cited every time.? I so, then I'll make page numbers more specific tomorrow or this weekend 😅 A455bcd9 (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  I've started adding more specific page numbers (almost done...), so never mind my question :) A455bcd9 (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  @A455bcd9 Apologies for the late answer. And yes, just in case, yes that was what I meant :). Good luck this work! JBchrch talk 16:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  @JBchrch no worries! I've actually just finished. I hope it's okay now :) Please let me know if there are still some issues... A455bcd9 (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  @A455bcd9 It looks like things have improved indeed, but I will take a closer look later. Something you could double-check is whether all the book titles are correctly capitalized. For instance, ref 125 and 129 should have more capitals per their "official" titles [15][16]. JBchrch talk 17:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  @JBchrch: it's a never ending task haha! Thanks, I fixed those and all the others I identified. A455bcd9 (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  @A455bcd9 Yes it is 😊. The way I like to think about it is that the article has to be "ready for the printing press" which supposes that Wiki editors have to do the work typically done by publishers, editors and copyrights "in real life". JBchrch talk 18:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  @JBchrch: I have so much respect for all the contributors who improved articles to FA status now... Anyway I think the article is "ready for the printing press" (when it comes to citations at least). But you'll maybe tell me there's yet another point to improve 😅 A455bcd9 (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hamlet chicken processing plant fire

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

This 1991 chicken processing plant fire was one of worst moments in North Carolina's modern history, killing 25 workers (making it the second deadliest industrial disaster in the state) and disrupting life in the small Southern town of Hamlet for a generation. The tragedy was largely the fault of the owner, who locked the fire exits and had his workers make repairs with improvised parts. He went to jail for a few years and the state government took a brief interest in fixing holes in safety enforcement. The article was originally an FA back in 2007, but was so deficient it was delisted four years later. I have rewritten the article top to bottom, largely thanks to a historian's scholarship which shed much needed-light on the events preceding and following the conflagration. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Reminder to update Wikipedia:Former featured articles#Former featured articles that have been re-promoted if this is re-promoted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 04:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I followed this article on its last go-round as an FA, and am most pleased to see Indy beetle restore this horrific story to the prominence it deserves, using updated and high quality sources, and expanding the article almost three-fold. I picked my nits and reviewed the medical content and sourcing on talk. Nice job on a horrid topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  One more from me. The first paragraph of the lead mentions the 25 dead and 54 injured, but that same info is repeated in para 3 of the lead. In the third para, instead of:

  "Casualties totaled 25 dead and 54 injured to varying degrees; most of the deceased were killed by smoke inhalation. Of the dead, 18 were female and 7 were male. One was a vending deliveryman, the rest were Imperial workers."

  how about --->

  Most of the deceased were killed by smoke inhalation. Of those who died, 18 were female and 7 were male. One was a vending deliveryman, the rest were Imperial workers.

  or some such ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  Done. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from Sdkb

Hi Indy beetle! I regrettably don't have time to give this a review, but I just wanted to note one thing looking at the infobox. The fields |Accused=, |Convicted=, |Charges=, |Verdict=, |Convictions=, and |Sentence= seem like they ideally ought to be handled in a better way that creates less redundancy. E.g. Roe is currently listed twice, and the fact that there was one conviction is implied from the fact that we only have one name. I'm not sure whether this stems from larger problems with {{Infobox event}} (in which case it's beyond the scope of FAC) or the particular implementation of it here, but just something to consider. Best of luck with this nomination! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• • I've revised this info, largely a remnant of the old version of the article. I could go without it in the infobox, since while Roe was found guilty of criminal conduct, it's obvious that this incident was much larger than a criminal case. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

    Looks better! Best wishes with this nomination! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Serial #

Placeholder for review. SN54129 19:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Ovinus

Will review over the next few days. Ovinus (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC) Extended comments are on talk page. Ovinus (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC) Initial comments:

• "with many unable to escape due to blocked exits" feels a bit shoehorned in there. Is the point that the plant was unsafe? I think the last sentence is good enough
  • I can reword it if you want, but if you look up "Hamlet chicken plant fire", particular retrospective news articles, the two most common things you'll find are "blocked exits" and "no safety inspection", so it seemed important to mention this off the bat.
• Overall the lead is rather plump and overly detailed (e.g., "Of those who died, 18 were female and 7 were male. One was a vending deliveryman and the rest were Imperial workers." "in violation of safety rules" is pretty obvious and the decision's egregiousness speaks for itself.) Perhaps the less salient details could be filtered out so it's less of a play-by-play

  Some of that is probably there because I asked for more detail about the victims in the lead. Indy, whatever you think best here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Was sxpecting some disagreement here, so my rationale is that the lead should only contain one to two medium-length paragraphs detailing the incident itself; the (current) first and last paragraphs are much more important by giving context. C.f. recently promoted FA Space Shuttle Challenger disaster which only spends one paragraph on the actual disaster. I think a compromise is reasonable, esp in this case. But Sandy's makes a good point; mentioning that the victims were mostly African American and women is quite sensible. I'm more hesitant about information like "Fueled by a combination of the hydraulic fluid, chicken grease, the fryer vats' soybean oil, and natural gas"... I just don't see how that informs a reader interested in the ramifications of this tragedy, unless they're an engineer.... :P Ovinus (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not fussed either way you all decide to go ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Err, most of those killed were indeed women, but the racial breakdown on victims was split evenly. I've removed the "Fueled by..." bit as I see why its extraneous. I thought it was important to mention that these were explicitly safety violations; not every country has fire and worker safety codes that are supposed to be followed.

  Ah, thanks for the clarifications; I'm convinced. Ovinus (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• "record-high state-imposed fine for safety violations" quantity?
  • Added.
• "according to the city manager" Does this quote need to be attributed?
  • It is attributed to the city manager. Since this is the only part of the story that really involves this local official I didn't think it prudent to mention his name, unless you think clarity is necessary.
  • Considering the incriminating statement, I think the attribution is needed, but "city manager" suffices. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Identified by name now. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: So far the article is looking very thorough and giving good context. As with the lead, there are spots in the body that I finda bit too much, e.g. "Food safety inspectors from the [USDA] visited the plant daily to examine the quality of the chicken, check for insects and varmints, and ensure that the facility's workers and processes were hygienic" could just be "Inspectors from the [USDA] visited the plant daily." Hopefully others can weigh in Ovinus (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  • As you'll see below, the fact that USDA inspectors were aware of and did not stop the fire code issues created some problems. Since it was chalked up to a matter of training and jurisdiction, I though it important to detail what the USDA inspectors were actually doing there. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Gotcha. Ovinus (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• Was the labelled fire exit blocked or locked? This is inconsistently reported
• FN132 is missing page number
• FN152: author name doesn't match source, and what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
• FNs 130 and 155 should use the same formatting
• Be consistent about when/whether you include publication locations
• How does Dixon meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
• Be consistent in whether you include publisher for magazines
• The LaBar source is not a news source. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Glasgow, Missouri

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 16:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

A cousin to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Capture of Sedalia/archive1. The Confederates need weapons, so they raid a town on the Missouri River, getting weapons and supplies and burning a steamboat. Hog Farm _Talk 16:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Having just looked at this for ACR I may as well recuse and rereview it.

• "gave Abraham Lincoln, who supported continuing the war, an edge in the 1864 United States presidential election over George B. McClellan, who favored ending the war." This doesn't come across as relevant to the rest of the article. Suggest either deleting or expanding a little. Preferably the latter.
  • I've added a sentence about Southern hopes for McClellan
• "who had fewer than 10,000 men on hand". Any ideas on the split of infantry and cavalry and if there were any artillery?
  • I believe it was nominally split between infantry and cavalry, but I'm not finding good breakdowns between the two or much comment on artillery, with the sole exception breakdowns of Ewing's scratch force at Pilot Knob. Collins just gives the overall total; Suderow (a newly-added source) just gives muster totals from August; Sinisi talks about reduced strength due to a botched vaccination but not a force breakdown, and I can't find anything super useful in Lause, Kennedy, or Nichols.

Optional (just a thought): Consider adding something like 'The breakdown of this force is unclear.' 'It is not known how much, if any, artillery was available to Rosecrans.

Unfortunately, the sources don't even say that. They're just silent on the issue.

• "who had fewer than 10,000 men on hand"; "whose garrison was increased from 1,000 men to 7,000". Was that 7,000 of the 10,000? Or had additional Union troops entered the state? If so, from where?
  • I've clarified that Rosecrans received reinforcements at St. Louis, and that the increase to 7,000 was from bringing troops in from elsewhere in the state and from calling up more militia
• " Attacks against the post on September 27 failed ... and decided to divert the aim of his advance from St. Louis westwards to Jefferson City." Yet the map shows him continuing towards St Louis until 1 October and only turning west at Franklin.
  • I've added some detail about what was going on here from a book specifically about the Pilot Knob fiasco

Ah. That's better.

• "Price determined that Jefferson City was too strong to attack, and began moving westwards along the course of the Missouri River." I don't understand - the map shows the Confederates turning west and following the Missouri a week before they reached Jefferson City.
  • Rephrased
• "On the 11th, Sanborn moved north and skirmished with the Confederates, who abandoned the town". Which town?
  • Clarified (Boonville)
• "and then crossed the Missouri at Arrow Rock". Is it known how they crossed?
  • Added (ferry)
• "to effectively fire across it". Do you mean 'to fire across it effectively'?
  • Done
• "The Union had no artillery available." Perhaps 'The Union force had no artillery available.'?
  • Done
• "The line was anchored by". What line?
  • Clarified
• "drove away some Confederates from the riverbank". Maybe 'drove some Confederates away from the riverbank'?
  • Done
• "Clark's force, delayed an hour while trying to cross the river". Which river?
  • The Missouri. Clarified
• "on both sides of their line." I think you mean 'on both ends of their line.'.
  • Corrected
• "give a maximum number of thirty-two wounded and eight to eleven killed". Why the switch to giving figures in words?
  • This was a response to a comment of yours in the ACR - ""32 wounded and eight to eleven killed". Could we have these numbers either all spelt out or all as numerals?" I can switch to numerals if preferred, although I find using the numerals for the small numbers a bit jarring

I find the switch jarring! The MoS leans towards standardisation but I am happy to leave it as a personal preference issue.

• "An engine removed from the riverbed at Glasgow during World War II". Is it significent that it was removed during WWII? If not, suggest just stating the year. (Or 'during the early 1940s'.)
  • Source doesn't give a year. I've specified that it occurred during a WWII scrap drive to indicate the significance (surprisingly, I'm having trouble finding a particularly good place to link the WWII scrap drive concept)

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: - Replied above - one not done (for now), and I'm having trouble finding something for the breakdown of Rosecrans's 10,000. I've also added two new sources used briefly for background information. The Suderow book published by SEMO should be fine for reliability, and Battle Cry of Freedom is basically above reproach there. My formatting might need checked though. Hog Farm _Talk 05:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks good. One very optional suggestion above, but I am supporting and unwatching. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review - pass

When I did the source review for this article's ACR nomination five days ago I did so to FAC standard, so I shall merely repeat my conclusions:

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gog the Mild (talk • contribs) 18:57, March 4, 2022 (UTC)

Image review—pass

Per ACR (t · c) buidhe 04:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support on 1a, 2, 3, and 4 per my review at the ACR. I have no additional comments at this time. (t · c) buidhe 00:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia

Support on all criteria (except images, reviewed by Buidhe). My review is on talk; nitpicks addressed. A U. S. Supreme Court case resulted from the fire started by Harding, related to an insurance company claim. The findings left insurance company practices intact, so the case has no lasting significance, is of no significance to the Battle article, and amounts to "just another lawsuit", ho-hum. It needs not be mentioned to meet comprehensiveness. If Insurance Co. v. Boon were of any significance, it should have an article, but I can find no reason for that to be the case, as it changed nothing about insurance claims during war. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that none of the print sources I consulted mentioned it. Hog Farm _Talk 15:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Because it's inconsequential; I only found it because it is mentioned on article talk (I always, and believe reviewers always should) review the article talk page, and its archives, in search of POV swept under the rug or comprehensiveness issues :0 Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• Suggest linking Abraham Lincoln, 1864 United States presidential election, George B. McClellan, militiamen.
  • Done
• I assume, since you mention how many of Rosecrans' men were militiamen, that this implies they are weaker troops than the regular army. If so, could we add an adjective or two to make that clearer? Perhaps "poorly trained", or "less experienced", or "untested", or whatever applies.
  • I've clarified with "without experience in major battles"
• "and militia, including by calling up some of the Enrolled Missouri Militia": "including by calling up" is a bit ugly. Could we do something like "and militia, including some of the Enrolled Missouri Militia, who were called up after the Battle of Pilot Knob" or "who were called up at short notice", or whatever the sources will support?
  • Went with the short notice one
• You mention Bloody Bill Anderson joining the Confederates, and the dates given make it appear that it was on or after October 9. Our article on Anderson (which is featured, as it happens) says he met Price in Boonville on October 6. Is one of the two articles incorrect, or is the sequence more complicated than it appears?
  • Collins implies that it was on the 10th. Nichols says directly in two places that it occurred on the 11th. Sinisi also places it at the 11th, discussing the event in some detail (Price was giving a speech, Anderson's boys rode up, Price made them get rid of the scalps, Anderson gave Price a brace of pistols, Price sent Anderson away with orders he didn't follow). I'm not sure if Wood in the Anderson article is wrong, or if October 6 is the day Anderson began riding towards Price
    • User:Mark Arsten hasn't edited since 2020, and in fact lost his admin bits, so perhaps HF you will just make adjustments needed to William T. Anderson so we don't have to see it at FAR :) :) (Nice review, Mike Christie! Now we have an example of what I do not mean when I use the term prose nitpicks, as these are all issues of substance.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Brownlee's Gray Ghosts of the Confederacy discusses Anderson in-depth, and places the meeting on October 11, as well. Brownlee also doesn't mention the bit with the trained horse as well (see below). Hog Farm _Talk 20:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

        Thanks for cleaning that up. And thanks for the compliment, Sandy! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Again referring to the article on Anderson, a footnote saying that Anderson ignored Price's instructions might be worthwhile.
  • Footnote added
• The description of the Union defences is not very clear to me (I have read very little military history so have no instincts about what to expect). I would expect the defensive line of a location to encircle that location, is the line described specifically a defensive line set up in expectation of the Confederate attack?
  • @Mike Christie: - I've added a sentence describing the shape of the interior line - it ran east from the river before curving north. Does this help it make a little more sense? Hog Farm _Talk 19:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

    That's a big help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• The attempt by Clark to surrender a battle which was shortly won seems unusual enough to mention in the lead.
  • Added. It's not the most unusual I'm aware of - I'm currently reading a book about the Second Battle of Springfield, and it mentions the Confederate commander there send a surrender offer to a Union force after he had spent an entire day unsuccessfully trying to capture the place.
• Another question about Anderson: this article says he fatally beat someone on the night of October 21-22; the article on Anderson talks about a wealthy Union supporter whom Anderson himself beat, partly because he had freed his slaves. Are these the same incident? They don't match up but even Anderson probably didn't beat multiple residents to death in just a few days.
  • Per Lause, this is apparently the same incident, although none of Sinisi, Nichols, Lause, Collins, or Monnett (the most relevant sources I have handy) attribute his motivation to freeing his slaves. I've added a mention of the rape from Lause. Likewise, the claim of trampling him to death with a horse does not appear in any of the sources I have, and frankly Wood in the Anderson article isn't a strong enough source for more extraordinary claims like a specially trained horse stomping people to death (full disclosure: I've used a different book by Wood as a source for two FAs, but not for any extraordinary claims like that) Nichols and Lause imply the primary interest was monetary.
• There's no location given for Suderow & House.
  • Added
• How are you sorting "An Industrial History of Missouri"? If it's by title, I'd expect it to precede Kennedy; if by "Missouri Bureau of Labor Statistics", which could be regarded as the author, I would expect it to precede Monnett.
  • I'm not sure how I was trying to sort it; I've moved it above Kennedy.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Re the Anderson article - I've been able to adjust the wording of the date of meeting Price (confirmed in Wood that it was the date he left), and the bit about the trained horse is supported by the reliable Castel (confirmed via google books), so the Anderson article looks fine now. I also spot-checked a few other things in a copy of Wood from a local library. Hog Farm _Talk 23:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. And I always think it's a pleasant surprise when an article you link to from an article you take to FAC turns out to be featured as well; it gives me the feeling that we're making progress. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Support. Very clear and readable, and a pleasure to review. My only suggestion, which doesn't affect my support, would be to add a map showing the defensive lines and positions, if the sources are definite enough to make that possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Daisy Pearce

Nominator(s): 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about Daisy Pearce, one of women's Australian rules football's leading pioneers and a prominent current player/media personality (and future coach, if the recent news is anything to go by). I've put a fair bit of time and research into this one, and got it to GA status last year, so keen to know what you guys think/how you guys might like me to improve it further – thanks! Kind regards, 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Kavyansh

How can I not review "Daisy"! Expect some comments soon – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• It has clearly taken a lot of effort to write and improve this article, and all your work is very much appreciated. The first thing, and perhaps the most major point that concerned me is the sources. I'll admit have just read the lead, but from a look at sources, I see various sources whose reliability cannot really be judged. For featured articles, we require sources to be "high quality reliable sources". How are "afl.com.au", "SportsTG", "AFL Community", "girlsplayfooty.com", etc. the reliable sources of highest quality? Another issue with the sourcing is use of many primary sources: "westernbulldogs.com.au", "melbournefc.com.au", "aflplayers.com.au", "womens.afl". 71 of the 175 sources are directly or indirectly from the website of Australian Football League (AFL), a primary source. There are also other issues like overuse of direct quotations in "Legacy" section, duplicate linking, adding Instagram link in External links, etc. Can you elaborate as to how did you find sources for the article, and why does the article meets WP:FA?#2c? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Kavyansh.Singh – I'll try and address your points as best as I can. I've rectified the smaller issues that you've mentioned so far, though I've intially left out the first links after the lead if I thought they were helpful and links that technically link to the same article but different areas, e.g. Melbourne / Melbourne – would this be allowed, or would I just have to limit it to one?

Regarding the sources, most if not all of the bits of information that just cite a single source, whether it be The Australian or melbournefc.com.au, only cite those sources because they were the only ones that I could find for those tidbits; some of the time, I might have used a club website as a second or third source when something like SEN or Fox Sports was already there – if you want me to remove those instances where there's already a better source, more than happy to, but a lot of the time when you see something from AFL Media (afl.com.au or womens.afl), it's probably because it was the only thing I could find/that was reporting on that particular piece of information. Granted, SportsTG, AFL Community and girlsplayfooty.com might not be the Herald Sun, but they were, again, the only ones I could find/that were reporting on that tidbit. I would argue that AFL Media is independent from the AFL and not just a primary source that's biased/selective in the content that it produces, as it produces stories about the good, bad and the ugly in the AFL world (even at AFL HQ), same as the newspapers and TV/radio networks, but that's a whole other story – my point being that because it gives such a wide coverage of the AFL and AFLW, hasn't been shown to necessarily be given preferential treatment by the league or its clubs and (I would argue) very reliable from a journalism standpoint, I'm not sure that it should necessarily be brushed off as a primary source/unusable in a featured article, but hey, that might not amount to much.

As for how I found sources, I follow AFL Media pretty closely for the reasons above, but in some cases, I'll also do a Google search to find other sources on certain bits of information. Before the article reached GA status, it had bits of information that were unsourced or improperly sourced, so I did the best I could to Google these areas to find what sources I could and include them if I thought that they were reliable enough – some periods of Pearce's life/career were more widely reported on than others, clearly, and there were certain bits of information that I was forced to remove/leave out because I couldn't really find anything to source it with, so I believe that the article's been improved from that standpoint. Regarding your last question, did you mean 2c or 1c? I believe that I've maintained a consistent use and format of citations throughout the article, but if I'm wrong, please let me know how I can improve this further.

Otherwise, let me know if any of this makes sense/you need further clarification, and otherwise what else needs doing – I'm fairly new to this process/the jump to featured article status, but keen to learn and take on what I can, even if it's because the article isn't quite ready yet. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 03:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

By over-linking, I was particularly referring to double linking in the prose itself (independent of lead), like AFL Players Association, but I'm confident you'll fix that too. Multiple links to sections withing the same article is allowed. So if I understand you correctly, the article has various information which only a particular sources cite. Then why is that information important enough to be mentioned in the article? If there is something significant, I'd expect a lot of media commentary on it. Even if AFL Media is independent from the AFL, and even if it is reliable, what makes it among the highest quality of reliable sources? Don't get me wrong, I know almost nothing about sports; this is entirely a non-expert's perspective, but I think we should write an encyclopedia article from widely reported facts. Are there no books/academic work about her life? Regarding my last point, I meant 1c, apologies. All in all, I don't think you'll get a consensus here that sourced are WP:HQRS. I am not convinced that the article meets the criteria, at-least for sourcing. I won't oppose, but I am suggesting withdrawal (changed – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)). But please don't be discouraged, we need more FAs about women, especially in sports. I'll be happy to give this article a review outside of FAC once all the sourcing concerns are resolved. I am open to reconsider, if other feel the other way. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Okay, per this discussion, I have been requested to provide some sources not used in the article. Here are the sources:
  • Fedele, Robert (2017). "Midwife Blossoms Into AFL Star". Australian Nursing and Midwifery Journal. Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation. 24 (8). ISSN 2202-7114. Retrieved March 5, 2022 – via Informit.
  • Pippos, Angela (2017). Breaking the Mould. Affirm Press. ISBN 978-1-925475-29-6 – via Google Books.
  • Faganel, Armand; Rižnar, Igor; Baruca, Arne, eds. (2021). Impacts and Implications for the Sports Industry in the Post-Covid-19 Era. IGI Global. ISBN 978-1-7998-6782-1.
  • Lynch, Jackie (2018). "State of the AFLW Nation". Green Left Weekly. 1171. Retrieved March 5, 2022 – via Informit.
  • Sources mentioned by Steelkamp below are not repeated here. The 2nd and 3rd might help a bit, but I think the other two (especially the 1st) discusses the topic in bit detail. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• Okay, I have struck my suggestion to withdraw, but my concerns stand. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Support Comments from Sportsfan77777

I'll review this article. Noting I reviewed it for GA status. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Also noting above that Kavyansh.Singh's comments above are blatantly sexist. They make an assertion that "we should write an encyclopedia article from widely reported facts". That essentially implies that biographies should not be able to be made into FAs if the subject doesn't receive a very wide range of coverage, an issue that much more frequently affects women than men. I would recommend their review be disregarded by the coordinators. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think my comments were "blatantly sexist". I never intended to say that. We need sport biographies in FAC, for both man and woman, equally. My comment regarding that encyclopedia articles should mostly have widely reported facts meant to imply that if a particular piece of information is covered only in 1-2 sources, that too a primary one, why is it significant enough to mention then? My suggestion to withdraw is in accordance with the FA criteria; I have no issues with you disagreeing on that. But I don't think my comments should be "disregarded". It is upto @WP:FAC coordinators: to determine if my comments are in accordance with the criteria or not. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I said. It is up to the coordinators to decide whether to take your review into account. I am merely suggesting that they do not. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Although higher standard for sourcing or WP:DUE arguably impacts biographies of women more than men, I do not agree that it's sexist. All reviews are taken into account to determine consensus to promote, to the extent that they are based on the FA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 08:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Please bear in mind WP:AGF. Also that a nominator should address a review, not the reviewer. As Buidhe says, all reviews and comments are taken into account when closing. Ones bearing on whether the article "is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" will be weighted heavily. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead

• in the AFL Women's (add "competition" so that the sentence ends on a noun)
• One of women's Australian rules football's first superstars <<<=== In-between this and the old statement of "Widely regarded as the face of women's Australian rules football", I would suggest the intermediate "Often regarded as the face of women's Australian rules football" to be more complete without potentially making too strong of a statement
• having (add "already" or "previously") captained the club in the women's exhibition games in the years prior
• seven as captain ===>>> seven times as captain
• "VFL Women's (VFLW)" ===>>> VFL Women's (VFLW) competition
• Pearce is a dual AFL Women's All-Australian, having been named as captain in the 2017 team and vice-captain in the 2018 team, and won the inaugural two Melbourne best and fairest awards. <<<=== This sentence doesn't have parallelism. I'd suggest splitting off the second part as "She won the inaugural two Melbourne best and fairest awards."
• "media performer" <<<=== I'm not sure "performer" is the correct word (unless it's an Australian English thing?) Maybe "media personality" would be better?

Early life

• Okay.

State

• She was named in the carnival's All-Australian team <<<=== I might suggest calling it the "National Championships' All-Australian team" instead, since I don't think it's obvious that is what carnival is referring to.
• with Pearce named among the best players in the grand final ===>>> a game in which Pearce was named among the best players. (to avoid "with" and repeating "grand final")
• Darebin would go on to win five VWFL premierships in a row, before losing to St Albans in the grand final in 2011; Pearce, who had by then become captain, was named Darebin's best player in the loss <<<=== Combined with the previous sentence, it says Pearce was among the best players in 2007 and was the team's best player in 2011. But what about the other years in the five VWFL premierships in a row? Do you have that information?
• In 2013, Darebin again went through the season undefeated, defeating Diamond Creek in the grand final, and Pearce was again named among the best players in the grand final.[21] Darebin repeated this feat in 2014, again going through the season without a loss and defeating Diamond Creek in the grand final, and Pearce was named best afield in the grand final. <<<=== Combine these two sentences to something like "In both 2013 and 2014, Darebin again went through the season undefeated. In both years, they defeated Diamond Creek in the grand final, and Pearce was again named among the best players in the grand final."
• She would also feature in Darebin's third ===>>> She also featured in Darebin's third
• "with Darebin named among the ten teams" ===>>> "and Darebin named among the ten teams" (avoid "with")
• "She would also play in Darebin's grand final win" ===>>> She also played in Darebin's grand final win

Exhibition

• The top 50 female footballers in Australia ===>>> Fifty of the top female footballers in Australia (it's not literally the top 50)
• "Pearce was selected by Melbourne with the first selection in the draft" ===>>> "Pearce was selected by Melbourne first overall in the draft"
• with the first to be held ==>>> the first to be held
• "with Melbourne playing two games" ===>>> "in which Melbourne would play two games"

2017

• the Melbourne's inaugural match ===>>> Melbourne's inaugural match
• and won the inaugural Melbourne best and fairest award ===>>> . She won the inaugural Melbourne best and fairest award
• meaning that she would miss the 2019 season ===>>> which would result in her missing the 2019 season

2020

• with coach Mick Stinear saying ===>>> ; coach Mick Stinear stated
• She played her first AFLW match ===>>> Pearce played her first AFLW match (unclear "She" with Black in the previous sentence)
• half-back (add "in defence" to clarify)
• without a premiership being awarded due to the worsening pandemic ===>>> with no premiership awarded due to the worsening pandemic
• Pearce went on to be selected ===>>> Pearce was selected
• two goals from 13 disposals ===>>> two goals from 13 disposals,
• with Pearce saying ===>>> and Pearce herself stated
• Pearce also received five coaches' votes <<<=== Unless the coaches votes are a new thing, I would leave this out given that you never mention them before. (As in, wouldn't she have received coaches votes before?)

Playing style

• A few pairs of citations are not in numerical order.
• her ability to threaten <<<=== specify what she is threatening

Statistics

• Okay.

Honours

• Okay.

Media

• Clarify that Triple M is a radio network (or radio station?).

Advocacy

• Okay.

Coaching

• with Pearce to complete her AFL level three coaching accreditation ===>>> in which Pearce would complete her AFL level three coaching accreditation
• Explain what AFL level three coaching accreditation means, maybe just in a footnote.

Legacy

• You can put back the "face of" statement, but state who calls her that (e.g. the media, I think? or maybe other players?)

Personal

• Pearce began working as a midwife <<<=== if known, state at what age?
• she currently divides ===>>> she has since divided (avoid "currently" per MOS:RELTIME)

Overall

• I don't share the concerns above about not using game reports because they are primary sources. This is pretty typical of most past sports FA articles. I'm not even sure I agree that game reports count as primary sources. (Relatedly, a book source would be nice, but you can't ask for one if it doesn't exist.)
• Use IABot to archive all the sources.
• In particular, I noticed this one doesn't work any more.
• There are a few instances of using ALLCAPS in parts of some references where it is not needed (e.g. "COMMENT", "THE W SHOW IS HERE").

Overall, it looks like it's in pretty good shape. The content looks very thorough and well-organized. I intend to support after the above comments are addressed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, Sportsfan77777. I think I've covered most, if not all, of your feedback – let me know what you think/if there's anything more that you wanted to throw in there (given I've also added a little bit since you gave your review). Thanks! 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 05:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Second read-through

• "was selected by Melbourne with the first selection" <<<=== to avoid "select" twice, would "was selected by Melbourne with the first overall pick" be Australian English enough? Or "was taken by Melbourne with the first selection"? --- This issue is in the lead and the body.
• before the first exhibition game ===>>> for the first women's exhibition game
• Pearce was announced as a marquee signing for Melbourne's AFL Women's team in 2016 prior to the competition's first season. ===>>> Pearce was announced as a marquee signing for Melbourne's AFL Women's team in 2016 for the competition's first season the following year. (the year is more important to clarify)
• She also won the inaugural two Melbourne best and fairest awards <<<=== You don't need the "also" here.
• If the book source disagrees with her birthplace, add a footnote stating the alternative possibility.
• Specify "Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG)" in the first mention
• and Pearce was named among Melbourne's best players in its 46-point win. ===>>> Pearce was named among Melbourne's best players in its 46-point win. (start a new sentence)
• The five goals that she kicked in round 9 of the 2022 season was ===>>> The five goals that she kicked in round 9 of the 2022 season were
• Pearce had won the inaugural VFLW best and fairest award in 2016 ===>>> Pearce won the inaugural VFLW best and fairest award in 2016

Source comments

• There is still unnecessary all caps ("LISTEN", "UPDATE", "DEE-MOLITION") left in the sources.
• I do think AustralianFootball.com is definitely a high-quality reliable source, per 4TheWynne's reply to Hawkeye.
• Both of the SportsTG sources are really content published by the VWFL (it says it's the official VWFL website). Whether it's republished or that's where they published it originally, I don't know. Either way, the publisher should be listed as the "VWFL", not "SportsTG".
• Similarly, the first Footy Almanac source is also published by the VWFL, and should have VWFL as the publisher.
• In the second Footy Alamanac source, the one comment (from one of the website administrators) specifies that the author of the piece is the same author (Leesa Catto, who works for the VWFL) as the first Footy Almanac source, so I would assume it is also published through the VWFL. I would recommend putting Catto as the author and VWFL as the publisher just like the first source.
• You don't need the Instagram source. (Both usages are covered by the very next source.)
• I agree with the comment below that Fox Sports should always include "(Australia)" and likewise for ABC News. You could also do the opposite and never include "(Australia)", since they are always linked anyway.
• Regarding the book sources, I would expect only the Lane book on the launch of the AFLW to potentially have more information that could be included, but probably not a whole lot given that it doesn't focus on Pearce specifically. I would expect the news sources and the official sources from the official VWFL/VFLW/AFLW websites to be more in-depth. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• I am curious as to how the book source disagrees with whether her siblings are brothers or sisters. Having no access to either source, I don't know which would be more reliable. The newspaper source is much more recent, so I don't see how they could have messed it up if the book was already published. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• The other book sources seem like mostly passing mentions. The Hayes and Sheedy sources are a bit more in depth, each with about two pages on Pearce, but these are picture books for kids. They might have a little more information, but I wouldn't favor them over most other types of sources already used.

I didn't finish either of these today. I'll probably finish both of them tomorrow. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

That's it for the comments on the prose. I didn't find much after a second read-through. I'll look through the sources again if others continue to comment them. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Sportsfan77777, just finished here again. I've opted to remove "(Australia)" because they're linked, like you mentioned, and regarding the differing information in the sources, I really like Sam Lane – who I know is a big fan of Pearce – and wouldn't expect her to get this sort of information wrong, but from memory (the Weekend Australian article was freely available at the time when I used it), Courtney Walsh actually travelled around with Pearce to write her story, and it's more recent like you said, so I figured it would also be pretty reliable; to counter this, I've tweaked the wording slightly so that it doesn't contradict either source ("two brothers", "two younger half-siblings"). 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 00:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks good, supporting! Good work! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Steelkamp

Media career: (some of this may have already been mentioned due to an edit conflict)

• and in 2019, she also hosted This Is Grit, a weekly podcast series on SEN focusing on female sportspeople. – Citation doesn't show that. Also, wouldn't "sportswomen" be more concise than "female sportspeople". Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• Pearce was a rotating panel member on the Seven Network program AFL Game Day and is a boundary rider for Seven and 1116 SEN's AFL coverage – Citation makes no reference to 1116 SEN. Citation does not show why rotating panel member is in past tense. Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• I notice womens.afl is frequently referred to in references and other parts of the article, but [17] this shows that it should be womens.AFL. Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  This one has not been addressed yet. Steelkamp (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I honestly think you might have just picked out one of the only instances in which this happened, as I see it formatted far more frequently with the "afl" in lowercase – here are some recent examples (plenty more where these came from): [18][19][20][21][22] 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 05:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• In 2021, she co-hosted The W Show on womens.afl alongside Nat Edwards – There is no indication that this is a website. Maybe change to In 2021, she co-hosted The W Show on the womens.AFL website alongside Nat Edwards Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• After Tiffany Cherry spoke out against the Nine Network in February 2018 for failing to stand up for gender equality after being replaced as host of the Nine program Women's Footy by Clint Stanaway, Pearce said that it was better to have both men and women involved in commentating and talking about the men's and women's competitions. "I enjoy seeing men working across and well-informed football commentators talking about [women's football]... why can't we see men working across the AFL Women’s competition?" She said that if there was a belief that only women should call AFLW games and only men should call AFL games, "It's almost as if we are taking a few steps back". – The problem with this paragraph is that it takes a while to get to the point. It's not until about 2/3rds of the way through that I realise that Pearce is criticising Tiffany Cherry's stance. Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• Pearce was among several high-profile AFLW players to speak out during the 2020–2022 collective bargaining agreement negotiations in 2019, with Pearce supporting the AFL Players Association (AFLPA) and its efforts to grow the competition,[152][153] saying that broader talks between the AFLPA and AFLW players would result in an agreement that would satisfy all players. – This doesn't really put things in their full context. The Age says that "reports emerged of a split over the new collective bargaining agreement." I think the quotes can be shortened and more context to this can be added. Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Coaching career:

• I don't think that many citations are needed. Three or more adjacent citations is too much. For example, in the first group of citations, the Lions website could be removed without impacting the verifiability of the preceding sentence. Use WP:CITEBUNDLE if they absolutely must be there. Steelkamp (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Legacy:

• and is highly regarded across the football industry for her professionalism, football knowledge and leadership, both on and off the field, as well as being a role model for current and future female footballers and commentators.[24] – Citation is a wix.com website. Doesn't seem to be a high quality source. It is also a dead link, so some source archiving will need to be done. There are several other dead links throughout the article as well. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  Still not convinced by a wix.com website. Steelkamp (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Herald Sun journalist Jay Clark wrote that Pearce had "set the standard in training and professionalism [in women's football] for years" and that her contributions over more than a decade made her a "living legend of the women's game", – What's to say that Jay Clark wrote that. It says up the top that Lauren Wood wrote that article. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  This issue still remains. Also, the archive link for reference 157 is incorrect. Steelkamp (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• The format of this section is a bit awkward due to the images. I think it would be best to remove one image, and have the other one on the right rather than the left. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• This is very minor, but I think that named Daisy in honour of Pearce sounds and flows better than named Daisy to honour Pearce. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• On 7 March 2017, Pearce became the first woman to be elected as a director on the board of the AFLPA, which then decided to include AFLW players as full members of the association. – Citation says that it was existing members that voted to include AFLW players as full members. There is nothing there to say that the vote occurred after Pearce was elected. How about On 7 March 2017, Pearce became the first woman to be elected as a director on the board of the AFLPA. The association had also decided that day to include AFLW players as full members. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• Pearce had won the inaugural award in 2016 after having previously won six Helen Lambert Medals in the VWFL. – How about you change this to Pearce had won the inaugural VFLW best and fairest award in 2016 after having previously won six Helen Lambert Medals in the VWFL. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Personal life and philanthropy:

• Pearce began working as a midwife at Box Hill Hospital upon moving to Melbourne, and lived in Eltham, in Melbourne's north-east. – The flow of this sentence is awkward. Steelkamp (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• near Bright in country Victoria – Seeing as Bright is mentioned earlier in the article, it is not necessary to say that it is in country Victoria. Steelkamp (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Honours and achievements:

• 2× AFL Women's All-Australian team: 2017 (c), 2018 – There is nothing to show what "c" stands for. Steelkamp (talk) 09:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

General:

• Best and fairest should be linked somewhere in the article, seeing as its mentioned several times. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• Shouldn't it be The Weekend Australian, rather than Weekend Australian? Steelkamp (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• There are several book sources that may be useful. I may get around to looking at some of these books over the coming week to see if they are useful to this article in any way:
  • Lane, Samantha (2018). Roar : the stories behind AFLW -- a movement bigger than sport. ISBN 9780143788744.
    • Pg. 302: Pearce was born in Wandiligong, not Bright. She was born in Wandiligong, Victoria, which has 300 residents, with the nearest major town, Bright, having a population of just over 2000. Steelkamp (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Pg. 302: Pearce has an older brother Harry (two years older) and a younger brother Billy (two years younger). Ali is actually a half brother, not sister. Pearce's parents separated in 1995. Pearce has an older half brother, Aaron, through her father. Steelkamp (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Pgs. 293-: Details on her life and career in 2016 and 2017. Steelkamp (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Hayes, Nicole; Sometimes, Alicia (2017). A footy girl's guide to the stars of 2017. ISBN 9781863959124.
  • Sheedy, Kevin (2020). Kevin Sheedy's heroes of footy. ISBN 9781922400246.

Steelkamp, I've mentioned the differing information regarding Pearce's birthplace in a footnote and tweaked the information about her brothers and half-siblings so that it doesn't contradict either source. I've also sourced 1995 and her half-brother, and otherwise addressed all of your other feedback previously. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Graham Beards

• I have made a few edits to the article rather than list my suggestions here. The article suffers from citation overkill. For example, does Pearce's participation in the annual Big Freeze at the 'G need three citations? Similarly, "By March 2022, Pearce was considering an assistant coaching role for Geelong's AFL team;" has five citations. There are others like this. Can we use just one reliable source for uncontroversial statements? And on the subject of citations, some seem to be poor quality (there was even a Facebook one). Can we weed these out and replace them with better ones? I'm referring to the ones like worldfooty.com. As it stands, the citations are a problem. Graham Beards (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Also: These are often redundant but keep popping up in revisions of the article. I think the writer has an addiction to them. Here is a quote from Tony's essay :

"Additive terms—"also", "in addition", "moreover" and "furthermore". Every sentence is additional to its predecessors, but most of us, including otherwise good writers, have got into the habit of sprinkling these terms through our writing, because they give us a vague feeling of adding to the cohesion of the text (the strength with which it all hangs together). However, only occasionally are these additive words required for textual cohesion; the flow is usually stronger without them." -Graham Beards (talk) 06:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

All of these have been addressed – let me know if you have any additional feedback. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Support on prose. For a sports biography, this article is refreshingly accessible to someone who know nothing about the game. Graham Beards (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Image review

Images are appropriately licensed, but suggest scaling up the image in Personal life. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Teratix

Just a drive-by comment on sourcing, might convert to a full review. Bylined pieces from AFL Media (i.e. post-2012 AFL.com.au) and womens.afl have a decent track record of independent coverage and in my view should be regarded as independent RS. Club and AFLPA websites aren't independent but are reliable enough to be used sparingly. – Teratix ₵ 07:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Quality

• Fn 5: Is Australian Football a reliable site? (consider using an AFL site like https://www.melbournefc.com.au/players/aflw/1669/daisy-pearce#playerstatistics instead)
• Fn 18: Is World Footy News reliable? Looks like a Wikinews-style site.
• Otherwise, all sources are high quality.

Formatting

• I have replaced the work cards with publisher/newspaper/website as appropriate to generate MOS-compliant formatting
• Also News.com.au was sometimes capitalised, sometimes not; I have standardised the article on lower case, matching the other web sites

Spot checks

• Fn 4, 8, 11, 21, 32, 80, 111, 112,
• fn 155 says it is The age, but links to an article in The Australian; I think the link should be https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/star-player-daisy-pearce-named-afl-football-woman-of-the-year-20160929-grr1ww.html
• Fn 158 Not seeing "Pearce studied a Bachelor of Nursing and Midwifery at La Trobe University, graduating in 2010" in the source

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, thanks for the review – I think I've pretty much covered everything. Australian Football seems to be the database of choice for all AFLW players (AFL players use both AFL Tables and Australian Football, whereas AFL Tables doesn't cover AFLW), and the club websites don't include AFLW best and fairest votes (which I used the database to source a few times), so I'd argue that it is reliable and the article would benefit more from keeping it. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 05:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Pass on sources, support article generally. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing concerns from Kavyansh

• Of the five instances, Fox Sports (Australia) does not have 'Australia' in Ref#135 and Ref#143. Also, Ref#135 and Ref#143 are italicized while rest three are not. Suggesting to be consistent.
• I am not confident if "Australian Football" (australianfootball.com) is a high quality source. this does not make it clear if any content matter experts are consulted. More importantly, this says "In order to view some Content, post any Content or access certain features of the Service, you must register as a member with AF" (emphasis mine), which makes me think it is more or less a WP:UGC. Am I missing anything? (References: Ref#5, Ref#54, and Ref#131)
• I am not sure how this of from 'SportsTG'. (Ref#6)
• Since we write 'Fox Sports (Australia)', shouldn't we also write 'ABC News (Australia)'. It can easily be confused with American ABC News. (References: Ref#7, Ref#37, Ref#44, and Ref#111)
• Not convinced that 'The Footy Almanac' is a high quality source. This says "We’d like to publish your work – any topic, any genre. (Check out our Write for us page). It doesn’t matter how experienced you are: if you want to have a go, have a go", which makes me think it is more or less a WP:UGC. Am I missing anything? (References: Ref#13, Ref#17)
• Ref#21: The URL says "The Page you are looking for cannot be found". Should url-status be marked as 'dead'?
• Why do we use 'Instagram' as a source. Are there no secondary sources? (Ref#78)
• Our article italicizes 'Seven News'. Should we do that same in Ref#122?

That is on a quick run. This should be noted that these concerns are raised after a source review was been "passed" on March 14 (Special:Diff/1077022142/1077025521). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh, thanks for your feedback. As I've gone into above with Sportsfan77777's comments, I've removed "(Australia)" from each Fox Sports and ABC News source, as they're all linked. I've fixed the VFLW source and removed the Instagram source, and I've stopped short of italicising Seven News, as I've treated it as being the same as ABC News, etc. All of the other sourcing concerns were addressed in Sportsfan77777's comments. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the late reply. Thanks a lot for fixing most of it. I still have few standing concerns. Per your reply about "Australian Football", you talk about the usefulness of the source, which still does not make clear why it is reliable, or why it is not a WP:UGC. Same with "The Footy Almanac". Even if VWFL (assuming it to be Victorian Women's Football League) is a publisher, does it make it a WP:HQRS when the site explicitly claims "We’d like to publish your work – any topic, any genre. (Check out our Write for us page). It doesn’t matter how experienced you are: if you want to have a go, have a go". Sorry for pressing you and/or being nitpicky. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Further comments/discussion/feedback

OK, guys – I think I've covered just about everything so far, aside from upscaling that last image and maybe a couple of other things (including getting a chance to check out those books/articles, if that was directed at me). Let me know if you guys had any more to add; I've just added this subsection in case anyone wanted to add a comment separately to their reviews, otherwise feel free to drop your thoughts via your own sections if that's easier – thanks. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 16:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Just seeing if anyone else has anything to add? Not sure of the best way to scale up the Personal life image, either. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Just checking in again – been three days now. Pinging those we haven't heard from in a little bit (Buidhe, Gog the Mild, Graham Beards, Nikkimaria and Teratix), along with Casliber, Ian Rose, Ealdgyth, Hmlarson and Figureskatingfan from related FACs if they have any comments. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 00:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

SS Edward L. Ryerson

Nominator(s): GreatLakesShips (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the Great Lakes freighter SS Edward L. Ryerson. I brought the article to GA status in March 2021. It has since been copy edited by Twofingered Typist, and has undergone a peer review. GreatLakesShips (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Edward L. Ryerson launch.jpg, File:Edward L. Ryerson in the Manitowoc River.jpg skeptical about the non-free usage rationale. How is NFCC#8 met? Does "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."? If so, the rationale does not explain. I would suggest removing both images. (t · c) buidhe 07:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Could the picture of the launch be kept? GreatLakesShips (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

You would need to make it clear why "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." as required by NFCC. (t · c) buidhe 23:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Removing it seems to be the only option. GreatLakesShips (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Are the other images alright? GreatLakesShips (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from North8000

A sentence that is both in the lead and body says: "She is one of only two American-owned straight deck lake freighters..." relying on the internal link to say what "straight deck" means here. But as described at the linked article, "straight deck" has two very different meanings. The intended use in this article is not only merely one of the two (leaving the intended meaning in this article unclear), but the intended meaning is not what the linked article describes as the primary meaning. Could this be clarified? North8000 (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I tweaked the straight deck article to help in this area. North8000 (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@North8000: I've added a footnote to clarify the matter. GreatLakesShips (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Cool! North8000 (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@North8000: I've added "Comments from North8000" to this section. Hope you don't mind. GreatLakesShips (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. North8000 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The article mentioned that they spent an immense amount extra to equip it carry passengers in style. The few glimpses I had of sources seemed to make a point of discussing it carrying VIP's as guests. Do think this should be mentioned in the article? North8000 (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why not.

@North8000: Which source said that? I think I missed that detail. GreatLakesShips (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't make a note of it but I see if I can find it again. It was one of the sources in the article, and the link went to a site (google books?) which had a paragraph or two from about 10 different pages. That's why I called it "glimpses". North8000 (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It was the google books glimpse of "Twilight of the Great Lakes Steamer" page 77. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@North8000: Thank you. Done. GreatLakesShips (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Support I was going slow figuring that others would be taking more time interviewing details. But then I saw the recent notice. North8000 (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced anywhere - eg yard number
• "Since 2009, she has been in long-term layup at the Fraser Shipyard" - text indicates that while she started there she was later moved

Changed to "Since 2009, she has been in long-term layup in Superior, Wisconsin."

• "became well known for her elegant lines" - source?

Changed to "Enthusiasts consider Edward L. Ryerson to be one of the most aesthetically pleasing lake freighters ever built."

• How are you ordering Sources?

Originally alphabetically based on the author/publisher, although they were changed during the peer review.

• What makes Great Lakes Vessel History a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything official that would qualify it as a usable source. It has been removed.

@Nikkimaria: The points have been addressed.

@Nikkimaria: Are the rest of the sources alright? GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 06:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Still seeing details in the infobox that don't appear to be cited anywhere, eg the capacity of 27,500 tons. Also not clear on Sources ordering - it appears that items without a named author are mostly alphabetical by title, but not entirely. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I've sorted all i could find. As for the sources, they are ordered alphabetically, regardless of whether or not an author is listed. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 16:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Still more, eg displacement. Also we've now got several work titles in Sources using |publisher=. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• She was launched on January 21, 1960, and Frankcliffe Hall was launched before that, on December 7, 1959, so I don't understand the "Queen of the Lakes" title -- if it doesn't count till the ship is launched, then she was never the longest; if it counts from construction, then the Frankcliffe Hall would have taken over the title before December 7. What am I missing?

My mistake. I accidentally wrote 1959 instead of 1962.

• Is Joseph L. Block worth a redlink?

I don't think so.

• Why is it worth mentioning a cargo of mill scale? Is there something unusual about that?

It is for a ship that worked in the iron ore trade.

• Have you looked through the newspapers.com articles that mention the ship? I had a quick look; there are hundreds of mentions. No doubt most are trivial, but I see you don't have any references to newspapers in the article so I thought I'd check.

  I don't have a newspapers account.

  It's free. If you go to WP:LIBRARY and click on "Get free access to research!" near the bottom it'll take you to a page where you can sign up. If you have problems you can ask questions or ask for help at WT:LIBRARY. It's a great resource. Since you don't have an account yet I'll do some searches today and see if I can find anything of interest, and post the results here, but I really recommend you sign up -- for the articles you write I think it would be very useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Two months ago I got a notification which said I was eligible for an account at the Wikipedia Library. Is that significant? GreatLakesShips (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

They sent that note to everyone who was eligible, so yes, it means you would be given an account if you asked for one. There are requirements (minimum number of edits, etc.) and that notification just meant that you meet the requirements. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

That's everything I can see; the article is in good shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: All done. GreatLakesShips (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Some clippings. I've noted below if they are out of copyright, meaning that you can use the photos, if you want to.

• [23] -- mentions details of the accommodations, and mentions that the hatches admit two loading chutes and improve visibility and access during unloading. This is out of copyright.
• [24] -- more details of accommodations, info about the crew, a mishap on the first trip, and this source says the $8M was for the whole ship, not just the accommodations, which to be honest is a lot more plausible. Out of copyright.
• [25] -- 2016 look back. In copyright. Mentions the Manitowoc County Historical Society which apparently has photos of the ship, which may be available for use.
• [26] -- a similar article, from 2020. In copyright. This one has a picture from the Wisconsin Maritime Museum, which might be worth contacting.
• [27] -- mentions that the launch damaged the city dock, and that there's an elevator on board -- the first on a lake ship. Out of copyright -- the Green Bay Press-Gazette did start renewing copyright, but much later than necessary for the 1960 issues.
• [28] -- gives a couple of engineering details, e.g. about the controls for the boiler, and explains why the vertical-sided holds were important. Out of copyright.

Per this page copyright has to be renewed for publications before 1964, and this page is where you can search for those renewals.

I think that's everything useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: All done. GreatLakesShips (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

GreatLakesShips regarding the two new photos, how did you confirm there was no copyright renewal? (t · c) buidhe 00:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if GreatLakesShips repeated the search, but I searched, using the link above to cocatalog.loc.gov. I searched for renewals 27-28 years after the publication dates using the newspaper titles as the search string. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, sounds reasonable. Image review is a pass. (t · c) buidhe 00:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Support. The additions look good. Buidhe, since you did the image review, there are two new images you may want to look at. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

ore than three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination attracts further interest over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Strom Thurmond filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957

Nominator(s): AviationFreak💬 22:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

This filibuster is the longest ever conducted in the US Senate. While the speech itself isn't particularly well-remembered given the legislation the speaker was trying to prevent passing, there are some entertaining antics (i.e. a "urological mystery") that spice it up. Many thanks to Kavyansh.Singh for his help at PR! AviationFreak💬 22:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• File:1963_US_Senate_Chamber.jpg — if you're claiming publication without a copyright notice, the image description needs to list such a publication (t · c) buidhe 23:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: Added the name of the work, per [29] and [30]. Is this enough, or is there a more formal way of listing the publication on Commons? AviationFreak💬 14:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

    No, because as far as I can tell these sources don't say whether there was a copyright notice, registration, and/or renewal. (t · c) buidhe 18:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

    Gotcha. I looked through these copyright renewal logs and didn't see anything before uploading, but it's entirely possible I missed it or was looking in the wrong place. These are the only sources I'm aware of that reference the work. AviationFreak💬 19:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

    Whoops, forgot to ping buidhe - I'm not great with the ins and outs of copyright protection, so please let me know if this won't fly. :) AviationFreak💬 04:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

    The photograph was likely originally published as part of a larger work, so it would be covered by that copyright. You would probably need to see the original publication to know for sure. See File:Waterboarding a captured North Vietnamese soldier near Da Nang.jpeg for an example of how to know that copyright does not apply. (t · c) buidhe 04:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

    I don't plan to be getting ahold of that publication anytime soon, and from what I can tell there's no information on the publication's or image's copyright available online. I've removed the image and nominated it for deletion due to copyright uncertainty at Commons. AviationFreak💬 01:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Hurricanehink - support

I was aware of this filibuster before reading it, so I wanted to review the article.

• I'd explain more about what the law was in the lead. The lead would ideally be two paragraphs, so maybe also go into more detail about Thurmond, like what age he was, how long he had been a senator.
  • Done.
• " It began at 8:54 p.m. and lasted until 9:12 p.m." - local time is implied, but I suggest adding a note, saying that all dates are in Eastern Daylight Time.
  • Added a note stating all times are in the Eastern Time Zone, not DST. From what I can tell, DST was not federally standardized until 1966. I've never been great with keeping Standard Time and DST straight, so please let me know if you think this is incorrect.
• "This made the filibuster the longest single-person filibuster in United States Senate history" - you mentioned that Thurmond yielded his time, so perhaps explain more what you mean by "single-person filibuster"? And perhaps also explain a bit what a filibuster is, both in the lead and in the article? Perhaps explain why Thurmond was allowed to filibuster, and what that meant, versus cloture. Like, why did everything stop while he talked, and how come it was able to pass two hours after he stopped?
  • Done - Will expand lede a bit further down the road
• "The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was designed to federally secure and protect the right of African-Americans to vote." - Maybe expand on this a bit, that Eisenhower's AG proposed the bill alongside the NAACP
  • Added that it was supported by NAACP and Eisenhower administration
• "among other things" - that language is a bit weasel-y.
  • Removed weaseliness
• "Thurmond saw the bill as a direct attack on states' rights." - this feels like it could be the start of a new paragraph. The first paragraph of the background could explain the bill, then have the next one be about Thurmond himself, as well as the bit about the S.C. governor.
  • Done; moved a bit about the specific provision in the bill up to that paragraph as well since it fit better there IMO.
• "An agreement among the Southern senators to not stage an organized filibuster had been reached in Georgia Senator Richard Russell's office four days prior to Thurmond's speech." - maybe give the date
  • Done
• Thurmond claimed that the civil rights bill constituted a "cruel and unusual punishment" - if this part is a quote, then "claimed" isn't the right word. Perhaps remarked would be better? See MOS:CLAIM. You also use "claim later with - "and longtime Capitol Hill staffer Bertie Bowman claimed in his memoir that Thurmond had been fitter with a catheter."
  • Done
• "He was primarily focused on a provision in the bill that would allow minor voting rights contempt cases to be tried by a judge without a jury present, but that allowed a second trial by jury for penalties in the first trial greater than 45 days' imprisonment or a $300 fine." - by "minor", I immediately thought "underage", so perhaps there's a better word than "minor". This part is a bit lengthy and confusing, and yet it's the nature of why Thurmond was intent on speaking for more than 24 hours. I'd expand on this a bit, if you don't mind.
  • Done. Very much agree that making this understandable to the reader is important, so let me know if this can be improved further.
• "Thurmond and other Southern senators saw this as a violation of the defendant's right to a trial by jury" - but the same Southern senators had an agreement not to filibuster? So, they didn't like it, but they didn't want to hold it up?
  • This is explained at the end of the third paragraph in "Outcome and reception". Essentially, a filibuster would be ineffective because cloture would be reached easily and it would only serve to damage the South's reputation. Is there a good way to state this concisely in the paragraph you're referencing?
    • I think that works well where you have it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• " On the morning of the 29th, Thurmond's voice dropped to a mumble and his tone became increasingly monotonous." - minor question, but did he have a microphone?
  • Not sure - It appears that microphones had been used in the past for specific events, but (at least from that source) we can't be sure of Senate events being mic'd before 1971. I feel that adding anything about this without a solid ref would be getting near OR territory.
    • Makes sense, no worries. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• When did Thurmond continue his filibuster after Senator Proxmire was sworn in?
  • I don't believe any sources note this - The closest I can find is the first "Editor's note" in the (unfortunately, untimestamped) full transcript, which I believe indicates that Proxmire was sworn in.
    • That's fine. Maybe indicate that the filibuster continued after the swearing in (which would lead to the bit about other senators questioning him). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Consuming 96 pages in the Congressional Record, Thurmond's filibuster cost taxpayers over $7,000 in printing costs ($65,000 in 2020 dollars)." - so I love this bit, but I think it could be expanded a bit. Maybe say something like Thurmond's words were dictated (ideally the congressional typists who dictated it, but that might not be known), or the total number of words, to explain how it would take up 96 pages and cost $7,000?
  • Unfortunately can't find info on the individual typists or total word count (would just using an off-the-shelf word processor to calculate this be OR?), but I did add a bit about "teams of stenographers" from one of the book sources.
    • Love that! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• "According to Joseph Crespino, the filibuster, as well as his partial authorship of the Southern Manifesto the preceding year" - that could imply that Crespino wrote part of the Southern Manifesto. This sentence is a bit odd because of the extended quote, along with the first part.
  • Pushed some words around so it's hopefully more readable now. The second part of the quote could be cut as well if still not very readable.
    • It's better, but the mixture of the quote and regular language is a bit odd. Maybe note something like "In his biography [titled X], Crespino noted the historical nature of Thurmond's filibuster and partial authorship of the Southern Manifesto the previous year. He described these events as "[sealing] Thurmond's reputation as one of the South's last Confederates, a champion of white southerners' campaign of 'massive resistance'" to civil rights. Ideally you'd get the last bit of the quote in there, which I think is a pretty powerful statement. Also, a minor note - don't link Crespino the second time in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• "In 1964, Thurmond (who would switch his affiliation to the Republican Party later that year) participated in a second anti-civil rights filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964." - the part in parenthesis should be written out fully. I suggest moving it to the end of the sentence, like - "In 1964, Thurmond participated in a second anti-civil rights filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Later that year, he switched his affiliation to the Republican Party."
  • Done; Referenced party switch more concretely.

In all, the article is pretty good. I feel like some parts should be expanded on a bit, so the legislative nuance makes sense to all readers (and not just political junkies). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your review! I haven't made some of the more involved changes just yet in the name of sleep, but I'm eager to get on those when I get a chance. AviationFreak💬 04:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Finished these changes; let me know if you see anything else that could use some work! AviationFreak💬 04:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

This looks much better! Just two minor quibbles left. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Done! AviationFreak💬 21:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm happy to support, but I wonder why the bit about the SC governor was removed. I would say, yes, the Quint source appears reliable - he has his PhD in history. As for the book by Washington-Williams, I'd think that the senator's daughter would know about the senator's mindset, supporting the claim that Thurmond saw the bill as a direct attack on states' rights. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • These are good points. The sources didn't support many claims (few, if any, were particularly important claims in my opinion), and I think Kavyansh.Singh is right in that a contemporaneous source and a possible NPOV-problem source aren't as reliable as possible. With that said, the claims weren't particularly contentious (with the exception of the Timmerman quote) and I'd be happy to reinstate them if we can come to an agreement on the sources' reliabilities. AviationFreak💬 22:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

AryKun

• Ah, the wonderful idiosyncrasies of American politics. Will do soon. AryKun (talk) 06:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'd still like perhaps a footnote giving a more extended definition for filibuster in the lead; extended speech doesn't really cover it.
  • Added a bit more in the lede's second sentence. There's already a footnote in that sentence so I worry another might look crammed, plus a more detailed definition of a filibuster is given in the second paragraph of the body.
• "through a compromise" → Is the link for compromise needed? Very common word.
  • Removed
• Filibuster is linked at second mention instead of first: the first mention is at "not stage an organized filibuster".
  • Article's paragraphs have been rearranged since this review; filibuster is linked at first mention in lede and body.
• "but a staffer quickly put it out of his reach after Thurmond had drunk a glass" → Any reason why?
  • Added "to reduce the likelihood of him needing to leave for a restroom".
• "authorship of the Southern Manifesto" → Link Southern Manifesto.
  • Done
• "South's last Confederates" → Link Confederate.
  • Done; Fairly certain both this and the previous change fall within the bounds of MOS:LWQ.
• Overall an excellent article. AryKun (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @AryKun: Thank you! Changes have been made, let me know if anything else catches your eye. AviationFreak💬 03:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support pending confirmation of the spot-checks. AryKun (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Kavyansh — support

I reviewed the article at peer-review. Pinging @Extraordinary Writ as they did the GA review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• "intended to stop the passage of" — shouldn't that be "intended to prevent the passage of"; you can't technically stop a bill's passage, you can delay or prevent it.
  • Done
• "from a number of historical and legal documents" — how about "from various historical and legal documents"
  • Done
• "prior to the marathon speech" — marathon?
  • Wiktionary gives "Any extended or sustained activity" as a definition - Let me know if this doesn't work for some other reason
    • That I know, but isn't that informal term? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Removed
• "He was 54 when he" — "He was aged 54 when he"
  • Done
• "Thurmond was focused on a" — remove 'was'
  • Done
• "While the filibuster was supported by" — would it be better to replace 'while' with 'although'?
  • Done
• "of other southern states" — the article needs to be consistent whether 'southern' needs to be capitalized or not.
  • All references to "South/Southern" capitalized per MOS:COMPASS, with the exception of the Crespino quote (which is lowercase in the source).
    • Fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• "within the Department of Justice" — better link target would be United States Department of Justice
  • Done, thank you for catching this!
• "Thurmond's filibuster" — "His filibuster"
  • Where? This phrase is used 4 times in prose and it works fine where it is in my opinion, particularly at the beginnings of paragraphs.
    • Can't remember where. I searches again, but now I think that looks fine, so leave this. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• "since most judges would opt not to try a case without a jury if doing so made a second trial more likely" — who speculates this?
  • Crespino is cited at the end of the sentence; Does this need to be in-text attributed?
    • Maybe yes. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Done
• "Six years later in 1954" — Either just mention 'six years later', or just '1954'. Both together are not really required.
  • Done
• "Thurmond ran as a Democrat and was elected to the Senate in a write-in campaign" — perhaps worth clarifying for readers who don't know that Thurmond ran as a Democrat, but not on the Democratic ticket. Edgar Brown was the official Democratic nominee.
  • Done; linked Ticket (election) and 1954 United States Senate election in South Carolina.
• Dwight D. Eisenhower is never linked in the prose (except image caption and lead)
  • Done
• "Book Sources" subheading should really be "Book sources"
  • Done
• Entirely optional, but worth mentioning that Thurmond was, well, a senator even at age of "100". Period.
  • Done

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: Got these all taken care of except where otherwise noted. AviationFreak💬 23:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I support the promotion of this article as a featured article. Great work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review — pass

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• The Quint source is of 1958, merely months after the filibuster. Why do you think it is a "high-quality reliable source", as required by the FA criteria 1c? Same with Washington-Williams one; should we treat memoir by the Daughter of Strom Thurmond as a reliable secondary source?
  • Both sources (and the claims they supported that I couldn't find a different source for) removed. (See discussion above)
• Same question for Politico. Although, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Politico, it is generally reliable even for politics, what makes it a "high-quality reliable source" is unclear to me. Do you have anything to add?
  • The comments at this RfC indicate that Politico's reliability is perhaps questionable in WP:PIA-related topics, but the consensus appears to be "generally reliable" in other areas. The AmPol Politico article referenced in the Thurmond article is pretty matter-of-fact and unopinionated in my opinion - The only bit of info it sources is that southern Democrats opposed the bill (which is pretty uncontroversial when you look at book sources, the Politico article just states it far more concisely).
    • I accept that the particular piece you cite is reliable, but FAs requires the sources which are of highest quality in reliability. I am not asking you to remove that source, but can that same content be cited to any other better academic source? If so, suggesting to do so. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Not as far as I can tell - Larger academic sources present a more nuanced view and readers are assumed to already have the understanding that Southern Democrats generally opposed racial integration and civil rights. The Politico article is more bite-sized and doesn't assume prior knowledge, so I think we'd have a hard time finding an academic source that states it so clearly.
        • Okay, that is fine. I feel that Politico as a whole is not the highest quality reliable source, but due the the above stated reasons, combined by fact that it is used just once to cite an uncontroversial fact makes be believe that this particular piece is fine in this article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• The Fox News sources appears to be initially from Associated Press, so it appears fine.
• What is your approach for italicizing the news agency/media outlet? I feel that media agencies and outlets should be italicized only if our Wikipedia page title also does the same. So, I think that United States House of Representatives, National Archives, Eisenhower Library, United States Senate, Library of Congress, and BBC News should not be italicized in references. Shift them to the |publisher= parameter. Also note that National Public Radio is in italics in Ref#28, and not in italics in Ref#10.
  • Done
    • Actually, same with Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs and Fox News. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Done
• Eisenhower Library should by Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library, Museum and Boyhood Home. National Archives should be National Archives and Records Administration.
  • Done
• Page ranges take en-dashes instead of regular hyphen. So, "pp. 175-176" should be "pp. 175–176". Check it for all page ranges in References and sources.
  • Done
• The Senate, 1789-1989 should have en-dash instead of regular hyphen in year range.
  • Done
• Suggesting to keep the title of all "book sources" in Title case.
  • Done
• Entirely optional, but I think "New York, New York" should be "New York City, New York".
  • Done
• "Regan Books" should be "ReganBooks" (without space)
  • Source removed
• "Crespino (2012), pp. 117" — should be 'p.'
  • Done

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking much better, almost done. Just clarification needed at few more places. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: Should all be covered now; let me know if anything else sticks out AviationFreak💬 17:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Pass for source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Addendum (13:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)): Above comment striked. Pass for source (1) reliability, and (2) formatting. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose from HF

• "The 1964 filibuster was carried out by a group of Southern senators over 60 days and was only ended by a cloture vote" - where does the source specify southern senators or 60 days?
  • This is my bad - I believe this was cited to this source at some point which states that the measure occupied the Senate for 60 days (our article on the bill says the filibuster itself was only 54 - my bad again) and was later moved to the wrong reference. Revised the sentence to remove length of time, and recited to this source which explicitly mentions the Southern bloc.
• "In 1964, Thurmond participated in a second anti-civil rights filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964" - source mentions a filibuster by civil rights opponents and later quotes Thurmond, but never explicitly states that Thurmond was part of the filibuster
  • I would argue that the source does state that Thurmond participated. While it's perhaps not as explicit as it could be (I can re-ref if needed), the source states that "Thurmond argued that the bill took away the rights of white southerners..." when discussing the Senate debate - I don't see how this doesn't show Thurmond's participation in the filibuster against the bill.
• "Thurmond was repeatedly elected and served in the Senate for 48 years, retiring at age 100 as the oldest and longest-serving U.S. senator ever" - Thurmond was still technically in the Senate when this source was published. I would feel a lot more comfortable if this was supported by a post-January 2003 source.
  • Done; re-refed to the Senate bio of him and removed quote about longest-serving senator because while it was true at the time of his retirement, it isn't anymore and the Senate bio doesn't mention it.
• "Goldwater asked Thurmond to yield the floor to him for a few minutes, and Thurmond was able to use the restroom while Goldwater spoke" - this implies that Goldwater was up there for speaking purposes, but the source implies that Goldwater was going to use the time to add something to the Congressional Record?
  • My understanding was that an insertion into the Congressional Record was essentially another way to say "he spoke about something and it was added to the Record", but that doesn't seem to be the case. Revised article accordingly.
• "Thurmond was allowed to leave the stand only once," - why the word allowed? I don't think there was a prohibition against that, and surely he wasn't still at the stand when Proxmire was being admitted and such
  • Removed the bit about "the stand" - Senators cannot leave the chamber during a speech, which is my bad. Clarified that "Thurmond was allowed to leave for the restroom one time."
• "Thurmond claimed to have taken daily steam baths leading up to the filibuster in" - why "Thurmond claimed"? In neither of the sources is it stated that this was a claim he made - Fox presents it as a statement of fact, and NPR attributes it to a book, not Thurmond.
  • Stated as fact, and cited directly to the book as opposed to NPR.
• " who spoke against the Submerged Lands Act for 22 hours and 26 minutes in 1953." - what's the relevant quote from Byrd here? The other source states that he was filibustering the Tidelands Oil legislation
  • Byrd is there to reinforce the exact time of 22:26, but it can be removed if it's unnecessary. Added WaPo source stating the specific legislation (I believe the term "tidelands oil legislation" is a more generic term for the specific bill - as far as I can tell that's not the name of any one bill).
• "Thurmond concluded his filibuster after 24 hours and 18 minutes at 9:12 p.m. on August 29," - source doesn't give the date or time
  • Cited to Cohodas source, though I thought given a start time and length WP:CALC allows for this.

I haven't checked all of the sources available to me, but it's obvious just from this that serious source-text integrity issues are present. I am opposing and will recommend that this nomination is not promoted until the book sources have been able to be thoroughly spot-checked. Hog Farm _Talk 20:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and pointing out these issues. I've responded to all of them, and if you have any concerns about my responses please let me know. :) AviationFreak💬 04:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• African-Americans is linked in the lead but not in the body. Also, our article has no hyphen.
• Filibuster is also not linked in the body
• Storm Thurmond is not linked or named in full in the body. The body should essentially "start from scratch" rather than essentially continuing from the lead, so he should be named in full and linked on first mention.
• I think filibuster could do with a little more definition in the body. In the lead you say "....or extended speech" but don't restate that in the body, plus it's actually a bit more complex than that. It's an artificially long speech with the specific purpose of blocking a law and I think you need to make that explicit.
• I stand corrected on point 2 above, filibuster is actually linked on about its fifth usage in the body - should be on the first
• Ah, and at this point you also define it - that should be earlier
• "The rules at the time of Thurmond's filibuster prevented senators from leaving the chamber" - pedantic maybe, but specify that they cannot leave the chamber *during a speech* as opposed to ever :-)
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • These are all done, thank you! :) AviationFreak💬 12:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Detailed spot checks by Kavyansh

Moved to FAC talk page (on 15:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC))

@Buidhe and @Hog Farm: I did a detailed spot-check above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Got through a good chunk of the table. Taking a break for now, will hopefully be able to finish it off tonight. Major thanks to Kavyansh for taking the time to put this together! :) AviationFreak💬 21:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Buidhe, Hog Farm, and Kavyansh.Singh. I've filled in replies for all s and s, so feel free to check my work and let me know if there's anything you'd like changed. Thanks! AviationFreak💬 00:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Will take a look soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Replied. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: Replies are in; I think maybe we're misunderstanding each other on Ref#9? I don't see what would govern what causes a speech to end except the Senate rules. Thanks! Also, congrats on TFA!! AviationFreak💬 03:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Interesting to see a video with the blurb! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so the spot-checks are almost finished. Just requiring other editors advise for the following points:

• "During the filibuster, Thurmond sustained himself on diced pieces of pumpernickel bread and small pieces of cooked hamburger." — Can "ground sirloin steak" be interpreted as a "hamburger"?
• "Thurmond's departure from the senators' agreement was later criticized by party leaders including Russell and Herman Talmadge." — The source does not mention Talmadge's first name. Is that fine?
• "The rules at the time of Thurmond's filibuster prevented senators from leaving the chamber or sitting down while speaking, as doing so would end their speech." — The source does not explicitly say these were rules.

Apart from these, I feel rest all source-to-text integrity check is done and verified. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm and @Buidhe: Can you please advise regarding the above mentioned three points. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

1) I'd say no on this one. (it's been so long since my one year in junior high FFA where we talked about beef cuts), but a sirloin steak is not equivalent to what hamburger meat usually is. 2) I would be generally okay, provided that there's only relevant Talmadge being discussed in the source 3) needs a source actually stating that these were rules. Hog Farm _Talk 20:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: and @Buidhe: - The above two changes have been made here and here. AviationFreak💬 03:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• @WP:FAC coordinators: if you need an uninvolved coordinator, ping me. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• I don't think the colored icons are necessary per main page instructions. SN54129 14:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Moved to FAC talk page. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Tom Eastick

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Tom Eastick was a part-time Militia officer in the interwar period who commanded an Australian artillery regiment at the Battles of El Alamein in 1942 then commanded the artillery of Australian divisions in New Guinea and then Borneo in 1943–1945. He took the Japanese surrender in Sarawak, and was military governor there after the war ended. He was prominent in ex-service organisations in South Australia, and was knighted in 1970 for his volunteer work. This one has been recently expanded and went through GAN in December last year and just cleared Milhist ACR. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Image review—pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 06:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks buidhe! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

• Infobox: it seems odd to give his allegiance as Australian and then immediately restate it against service/branch.

Piped. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• "He was appointed as the commander of the 50th Battery of the brigade in 1924." Optional: a note indicating how many batteries the brigade had would be useful.

Four, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• "his promotion to lieutenant colonel in the Militia was made substantive". Link to substantive rank.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• "24 Ordnance QF 25-pounder guns." Consider adding 'more modern' or similar.

added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Er, and that is all I can find to pick at. Sterling work. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Cheers Gog, all done I reckon. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• Don't mix {{citation}} with {{cite}}-family templates

Any suggestions, Nikkimaria? I couldn't find one that seemed designed for a public missive of this type. It is like an open letter or charter or something. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

{{cite press release}}? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Rungie: Worldcat gives a different publisher, can you verify?

I think the Worldcat entry is incomplete. This is the catalogue entry of the National Library of Australia for the book. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

That entry gives a different location and two publishers - was there a reason to select the one listed here? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

G'day Nikkimaria. Well, all I can tell you is the copy I looked at had Hawthorndene as the location, and Investigator Press as the publisher. The NLA catalogue entry has [Adelaide] and I am not sure what the square brackets mean, perhaps "Greater Adelaide" (Hawthorndene is an outer suburb). As far as the Royal Artillery Association of South Australia is concerned, it isn't clear to me whether they are a publisher or a contributor or both. It didn't seem correct to use the "via" field, but if you have any suggestions how to incorporate two publishers I'm happy to add them to it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Does that organization appear on your copy in any capacity? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can remember (I don't have it to hand), it wasn't credited as publisher, only Investigator Press was. It did mention the organisation on the front pages, but it wasn't clear what role they played. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Hm. Okay, without seeing the source, I'm not sure I'm going to be able to help on that one. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

OK Nikkimaria, I went back to look at the copy held by the state library, and I clearly didn't take very good notes when I first looked at it. The title page credits Brook as the editor, and has Investigator Press Pty Ltd below that. No mention on that page of the Royal Artillery Association of South Australia. But the imprint page says "First published in 1986 by the Royal Artillery Association of South Australia", and "Copyright (c) Royal Artillery Association of South Australia & David Brook", then "Wholly set up and produced in South Australia by Investigator Press Pty Ltd Hawthorndene South Australia 5051". So, I guess that means "Royal Artillery Association of South Australia & David Brook" should be entered against the publisher field, Brook remains editor. But what if anything do I do about Investigator Press? Perhaps they just set it up and printed it? Appreciate your advice. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Based on that description I'd think that they are the printer, and the Association should be entered as publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• How are you deciding when to include retrieval date? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Are there particular source(s) you are querying? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Under Gazettes one includes and the rest do not. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, fixed. I think I've addressed all these points now, Nikkimaria, although I have a query about Rungie. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from JennyOz

Placeholder, back soon. JennyOz (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi PM, another fine bio. Only a few comments and questions...

• Add auseng template

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• ibox 13th Field Brigade - wlink?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• ibox Returned Sailors’, Soldiers’ and Airmen's - 1st 2 apostrophes are curly

Whoops. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• active in the Boy Scout movement - change wlink to Scouting and Guiding in Australia or Scouts Australia or Scouting and Guiding in South Australia?

Much better, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• He worked for a hardware company, - the hardware company (and remove comma after company) seeing name is known?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Colton, Palmer & Preston - link to the redirect for that company which has few incoming links Colton, Palmer and Preston Ltd.?

Done, good spot. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• training with World War I vintage - needs hyphen but as a MOS:SUFFIXDASH ie World War I–vintage?

of course, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Initially deployed to a staging area at Ikingi Maryut,[1][8] and in late May it moved forward into defensive positions at Mersa Matruh. - needs something added, or drop the "and"?

the latter, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• In early October Eastick was advised that his regiment was to be withdrawn to rejoin the 9th Division,[14] which had been withdrawn from Tobruk - 2 x withdrawn - "to be withdrawn " can go?

Yes, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• pushing forward as far forward as - one "forward" can go?

Again, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• the 9th Division, including the 2/7th Field Regiment, returned to Australia - wlink Operation Pamphlet?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• The 9th Division was at that time reforming - re-forming as in being created again?

Yes, whoops. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• the liberation of the Philippines - wlink?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• was broken up into two primary operations - remove "up"?

Done, replaced with "split". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• By 14 September 858 POWs and internees had been evacuated.[26] By the end of October, 6,124 Japanese troops - inconsistent comma use after months

Added in the missing first one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• sub-branch of the Returned Sailors’, Soldiers’ and Airmen's - 2 curlies

Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• In 1953, Eastick was profiled - Also in 1953 or That same year

Good point. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• References websites accessdate x2 - add hyphens

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

That's it from me. Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks as always Jenny! I always really appreciate it when you look on my work! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• I see a couple of chapters in the references (Long and Maughan); you might add the page range to the citation.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• "born on 3 May 1900 at Hyde Park": is this Australian usage? In British English one would say "in Hyde Park".

Yes, it is what the Australian Dictionary of Biography uses. See the web link at the bottom under Websites. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• "the Leader of the Opposition from 1972 to 1975": I took this to refer to the national assembly until I followed the link; I think it should be clearer that this just refers to South Australia.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• "a Royal Australian Air Force pilot adjusted the fire of Eastick's battery during field firing": I don't understand this.

I've added a link that might help. Is that enough? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

That does help. I assume in military sources "adjusted the fire" would be clear to most readers, so we can let this go, but if there's an alternative way to phrase this that uses the term "artillery spotter" or something like it, I think that might be better-known to other non-military readers. Though my only evidence for that is that it's better-known to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Initially deployed to a staging area at Ikingi Maryut, and in late May it moved forward into defensive positions at Mersa Matruh." There's no noun in this sentence for "it" to refer to.

Doh. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• "pushing forward as far forward".

Also picked up by Jenny above, and fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• "in recognition of the level of efficiency reached by the regiment under Eastick's command" and "which recognised the high level of efficiency reached by the 2/7th Field Regiment under Eastick's command" are in consecutive paragraphs; I understand this isn't easy to rephrase but it wouldn't hurt to try to vary it a bit more.

I think the point doesn't need to be made twice, deleted second instance. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Eastick then administered command of the 9th Division": can "administered command" be shortened to just "commanded"? If not I don't understand the distinction.

It means that he was responsible for the administration of the division, but he was not formally appointed as its commander. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

OK -- clearly this is correctly phrased. If there's a link to army command structures or organization that discusses the role, that would be good, but if not, no problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

All minor points; this is in excellent shape, as usual. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Mike. See what you think of my responses. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Support. There are a couple of unstruck comments above but they're not really issues with the article, more indications of my lack of familiarity with military terminology, and I'm fine if they don't lead to further edits. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

First homosexual movement

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 21:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

This article is marginally less depressing than the stuff that you guys usually get from me. Nobody bit at GAN so I'm sending it straight to you! (t · c) buidhe 21:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh

Placeholder! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Minor formatting issues for now:
  • Ref#30: Beachy 2010, p. 804–805. — p/pp error
  • Ref#61: Dickinson 2014, p. 168–169 — p/pp error
  • Ref#76: Whisnant 2016, p. 68–69 — p/pp error
  • Ref#77: Whisnant 2016, p. 69–70 — p/pp error
  • Ref#210: Whisnant 2016, p. 194–195 — p/pp error
  • Ref#233: Marhoefer 2015, p. 120–121 — p/pp error

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

oops, they should all be fixed now. (t · c) buidhe 10:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• "and the German revolution." — 'R' should be capital in 'revolution'
  • Cited sources don't capitalize
    • But our article on the topic does. So does the Chicago Manual of Style, G-ngram of past 20 years. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• both the German Friendship Society and the League for Human Rights links redirect to the same page
  • Yes, but in future there might be separate pages as they're independently notable
    • Fair enough. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• "in the aftermath of the war." — WW1?
  • That's the only war mentioned in the lead so I don't think it's excessively confusing.
• "throughout German history" — is there a reason why this is linked to 'German history', which redirects to History of Germany?
  • I've piped it if you think that's better
• "The Christian church" — Our article on Christian Church capitalizes 'C' in 'Church'
  • Unlike the Christian Church article, this does not refer "to what different Christian denominations conceive of as being the true body of Christians or the original institution established by Jesus"
• "of the Napoleonic wars" — Our article on Napoleonic Wars capitalizes 'W' in 'Wars'
  • Both capitalizations are in use
    • Yes, with the capital 'W' more that double in use per this – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• "The German-language writer Karl Maria Kertbeny coined" — Our article hyphenates Karl-Maria Kertbeny
  • The hyphenation is against the majority of RS as indicated by Google Scholar searches. I've moved the article.
    • Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• "The growing prestige of medicine meant that Germans began to consult doctors on matters of sexuality instead of clerics" — How about "The growing prestige of medicine made Germans began to consult doctors on matters of sexuality instead of clerics"
  • I don't think that is grammatically correct. I also disagree with "made Germans begin" because they had the option of consulting either doctors or clergy and weren't forced to rely on one or the other.
    • To me, the initial statement is WP:OR; we shouldn't be saying something in the exact same way a historian would write. And even the initial statement reads like they started to consult doctors instead of the clergymen. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
      • According to WP:OR, "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." In this case, a published RS exists making this exact claim so I disagree that it is WP:OR. (t · c) buidhe 23:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
        • Source: "Just as important for doctors, though, was the growing prestige that the field of medicine commanded socially. "More and more," notes the historian Harry Oosterhuis, "physicians, acting as mediators between science and the vexing problems of everyday life, succeeded in convincing the public of the indispensability of their expertise, and gradually they began to replace the clergy as authoritative personal consultants in the realm of sexuality.""
        • Text: "The growing prestige of medicine meant that Germans began to consult doctors on matters of sexuality instead of clerics."
          • Isn't there a slight change of meaning in the text? We say that "Germans began to consult", the source says that "More and more" Germans began to consult. The source wants implies that rise of research in medicine brought a gradual change in majority of German population's lifestyle; our text implies that they simply started replacing clerics with doctors. I did not realized this until I compared it with the source. All I disagree here is the phrase "meant that", which I feel should not be present and should be rephrased. I am open to reconsider, though. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

          OK, I've gone ahead and removed the sentence as insufficiently relevant. (t · c) buidhe 05:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Although Krafft-Ebing has often been regarded as "the chief contributor to the scientific pathologization of homosexuality in the nineteenth century"" — but we only cite one author
  • That's not Whisnant's opinion, he notes that "Krafft-Ebing has been demonized over the years as the chief contributor to the scientific pathologization of homosexuality in the nineteenth century."
• "the subject of "unusually broad debate" involving" — the prose does not makes clear where this quote comes from
  • Rephrased
• "after the death of one of his patients by suicide." — was the patient homosexual?
  • Rephrased
• "which had 50,000 copies printed by 1911" — exact or approximate?
  • Rephrased
• should we link ethnographer?
  • There's no separate article from ethnography
    • Even a link to Ethnography would help. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
      • the ethnography article is already linked earlier (t · c) buidhe 22:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
        • Fine then! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Ferdinand Karsch-Haack" — Is this his common name? Because our article calls him just Ferdinand Karsch
  • Not sure which is more common, so I went with the one used in the cited source
• "although its main focus continued to be Paragraph 175" — Should be "although its main focus continued to be abolishing Paragraph 175"
  • Done
• "with modern ideas of Nietzscheanism, antimodernism, misogyny, illiberalism," — without clinking on the links, I would hardy understand any of these terms.
  • Moreover, for a non-expert reader, clicking each link to understand the terms is a great distraction. Is there anything we could do to solve this? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• "organization Gemeinschaft der Eigenen (GdE)" — shouldn't Gemeinschaft der Eigenen be in italics?
  • I think that would be confusing as publications are italicized but organizations are not.
• "Brand joined the WhK because he shared its goal of decriminalizing homosexuality" — Was this a statement of Adolf Brand, or merely a speculation by a historian
  • I just report what the RS says, I do not know exactly how it got this information.
    • I agree, but we, in Wikipedia's voice, cannot speculate the reason for someone doing something without they themselves telling it. Best we can do is inline attribute it to Whisnant. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• "for more than two years" — how about "for over two years"
  • I don't think that reads better.
• "The affair was a disaster for the homosexual movement." — According to whom? Is this a widely considered opinion?
  • I'm not sure if this is an opinion, it's not really debateable if you look at the observable effects and supported by both Whisnant and Dickinson.
    • But we are saying that in Wikipedia's voice. And it is WP:OR to look at the observable effects and then decide. If it is supported by multiple historians, we can claim that it is a "widely held opinion", and should specify that in the text. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
      • The exact phrasing "was a disaster" is widely used in a variety of contexts on Wikipedia. We also have list of disasters and list of military disasters. Let's see what other reviewers have to say. (t · c) buidhe 23:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
        • Sure, lets see what other think. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• "the WhK reported that more than half its membership was" — shouldn't it be 'were'?
  • It's correct because membership is singular, compare "half the auditorium was empty" (not "were")
• ""The hour of liberation is now or never, for us … We," — Add {{nbsp}} before the ellipsis
  • Done
• More to come (from sub-heading "Associations")

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Continuing:

• "membership had ballooned from 2,000 in 1922 to an estimated 48,000" — 'ballooned'? how about 'significantly increased'
  • Done
• "and when this venture failed put Lotte Hahm in charge — something seems missing here
  • Comma added
• "but this could cause friction especially in the case of male-to-female transvestites" — is it merely a speculation or anything like that happened?
  • Rephrased
• "and could lead to arrest" — shouldn't we be using the past tense?
  • It is; present tense would be "can lead to arrest"
• "with an initial print run of 20,000 copies" — exact or approximate?
  • Source doesn't specify
• "far right" can be linked for non experts
  • Done
• "In editorials in his publications" — something seems wrong here
  • Rephrased
• "Partly in response to the film, film censorship" — any way to avoid the repetition of 'film'?
  • Rephrased
• "were 1 percent" — Per MOS:SPELL09, '1' should normally be spelled
  • done
• "even President Paul Hindenburg" — now here, the common name is clearly Paul von Hindenburg
  • Ok
• Optional: "by 15 to 13 votes" — "by a vote of 15 to 13"

That is it! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for your comments. There are a few disagreements about capitalization and possible OR issues above, which I invite other reviewers to weigh in on. (t · c) buidhe 23:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Sure, I think that'll be the best! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Another read:

• "Unlike the nonprofit organizations that preceded him, Radszuweit ran his publishing house like a business, seeing the pursuit of profit and the pursuit of homosexual rights to be compatible" — Do we need the first part 'Unlike the nonprofit organizations that preceded him'?
• "with 30 novels available to German-speaking readers" v. "Hirschfeld resigned from the WhK leadership after more than thirty years after losing the support" — 30 v. thirty. Per MOS:SPELL09, '30' should normally be written in numerals.
• In the image captions, we have both {{circa}} as well as plain 'c.'. Suggesting to be consistent.

Apart these minor quibbles, I support the article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from SnowFire

Interesting article. Not a full review, but two nitpicks...

• I see that "Christian church" is used in the source, but I agree with Kavyansh.Singh anyway. A lowercase-c church implies one specific church; this is referring to the Church-as-an-institution, which is normally capitalized.
  • I ended up deleting this sentence. (t · c) buidhe 01:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• I think the intro has some issues. First off, Whisant is a little bit out of their lane here talking about classical history, but the article implies that persecution of homosexuals in Germany came about due to Rome & the Church. But... Whisant notes that German pagans are reported as killing "sodomites" as well (by Tacitus, who is a deeply biased & unreliable source to the point of uselessness, but also just about the only one we have), and doesn't say that it was actually subject to harsh punishment in Roman Germany, merely that proclamations against male-male love were made by the Church and some very late Roman Empire legal codes might have included provisions against it, depending on how they were interpreted. My understanding is that evidence of actual prosecutions for such is practically nonexistent, and that's over the entire Roman Empire; our knowledge of Roman Germania is even weaker. Whisant also cites "recent historians" who doubt how stringent the early Church's alleged stance against homosexuality was. However, the article says "It is unclear how much medieval laws against homosexuality were enforced," which seems over-qualified: it's implying that we know for sure the Roman era persecuted homosexuals, but it's uncertain later. But if anything, it's even more uncertain in the Roman era, just because the surviving primary sources from there are so thin, and it's not even clear the Roman laws were applied in Germany or covered homosexuality that often. I would suggest rewriting this to imply a lot more uncertainty about What Really Happened - there are some early Christian condemnations of homosexuality, so cultural attitudes were presumably not positive, and it's unclear how much the late Roman laws or the medieval laws were enforced. (At least if Whisant is relied upon - maybe another source more dedicated to this could add some more detail.)
  • The bit about Tacitus was formerly in the article and removed by another editor. I've trimmed this bit even further as it's not entirely relevant to the subject of the article and specified that the uncertainty extends to all of premodernity. (t · c) buidhe 01:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• At the very end of the article, the last parts of the second paragraph of the Legacy section on how German homosexuals of the era shared the prejudices and politics of society feels weird. I get that Marhoefer (whom a lot of this is cited too) might consider this stuff surprising, but it reads as a bit naive: was the expectation that queer people in the 1920s would share 2020s opinions on everything rather than 1920s opinions? The 1920s was pretty much the height of the respectability of eugenics across the political spectrum, and Germany was still a deeply sexist and class-deferential society. Of course many people would share such views, gay and straight. (Gertrude Stein famously though Marshall Petain was a cool guy because he was restoring family values or something, despite being a lesbian.) I could see maybe room for a single sentence on this confirming that members of the movement cut across all aspects of the social spectrum from Nazi to communist, but withhold the "judgment" from that statement as "complicating their image." I also think that the Mosse quote about "wanting only to bend the bars of their cage" comes across as petty and possibly wrong: is there evidence that, in the alternative universe where the WhK / DFV / etc. were successful at achieving decriminalization, that they'd have stopped there? It's a very common tactic to ask for one thing, than another thing, and so on. If the implication here is that the first movement wasn't sufficiently radical for Mosse's standards, then the fact that they weren't able to achieve their initial goal seems like the obvious culprit, not the movement itself. (If we take the analogy more literally than we should, if the bars were successfully bent, then the next step obviously seems for the prisoner to escape, myself.) Alternatively, maybe I'm misreading something here? If so, the substance of Mosse's criticism should be set up more clearly. SnowFire (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I think this is more a point about the kind of activism that they are using. Embracing reform and respectability politics is one approach, but there have also been radical LGBT movements (eg. Stonewall riots or gay liberation). I've trimmed down this aspect in the legacy section since the approaches used—although this is a focus in the sources—is also covered earlier in the article. Thanks so much for your feedback! (t · c) buidhe 01:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Works for me! Changes look good. (As a side comment, I agree with the removal done by the other user of the Tacitus bit. If you're bored, there's a good series of blog posts that discuss why Tacitus is such a problematic source here and elsewhere in the series - short version is that Tacitus didn't speak any Germanic language, never visited Germania, and it seems entirely possible Tacitus was really critiquing Roman "decadence" of his era by building up his image of what a pure, unsullied by effeminizing civilization would be like on top of the Germans.) SnowFire (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• "Nationalhof at Bülowstraße 37, Berlin-Schöneberg, which was a meeting place for gay and lesbian associations" - source?
  • It's cited in the image description.
• Suggest adding alt text
• File:Petition_gegen_175.jpg needs a US tag and author date of death, if it is believed to be original enough to warrant copyright protection
  • I think PD-text applies, so I swapped the license
• File:Schwule_Scheinhochzeit.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I think this qualifies as PD-text, swapped licensing. (t · c) buidhe 21:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• Was the word Kertbeny coined "homosexuell"? If so I would put that in a footnote; as it stands it reads as though he coined an English word.
  • The exact spelling used was apparently "homosexual"
• "Greater scientific research into homosexuality also occurred during the second half of the nineteenth century": suggest "The second half of the nineteenth century saw an increase in scientific research into homosexuality" -- I think "occur" isn't the most natural verb to use for a trend in research.
  • Done
• "ultimately catalyzed the first homosexual movement": I understand that historians may vary in their definitions, but for the purposes of this article I think we need to be clear about the dates of "the first homosexual movement". In the lead we say it starts in the late nineteenth century, but in Beachy's view it postdates 1900. Can we avoid the apparent contradiction, perhaps by making this "and in Beachy's view the first homosexual movement did not begin until..." or something like that?
  • Clarified the timing a bit.
• "Its arguments were supported by comparison with countries (such as France) where homosexuality was not illegal, scholarly works on homosexuality in ancient Greece, and ethnographies of non-Western cultures." This is in Wikipedia's voice; I think it would be better to rephrase to say "the WhK supported its arguments by..." or something similar.
  • Rephrased
• "the fallout of the Eulenberg affair": I think a few parenthetical words explaining what the Eulenberg affair was would be helpful, even though it is covered in the next subsection.
  • Avoided mentioning the affair in this section to avoid duplication.
• "Following the affair, Germany was debating a new penal code": this makes it sounds like the entire country was debating it.
  • Changed to "the German government"
• "Although the SPD voted down the proposal": at this point in the paragraph I'm not clear what "the proposal" refers to.
  • Removed this clause

That takes me down to the "World War I" section; more tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for your comments !! (t · c) buidhe 14:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Continuing:

• "Many homosexuals believed that they too would be able to enjoy greater freedom as a result of the war and the revolution, made bolder claims to public space": looks like a missing word? Either "who believed" or "and made"?
  • Done
• In the second paragraph of the Associations section, we have "However... Despite... However..."; can we eliminate at least one of these? They make the paragraph feel very conditional.
  • Done
• "Mass media aimed at a homosexual audience was impossible in Imperial Germany because of censorship": suggest "had been" since we're in the section on Weimar.
  • Done
• "ended up on the lists of restricted publications at one point": should this be "at some point"? Or do you mean all at one given time?
  • Correct, not necessarily all at the same time. Reworded
• "In the context of political organizing, neither Hirschfeld's model of homosexuality nor that of the masculinists were satisfactory, because both effeminacy and pederasty were socially reviled." "Neither" usually takes a singular verb, but I don't understand this sentence. Hirschfeld's model is the third sex, and the masculinists disliked effeminacy; why does the social attitude to effeminacy and pederasty specifically make these two views unsatisfactory for political organizing -- that is, more so than other homosexual segments of opinion or explanatory theories?
  • Clarify what the third sex theory means, change to "was"
• "The homosexual movement waned after 1929. Despite its initial optimism in the aftermath of the German revolution, the main goal of the movement—decriminalization—was not achieved, and the failure fueled infighting in the homosexual movement." We have "The homosexual movement...the movement...the homosexual movement", which is not very euphonious. How about "The homosexual movement's initial optimism in the aftermath of the German revolution waned after 1929, and the failure to achieve decriminalization—the movement's main goal—fueled infighting"? Reversing the content of the parenthetical dashes puts the word "movement" near the end of the sentence, which I think means we don't need to say who is experiencing the infighting. There are other ways to solve this, I'm sure.
  • Reworded

More later; just the last two sections to complete. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Last item:

• "The institute's library of more than 12,000 books was publicly burned on 10 May in Opernplatz." According to the comments on the photo in that section, not all the books were burned; some were sold and some were even bought back by Hirschfeld. I don't know if we want to go into that much detail, but at least we shouldn't say they were all burned.

That's all I have. A fine article, and very readable to boot. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• • There's no source for the claim in the image description, but I've rephrased to avoid the implication that all books were burned. Thanks again for your review! (t · c) buidhe 05:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Support. An outstanding article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Graham Beards

I have a few suggestions regarding the prose:

• Here "Following the affair, the German government was debating a new penal code", doesn't sound idiomatic. Why have you used the past progressive tense?
  • According to Dickinson, the timing was coincidental ("It was particularly unfortunate that this crisis came just as the government and parliament were beginning deliberations on a reform of the Criminal Code.") I was trying to convey this with the verb tense, but now rephrased to be clearer.
• There is a fused participle here "with the police estimating in 1914 that 2,000 men were regularly working as prostitutes". See WP:PLUSING. I find these "with" expressions unprofessional.
  • Reworded
• There is a little redundancy in uses of "in order to", where just "to" would suffice:

In order to recruit the reluctant

His publications used plain language and salacious images of naked young men in order to attract readers.

Radszuweit implemented self-censorship in order to get his publications off of the restricted list

Radszuweit promoted respectability politics, but his respectable image was undercut by eroticized images of youths that he printed in order to increase sales.

Removed all

• ad revenue is a little too colloquial for an encyclopaedia.
  • Changed to "advertising revenue".
• Here "They could keep selling to subscribers, but ad revenue would dry up; start publishing under a different name; or wait out the ban." How about "They could keep selling to subscribers – but ad revenue would dry up – start publishing under a different name, or wait out the ban". Just to avoid having two semi-colons in a sentence.
  • Reworded
• This sentence sounds a little pompous, "Historian Javier Samper Vendrell states of Radszuweit's embrace of respectability politics," How about "Of Radszuweit's embrace of respectability politics, Historian Javier Samper Vendrell said" (no deal breaker)
  • Reworded
• Lastly, and I can't see an easy fix, can we avoid using "homosexual" as a noun? This archaic – and somewhat pejorative usage – is rather dated. You got it right here, "The Weimar Republic has held enduring interest for many LGBT people as a brief interlude in which gay men..."
  • I realize it's dated for 21st century gay people, but most of the cited sources use it, most likely because it's a direct translation of the German noun Homosexuelle(r) that was used by most of the activists at the time. I think LGBT or gay can be anachronistic when referring to the nineteenth or early twentieth century.

Thank you for a fascinating read and beautifully structured article. Graham Beards (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for your review! (t · c) buidhe 17:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Support - Graham Beards (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Small comment from Urve

I agree that the use of the word "homosexual" is appropriate. I only come here to say two things about the claim "in 1914, the police estimated that 2,000 men were regularly working as prostitutes". Whisnant, the reference used here, is an interesting and good one—I'm glad it's used heavily in the article.

I didn't question the propriety of the word, I questioned its use as a noun and I was satisfied with the nominator's answer. Graham Beards (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep, I'm just agreeing with the answer. Hope I wasn't misunderstood :) I just intended to give some support in case there's a dispute about the nouns homosexual or transvestite in the future. Urve (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

1. Whisnant does not make the distinction between regular work and irregular work, and just says plainly that there were "as many as" 2,000 male prostitutes. It's never outright said, but I would not be surprised if there were many irregular prostitutes; Whisnant talks about soldiers looking for "a little extra income" through prostitution.
2. Abraham Flexner's 1914 Prostitution in Europe agrees with this upper figure of 2,000, and says there are 1,000 to 2,000 male prostitutes. The figure that Whisnant provides is cited to James Steakley's The Homosexual Emancipation Movement in Germany (1993, p. 27), which is on the internet archive. Steakley gives the estimate of 1,000 to 2,000. Saying plainly "2,000 men were regularly working as prostitutes" is a bit different than what Whisnant or the source material claim. But indeed, this is a police estimate according to Steakley, so that much of the sentence is okay (and useful to our readers).

Thanks, Urve (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Good catch. Reworded accordingly. (t · c) buidhe 14:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Urve (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

"Berlin in particular became known among homosexual writers for its opportunities, while in conservative circles it was decried as a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah" - I'm not sure after reading the cited section of Whisnant. (Maybe the sources throughout the paragraph are meant to support this; I didn't check them.)

• The only example of a writer is Christopher Isherwood, but I don't think Whisnant states something more general.

And W. H. Auden. Graham Beards (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Auden is outside of the cited page range and arrived "specifically to explore its sexual underworld", not necessarily for writing opportunities. But if opportunities means something wider than just writing opportunities (as I understood it), then that makes sense, and the citation should include page 92. Urve (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Sure, the criticism was one of modernity, but is that the same as a conservative view? And I wonder: is it fair to say that there were any conservative "circles" making that criticism - after all, they were written "with an eye for sensation", not (necessarily!) political advocacy?
• The Sodom and Gomorrah reference seems to be Whisnant's perspective, and it's not clear if that was something actually said about Berlin.

• This interpretation didn't occur to me. In any event, other sources confirm that the Sodom and Gomorrah label was used by conservatives: "The Protestant historian and diehard monarchist Ulrich Stutz declared in 1920 that in Germany the “new Sodom and Gomorrah” had arisen, by which, he said, he did not only mean Berlin but other big cities too, such as “no-longer-holy Cologne.”" (Marhoefer 2015) or "From an anti-homosexual point of view, Weimar Berlin was that "Sodom and Gomorrah" where a post-World-War-I moral and political vacuum allowed for the uncontrolled growth of homosexuality" I decided that the sentence was not really necessary, so I deleted it.

Otherwise, I had a lot of fun reading the article: well-written, well-researched, important. Urve (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. (t · c) buidhe 17:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• @WP:FAC coordinators: Since this now has 3 supports, may I make another nomination? (t · c) buidhe 17:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Hog Farm _Talk 18:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm and Ian Rose: Ah. I was just about to write "Not until it has a source review pass". Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review

(Under construction) SN54129 19:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Woodleigh MRT station

Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

My 4th FAC. This article is about another Singapore metro station which had a rather brief yet interesting history, since it was mothballed for quite a long time even after it was completed. I hope for a quick and successful review.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• File:SGMRT-LRT map.svg —I assume this map is based on some blank svg map such as File:Singapore location map (main island).svg? If so, it should be listed in the image description. Also, what is the source for the route lines pictured on the map?
• The first image sandwiches with the infobox. (t · c) buidhe 05:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'm now asking Seloloving (the original uploader of the map) about it. About the entrance image sandwiching, in the GA review the reviewer preferred it to be on the left, given it's just a short article. But is it preferable to just stack it on the right of prose instead? ZKang123 (talk) 07:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  I have updated the license accordingly. Map was first uploaded years ago when I was not yet familiar with copyright policies. My newer maps complies with correct licenses. MRT routes are from the same source. Seloloving (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  Alright I just decided to move the image to the right of the infobox and move it down a little. If that's preferable. @Buidhe ZKang123 (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  At present, I would say there's still sandwiching. An alternative to consider is reducing the length of the infobox. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." Just because there's a field for it, does not mean it should be filled. (t · c) buidhe 04:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  To make things easier I decided to remove the image, since there's another similar image under station details. Also removed some details and parameters, largely uncited information, from the infobox. ZKang123 (talk) 04:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Buidhe Anything else besides that image? Have decided to remove it. ZKang123 (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  IR is a pass (t · c) buidhe 16:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Spot checks:

• "On 18 April 2017, Woodleigh station was closed for about three hours after a suspicious substance was found in various areas in the station. At 1:49 pm, SBS Transit announced that all trains would skip Woodleigh station due to a "security incident", though the station reopened at 4:20 pm after police established the substance to be baking flour" - all checks out. It would be good to know what happened to the people who were arrested here, given they seem to have been guilty of being really dumb rather than anything sinister - e.g. where they convicted?
  • They were fined S$1000. Updated information.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• "Woodleigh station will also serve the developing Bidadari public housing estate" - checks out, but can something more specific than 'developing' be added here given the source is from 2019? (e.g. when is the development expected to be complete?)
  • To be honest, the government authorities have not yet given a very specific timeline, though some housing projects (rather far from the station) have been completed. See [31]--ZKang123 (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• "The station is next to the site of a future bus interchange, part of an integrated commercial and residential development that will be the estate's town centre" - checks out
• "The platforms are wheelchair-accessible. A tactile system, consisting of tiles with rounded or elongated raised studs," - I can't see where this station is specifically referred to in the source. If this is true of all stations on the line, please tweak the text to reflect this.
  • Also stated in SBS station info source. Made an additional reference and added that it applies to all NEL stations.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• " Dedicated routes connect the station entrances to the platforms" - seems unclear?
  • Dedicated tactile routes.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• "The artist intended her work to be a "snapshot" of Singapore's urban life" - not supported by the sources, which do not attribute this to the artist.
  • Well, I'm not exactly sure, but given the artist most likely written that description, I attributed it to the artist.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
    • That doesn't seem justified. Stick to what sources support. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

      Alright reworded it to as what the source says. ZKang123 (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• No close paraphrasing, and good use appears to have been made of the available sources, all of which are reliable and suitable. I'm a bit surprised that there are no non-government published books on the Singapore MRT that can be consulted here though? Nick-D (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Well, there aren't other official sources on the station design. The LTA usually makes publications related to our transport network.--10:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
    • No-one has ever written a book or website that meets WP:RS on this topic, despite the huge number of such works in other countries? Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

      First off, it's not really a significant station. There is SGTrains and Land Transport Guru but these are user-based fancruft blogs which cannot be used (and also doesn't add much). ZKang123 (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

      Update 22 Mar 22: @Nick-D
      Ok I did try to search up for more independent sources, but most were just passing mentions, and nothing much that really adds to the article. Again, Woodleigh is not that of a significant station that would warrant much attention outside of Singapore.
      I did try to contact DPA Architects (the architectural firm behind the station) for further details, but so far they have not replied. ZKang123 (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

      • OK, thanks for checking. The lack of a secondary literature on the MRT seems surprising, but I did find books on Singapore's history to be surprisingly thin on the ground when I've visited there (including in the huge bookstore on Orchard Road). Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

        So is it a pass for source review or are there other concerns I have missed out? ZKang123 (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

        Oops, yes, pass Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Serial support

• "underground Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station on the North East line (NEL) in Bidadari, Singapore." -- because it is should be in the topic sentence.
  • I rather keep it as such, otherwise the sentence will appear longer and difficult to read.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Link Stamford American International School -- note also "American".
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• "when the stations on the NEL were revealed" -- "when the NEL's projected route was first proposed", avoids repetition of "stations", also tighter.
  • Well, the route of the NEL was drafted in 1995, then the stations were only confirmed in 1996. Shortened instead to "Woodleigh was first announced along with the 16 NEL stations in March 1996."--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• "to the lack of nearby developments at the time" -- "to the lack of local development".
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• "Following more developments in the area, the station opened on 20 June 2011" -- "It eventually opened in June 2011". Not sure if emphasising the development is necessary, it seems repetitive, and there's no need to be day-specific about the last date when you've rounded to the month on the previous two occasions.
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• "Like most stations on the NEL" -- "As with most of the line's stations": slightly longer, but saves repetition of "stations".
  • Done.ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Link Singapore Civil Defence Force?
  • Done.ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• I wonder if April Ng will ever be blue-linked?
  • Maybe? I'm not so sure. Red-linked anyway.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• "To minimise operating costs, Woodleigh was not planned to open along with the other NEL stations".
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Link urban development.
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• "Originally, the station was planned to be built only as a shell structure...to install station surfaces within a shell structure." -- this needs clarifying; you've just said it wasn't planned to be built at all? Also, it uses curious grammar (also note the misspelling of shell).
  • "was not planned to open along with the other NEL stations". The station shell structure would be built, but initially not fully (i.e. probably without station facilities but at least a structure from which to build on). They decided to build the entire the station instead.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• "The contract for the construction, and 2.5 km".
• "Wayss & Freytag AG, Econ Corporation and Chew Eu Hock Construction Co Ltd" -- AG, Co. Ltd are unnecessary.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• "and a vehicular viaduct".
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• "Though the station was fully equipped and ready for operations" -- by when? There seems some confusion throughout as to what was and what wasn't opened with or without the NEL as a whole? (I'm sure you know, of course, but the WP:READER has to have it pretty much spelt out to them!)
  • June 2003, like all NEL stations. Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• " continued to monitor development plans in the area to assess whether it was feasible to open the station." -- "carried out feasibility studies for the station's opening"
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• "the confused commuters" -- passengers, as commuters is used three times.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• " causing public alarm" -- if this is a quote, it needs an inline citation.
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Could link public nuisance.
• At some point in the article Mount Vernon probably needs a link.
  • You mean Mount Vernon, Singapore. Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• "that will be the estate's town centre" -- was intended to be, per MOS:CRYSTAL.
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Link Human decontamination/Dry toilet.
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Edinburgh -- University of Edinburgh?
  • Actually she used to work as a printmaker in Edinburgh... Added that they were her colleagues. Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• "In the process of creating the work...as an artist and teacher" -- Personally, I think this is unnecessary cruft, but if you prefer to keep it then it should be a quote and attributed inline (otherwise it sounds as if Wikipedia is stating this as a fact. No: we're stating her beliefs, and as such, they should come from her, not us).
  • Alright removed.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• I note the only photo of the exterior is the one prior to its opening; are there any of it afterwards?
  • Well, there are, but I don't know where to place them. Maybe under station details section?--ZKang123 (talk)
    • @ZKang123:, see this gallery style as an example of what you could do, with a caption underneath, and of course you'd want to play with the location. But, yeah. SN54129 19:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

      I will try get a better image of one of the entrances later on. ZKang123 (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

      Btw I have already added the new image @Serial Number 54129 ZKang123 (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  Nice article, thanks. SN54129 15:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  Hi SN, not asking for an explicit support or oppose but are you satisfied your points have been actioned? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the reminder, Ian, and apologies to ZKang123 for forgetting—I meant to support this; everything that I suggested has been attended to, mutatis mutandis. SN54129 21:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis

Comin' from Discord. Images look good, but the infobox image needs an alt text. Prose comments TBD. GeraldWL 06:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Just came back to this art.! Saw the alt text, so Image pass. Now onto the article.

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 18:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

* Link Upper Serangoon Road Well, it just redirects to the Hougang page, and there isn't a subsection about the road. So eh.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC) I see, ok thenn. GeraldWL 10:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC) Per the Bidadari article, the "e" in "estate" must be capitalized. Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC) Is April Ng considered notable enough to warrant a redlink? If so, it should be linked in the artwork section too. Perhaps. [32] and [33]. Did so in artwork section.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC) A very brief description of A-I-T would be great. And also for the artwork section. Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC) I would suggest adding a description of Ng's work too, so the lead would be balanced-- due, as they say. Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC) "Station entrance pictured in April 2011 prior to its opening"-- add comma between "2011" and "prior" On the other hand at "The contract for the station's construction, and 2.5 km (1.6 mi) of bored tunnels, was awarded to a joint venture", I dont think the commas are needed. "In January 2011, The Straits Times"-- "In January 2011, Christopher Tan The Straits Times" "the newspaper"-- "Tan" "Woodleigh station serves the North East line (NEL), part of the Mass Rapid Transit network]]" "between the Potong Pasir and Serangoon stations"-- remove Serangoon link here as duplicate. "the station is operated by SBS Transit, in lieu of the default SMRT Corporation" "Woodleigh station will also serve the developing Bidadari"-- link Bidadari, Singapore "The station is designated as a Civil Defence (CD) shelter"-- link to the CD article. Link zinc Link plastic film for "polymer film" Did all the above changes. ZKang123 (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. GeraldWL 18:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

I've copyedited; please revert if I've screwed anything up.

• Suggest making it clearer at the start of the history section that what Mah Bow Tan announced in 1996 was a new MRT line, the NEL, not just 16 stations. To a local it's probably obvious, but to a Londoner or a New Yorker 16 stations might just be an extension to an existing line.
  • So, a brief description of the line's history as the background?--ZKang123 (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

    Yes. What you've done looks fine, though you have a missing word: "approved by the in"? And perhaps rephrase the second half as "received government approval in January 1996". "To be built" is implied. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

    Alright fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

    Struck. I removed "by the" as there was nothing after it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Looking at the North East MRT line article, it seems there are seventeen operational stations, and that only NE2 is reserved, so I would have expected the announcement in 1996 to be of seventeen stations, including Woodleigh, but the article says "Woodleigh station was among the 16...". I see Buangkok was announced but not opened, so that can't be the difference. What am I missing?
  • The other station, Punggol Coast, is still under construction. There are only 16 operational stations at the moment.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• "the station would only operate once future developments in the area were completed": suggest "the station would begin operating once the area around it was sufficiently developed", since I doubt that "completed" is strictly what the condition was.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• "The Land Transport Authority and operator SBS Transit carried out feasibility studies for the station's opening": when?
  • Sources state that both continued to access the feasibility even when the station remained closed.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

    Yes, but there was a fifteen year gap and if there's any more information about the timing it would good to add. Does the source say they refreshed the feasibility studies yearly? Every five years? What does "continued" mean? Does it mean that they carried out feasibility studies before the 1996 decision? Or just that they did more than one study afterwards? If the source is not precise about this, I accept we can't be either; what does the source actually say? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

    From [34] (2007): The Woodleigh Station was not opened together with the rest of the North East Line (NEL) stations in 2003 because of the lack of residential developments in the stations immediate vicinity. To-date, there are still limited developments surrounding the area. The LTA is constantly monitoring the pace of developments in the areas surrounding the stations which would in turn affect the ridership for the station. At the same time, the LTA is also working closely with land use agencies to see if developments in the area can be accelerated. And during the announcement of the station's opening: We have been monitoring the developments around the Woodleigh Station for a while now. With more developments coming up and an increase in passenger flow through from the Circle Line, the time is now right to open it.

    Neither the LTA or SBS are really specific about how they access the feasibility. I also tried to search up anything in between, but there's nothing significant.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

    I don't think we can say "feasibility study" if this is the source. This just says they're keeping an eye on the developments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

    Then I just remove the sentence on LTA and SBS doing feasibility studies. ZKang123 (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• "The opening came after several new developments nearby had been completed": do we have any dates? Can we combine this information with the mention of "new developments in the area" a couple of sentences earlier?
  • Moved the earlier sentence closer with this sentence.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

    I read the sources, and I see they're unspecific, but as it stands the paragraph reads clumsily. In January Tan speculates that Woodleigh will open "to serve new developments in the area", and two sentences later we say the opening came "after several new developments nearby had been completed", but we don't connect these two explicitly. I understand that it would be synthesis to assume Tan is referring to exactly the same developments as the later articles, but it is strange to act as though these are independent pieces of information. One option would be just to cut the sentence starting "The opening came...", as it adds very little information. If you don't do that then I think the paragraph needs reworking to make the information flow more naturally. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

    Sentence cut as suggested ZKang123 (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Train frequencies vary from 2.5 to 5 minutes depending on peak hours": this doesn't make sense. What does "depending on peak hours" mean? Is it no more than 5 minutes at offpeak? Do you mean "Train frequencies vary from 2.5 at peak hours to 5 minutes during off-peak hours"?
  • Removed "depending on peak hours".--ZKang123 (talk)

    That helps. I clicked through to the source; I can't get the archived link to come up, but the original link still works. It shows me a map but I don't see how to verify the train frequency from that page -- is there a link I'm missing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

    You have to find Woodleigh on the map and click on the station. ZKang123 (talk) 09:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

    That worked. I'd suggest you add text to that effect to the citation, since it's not obvious. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• "the work shows the future generations people's lives in the 2000s": I don't know what this means.
  • Show future generations "what life was like in the 2000s". Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

    I made it "the work is intended to show" since I think that's what is meant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Intending to center her commission around people" is one of those almost meaningless phrases that gets used about public art; I would cut it, or use a direct quote from Ng to show her intentions.
  • Cut.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments superseded by further comments below

"Ng recalled the positive reception she received when giving a photoengraved piece of work to her friend as a farewell gift. This experience prompted her to use photo etching for this work." This is stilted. I would make this "Ng chose to use photo etching for Slow Motion because a friend of hers had been delighted by a photoengraved work Ng had given her", if that is supported by the sources. "Ng chose to use photo etching for Slow Motion due to the positive reception she received when giving her friend a photoengraved piece of work as a farewell gift". Otherwise, it will be too close to the source material.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC) OK if we can't use that exact phrasing, but we still have to write naturally. What's the exact phrasing in the source? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC) How can the artwork guide commuters? It's visible in two photos in the article and in neither case is it apparent how it can guide anyone. And given that, what does the next sentence, "The idea of..." mean? I think it's how the way the commuters were facing, which directs them to the platforms, as per what the source says. Also, it was something outlined by LTA when they commissioned the art pieces.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC) I think this should be rephrased to indicate that this was the intention of the artwork, not that it necessarily succeeded in that intention. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC) I'm not sure we need the details about how Slow Motion was built -- the acetate paper, and the last paragraph. This is a short article and it seems more detail than is needed. Or is April Ng a very significant artist in Singapore, so that this is a significant fact about the station? Well, she's pretty significant given she was commissioned to do the artwork... plus it makes the article pretty comprehensive.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC) I don't mean to cut mention of her or the artwork completely, but half dozen sentences about the constructions is a lot. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• • Alright shortened further.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Generally I think there's some less than fluent phrasing in the article. The "Public artwork" section has several examples; "a specific type of acetate" is vague; "The idea of depicting people in motion fulfilled LTA's request for artists" sounds like an attempt to avoid close paraphrasing; and I left a similar comment above about the sentence about why Ng chose photo-engraving. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Here are the photos of the relevant pages on the artwork

• P114
• P115
• P117

ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for those photos -- that's very helpful. Some comments on the "Public artwork" section, now that I've read the Tan article:

• "the work is intended to show the future generations what life was like in the 2000s". This phrasing makes it sound as if this is the primary intention of the work. The source is Ng saying that "in twenty to thirty years time, people will look at our clothes...and think, 'That's what people looked like around 2000'". This is just a comment by Ng about how the art will be perceived, not a statement of her main intention.
• "Ng chose to use photo etching for Slow Motion; this was due to the positive reception she received when giving her friend a photoengraved piece of work as a farewell gift". Suggest ""Ng had previously used photo etching to make pictures of friends of hers as farewell gifts for them; her friends had loved them, and she decided to use the technique again for Slow Motion" which makes it clearer it was multiple people, and that the images were of her friends themselves, and I think reads more smoothly.
• "After amassing photos of pedestrians, workers at the station and LTA staff, Ng arranged the photos in such a way that the movement and direction of pedestrians guide commuters either to the platforms or out of the station. The idea of depicting people in motion fulfilled LTA's request for artists to incorporate the practical wayfinding aspect in their work." I don't see in the source that she took photos of pedestrians; it says "the team working on Woodleigh station, LTA's staff as well as her family and friends". I also don't think we can say she succeeded in her artistic goal; we have to talk about intent. Suggest: "Ng used photos that showed the diversity of Singapore's culture, representing people of all races and ages. She took the photos herself, using LTA staff and the Woodleigh station construction crew as subjects, along with photos of her friends and her husband and son. The LTA wanted the Art-in-Transit works to have a "wayfinding" element to help guide commuters towards the platforms or out of the station, and Ng attempted to achieve this by making sure that some of the photos were of people moving in the approriate direction." I think you need the cite for this (whether you use my wording or not) to span two pages as the paragraph in the source crosses a page boundary.
• "Zinc was chosen as the figures could be reproduced better on the plates and also reflects the architectural materials used for the station". Suggest "Ng chose zinc instead of copper because the photos she took reproduced better in zinc. The choice of zinc fit in well with the station's design, which used zinc in the roof materials." There's no implication in the source that the fact that zinc fit in with the station's architectural design was a factor in Ng's choice.
• "The plates were degreased before a layer of polymer film was laminated on the plates. Under ultraviolet light, the film was exposed to the enlarged copies of the photos, and the plates reproduced the images." This technical information seems out of place to me; this is information about how photo etching works in general. We wouldn't talk about how oil painting works if she had worked in oils. What I think we can do is talk about this elements of her work that were specific to this installation -- the humidity issue, for example, which I see you've cut. You originally had "Due to Singapore's humidity, the polymer films kept sticking to the plates, which made them difficult to adjust; her colleagues and experts in Edinburgh suggested spraying the film and plates with water, which worked" I think we should cut the two sentence you have now, and replace them with something that focuses on the humidity issue, giving enough technical information to understand it but no more. Suggest "Singapore's high humidity caused problems with the photo engraving process; to create the images, a polymer film had to be applied to the zinc plates, and the humidity caused the film to stick to the plates immediately, so that it could not be adjusted. Ng was able to resolve the problem by spraying the film and plates with water before applying the film." It's tempting to mention that she got this advice from Edinburgh but I think it requires yet more explanation that takes us too far off topic.

That's everything I have. I'm going to collapse the comments about this section I made above because they're no longer relevant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• For the first point, then I removed that comment since that's not her main intention.
• Alright reworded as per you suggested. Though I prefer maintaining formality and wrote "the gifts were well-received" instead of "her friends had loved them".
• Fixed accordingly.
• Fixed accordingly.
• Fixed accordingly.

ZKang123 (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Support and a note for the coords: the wording for the last paragraph is almost entirely mine; in a long article I wouldn't bother to point this out, but it's ten to fifteen percent of this article. I don't think that prevents me from supporting, but I want to be transparent about it just in case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Jubilee coinage

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

This article is about... the British coins issued for Victoria's Golden Jubilee, of which the double florin, recently promoted, was one. It lasted less than six years, but outlived its sculptor by two of them. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Image review—pass

• File:Queen Victoria (1887).jpg Needs author death date and PD-US tag
  • The license claims publication before 1927 but I don't see any such publication listed? (t · c) buidhe 20:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I've put a link on the image page to a 1901 book featuring it. It was probably published earlier, but that will suffice. here.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Other image licensing looks ok
• MOS:REFERS issue in the first sentence (t · c) buidhe 19:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Image swapped and I've tweaked the lead sentence. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Kavyansh

• "by Joseph Boehm" — is his common name 'Joseph Edgar Boehm'? Same in the lead

I've seen it rendered "Joseph" or "Joseph Edgar" or even "Edgar". From the distance of 130 years, it's difficult to judge.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• "the presence of a small [...]pointed profile." quote is long enough to deserve a blockquote

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• "Fremantle had revived some of the finest heraldic designs from the past". — the prose does not make clear where this quote is from. Same with "garnished Shield surmounted by the Royal Crown", "in a plain Shield surrounded by the Garter, bearing the Motto 'Honi soit qui mal y pense' and the Collar of the Garter"

I've clarified those.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• "that "I think that " — It is rather an opinion of a person that the Ipswich Journal

Presumably, but the leader isn't signed. Presumably it's the proprietor's opinion. All of these are opinions, inserted to show what opinions the coins caused.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• "When the storm of condemnation erupted [...] on the reverse." quote is long enough to deserve a blockquote, and so are various other quotations.

I've added a couple. I'm conservative about using block quotes since they break up the text and emphasize their contents.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I think I've gotten to everything. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Is everything in the table already sourced in the article? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Everything is now sourced.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Kavyansh.Singh, did you have anything to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm really sorry but I currently won't be able to give this a comprehensive review. But all my concerns were appropriately answered, and I didn't find any other obviously issues. I'm hesitant to fully support. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

All right then, I maybe can now:

• In the lead, as we link 'sixpence', shouldn't we link 'fourpence' as well?

Link adjusted.

• "the queen marked her sixtieth birthday" (lead) v. "approaching her 60th birthday" (Background section) — sixtieth v. 60th; consistency needed

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Sir Henry Ponsonby" — I'm no expert, but if we are including the title 'Sir' for Ponsonby, shouldn't we doing same for Boehm, Edward Poynter, and others?

• That just led me through a number of reference books, since our article on Ponsonby doesn't say when he was knighted (1878). So Ponsonby was knighted when first referred to, and is properly referred to. The others were knighted or created baronets (also entitled to be called Sir _____) after the first time they are referred to in the article (Boehm created baronet 1889, Fremantle knighted 1890, Brock knighted 1911, Poynter created baronet 1902, Evans knighted 1892. Lubbock was a baronet from 1865 to 1900, when he was given a peerage, similarly Leighton was given a peerage in 1896 after being created a baronet in 1878. So I think it's all properly done.

• " "'in " — the single quote after the double quote starts but never ends. Do let me know if I am missing something obvious.

Single quote removed.

• "and the veil would have been black in colour" — do we need to specify 'in colour'?

  No, but I think removing it leaves the end of the sentence a bit too abrupt. "Following the death of Albert, Prince Consort in 1861, she had remained in mourning, and the veil would have been black."

• "the artist's initials JEB may be found on the truncation of her bust" (emphasis mine) — I'm not sure why there is 'may be'. The source says: "in small raised letters on the bust truncation, the artist's initials J.E.B. (Joseph Edgar Boehm); around, VICTORIA D:G: BRITT: REG: F:D:". Is that a British Eng thing?

It's just a turn of phrase I use. Changed to "are found"

• Our article does not italicized 'The' in 'The Church Times'

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Once the new coins were released" — optional: "Soon after the new coins were released"

On balance, I prefer it as is.

That is it from me! Excellent article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Much obliged. I think I've gotten everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Happy to support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• The lead says 1888 was the last issue for circulation of the groat, but in the body it appears a modified version was issued in 1891. I assume the difference is that the 1891 issue has the colony's name on so that isn't an issue for circulation in the UK, but apparently the 1888 issue was not for circulation in the UK either.

It was not intended to circulate in the UK, but as it did not differ from earlier groats but for the date, the proclamation making the earlier groats valid currency in the UK applied. The 1891 issue saying British Guiana had not been proclaimed valid currency in the UK. I've tried to make it clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Does "the last of its series" mean that the 1888 issue was the last time groats were struck that could circulate in the UK? I think that's the intent. If so, perhaps just cut the "Fourpence pieces with the colony of British Guiana's name on them were struck by the Royal Mint from 1891" sentence, as it's not about Jubilee coinage? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

That's true and I've done that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Suggest linking Old Head coinage in the lead.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Suggest introducing Ponsonby, perhaps as "and in February 1879 Sir Henry Ponsonby, the Queen's Private Secretary,...".

Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• " that the Austrian-born sculptor, Joseph Boehm, had been engaged": to my ear this would be better either without the commas or with "an" rather than "the". Or, perhaps better, move "Austrian-born sculptor" to the next sentence, where you're characterizing Boehm.

Rewritten.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• When we say Victoria "approved the revisions" in February 1880, do we know what these revisions were? The only suggestion given is Louise's comment that the crown should be larger; the resulting design appears to be the one used for the Afghanistan medal. If we know for sure that February 1880 was the point at which the crown was enlarged to fit Victoria's head we might as well say so.

  The source says "By the end of January the work had been seen by the queen's daughter, Princess Louise, and on 20 February the queen herself called on Boehm and saw the new models for the coinage. She approved the large crown suggested by Princess Louise but required a slight change to be made to the chin, for which Boehm was to be guided by a miniature by Sir Charles Ross." I've edited it to focus on the crown.

• Somewhere in the article, I think we should have a straightforward list or table of the denominations that fall into the Jubilee coinage, with whatever the numismatically important information is for them -- quantity struck, years struck, mints if important. A table would allow a thumb image of the obverse and reverse of each denomination if images are available.

Working on this. I'll have to do some downloads and OTRS applications.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I think if we have no pictures for the thumbs that's not going to prevent me supporting, but we should put in whatever we have access to. The main issue for me was that I couldn't tell at the end of the article what the list of Jubilee coinage denominations was. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I've added one. Most of them are permission pending and I've sent an OTRS email. Once it goes through, I'll ask Buidhe to update their image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks good. Is the number of coins struck sufficiently encyclopedic information to include? I don't know if that's something you would expect to put in articles about coins for circulation; I recall seeing it in your articles about commemorative coins. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem would be with the 1887 mintages. The Young Head coins continued to be struck for some portion of 1887, and I've checked two sources on mintages and they aren't broken down. The problem is especially acute for the sixpence of which three distinct varieties were struck. The same goes for the 1893 sixpences and threepences, two heads, no breakdown.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think it's OK to let the reader know when information is unavailable, if it's information they might think is merely omitted, but your call. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• "and was fraudulently plated to pass as one": suggest "and was often" or "and was sometimes".

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• The dates covered at the start of the "Initial release" section overlap with the events at the end of the background section, and I found myself scrolling back and forth to see what was new information. Is the overlap necessary?

No. I've cut the brief first paragraph to the later section as basically duplicative.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• I was interested to see that "IND. IMP." was not allowed to be used on UK coinage. Not relevant for this article, but when and how was that changed? I recall seeing it on George VI's pennies.

I've added some detail on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

That's all I have. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I think that's everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Support. All my issues have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• Multiple sfn refs towards the bottom of the table are broken at present -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) Not the nominator, but I guess I fixed that. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

After more than three weeks this nomination has only garnered one general support. Unless there are signs of a consensus to promote forming over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Just clocked this. I'll look in properly tomorrow, so pray put the the archiving on hold if that's OK. Tim riley talk 22:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. I'll try to find another reviewer. I hope we have a few days?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment Support from Tim riley

I'll be supporting this, I have no doubt, but will indulge in one moderately important quibble and a few minor ones first. Before doing so, let me salute you, Wehwalt, for your perfect BrE: I'm not sure I could be quite so reliable in AmE.

My only substantial concern is your way of naming the sculptor. After he was made a baronet in 1889 the British newspapers of the period all referred to him as "Sir Edgar Boehm". Before that he was referred to as "Mr J. E. Boehm, sculptor in ordinary to the Queen", but I can't find any references to him as "Joseph Boehm", and I think he should be referred to in this article either as "Edgar Boehm" or "J. E. Boehm".

I've gone with how our article refers to him, Joseph Edgar Boehm.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

My handful of petty cavils:

• Capitalisation

• I am well aware that anyone taking capitalisation seriously is likely to go mad, and I am not demanding any changes, but I'm blest if I can see why Deputy Master is capitalised (sometimes) and chancellor is not.
• "The Coinage Act 1870 made the chancellor of the Exchequer the Master of the Mint ex officio, with the deputy master the actual head" – this footnote really is a right old milkshake of upper and lower case, surely?
• capitalising the Court Circular is probably fair enough, but I'm not sure about the Committee on the Design of Coins.

I think MOS:INSTITUTIONS supports it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• "the Ribbon and Star of the Order of the Garter and the badge of the Order of the Crown" – seems a bit hard on the badge to make it the only noun in this half of the sentence without a capital letter.

• Background and preparation

• In the fourth para, the second sentence seems to me to confute itself: the unquivocal statement that Radnitzky had some of the work done by a student is contradicted after the semicolon by the statement that perhaps he didn't. A "reportedly" or some such in the first half or an "although" in the second would smooth things over.

• Designs

• In the last para, I imagine you mean that the figure 2 on the Maundy tuppence was in a different style from the old one, and if that is indeed what you mean, I think it would be clearer if you wrote "the Maundy twopence carried a different style figure 2"

• Initial release

• "The Birmingham Daily Post wrote on 24 June …" – Brian Boulton used to twit me in reviews for using this construction: he maintained that papers do not write themselves, and I daresay he was right. I just mention it.

That's my lot. I'll look in again with the confident expectation of adding my support. – Tim riley talk 10:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

If I haven't responded, I just went ahead and did it. Thank you for the review and kind words. All done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Happy to support. I find the article highly readable, thoroughly − and as far as I can judge authoritatively − sourced and cited, comprehensive, and of course magnificently illustrated. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 16:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Much obliged. I hesitate to disagree with Brian, whose company we once had the pleasure and privilege of having for a few hours, as you may recall. But given that there are a number of papers quoted, it would look very artificial to keep saying "a writer for" "a correspondent for" etc. Especially since what I am quoting may be an article the paper reprinted without giving credit, as they did do.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review

Placeholder. SN54129 19:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation of GIF

Nominator(s): theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it pronounced "gif", or is it pronounced "gif"? No one knows! But people seem to have very strong opinions on it, strong enough that many dictionaries, linguists, journalists, and even the White House took notice. The result of that ripe-for-Tumblr chaos is this article, neatly summarizing quite a few months' worth of research. A warm thanks to Kavyansh.Singh for helping me take this through these last few steps before nominating, as well. This is my second nomination—fingers crossed, and thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments from buidhe

• Image review pass (t · c) buidhe 05:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• "Others still choose to pronounce each individual letter, creating the pronunciation /dʒiː aɪ ɛf/ " I do not think that French letter pronunciations are identical to English ones. Is there something I'm missing?
  • buidhe: I was shooting to say that they sound out each letter in GIF, creating "jee eye eff". I'm... not quite following the question? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  That's how you pronounce letters in English but I believe the alphabet is pronounced differently in French. I think it would be /ʒi i ɛf/ at least according to this source (t · c) buidhe 20:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't mean for this part to have any relation to the French- it's just another style of pronunciation, so I put the IPA transcription in english. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  I see after checking the source that it refers to the english letter pronunciation but can you clarify that in the article since it follows a sentence about French pronunciation? (t · c) buidhe 20:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  Done! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Some MOS:CLAIM issues (t · c) buidhe 10:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Made some changes—anything else in particular? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from ChrisTheDude

• "words like flibbertigibbet and tergiversate, both pronounced with a soft g, were included in the list of 68 soft gi words. When this factor was adjusted for," - unclear what "this factor" is. Presumably it's that some very obscure words were included in the analysis.....?
• "usage [....] were nearly the same" - singular/plural disagreement
  • Changed the whole sentence to When the prevalence of each word was taken into account, it was found that the hard and soft g appeared in nearly equal frequencies in gi words.
• "when one is first encountered with" - don't think this is a valid construction. "When one encounters" would be appropriate.
  • Ah, yeah, done
• "2.8 percent favored an enunciated GIF" - what is meany by "enunciated GIF"? Saying each letter individually?
  • yep, changed that to favored enunciating each letter. Side note: do you have any idea how much it's killing me to not be able to use favoured?
    • I feel your pain from all my work on lists of US number ones. Writing things like The band Alabama gained its first number one did not come naturally at all..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• "Wilhite's speech upon the accepting the award" => "Wilhite's speech upon accepting the award"
  • whoops, thanks!
• "while Cambridge Dictionary of American English" - I would say this should be "while the Cambridge Dictionary of American English"
  • fixed!
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks, ChrisTheDude! Nice to see you outside of FLC :) I think I got it all(?) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I made one little tweak to (hopefully) 100% clarify the flibbertigibbet point (hope that was OK) and am now more than happy to support. By the way, is there any mileage in an article on how to pronounce the 1.21 gigawatts needed to power the car? ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

      @ChrisTheDude: Looks good, thanks a bunch! Unfortunately, I'm afraid there's no way to write that article, as there is clearly a correct answer—adopt the french [ʒ] and pronounce it jigawatts. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Eviolite - support and source review pass

Interesting article. Taking a spot here for comments/source review, which I should be able to do as it's relatively short; please ping me if I don't get back within the week. eviolite (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing (Special:Permalink/1074747033):

• 6) I am pretty worried about the use of what basically amounts to a self-published Github Pages blog post - while the author does seem to have the credentials (though doesn't have an article themselves), the post isn't peer reviewed or anything; WP:SCHOLARSHIP suggest secondary sources are preferred as well. If the research is important enough to cover a good few sentences in the article, I would expect there to be at least news articles discussing it, which should be cited instead.
  • After the spotcheck, I see now that most of the info before this reference is actually in McCulloch's Mental Floss article, but as I mention in the bullet point right below this one, I'm not sure if it's reliable enough.
• 7) Same issue as above (Mental Floss is not particularly reliable itself), though if kept I'd recommend adding author-link=Gretchen McCulloch. Since the info covered by this ref is a theory with no empirical evidence, per WP:DUE there should be mentions of it in reliable sources.
  • Hmm. I definitely hear you, but I think it scrapes by as an expert self-published source. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Both McCulloch and Dow fulfill that requirement handily, they are experts on the topic. It's true that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources, but I don't think any exceptional claims are being made here, and certainly nothing involving BLP. If you're looking for WP:DUE, it has two paragraphs on the more reliable side of Ars Technica where it's called an "incredible explainer". A bit flowery, but I think this is a pretty legitimate usage, if a little overwrought. Would you be all right with adding the Ars Technica source in some way and downsizing the explanation? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• 13 and 15 are cited polls so even though the sources may not be "high-quality reliable" in general, this use's probably fine. It should be clarified though that the StackOverflow poll specifically asked software developers (as mentioned in the text of the survey results, and as SO is after all a developer site.)
  • Yep, mentioned that theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• 17) The Wire should be The Atlantic Wire (the article on The Wire is about a completely different publication)
  • I just cut the difference entirely theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• 19) The WP:RSP entry on The Daily Dot recommends demonstrating due weight; given that, I'm not sure if the comment about government insight is necessary. There are other RSes discussing Obama's statement^[35][36] but none of them mention the earlier post. Van der Meulen does mention what seems to be a different Tumblr post (different date) saying the same thing, but I can't find it - maybe the paper's referring to one of the posts that just mirrors the Q&A session.
  • Fair enough, cut that quip theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• 21) I don't think Dictionary.com is actually published by Random House, just that the content is based on their dictionary (similarly, I don't think there is a "Dictionary.com Abridged" to differentiate the unabridged version from).
  • I just used {{Cite Dictionary.com}}—I assumed it'd be accurate, no? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Text-source integrity (spot checks): Chose 15 references at random.

• 8 (van der Meulen pp. 2, 5):
  • Page 5 verifies that system arguments are most common, and Page 2 verifies what system arguments are - good.
  • However, for all of the van der Meulen references, I would recommend using the page numbers on the text itself (i.e. within the journal) rather than on the PDF (so 46, 49 in this case) in case of other formats (like having a copy of the entire journal issue.)
    • Corrected page numbers! Also added them into the base ref theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• 16 (van der Meulen p. 1):
  • The source specifically says that Wilhite "seems to be" the first to give usage advice, rather than it being an assertion as the WP article does.
    • swapped in the whole quote—hard to quote a "seems to be" without sounding sarcastic. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I can't see where "The immediate audience reacted positively to this short speech, but it generated controversy online, where some pushed back against Wilhite's pronunciation of his file format" is in the paper. It seems that this is in the NYT source, though, so the [1] reference there should be moved down a sentence.
    • yeah, copied that ref. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• 15 (Stack Overflow):
  • Yup, results are accurate, though as above I'd recommend noting that the audience was developers.
    • Noted indeed :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• 21 (Dictionary.com):
  • Checks out. The reference should be moved after "indicating the latter as the primary pronunciation".
    • Moved theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• 22 (Cambridge Dictionary):
  • Verified, but if you're linking Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary specifically in the reference, it should also be mentioned in the text (replacing the Cambridge Dictionary of American English; the definition from the CALD is visible on the same page and also has a hard g for both UK and US English)
    • Aight, fair enough! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• 5 (ABC Radio National):
  • The article credits the statement that "most people" use hard g to "the author of an encyclopedia of image formats", not Wilhite.
    • I mean—we can't just assume that it'd be weird to anonymously credit an image file format creator for a standalone quote when an image file format creator is named in the previous paragraph? I just assumed that quote was a coy way of referring to Wilhite. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• 4 (The Economist):
  • Not a text-source integrity thing, but is there any reason The Economist is not linked in the article?
    • Does "leek's overbearing absent-mindedness" count as a reason? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • For the first use of [4], the wording is pretty similar, but I don't think there's any other reasonable way to word it so it should fall under WP:LIMITED. (Maybe change "lack"?)
    • I mean, I changed it to "go without" and "are short of", but now I feel like I'm in Harry Potter and side characters don't do so well in that book.
  • Second use is fine. I assume the last sentence, about developed countries, comes from the stacked bar chart rather than any text.
    • Yep :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• 11 (Gizmodo):
  • Good
• 23 (Merriam-Webster):
  • Good
• 1 (New York Times):
  • First use: it doesn't technically say "looped", but it's really minor and you can probably find a billion sources which do
    • More and more, that quote on the front of David Eppstein's userpage seems like an understatement. Anyways, slotted in a source :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Other uses are good (with the caveat that the third use should be shifted down a sentence, as mentioned above)
• 6 (Michael Dow):
• *Apparently nearly everything mentioned before this reference is actually only in McCulloch's article (no mention of 105, 68, 37, "flibbertigibbet", "tergiversate", or one-syllable words in Dow's post). The reference [6] should probably be moved just after the first sentence in this paragraph, then.
  • For the portion after the first sentence, it is entirely verified by McCulloch, but I'm still left a bit confused since the original post seems to come to different conclusions (unless 6.03 and 5.17 are considered "almost exactly the same", or, as always, I'm missing something.)
    • I think what McCulloch is driving at in the next
• 10 (van der Meulen p. 5):
  • I don't think the source backs up that this argument is "common". It gives one example of a frequency analysis-esque argument, and it mentions that only "in a few rare cases" is an entire linguistic system considered, which I would assume is a superset of frequency analysis.
    • Hmm, all right. I've made some changes there, if you want to take a look.
• 12 (van der Meulen p. 4):
  • The source says 65.2%, not 62.5%. Siri is mentioned, but not Amazon Alexa.
    • Ah, damnit. Fixed that! 00:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I would recommend moving the first use of this ref to after the sentence ending "favored a soft g", to be clear that said sentence is verified by this source and not [11].
    • Done! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• 17 (The Atlantic Wire):
  • Good

That's all; no particular comments on prose right now, but I do have concerns with sourcing and referencing. eviolite (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks, eviolite! I think I've responded to everything, but it looks like we'll need to discuss a bit more. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the replies and edits - I've struck out the ones I consider resolved (and also the ones that were fine to begin with, for clarity), and will leave comments down here:

  • Didn't realize that Dictionary.com was using a template. I see where it says Dictionary.com Unabridged now, but still remain unconvinced that it's published by Random House, so I've raised it at that template talk page; not an issue for here.
  • For the ABC Radio one, the quote specifically says "the author of an encyclopedia of image formats", not "the author of an image format".
  • I don't think your comment "I think what McCulloch is driving at in the next" above went through correctly - not sure what you were trying to say.
  • My concerns regarding frequency analysis still remain; maybe the changes didn't save
  • In the new LA Times ref, Rodriguez is misspelled
  • Overall, I think this review really hinges on the suitability of the Dow and McCulloch sources for a FA. I suppose given the caveat for experts in SPS they might be fine, but again the fact that the two articles don't back each other up is concerning (you probably had something to say there, but it got eaten). The Ars Technica source you linked is the only other one I could find that mentions it, and I think it would be wise to cut down on the specifics of the analysis to reflect how much the RS gives (some is likely still necessary to explain what's going on and the inconclusive conclusion/coin flip is fine, but the specific numbers maybe not so much). I'm not super happy, but that'd probably be good enough for me; I'm not super familiar with the FA criteria and will also of course see what others think about it.

  Regards, eviolite (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  eviolite: it's not that the comment got eaten as much as I forgot to finish it. so – fun stuff :)

  • Ohhhh. Okay, I was reading "encyclopedia of" more like "plethora"—e.g. that wilhite invented a bunch of them. That's so weird, why would ABC phrase it that way? I've corrected it. Fixed rodriguez and the frequency analysis sentence, too.
  • re McCulloch: I think the specific log frequency calculation you might be looking for isn't explicitly in the original paper. McCulloch talked to Dow before writing her mental_floss article.
    • Original research: One possibility is that when you add the two log frequency calculations in the paper together, they pretty much cancel each other out. When gi is in the initial position, the log frequencies are 6.03g compared to 5.17j. When gi isn't in the initial position, the log frequencies are 5.2g and 6.06j. If you added those together, you'd get 11.23g and 11.23j.
    • In any case, there are lots of things in the mental_floss article that aren't in the original blog post.

  So, I'd be okay with paring it down, but I'd like to see if there's consensus on how much and what first. Happy to go with the flow :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Alright, thanks for the comment. I'm satisfied with the whole Dow/McCulloch thing for now, again with the caveat that others are likely more familiar with FA-level sourcing than me. I'm still not sure about Another common "system" argument is frequency analysis, which examines how many other words in the English language employ hard or soft g pronunciations in other situations, similar to Dow's analysis though (as I noted above, the source seems to only give one example, and looking at it again, I don't think "frequency analysis" is the right term as that specifically relates to cryptanalysis.) eviolite (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  eviolite ah, gotcha—fixed that one! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Also, frequency analysis is pretty common outside cryptanalysis, as far as I know. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Well, the article only covers cryptanalysis use cases of it, so maybe the general letter frequency is a better target for that link. Anyway, that's not a big deal at all, so I'm happy to support now. eviolite (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  oh, interesting. thanks for the thorough review, eviolite! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from AviationFreak

• In the "Analysis" section, the name "Van de Meulen" appears often with different capitalizations of "Van". In the second sentence of "Polling" it is lowercased at the beginning of a sentence, but it appears capitalized mid-sentence in the pie chart caption. Don't see any MOS guidance right off the bat here, but it should at least be consistent.
• Steve Wilhite could be piped to "the file format's creator" in the lede, more of a personal preference though.
• ...linguistic analyses show that there is no clear advantage for either main pronunciation based on other words in the English lexicon. - I assume "advantages" in this case is meant to mean advantages in an argument?
• Opportunity to include an example of a GIF in "Background"?

This is all for a quick skim; will continue later. AviationFreak💬 23:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Nice to see you again, AviationFreak :) I didn't want to pipe the name, since Wilhite comes up enough to be important, but not often enough to be easily memorable throughout the article. Other than that, I think I got it all! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, glad to hear you remember me :) - No worries about not piping. I've looked over the article a second time and the only thing I note is that the "van" is uncapitalized at the beginning of the second sentence in "Polling". I think that even for a name that would usually be in lowercase, it should be capitalized at the beginning of a sentence. AviationFreak💬 21:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@AviationFreak: ah, oops–fixed, i think! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me! I am happy to support. /ɡɪf/ to the grave! AviationFreak💬 02:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

thank ya thank ya! :D theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from a455bcd9

• The article seems focused on the Pronunciation of GIF in English (lede starts with: The pronunciation of GIF in the English language has been disputed since the 1990s.). However, French, Spanish, Finnish, and Arabic pronunciations are briefly mentioned in "Background". The pronunciation in Asian countries is also mentioned in "Polling" but we don't know if it's about the pronunciation in English or in the respondents' native language. So should the article be renamed "Pronunciation of GIF in English"? Or the article expanded to cover other languages? (e.g., according to the Russian edition: "В русском языке файлы в формате GIF обычно называют «ги́фками».", without source)
• Stackoverflow's Developer Survey Results 2017 are available for download under the Open Database License (ODbL). So we could (and should?) make an SVG version of this map and add it to the article.

A455bcd9 (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@A455bcd9: Thanks for weighing in! So, there's no simple answer to either comment here, but I'll do my best.

re globalization: Arguably, a representative sample of global literature on the topic is biased towards American English. The GIF was invented relatively recently (1987) by an American programming team, as was the acronym and its intended pronunciation. To the extent that the GIF appears in other languages, it's a loanword. To me, at least, that's why I couldn't find much in the way of foreign-language work on the pronunciation. I included any useful foreign-language sources I found, but my assessment of the available literature is that this is primarily an English thing that happens to branch out into other languages. So, i've cut "in the english language" from the lead sentence, but I don't think there's a need to contextualize more than that.

As for the graph... sigh, easier said than done, but I'll do my best. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmmph. What irks me is the knowledge that the dataset returns three values; the number of people who use the hard g, the number who use the soft g, and the number who enunciate each letter (and the number who use something else). Yeah, I could just use the hard g/soft g numbers, but that'd exclude the reality that quite a few countries prefer that pronunciation over both hard and soft g. What I would love to do is assign each percentage to a red, green, and blue value, to let one graph represent all three important percentages. e.g. India is 16.51% hard g, 28.07% GIF, and 55.43% soft g. So, that would come out to 16.51% red, 28.07% green, and 55.43% blue, or  . Or, if we were to grade on a curve so that the highest number gets 100%, it'd be  . That'd be pretty hard to read for most, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I put a listing of all the colours in my sandbox. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes foreign-language sources may be harder to find. Here's what I found after a quick search on Google.

The two reference French dictionaries mention the word: Larousse and Robert. They both agree on the "ʒif" pronunciation (see: File:LL-Q150 (fra)-LoquaxFR-GIF.wav). So Some in France instead opt for /ʒɪf/ (audio speaker iconlisten) is incorrect (I've never heard any French speaker pronouncing it like that and the [ɪ] vowel sound doesn't exist in Standard French according to French phonology) and the file should be replaced by the correct one.

In Spanish it seems that the word is pronounced "heef" (source) or [xif] (source).

In Dutch, "gif" [ɣɪf] originally means "poison" (source) so there's maybe a different pronunciation to disambiguate.

In German, the pronunciation is slightly different than in English and seems to be with a hard g only (File:De-GIF.ogg).

Regarding the map: you're right, it's maybe too complex if there are 3 options. We could use hard g/soft g numbers only (like The Economist) and add a symbol on each country if a third option is popular (>10%?) there? A455bcd9 (talk) 11:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the dictionary section has room for expansion, but I wouldn't be comfortable on relying most of these sources (except the french, that looks good). I'll keep brainstorming on the map. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

To answer your question @Gog the Mild: I don't oppose this nomination. The article seems good but I'm not knowledgeable enough to say it meets all the criteria to be a featured article. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron, I can see you added back "in the English language" in the lede. What do you think about the following modification for the lead? The pronunciation of GIF [] has been disputed since the 1990s. GIF, an English acronym for the Graphics Interchange Format, is popularly pronounced as a one-syllable word. The most common pronunciations in the English language are /dʒɪf/ (audio speaker iconlisten) (with a soft g as in gin) and /ɡɪf/ (audio speaker iconlisten) (with a hard g as in gift), differing in the phoneme represented by the letter G. [...] Modern English dictionaries generally accept both main alternatives as valid, and linguistic analyses show no clear advantage for either main pronunciation based on the frequency of the pronunciation in other English words. Pronunciation also varies in languages other than English. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment

Could the issue with the Englishness of the article be fixed by simply renaming the article something like "Pronunciation of GIF in the English language", with other languages being mentioned in a "In other languages" section (or the like; that's just a rough idea).--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 15:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC) As Theleekycauldron noted, this does seem to be a largely English issue that has radiated out to other languages.--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 15:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• • That's a title change worth considering Mujinga (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

    @Gen. Quon and Mujinga: Okay, leaning towards the move, but I'm not totally convinced—what would be the upsides? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 16:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

    • Namely, your scope would be more narrowly defined, and while it would preclude in-depth discussion of this topic in other languages, the title would make this clear (that is, people wouldn't necessarily think a lack was due to language bias, etc.).--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 17:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

      @Gen. Quon, Mujinga, and A455bcd9: Okay, I think it works—I've moved it, and pulled some words out into an "in other languages" section in the background :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

      Thanks, looks good to me! (the French pronunciation /ʒɪf/ and the audio are still wrong though) A455bcd9 (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

      @A455bcd9: right, sorry, fixed that one! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

      Thanks. What's the source for In France, rather than the hard or soft g, some opt for /ʒif/ (audio speaker iconlisten). The voiced postalveolar fricative, /ʒ/, is pronounced like the j in the French joie, or the s in the English vision or measure.? France and French don't seem to be mentioned in The Economist's article (I only did a quick CTRL+F search). The Larousse and Robert's sources I mentioned above could be used. A455bcd9 (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

      @A455bcd9: swapped the sources (although I'm sure you saw :D) and added Dictionnaires Le Robert. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

      Great, thanks! You could add Éditions Larousse's dictionary as well (gif). A455bcd9 (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

      @A455bcd9 and done :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from mujinga

• This will mainly be feedback on how the article reads to me Mujinga (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Wilhite can be linked at the picture caption
• "Similar acronym discrepancies arise with NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, pronounced /ˈnæsə/) and NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization, pronounced /ˈneɪtoʊ/)" - it strikes me to make this sentence globally accessible, then it would be great to be able to listen to the pronunciations of both acronyms
  • Unfortunately, I'm currently in full throes of a cold I thought was gone—I can't really make any audio recordings at the moment. I'll try when my voice clears :)
    • still open Mujinga (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  • ohno, feel better! Mujinga (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  really, this thing isn't gonna be an FA unless I get over this cold? okay, I'll try to clear my nose/throat in a couple hours. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• link The Economist in text
• "incidents" reads like a bit of a list, which of course it is. but maybe some of the small paragraphs could be brought together and linked up
  • still open Mujinga (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  I linked a couple of 'em, does it work? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  • yup seems better nice one! Mujinga (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• "The New York Times faced some light criticism" - from who?
  • still open Mujinga (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  added "on social media" theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• do dictionaries need their own section?
  • I mean, it can't really go in the "incidents" section, right?
    • incidents no, background maybe? Mujinga (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  put it in "analysis"—seems good there, and at least it stops that pie chart from overflowing into the next section theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Webb, Tiger (August 9, 2018). "Is it pronounced GIF or JIF? And why do we care?". ABC News. Archived from the original on December 29, 2021. Retrieved December 28, 2021. - something garbled there with the wikilink which shows ABC News (Australia)| right now
  • Does the pipe trick really not work there? disappointing, fixed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 16:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    • looks fixed to me too Mujinga (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• are the second two mentions of Oxford University Press not linked on purpose?
• Dewey, Caitlin (December 4, 2013). "'Jeopardy' has conclusively settled the GIF pronunciation war". Washington Post. Archived from the original on March 4, 2022. Retrieved March 3, 2022. - should 'Jeopardy' be written Jeopardy there?
• Buck, Stephanie (October 21, 2014). "70% of People Worldwide Pronounce 'GIF' With a Hard 'G'". Mashable - likewise should % be percent here?
• titles of references can be converted to house style using https://titlecaseconverter.com/ (tick the wikipedia style) - this tip was recently shown to me by SusunW
  • hmmm when i use the the convertor it gives for example "It's settled! Creator tells us how to pronounce.." → "It’s Settled! Creator Tells Us How to Pronounce.." Mujinga (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    • still open Mujinga (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

      Mujinga, the citation case is consistent with the style I prefer (which is allowed per MOS:CT and MOS:VAR)—sentence case for newspapers and journal articles, title case for books. Is there a specific inconsistency you have an issue with? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Mujinga! Fixed everything I haven't protested against here :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 16:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    • made some replies Mujinga (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

      @Mujinga: made some replies to your replies :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mujinga, 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) 14:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll have another look now Mujinga (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

RiP Wilhite. Article seems improved, two of my comments are not yet resolved, I've marked them as still open Mujinga (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Poitiers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, here we are. 38 months after my first FAC was promoted (Battle of Neville's Cross) I am nominating my 50th. It has been quite a journey. The company has been excellent and the learning curve has been discombobulating. I offer here another, and my final, Hundred Years' War battle. Described as the most important battle of the war, the French snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Unfurling his sacred standard to indicate that no prisoners would be taken, the French King was himself captured. This, and the resultant collapse of the French government, led to a comprehensive peace four years later on English terms: the war was over. We know a lot about this battle, but the sources contain irritating contradictions and lacunae. I hope that I have done a passable job of leading a reader through these. No doubt you will let me know where I haven't.

This is the longest article I have worked on. And by some way the one I have put the most time and effort into. It has been through GAN and I believe it is ready for FAC. By way of celebration and thanks for all of the putting up with my shoddy prose along the way I intend to ping every reviewer of my previous 49 nominations to have a look at this one. Even those who had me tearing my hair out with their unreasonable readings of perfectly clear text. So please feel free to either leave a full review, or simply decry the paucity of commas in the article. I should ping now, but it's late, and sufficient unto the day ... Gog the Mild (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The following are the sterling group of editors who have corrected my grammar, unmuddled my thinking and contributed hundreds of hours to help get my first 49 FACs into presentable shape. They are cordially invited to comment on my 50th FAC and/or my cheek for so frivolously pinging them. Thank you one and all - the cliché is true, words cannot express my appreciation. User:Nikkimaria, User:Buidhe, User:Tim riley, User:CPA-5, User:Peacemaker67, User:Hog Farm, User:FunkMonk, User:Harrias, User:Wehwalt, User:Serial Number 54129, User:Brianboulton, User:T8612, User:Jens Lallensack, User:JennyOz, User:SchroCat, User:Iazyges, User:Jimfbleak, User:Girth Summit, User:Sturmvogel 66, User:Eddie891, User:Jo-Jo Eumerus, User:Dudley Miles, User:Cplakidas, User:Fiamh, User:Lingzhi2, User:Z1720, User:HaEr48, User:Casliber, User:HJ Mitchell, User:Mr rnddude, User:Truflip99, User:Zawed, User:SnowFire, User:The Rambling Man, User:Heartfox, User:AustralianRupert, User:Chidgk1, User:WereSpielChequers, User:Maury Markowitz, User:Borsoka, User:Dank, User:Shooterwalker, User:Vanamonde93, User:Dumelow, User:Hanberke, User:Mike Christie, User:Reidgreg, User:Therapyisgood, User:Urselius, User:Nick-D, User:Lee Vilenski, User:Airborne84, User:Wikibenboy94, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Grapple X, User:Indy beetle, User:No Great Shaker, User:Gerda Arendt, User:AhmadLX, User:Ceoil, User:RetiredDuke, User:Factotem, User:Hawkeye7, User:Catlemur, User:Kablammo, User:Pendright, User:ImaginesTigers, User:L293D, User:Richard Nevell, User:Cassianto, User:BasedMises, User:Praemonitus, User:SusunW, User:Norfolkbigfish, User:In actu, User:CaptainEek, User:Mardus, User:The ed17, User:Horsesizedduck, User:Truflip99, User:KJP1, User:WA8MTWAYC, User:Chetsford, User:Attar-Aram syria Gog the Mild (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• Harv errors: Sumtion 1999, p. 235. Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation. Rogers & 20014, pp. 381, 383. Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation. (t · c) buidhe 01:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies Buidhe. I must be getting sloppy. Although a newish editor helpfully citing the infobox and rewriting the casualties section to be cited to primary sources after I had done my big pre-FAC copy edit probably befuddled me. Sorted.

• The only images I have questions about are File:Beauchamp Elsing (cropped).jpg and File:Armborst 4, Nordisk familjebok.png. These 20th century depictions were published centuries after the fact and have minimal artistic merit, what is their accuracy or encyclopedic value?

The first removed. The second is an accurate depiction which conveys how a crossbow of the time was reloaded to a reader more effectively than a hundred words could. As such I feel that it meets the prime objective of Wikipedia: it informs and educates the reader.

(t · c) buidhe 01:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks as ever Buidhe, addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Support from Truflip99

How could I possibly decline after getting called out twice (or fourice). Comments soon. --truflip99 (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I blame SN. Sorry about that. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• truflip99 Are you still planning to provide comments? (t · c) buidhe 02:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Going to this now. Sorry about the delay, just been one heck of a week for me. --truflip99 (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. No worries. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere, and any thoughts or comments will be appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• They were driven back... this was also repulsed. -- could use parallel construction

I could. And probably get picked up by reviewers for repetitive prose. The occasional absence of grammatical parallelism is often a deliberate choice in an attempt to stay within "prose is engaging and of a professional standard".

• Could you not wikilink it as Charles, the Dauphin --or-- Charles, the Dauphin? Confusing for those of us unfamiliar, had to do some digging to find Dauphin of France.

Gone with your second suggestion.

• Populist revolts broke out across France. -- why?

It's the lead. It's a summary. The full article provides a fuller picture.

I think most people only read the lead? The sentence alone, with no links whatsoever, reads out of place and could use a tad bit more context.

I disagree. And if someone only reads the lead then they surely expect to gain an incomplete impression of the content of the article - pretty much by definition.

• Negotiations to end the war and ransom John dragged out and Edward launched a further campaign in 1359. -- hard to read; move "in 1359" to the beginning? "to ransom John"? comma after out?

I try to minimise WP:PROSELINE. I have split into two sentences to make it more digestible.

• initiated a resumption -- better to just say "resumed"?

Done.

• The French port of Calais fell to the English in August 1347 after the Crécy campaign and shortly after this the Truce of Calais was signed. This was partially the result of both countries being financially exhausted. -- better wording? "Shortly after, the Truce of Calais was signed, partially as a result of both countries being financially exhausted."

Good idea.

• and is estimated to have killed a third of the population -- "and killed an estimated one third.."

I prefer the original wording.

• because of lack of money -- a lack of money

Done.

more later. --truflip99 (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• later commonly known as the Black Prince -- "commonly" seems unnecessary

Why? It seems the essential element of the statement to me.

• devastating a wide swathe of French territory -- ; they devastated ... and sacked (parallelism)

See above.

• "the importance of the economic attrition aspect of the chevauchée can hardly be exaggerated." -- MOS:QUOTE?

I am familiar with it. Which parts do you have in mind? "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea" or "quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia" perhaps?

Should the full stop not be outside the quotation? Asking for my own reference.

MOS:LQUOTE "Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark."

• important town of Verneuil -- important in what way?

Culturally, politically, religiously, militarily and financial ly. But it seems unnecessary and to go against a summary style of writing to belabour a reader with all of that.

But this just leaves the reader with more questions than answers, IMO. Esp a reader who's completely unfamiliar with that town, this topic, etc.

"important" removed.

• John pursued, but bungled several opportunities to bring the English to battle and they escaped. -- who "they" are is ambiguous due to the structure of this sentence

I disagree. We have John - who is plainly singular - and the English - who are plainly not - so who could "they" refer to other than the English?

John pursued the English alone with no army alongside?

• The modern historian David Green has described the progress of the Black Prince's army as "deliberately destructive, extremely brutal ... methodical and sophisticated." -- omit has, also MOS:QUOTE?

"has" omitted. See above re MOS:QUOTE.

• and no field army to prevent the Prince's forces from disbursing widely to maximise their destructive effect on the French countryside -- this frag doesn't really make sense to me

Good point. That's me being too close to the military decision making process. I have unpacked a little to "If a French field army had been in the area, the Anglo-Gascon forces would have had to stay relatively close together, ready to support each other if attacked. The absence of any such French force enabled the Prince's formations to disburse widely to maximise their destructive effect on the French countryside." Is that clearer?

Beautiful!

more later. --truflip99 (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi truflip99 and thanks for your comments so far. I have addressed them all above and am awaiting with interest the next instalment. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• The French army promptly marched south, as all available forces were concentrated against the Black Prince. -- why not "and" instead of "as"?

Either would work. I feel that "as" is slightly more felicitous and communicates a marginally better feel for the nuances of what was happening.

• if he could do so under the right circumstances -- such as?

I could unpack the military thinking behind that (a couple of sources go into considerable detail) and define all of the terminology. But I am not sure that the vast majority of readers would be much the wiser. And bear in mind that the next section is pretty much devoted to this and allied issues. Might we not be overwhelming readers with the strategic details? Not to mention that if a fuller explanation is needed it should probably go in Black Prince's chevauchée of 1356.

• John sent home nearly all of the infantry contingents, leaving an entirely mounted force which had the mobility and speed to match that of the Black Prince's all-mounted army, as well as reducing the French wage bill. -- I personally would prefer this to read as: John sent home nearly all of the infantry contingents, which reduced the French wage bill but left an entirely mounted force that had the mobility and speed to match that of the Black Prince's all-mounted army.

Done.

• marched hard -- what does this mean?

According to Wiktionary "marched" is the simple past tense of march which means "... to make military advances"; and "hard" means "Difficult or requiring a lot of effort to do".

• to have consisted of 6,000 men: 3,000 men-at-arms -- there's a much earlier instance of this wikilink

True. Moved.

• but in similar battles they used their lances as pikes -- wikilink lance? Unless this is also a javelin?

Nope. Linked.

• wikilink Warsaw University of Technology?

I feel that we are getting well into MOS:OVERLINK territory here, but done.

Done through Anglo-Gascon army section. More later. --truflip99 (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• I am away for a couple of days. I hope to get back to these on Wednesday. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• and 2,000 infantrymen -- were*

Gah! Done.

• there is an earlier mention of spears in the article that should be wikilinked

Moved.

• The French army was divided into four divisions or "battles". -- does this need to be translated twice?

Arguably not, so second mention removed.

• omit duplicate wikilink for dauphin

Omitted.

• The division's leader, Brienne, the constable of France, was killed -- I thought his name was Walter?

Walter was his given name. Nobles are usually referred to by the highest ranking of their titles. (Except for monarchs, who are so exalted that they transcend this to use just their regnal names.) As with Warwick or Orléans.

• to let the French men-at-arms through for their final charge.[171] [177] -- Omit the space between refs

I think that's it from me. --truflip99 (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi again truflip99. Excellent stuff. I think that I have now addressed everything, including your come backs on my initial responses. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Responses and revisions sound good to me! Supporting --truflip99 (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Harrias

Some citation bits and pieces:

• "Pratt, P.L. (2010)." – Why unspaced initials? Unless the MOS has changed in the period I've been dormant, I thought it preferred spaced? Also, the link provided is a dead link for me.

Yes, it's changed. You need to visit more often. Issues fixed.

• "Rodger, N.A.M. (2004)." – Ditto.

Fixed.

• "Rogers, Clifford (1998)" – Seems to be missing his middle initial of J listed in the other three sources of his. Also should only be linked on this, first use to be consistent with your other linking conventions.

Fixed.

• Citation 26 "Madden 2014, pp. 79ff." should be "p." not "pp."

Fixed.

Infobox:

• The belligerents are listed as England and France, but the result is listed as an "Anglo-Gascon victory" – I worry that for a layperson just scanning over the infobox for a quick summary (which is the point, after all) might not be able to put these two facts together: can the fact that Anglo-Gascon is being used synonymously with England be made clearer?

That may be stretching what is allowed/appropriate in an infobox. Good point. Changed to English victory, which is how the sources usually describe it. The intricacies of force composition will have to wait for the main article.

• Strength: It looks very odd that the French strength is listed as:

"11,000

14,000–16,000" – without reading the text, it is not at all clear what this means.

Nor to me. A drive by helpfully cited the infobox and added specific mentions to primary sources after I had done my final check but prior to nomination. I thought I had reverted everything, but clearly not. Fixed.

• Casualties and losses: the two sides are formatted differently. The English side has no bullet point, and is one block of text, the French side has a bullet point, and is presented as two points of information (albeit the second doesn't have a bullet.)

Standardised.

That's it from me for the minute. I'll start on those eight thousand odd words later... Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 16:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Cheers Harrias and many thanks for making one of your sadly now rare forays to FAC to look at this. I am bracing myself for further incoming. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Harrias, I hope that things are going well with you. Just checking to see if you were still intending to provide further comment? Which would be most welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I still hope to come back to it, but I've struggled to dedicate any time to it, and I have a work training trip abroad next week, so I won't have any for a little while still. Coords, please don't let this hold the nomination up, I have no glaring objections. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

SUPPORT by SusunW

I'll have to do it in bits and spurts between the visiting guest functions.

• "The only significant French possession"… I find myself asking when this was. Would it be clearer if this sentence moved to follow the first in the previous section? Maybe something like "Since the Norman Conquest of 1066, English monarchs had held titles and lands within France, the possession of which made them vassals of the kings of France. By the first quarter of the fourteenth century, the only significant…" If you do that, omit the "But" which will start the second paragraph.

Done.

• "Bordeaux had a population" reads awkwardly to me. Perhaps "Bordeaux's population exceeded London's by 50,000 inhabitants"?

It reads fine to me. I don't insist on it, but your suggestion reads as a circumlocution.

• "against the expected descent" tripped me up. (My mind went biology and my hubby's take was politics, i.e. ascent/descent) Had to read it several times to get that Edward was going down to France from England. Would advance or assault be a clearer word?

No, as in Wikt:descend: "To make an attack, or incursion, as if from a vantage ground; to come suddenly and with violence." Note in particular the quote there.

Ha! Note here the BBC using "descend" in the same sense I am.

British things are so confusing. LOL

• Link plenipotentiary

Done. (I repeatedly miss that.)

• link Clifford Rogers to Clifford J. Rogers

Done. (And that.)

• "French nobility went over" do you mean they changed allegiance, began supporting the English?

Rephrased as you suggest.

• "Arras rebelled". Perhaps rephrasing is needed. Explaining this is a town would be helpful (but then a town cannot rebel or kill, so should it be "Townspeople from Arras"?, or maybe in war it is typical phrasing for a town to rebel?)

Clarified that it is a town. Towns can indeed rebel. As can regions, countries, peoples, groups and other corporate entities.

I would prefer towns, regions, countries, people, groups and corporate entities to peacefully negotiate. :(

• it is either a 50-mile-wide French territory or territory more than 50 miles wide (only compound adjectives preceding nouns use hyphens)

Oops. Fixed.

• "dismissed Talleyrand and marching hard crossed" seems grammatically odd. Dismissed and marched, crossing? or Dismissed and, marching hard, crossed?
• "If they attempted to" what? Possibily, "to engage, the French"?

Rephrased to hopefully be clearer.

"the Anglo-Gascons would find it almost impossible to withdraw. If they attempted to". Is that really unclear?

• Will you rephrase? (We have compound clause, not a sentence, but a dependent clause is joined with a conjunction to an independent clause, i.e. unequal clauses.) "Having to stay concentrated in the presence of the French army and several days' hard marching had reduced the opportunities to forage and food was almost exhausted."

I have tried. See what you think.

I made a wee edit removing "Having" and giving a subject as "The Anglo-Gascons".

I'll return (start Opposing forces) SusunW (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• In the section about the divisions/battles, you say "William, Earl of Salisbury, deputised by Robert…Maurice", but I think it is the opposite. Robert/Maurice didn't appoint/select William. William chose them. So shouldn't it be "William, who deputised Robert/Maurice"?

You what? To deputise, as in deputise "To act as a substitute for a person in their role or office".

AE, to deputize is to make someone a deputy. My guess is that it may be a BE/AE thing, but since one is unsure that one's reader speaks BE…I'd change it. Your call.

• Do we know which Bartholomew de Burghersh this was and can we link?

Sorry. A primary source added by a drive by. I have removed it.

• Unlink Clifford Rogers here. Should be at first occurrence and then change to simply Rogers here.

Done. (I think - I can't find it, so I assume already tidied up.)

Overall, well done and congratulations. I notice throughout that there is inconsistent use of oxford commas and commas after years. As BE and AE rules are not the same, I leave these up to your discretion, noting only that they should be consistent throughout.

I cannot find any use of serial commas. I'll go through looking for commas after dates to terminate with prejudice.

I couldn't find any commas after dates not required by normal grammar. If you spot any, perhaps you could let me know, and/or extract them yourself?

Please feel free to ignore anything that in my comments appears irregular from the standpoint of military history. As you know, I know absolutely nothing about war, warcraft, or the like. SusunW (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

SusunW, you are wonderful. Good points every one. Responded to above. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Happy to support, Gog. SusunW (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Support from Reidgreg

Nice milestone. Mostly ce notes from me (some of these may have already been addressed):

• The infobox, under strength, has two figures for France: 11,000 and 14,000–16000. The latter is in the lead. The former appears somewhat mysterious. Is this taken from Estimates of the French army vary widely, from 11,000, cited in letters by Bartholomew de Burghersh and Henry Peverel, to Froissart's 60,000.? Please make it clear (in the infobox) whether these are different estimates of the strength of a single force, or the strength of multiple forces.

Apologies. I don't know what happened there. (Possibly part of the "helpful" citing of the infobox a little while ago which I missed when reverting. Removed.

• John was captured, as was one of his sons and according to different sources 2,000 to 3,000 men-at-arms. Would it be any better with the underlined part as a parenthetic (whether in parentheses or bracketted by commas) or perhaps removed as assumed? It seems a little wordy for the lead.

Good point. Tweaked.

• As well either 3,800 or 1,500 French common infantry were killed or captured  The surviving French dispersed Full stop.

Not done. Or, possibly, already done.

• On 4 August 1356 6,000 Gascon and English fighting men headed north from Bergerac. They were accompanied by approximately 4,000 non-combatants. How would you feel about having some separation between the numerals, such as by inserting "approximately" or "about"? If needed, the later "approximately" could be changed to avoid repetition or removed as assumed.

"About" would, strictly, be OR; although it wouldn't over worry me. Tweaked differently

• more than 50-mile -wide (80 km) remove the leading space in the last parameter of {{convert}}. (i.e.: | -wide → |-wide ) The added space doesn't make a difference for named parameters but with unnamed parameters it is included as part of the passed variable. Similarly with approximately 13-foot -long (4.0 m)

  sOK, I see what needs doing, but not how to do it. Any chance you could do one of them. I will then save it to my bag of tricks page and prove that I can use it - or otherwise - by changing the other.</> Now done. Thanks Hog Farm. And I understand.

  Gog, I've correct this for you (I think). The issue is that when adding the -wide or such parameter at the end, there can't be a space between the dash and the pipe key, or the template will interpret that the space is part of the "-wide" string. Hog Farm _Talk 02:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, Hog Farm. I had instructions above but I forgot to use the special pipe cheat in my fancy formatting, and failed to notice it wasn't displaying in preview; now shown. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• to prevent the destruction being wracked in south-west France should this be wreaked?

  No. Wikt:wrack: to wreck; “to cause to suffer pain, etc”; Usage notes Frequently confused with rack (“torture; suffer pain”), though traditionally means “wreck”. Etymologically, wrack and ruin (“complete destruction”) and storm-wracked (“wrecked by a storm”) are the only terms that derive from wrack.

  If that's the meaning you want, why not state it plainly and replace with suffered (or inflicted)? – Reidgreg (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Er. It is stated plainly. But changed.

• and Hélie de Talleyrand-Périgord, Cardinal of Périgord arrived at the Black Prince's camp The underlined phrase should be followed by a comma, as a parenthetic.

Oops. Done.

• Happy to do battle, but concerned that a two-day delay would leave his army with its back to the Loire in an area with few supplies the Black Prince dismissed Talleyrand similarly I feel a comma is needed after 'supplies'; unless you'd rather remove the first comma and use something else like parentheses.

Comma added.

• on the 13th MOS recommends against using ordinals for dates (MOS:ORDINALDATE). I would change: the 13th → 13 September, even if it's wordier. Similarly with On the 14th at the end of the paragraph and 17th in the following paragraph.

True. Done.

• John, aware the outnumbered the Anglo-Gascons, was also eager wipe them out in battle You possibly meant the underlined to be they or he but I might use "his forces" or similar. Make sure there's no confusion with the later them.

Good point. Tweaked.

• but were about to serendipitously position themselves 20 miles (32 km) south of the Anglo-Gascons and directly in their path back to friendly territory A wonderful choice of word, ordinarily, but I feel that this may be editorializing as with lucky or luckily, and that it would be serendipitous from the French POV. Perhaps "advantageously" would be more neutral and objective?

Removed.

• Contemporary accounts notethat missing space

Done.

• campaigning with a similar sized army I would probably hyphenate similar-sized.

Done.

• The King ordered the French sacred banner, the Oriflamme to be unfurled, which signalled comma after Oriflamme.

Done.

• The Anglo Gascon command group conferred hyphenate

Gah!

• only four men by some modern accounts, 400 in others Since the two figures may be compared, you might state four as the numeral 4. (MOS:NUMNOTES)

Done.

• Some were trampled, their innards torn open... Do you think this boxquote might be too graphic? We should be sensitive to the victims' family members who might read this.

I am going to refrain from comment in order to avoid revealing my lack of political correctness.

• Surrounded by enemies  John and his youngest son, Philip, surrendered. I've avoided the urge to recommend commas for most of these, but maybe one here, lest someone momentarily think that Philip surrendered to John and his youngest son, who were enemies. Or better yet, rephrase.

  Grr. Done, but [37].

  Being spineless does offer one a certain fluidity. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• some fought off their pursuers, most escaped while most escaped.

Added.

• If you're pretty sure this will be the final/finished version of the article, you could put in some non-breaking spaces between the day and month in dates and in names like John II to avoid awkward line-wraps.

nbs's now scattered generously throughout.

I wouldn't be upset if you declined any of this. Very nice work! – Reidgreg (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Reidgreg, good to hear from you again. I have, I think, addressed all of you comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Reidgreg, I think that everything is addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Reidgreg, I was wondering if you felt able to support or oppose the nomination yet? Or is there more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I don't do a lot of these. Support, yea, verily. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Support from HF

I reviewed this at GAN, and thought it was FA-quality at that time. Hog Farm _Talk 20:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

Spelling errors: "over-whelmimgly", "strategem",

Gah! Corrected.

Source review - pass

• All sources are high quality books and journals.
• Some of the journals have ISSNs (eg Magier, Rogers), and others not. ISSNs are not required on the English-language Wikipedia, but they are on some of the others, so I normally add them to help the translators.

• Done. (I think.)

• Kaeuper and Kennedy's ISBN is formatted differently to the others. It should be 978-0-8122-3348-3.

Fixed.

• Some of the multiple author works have ampersands (eg. Kaeuper and Kennedy, Livingstone and Witzel, but others do not. Adopt a consistent style.

Good spot. Standardised.

• Where you have multiple works by the same author, you currently have them in random order. Suggest chronological order.

I thought they were, but I see that one of Rogers' is misplaced. Fixed.

• Add page numbers to fn 21 for consistency

D'oh! Done.

• Spot checks: 24, 36, 68, 138, 155 - okay
• Fn 36: "the importance of the economic attrition of the chevauchée can hardly be exaggerated." Word missing. It should read: "the importance of the economic attrition aspect of the chevauchée can hardly be exaggerated."

That's my wonky copying across. Thank you. Amended. (I had also made the same error in Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355!)

• My preference would be for notes 2 and 3 to be merged into the text, so the notes contain only historiographic information.

I have worked the first into "Opposing forces", which is my preferences. I had a request in another FAC for the term to be fully explained at first mention - ie in the lead. Hence the footnote. I think that no. 2 needs to stay as a footnote. (And I am not sure that I see a difference in principle between it and eg footnotes 3, 10, 11 or 12. (Now 2, 9, 10 and 11.))

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hawkeye7, it is good of you to do this. I have addressed all of your actionable comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Support for prose, from Shooterwalker

Combed through this to look for any major issues with clarity or flow. I had a few nitpicks, but they seemed to be more style than real issues. Happy to support as is. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

@WP:FAC coordinators: with four supports (five if Hawkeye7's is a general support as well as a source review pass), source and image review passes and all of Truflip99's comments to date addressed, and with the nomination now three weeks in, could I have permission to launch another? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Hog Farm _Talk 21:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Consider mine a general support as well. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

One sentence

Section: 1356 The sentence, In three weeks the expedition had seized a large amount of loot, including many horses, damage had been done to the French economy and prestige, new alliances had been cemented and there had been few casualties. didn't quite work for me. I felt that military gains ie the loot, horses, lack of casuaties and gaining new alliances belong together while the soft power gains of damaging the French economy and prestige were separate.

My version would be: In three weeks the expedition had, with few casualties, seized a large amount of loot (including many horses), cemented new alliances and had damaged the French economy and prestige. Just a thought.Bill Reid | (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Billreid, I like it. Done, except I have dropped the parentheses. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Support - very enjoyable read. Bill Reid | (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from JennyOz

Hi Gog, Popping in before the other dozens of pingees. This is mammoth. A big read and a 50th! Well done you! I have but a few nitpicks and a couple of questions. (I started this before edits by Billreid so some tweaks may have been done?) For my comments on conversions pls view my templates in edit mode.

lede

• the eldest son and heir of the English King - pipe Edward III?

I prefer not to. It is not all that clear to a reader that this is Edward III. I feel that linking the second mention is, in this case, more helpful to a reader.

Background

• Although Gascony was the cause of the war - control of Gascony?

Actually, no. I have already said "the only significant French possession still held by the English in France was Gascony in the south west. But Gascony was disproportionately important: duty levied by the English Crown on wine from Bordeaux, the capital of Gascony, was more than all other English customs duties combined and by far the largest source of state income. Bordeaux had a population of more than 50,000, greater than London's, and Bordeaux was possibly richer ... Philip's Great Council in Paris agreed that the lands held by Edward III in France should be taken back into Philip's hands on the grounds that Edward III was in breach of his obligations as a vassal. This marked the start of the Hundred Years' War". Is this not sufficient explanation of Gascony's role?

• John II of France attempted - no need for "of France"

Done.

• In 1355 Edward III's eldest - here be no nbs
• set out on 5 October - missed nbs
• Gascony on 2 December - missed nbs

All added.

1356

• from them on 24 April 1356 - missed nbs

Done.

• The modern historian Jonathan Sumption describes the French national administration as "fall[ing] apart in jealous acrimony and recrimination". pp=102, 111, 115 - looks like one quote across 3 diff pages, divide them?

Done.

• On 5 April 1356 John - missed nbs

Done.

• King John moved to Rouen with - wlink Rouen

Done.

Prelude

• separated into three divisions - I think it would be helpful here to mention who headed each of the three divisions?
• more than 50 miles (80 km) wide, yet - use convert ie "more than 50 miles (80 km) wide, yet"

Why. There is no change from a reader's point of view and there is no requirement to use the template.

• brutal ... methodical - fix ellipsis

In what way?

• The populace of most towns fled - populaces

Done.

• formations to disburse widely - disperse

Done.

• Map showing the routes... - alt=a map showing the route of the BlackPrince's divisision during - add space BlackPrince's, typo division

Dah!

• free passage to the Cotentin - wlink

Done.

• John was marching on Tours - wlink

Done.

• still hoped to cross the Loire River - Loire hasn't been linked since lede?

Linked.

• with either Edward's or Lancaster's armies - who is Edward here, use Black Prince?

Edward III. Clarified.

• The French royal army from Breteuil had moved to Chartres - wlink
• Two hundred Scottish picked men-at-arms - what does "picked" mean? Is it simply 'selected' ie hand-picked or some military term (just for my info)
• an over-whelmingly strong force - one word, remove hyphen

Done.

• army of the Count of Poitiers - who is this, John, Duke of Berry?

Indeed. Clarified and link moved to the first mention.

• France were still underway and shipping - under way two words

Apparently not: wikt:underway.

Movement to contact

• in an area with few supplies - needs a comma after supplies

Added.

• at La Haye on 13 September - fix piped link

Fixed.

Opposing forces

• when campaigning with a similar-sized army - "sized" is a verb here so use adverb "similarly" (eg a widely held belief, or, as below, "so similarly ignored Talleyrand") so should be "with a similarly sized army" with no hyphen?

Done.

• attendants of minor land owners - one word landowners

Done.

French army

• and approximately 13-foot -long (4.0 m); - long is not an adjective here (would be if it said 13 foot-long lances) so no hyphen needed. Just basic 13 feet (4.0 m) long

Done.

• plate armour sown to them - spelling sewn, onto?

Bleh! Fixed.

• and possibly chain mail hauberks.- needs hyphen ie chain-mail hauberks (though actually, is chain-mail hauberk a tautology?)

Done. (No. A hauberk could, for example, be made of scale or plate.)

• of about 220 yards (200 m) - why not simply of about 220 yards (200 m)?

Cus the source says 200 m and I am using imperial units. Not that I much care.

• and his 19-year-old son and heir (the dauphin) - cap D per all other mentions?

No. This is just referring to him having the general status of being the dauphin, not using it to describe a specific individual.

• Behind this was a division led jointly by John's uncle and his 19-year-old son and heir - ambiguous? "John's uncle and his 19-year-old son" could read as the uncle's son. Would changing it to "led jointly by John's 19-year-old son and heir (the dauphin) and John's uncle" be OK?

Good thinking. Done.

Battle

• Prince's personal standard - pipe wlink Military colours, standards and guidons (no problem if you think standard is commonly enough known)

Given the level of MOS:OVERLINK we already have, adding this makes sense. Done.

• laager - is the wiktionary link better than Laager#Variations which mentions "English 'leaguer' ("military camp")"?

Ho hum. Changed.

• were able to reach the gap in the fence with - is "fence" intentional or hedge?

Good spot. I think that I was trying to paraphrase and went overboard. Changed.

• the longbowmen turned against them - insert English or Anglo-Gascons

Why? It has already been specified that longbowmen are either English or Welsh, and who else would be firing at the French?

• who had accompanied the Cardinal during - decap?

Why?

• As some contemporary sources summarise this phase of the fighting with "the first French division was defeated by the arrows of the English" - "some"? does more than one source use that quote?

Amazingly, yes. Rogers, page 379 note 161, gives six different sources using this identical phrase.

• The Black Prince was infuriated by the participation of Talleyrand's relatives and companions - why? did he think Talleyrand therefore was not impartial in negotiations?

Er, yes. Wouldn't you?

• that a relative of the Cardinal - decap?

Why?

• and when told that a relative of the Cardinal had been captured he ordered him beheaded - the cardinal or the relative?

The one who had been captured and whom it was within his power to behead. I could specify, but it seems redundant to me.

Second attack

• Peter Hoskins states that most - move his introduction to here from Casualties

Done.

Third attack

• John had ordered Orléans to escort his four sons to safety - use "John's" instead of "his" to avoid ambiguity

I am not sure there is any ambiguity. If there is, is there not a way to avoid it without clumsily using "John" twice in seven words?

• Three of John's four sons, including the Dauphin, did leave the field at this point - didn't the Dauphin leave in second attack?

Depends on how you demarcate the attacks. But I say "The Dauphin was accompanied by two of his brothers, Louis and John, and the trio's advisors and bodyguards were perturbed by the intensity of the fighting in their vicinity and forced them to withdraw from the front line to a safer position." Which is not the same as leaving the field. Although the extent to which in reality the first, at the end of the second attack, merged into them actually leaving the field, at the failure of Orléans to launch the third attack, is unclear.

Fourth attack

• joined by many surviving crossbowmen from the first attack. - this is said just above?

Could you help me out? I just can't find any prior mention of this.

• the mile-wide gap (1,600 m) - use conversion "across the 1-mile-wide (1.6 km) gap"?

Er, ok. Done. (Why? I find it more difficult to read that way.)

• towards the by now exhausted - hyphen by-now? Not sure, maybe just remove by

By needs to be there. Google books has zero cases of this being hyphenated.

• prayed - overlink?

Well I certainly think so, delinked.

• through for their final charge.[171] [177] - remove space between refs

Oops.

• started others copied them - followed?

Guessing that you are suggesting replacing "copied" with "followed" (yes?), they didn't actually follow them. They did the same thing, which is slightly different and which "copied" seems to communicate well.

• Champ d’Alexandre - straighten curly apostrophe

Straightened. (I wonder who did thay?)

• were eager to take them prisoner – in order that they could be ransomed – rather than - "in order" frowned on? maybe 'eager to take them prisoner for ransoming, rather than...'

Why is "in order" frowned on? And by who? It seems to precisely describe the situation here.

Mopping up

• Frenchmen who had fled soon after the Captal de Buch's force arrived generally reached their horses and were able to escape. - this is repeat of "Most of the first to run were able to reach their horses and escape" but is intentional?

It is, it seemed worth recapping for clarity, but I could rephrase if you think I am over-egging it.

• advantageous to capture in order to hold for ransom. - remove "in order"

Why. If pushed hard I will replace it. The phrase would read poorly as "advantageous to capture to hold for ransom" IMO.

• Among the slain were the French King's uncle; the grand constable of France; the other marshal; the Bishop of Châlons - add names? eg "the other marshal" is Clermont?

I prefer not to. Not least because one only names in full at first mention. The marshal other than the "one of the two marshals of France" mentioned two sentences earlier.

Aftermath

• overladen as they were with loot, booty and prisoners - what is difference loot and booty?

Not what I thought it was. Switched to "plunder".

Peace

• between John and Edward led - That's Edward III (not Prince)?

Clarified. Although it looks clumsy to my eye that one monarch has a regnal number and the other not.

• causing the Treaty to lapse - lowercase t

Done.

• In October 1359 Edward led another campaign in northern France - Edward III or Black Prince?

Clarified.

• In October 1359 Edward led another campaign - wlink Reims?

Done.

Consistencies etc

• advisor x 5 - er per Tim (in prev fac)?

Oops. As I keep telling Tim, I read too much American fiction. And the EngvarB tool doesn't pick this one up.

• some headings have spaces at equals signs, others not

True. And so?

• some alts start with a cap, others not (eg "alt=A map of..." v "alt=a map of...")

As the alt text is for voice readers I assume this makes no functional difference.

Refs etc

• ref 51 Rogers 2014, pp. 342, 244. - second page is 344?

D'oh! Corrected.

• ref 181 Rogers 2014, pp. 282–383. - first page is 382?

Yes.

• ref 202 Rogers 2014, p. 348. - not 384 is it?

No.

• author-link=Richard W. Kaeuper - author-link1

Done.

• Rogers, Clifford J. (2004) - cite news should be journal?

Yes. Done. Well spotted.

• Harari, Yuval - move link to first entry?

Done.

That'll do. Sorry for length! Thoroughly enjoyed reading this. JennyOz (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Jenny, you are wonderful. I don't know how to thank you. It is a bit of a monster, isn't it. I shall try not to do it again. Not your fault that your comments were long, but mine for leaving in so many silly errors for you to find. Everything now addressed, a couple with queries and a couple with disagreements. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Borsoka

• But Gascony... Do we begin a sentence with "but"?
• Bordeaux had a population of more than 50,000, greater than London's, and Bordeaux was possibly richer. Do we have to know it?
• ...Philip's Great Council in Paris... Great Council or Royal Council? Do we have to know that it happened in Paris?
• In 1345 and 1346 Henry, Earl of Lancaster, led a series of successful campaigns in Aquitaine and the Anglo-Gascons were able to push the focus of the fighting away from the heart of Gascony. I assume that Henry fought for the Gascons, perhaps launching campaigns from Gascony to other parts of the former Duchy of Aquitaine. Why Anglo-Gascons instead of Gascons?
• ...the death rate was over 40% in Southern England Is this a fact or also an estimation? Do we have to know it?
• This catastrophe, which lasted until 1350, temporarily halted the fighting. The statement contradicts the following sentence about naval battles, etc.
• However, the French king, now John II (r. 1350–1364), decided not to ratify it... Why? I understand this is a key event in the background history of the battle.
• It was clear... Is this encyclopedic?
• ...his council... Is the wikilink useful? Borsoka (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• The next day he was formally acknowledged as the king's lieutenant in Gascony, with plenipotentiary powers. Acknowledged or installed? If acknowledged, by whom?
• The Anglo-Gascon force marched from Bordeaux in English-held Gascony 300 miles (480 km) to Narbonne and back to Gascony... We were already informed that Bordeaux was held by the English in Gascony, and Gascony is already linked. Where is Narbonne located?
• The English component resumed the offensive after Christmas... Perhaps "the offensive from Gascony"?
• ...one of the largest landholders in France... Perhaps "in Normandy"? (To better understand the following sentence about the Norman nobles who were not arrested.)
• ...Edward diverted an expedition... I assume he is the king, not the Black Prince. Borsoka (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

St Mark's Basilica

Nominator(s): Venicescapes (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

For the art historian and Byzantinist Otto Demus, St Mark's Basilica is "the key to the understanding of all of Venice, of its history, and of its art"; for John Ruskin it’s a "confusion of delight"; for Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, it’s "a giant crab" ("einen kolossalen Taschenkrebs"). Regardless of the differing opinions, St Mark's Basilica is undeniably unique, the single-most important monument in one of the world's most visited and admired cities. As a topic on Wikipedia, the basilica is of High importance for three WikiProjects and a level-5 vital article in Art.

Thank you to No Great Shaker for the GA review and the encouragement to go further.Venicescapes (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

buidhe

• Oppose and recommend withdrawal. There are a lot of good qualities in this nomination, but it will require considerable work to get it to FA status. At 80 kB (13008 words) with 50 (!) notes, the article length is clearly excessive and will require substantial cutting (by 1/3 to 1/2 the current prose length), probably by splitting the article into subtopics and using WP:Summary style. Why are citations being used in the lead, they aren't necessary? (t · c) buidhe 18:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at the article; I'm glad you see some good qualities. St Mark's is a complex building with a complex and extensive history, and I have tried to cover all of the pertinent topics in a succinct manner. None of the individual sections appears to be excessively long. With regard to the overall length, please consider that Cleopatra (indicated by Wikipedia as a model for a Featured Article) has 210,999 bytes, 13,470 words, and 87 notes. All of these parameters exceed those of St Mark's Basilica. As mentioned on the Article Size page: "Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage". As to the lead, some citations could be eliminated since the information is covered in the article. However, there is information included to give an immediate sense of the building's importance, which is consistent with MOS: "... not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles." I have provided references for the quotations and examples.Venicescapes (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Just because you are able to find one FA that is overly long and detailed does not mean that it should be accepted at FAC, (and no, it is not "indicated by Wikipedia as a model for a Featured Article"—there is no official hierarchy of featured articles). There are many counterexamples such as Armenian genocide, a recent promotion that is covered in just over 7,000 words or Huey Long which was split and trimmed to an appropriate length in order to get through FAC.

You are correct that the 'article quality grading scheme' lists Cleopatra as an "example" of a FA, rather than a "model". My mistake. However, I tend to interpret the two terms as synonymous. I'm sure that examples and counterexamples of long or short articles can easily be found, which seems to validate the MOS statement: "Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage". I believe the needs of the article and the reader are of primary importance since FA should be "a definitive source for encyclopedic information". Again, in the case of St Mark's, there is a considerable amount of ground to cover to make sense of it all. I have nevertheless limited the scope. For example, in the longest section on the decorative programme I certainly did not cover every mosaic and every inscription, but only those needed to explain the overall meaning. Perhaps in the spirit of constructive criticism, you could let me know what you specifically see as superfluous.Venicescapes (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd say that the article goes into too much detail everywhere and could use trimming across the board, but one place to start would be the notes. Generally, content should be either important enough to include in the body, or not important enough to include in the article at all. (t · c) buidhe 09:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Am I understanding correctly that you are opposed to explanatory notes?Venicescapes (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Notes that are strictly for clarification are the only case of notes I accept as a reasonable use, but in this case they go way overboard. (t · c) buidhe 11:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, if I understand correctly you do not 'accept' that explanatory notes "are used to add explanations, comments or other additional information relating to the main content but would make the text too long or awkward to read." as per explanatory notes. Is this correct?Venicescapes (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

If it's just being used to add additional information, it belongs in sub-articles, not the main article. WP:Summary style is not being used here and that's concerning because it's required by the FA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 00:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Summary style is not a unique criterion to FA but is a guideline for all Wiki articles. The converse is also true; all other guidelines are applicable to FA. In this case, the use of explanatory notes does not change based on the quality scale. By definition, they exist to provide additional and/or clarificatory information. This is Wiki policy. None of the notes in the article is substantial enough in its own right to justify a separate article. Some readers will be interested and can read them; others will not and can read just the article. There are already numerous internet articles on the basilica with information, largely cursory, that is more-or-less accurate. Creating yet another is senseless. As a self-proclaimed encyclopedia, Wikipedia should and can be more.Venicescapes (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

All facts in the lead should also be in the body, making all citations redundant (barring a few exceptions that don't seem to be relevant). If there is info in the lead that is not in the body, that is a more serious issue.

I have removed the citations for information that is also covered in the body. As mentioned, I provided a quotation and examples in the lead which are meant to convey the relevance of the basilica. These are not repeated in the body and are consequently cited in the lead. Please let me know how you interpret the MOS: "... not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles." Also, please let me know what information doesn’t seem to be relevant.Venicescapes (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

What about refs 2-7? Is the information under these refs not covered in the body? If so, that would need to be fixed. There are also parts of the body that do not comply with FA criteria's inline citation requirements. (t · c) buidhe 09:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I added the four citations you requested in the body. For refs 2–7, they are for quotations and examples in the lead. You write "that would need to be fixed". In what sense? Again, how are you intrepeting the MOS: "... not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles."? Please let me know which parts of the body do not comply with "FA criteria's inline citation requirements". Are you referring to the four requests for citations for which you placed a template?Venicescapes (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

What specific facts in the lead are not in the body, and why aren't they included there? (t · c) buidhe 11:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The facts are those that have the citations and are meant to give an idea of the centrality of the church in the life of the city. To include them in the body would require an additional and extensive section on historical events that took place in the church over centuries and on civic ceremonies.Venicescapes (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you give a straight answer to the question, specifically quoting the exact things in the lead that aren't in the body? (t · c) buidhe 00:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

In the lead, the information that is not repeated in the body is specifically: (1) As the state sanctuary, it was the site of official religious and civic ceremonies, including … the consignment to the capitano generale da mar of the banner of Saint Mark, symbol of the supreme authority to defend the republic on the sea in wartime. Here, peace treaties and alliances were also solemnized and victories celebrated. The church additionally served as the meeting hall of the Concio until the popular assembly's dissolution in 1423. (These are examples to give a sense of the importance of the building, which is consistent with Wiki guidelines.) (2) The interior of the domes, the vaults, and the upper walls were slowly covered with roughly 8,500 square metres (91,000 sq ft) of gold-ground mosaics …. (Again, this is to give a sense of the extent of the mosaics. The mosaic section in the article covers the mosaics purely from an artistic perspective.) (3) For its singular importance, St Mark's Basilica was defined by the art historian and Byzantinist Otto Demus as "the key to the understanding of all of Venice, of its history, and of its art." (The quotation by Demus is again to give a sense of the importance of the building. Again, this is consistent with Wiki guidelines.)Venicescapes (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Another serious issue I just noticed is that the article cites several sources from the 19th century. How can these be considered "high-quality reliable sources" per the FA criteria especially since as you indicate this is an important topic on which many recent sources are available? (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I assume that you are referring to the various essays from The Basilica of S. Mark in Venice: illustrated from the points of view of art and history. My understanding from your user page is that you, too, are an historian. So I’m sure you appreciate that historical research is a process as new interpretations, discoveries, and conclusions come along. Some topics, however, remain dormant for decades in the absence of new archival or archaeological discoveries. The Basilica of S. Mark in Venice: illustrated from the points of view of art and history remains of fundamental importance for the documentary research.

You will have noted that I reverted your edit to the page which deleted the map of Saint Mark's Square. As I explained in the edit summary, the map is needed to show readers the physical relationship between the church and the other buildings. The map is used on multiple Wiki pages in seven different languages precisely for the buildings in the square and not for the square itself.Venicescapes (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that this 19th century source is a high-quality RS according to the FA criteria, if any of its claims are sufficiently important to include, these claims would be repeated in more recent sources. (t · c) buidhe 11:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed the criteria again, but did not see anything of pertinence. Perhaps I missed it. Can you please let me know under which FA criteria this would not be considered a reliable source?Venicescapes (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The featured article criteria requires "high-quality reliable sources", it's up to the nominator to show that all sources cited meet this requirement. (t · c) buidhe 00:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

In the second period of Austrian rule (1814–1866), the documents coming from the various offices, councils, and magistracies of the former Venetian Republic were consolidated. This piqued interest, favoured research, and led to the publication of several important works that remain fundamental for consultation. The Basilica of S. Mark in Venice: illustrated from the points of view of art and history is one of these works. Some essays in the book deal with architecture and art and have been superseded by more recent scholarship. The essays consulted for this article concern the organizations and functions of offices within the Venetian government. That information has not changed since the nineteenth century, since the Republic no longer exists. Generally speaking, publications in the past, in many instances financed by the government or academies, were more scholarly as opposed to more recent works that are often conditioned by commercial and marketability considerations. Hence the Lorenzetti guidebook (used in this article), despite its age, provides far more information since it was conceived for a tourist that at the time likely had a liberal-arts education and sojourned for longer periods in the city. Modern guidebooks, conceived for the mass-tourist market, tend to have more glossy pictures and little information. With all due respect, to any historian or research scholar, your claim that information not included in recent publications is not “sufficiently important” is patently absurd.Venicescapes (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Leaning support Having reviewed the nominator's previous FA (on the building opposite) I can see on a quick look this is another excellently researched piece. As before, some paragraphs are too long and should be split. It is certainly long, but I don't see how it can easily be broken up - the architecture, history and mosaics are the building's main attractions, & should not be shunted away. The length is currently 173,802 bytes; there are currently 153 FAs longer than that, leading up to the longest, Taylor Swift, which is over twice as long! The 153 include such mega-topics as 2007 USC Trojans football team, The Thing (1982 film), 2003–04 Arsenal F.C. season and El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie! Most of the sourcing is very high quality and admirably recent; on a subject like this there is often nothing wrong with the odd older source. I agree with User:Venicescapes's comments re this above. There is absolutely no backing in policy for User:Buidhe's objection to refs in the lead; this is purely a personal taste. Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  The length criterion for articles is based on readable prose length, not total length which may include a lot of space for references. The articles you cite have substantially lower readable prose length than this one. (t · c) buidhe 00:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  All 153 of them? I very much doubt that. Johnbod (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I will try to take a more detailed look at the entire article later, but the first thing that caught my attention: why does this use Template:Infobox and lots of HTML instead of Template:Infobox church? Also, I don't believe that length per se is a problem. This article doesn't seem unreasonably long (especially considering a huge portion of the article is footnotes, citations, and references), but it could use some streamlining and judicious trimming. Ergo Sum 23:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your willingness to read through the article and for any suggestions as to how it could be streamlined with judicious trimming. Admittedly, my technical skills with infoboxes are limited; a more experienced user might be able to obtain the same effect, beginning with the Church infobox. Basically, I needed to logically organize the information and clearly distinguish the two periods of the basilica’s history, grouping together all of the information about the church’s status as a cathedral and a ducal chapel. The Church infobox places the status information (cathedral) in one section and the episcopal-see information (patriarchate of Venice) in another, interrupted by the architectural information. Also, the Church infobox uses a terminology (archdiocese) that is not completely accurate for the patriarchate. Before the section on status, I placed all of the information that is shared between the basilica as the present cathedral and as the historical chapel of the doge (location, consecration, relics, etc.) All of the architectural information is organized after, using the second image as a clear divider. This also immediately shows the reader both the exterior and the interior, both of which are mentioned in the lead. It is the same solution used for the Biblioteca Marciana where the information about the library as an institution is clearly separated from the architectural information. For overall appearance, I utilized the same colour-scheme that the Church infobox uses for Roman-Catholic churches. Again, a more technically skilled user might be able to achieve the same result beginning with the Church infobox. But I think the key information about the basilica, as is organized, is comprehensible at a glance.Venicescapes (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Ergo Sum, Greetings from Venice. I hope you are well. I was wondering if you had any further guidance, corrections, or suggestions.Venicescapes (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I thought, before my GA withdrawal, that this was, on the whole, an excellent article. I do remember thinking, however, that some sections/notes were apt to get a bit too detailed or technical; that some phrasing was awkward; and that the background section especially needed some work. It is a long article, yes, (if approved, I believe it would be the largest FA architecture article by a full 5000 readable words, over Millennium Park) but apart from some parts of the background, I don't believe any sections can reasonably be spun off into a new article. Some trimming is definitely needed, but I certainly believe it's a fair FA candidate. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank your for your input. I'm glad you're feeling better. I've done some limited streamlining. If you can let me know which areas appeared too technical or awkward, I can reword those specifically.Venicescapes (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Ceoil

Placeholder. Ceoil (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Have read it all in last 4 days, and to say wow; the breath and depth is deeply admirable. Two things to start off:

• I don't have a problem with the length, although it did seem that the background veered off topic a few times, and frankly at times was wondering what page I was reading and how it would resolve. Against that, the architecture sections are a joy, and it took four days to read because I keep following links and veering outwards.

Thank you for your time and edits. I'm glad you enjoyed the architecture sections. On the background, let me know how it might be further condensed or its relevance made clearer to the reader. Demus uses 13 pages for the Aquileian background, and in some form it needs to be covered since (1) many of the mosaics in the chancel and choir chapels illustrate the transfer of apostolic authority from Aquileia, through Grado, to Venice (2) it explains why Mark and 'his' church become so central to Venice's self identity.Venicescapes (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Have no problem with 19th c sources being used for things like description and basic matters of fact. I can identify with the nominators statement above that some areas remain understudied, and that he is citing back to the source rather than summary overviews etc that quote that source. Otherwise it would be "in 2002 X noted how Y in 1893 noted how". I do this all the time; when a more recent scholar cites an earlier scholar but doesn't develop the observation or theme, I dig out the earlier work, because attribution and respect.

I look forward to supporting this article. Ceoil (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Re the first point re length, I suspect it will be shortened not by spinning out sections, but by reducing words. eg why do we have even at claiming historical precedence over the Patriarchate of Alexandria in Egypt, believed to have been nfounded by Mark.[9]

[para break and then]

No historical evidence exists to support the claim. for example. Ceoil (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I did some more streamlining.Venicescapes (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm starting to soften re summary style, given that the article is already 11856 words, and can we say that (reflecting my own interests) that the "Chancel and choir chapels" and especially the mosaics sections are fully complete and cannot be further developed, work that might be hampered if the length issue is at back of mind. I can speak and vouch for one objector (Gog) as usually fair "and" detail orientated, but in this case a fear might be the impossibility of reviewing an extremely long tract. Have only been involved in generating one comparable FAC (Early Netherlandish painting, 12775 words) but was blessed by reviewers I had already built relationships with that were willing to spend days and weeks trawling through. Luckily we weren't asked to spin out there (and the article anyways wasnt suited to that approach), but the last time I saw a satisfactory resolution on this issue was Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inner German border/archive1. Still thinking, but posting son the review doesn't go stale. Ceoil (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Also to say, I'm deeply frustrated/conflicted on this nom...haven't we always being saying the weakness of the process is tat it favours micro topics, and now we have a vital article and are scratching our heads? What got me at the objects so far is that they seemed from a quick scroll up and down and didn't offer suggestions as to what sections were over extended. Having read the page a few times now, I certainly don't see padding, but I do see sections (mentioned above) that deserve stand alone articles, that could (happy days) be further expanded in the future. Ceoil (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Under ordinary circumstances, and being familiar with Venicescapes 's ability and form I would be a support already. Holding off for now as do see room for some sections having separate articles...and thus more leg room for expansion. To say again, this indecision is more our ie FACs (and include myself here as I've been around a long time) problem rather than Venicescapes, and really hope he perceivers and does not get discouraged as this is very much first rate content of which the project should be proud. Ceoil (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by AirshipJungleman29

• Background section needs work. I would suggest that the Aquileia section be spun off into a different article — although reference to the dispute can and must be made in the article, it should not be as exhaustive as it is here. If you are determined on keeping it, I would suggest a heavier focus on Venice's role and situation in the dispute; to a casual reader this is not immediately clear.

• There is already a dedicated article section for St Mark's relics - the story of the translatio does not need to be narrated in this article. A summary will do. Would probably suggest, in addition, that most of the section contents be moved there, leaving only a summary here.

• Note 24 ("Michael Jacoff's proposed interpretation...") is too technical.
• Notes 30/31 (on order of apostles and nations) are unneccessary and uncited - a deadly combination.

More later. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC).

I deleted the notes. The background section is going to take some thought, and any further suggestions are most welcome. As Otto Demus wrote: "the story of San Marco begins with these relics." The various stories (translatio, praedestinatio, and inventio) are subjects of mosaics explained further along and also show up again in the liturgy section. So I'm not sure how we can not explain them or expect readers to go to another page to find out. Again, suggestions are welcome. I'll try to trim the Aquileia section further.Venicescapes (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting not explaining the translatio, praedestinatio and inventio (TPI, for short), I'm simply suggesting we follow WP:SS with regard to it; that is, the whole smuggling shenanigans, which are, let's be honest, not immediately relevant to St Mark's Basilica, should be moved to Mark the Evangelist#Relics of Saint Mark, as a starting point. Their contents can be easily summarised in one or two sentences — the priest and monk, the pork subterfuge, the shipwreck salvation aren't needed here at all, since they are never really referred back to — and we can move on. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Relics moved into new article (St Mark's relics) along with Mark the Evangelist#Relics of Saint Mark to avoid overweighting on the Mark the Evangelist page. I need to o back and do some clean-up.Venicescapes (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• The assessment section is awkward throughout:

• Long German/Italian quotations not needed in main text.

I can move these into notes if you prefer

Deleted

• "magnificent grottesque" — grottesque isn't a word, and I'm not sure what you're going for.

One too many 'T's: grotesque

• "Harsher is Mark Twain who, albeit fascinated by the basilica, sees it as "nobly" and "augustly ugly". Judging St Mark's to uniformly lack beauty, he considers it to be perfect" - I am confused.

He means perfect, but not in a positive sense. Rather perfect in the sense that it's all ugly with no beautiful intrusions.

I added "perfect in the sense of perfectly ugly".Venicescapes (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• In describing the basilica, Francesco Sansovino mentions primarily individual artefacts. Who? Why? Explain. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

There really is no explanation. Francesco Sansovino in his guide (1581) talks about the importance of individual artefacts but doesn't really describe the building per se.Venicescapes (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Deleted

AirshipJungleman29, I've made some more corrections/deletions. Please let me know if they help.Venicescapes (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Venicescapes:, coming back to this article, I find myself overwhelmed by the notes, which I do feel are too inclined to verbosity and minutiae. Yes, explanatory notes "are used to add explanations, comments or other additional information relating to the main content but would make the text too long or awkward to read", but quite a few notes are too long or awkward to read in and of themselves; take note two, for example, which I think we can agree is less an explanatory note and more an expository paragraph (could be incorporated into main text, or other articles, but probably shouldn't remain as a note). My feelings are thus (and yes, this will be confusing):

Note 1 - fine, does its job without being awkward. 2 - discussed above. 3 - could easily be incorporated into main text (it wouldn't make the previous sentence too long or awkward) or cut. 4 - unneccessary. 5 - awkward, too technical. 6 - you've just given the exact same reference as provided in the note; you don't need to repeat what Demus says at the page you've already cited. 7 - fine. 8 - see note 3. 9, 10 & 11 - see note 6. 12 - bit verbose, content reasonable. 13 - fine. 14 - unnecessary, given that nearly all the citations on the subject in the article already link to that book (which we could have a translated title of, now that I think about it).

15 - I'll be honest, it's late and my eyes glazed over looking at that paragraph, so, probably fine I guess? 16 - fine. 17 - probably unneccessary in this article. 18 - fine. 19 - see 2. 20 - unneccessary, a simple citation would do. 21 - see 3. 22 & 23 - see note 6. 24 - see 5. 25 - see 3. 26 - am I confused or is this just referring to note 2? 27 - see 4. 28, 29 & 30 - see 6. 31 - see 4. 32 - see 5 & 6 (the latter with reference to citation 191). 33 - see 6. 34 - see 20.

35 & 36 - fine. 37 - see 3 & 4. 38 - fine. 39 - see 3. 40 - see 2. 41 - see 3, 4, and 6. 42 and 43 - see 2 (on another note, this section incorporates rather a lot on "the many historical events that took place in the church and the various civic events", as you put to Tim riley — shouldn't be too hard to list the consignment of the capitano generale among them, surely?). 44 overlaps with 47 and 48; is also very technical, and could be shortened significantly and incorporated into main text. 45 & 46 - see 2 & 4.

Just my thoughts on what I feel is probably the main failing point of an excellent article. Hope you can make sense of my confused word-vomit — I've probably misinterpreted or oversimplified many many things.. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

image review

• Why is there an external link in a caption? Suggest moving to a footnote or a {{external media}}

  I didn't know about this option. Thank you. I wanted to give readers unfamiliar with the polychoral style the opportunity to hear it so that they can understand better what is being discussed.Venicescapes (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• The current layout presents some sandwiching between images

  I saw two areas with sandwiching and corrected them (at least on my screen). In the first case, I moved the floorplan to what, in reality, is a more appropriate section. To avoid creating a new problem with sandwiching there, I placed it in a table between paragraphs, integrating with some graphics.

• "The territory of Venetia circa 600 AD (Aquileia, Grado, and Venice (Rivoalto) are shown as underlined)" - underlining is not visible at that size

  reworded

I'd also suggest scaling up this map. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. I can also redo the image to mark Aquileia, Grado, and Venice more prominently if this would help further.Venicescapes (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

As per request of Gerda (below), I increased the size of the names of Aquileia, Grado, and Venice.

• Don't use fixed px size

  I may have to trouble you for some further guidance. I have 'upright' on all of the images that use the thumb parameter. Px size was used for the Infobox, Multiple image boxes, Wiki table, Gallery, and Wide image. But these don't seem to accept anything else. I tried 'upright', without success.

  I've just tested |upright= for the infobox and table images and it seems to work fine. On my screen if you remove the fixed size in the gallery nothing changes - what happens on your screen? As for the image templates, that is a known restriction on the use of these templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Here's what happens.

  Gallery: I can remove the px parameter, but the images become tiny, almost postage-stamp size. I tried to add |upright= (followed by various numbers) both to the gallery and/or to the individual images. But they remain tiny.

  I still can't get the gallery to work with anything other than pixels.Venicescapes (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  Hm. I can't replicate the behaviour you're describing. Do you have default image size set tiny for some reason? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  I checked the preferences. They're set for 220px (thumbnail size), 800x600px (image size limit on file description pages). Could you indicate an article that has the coding for the packed gallery as it should be without px? I can take a look to see what happens on my screen and copy as appropriate.Venicescapes (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  Wide image: When I remove the px parameter, the image becomes very large, about 8 cm in height on my screen. If I add |upright= (followed by various numbers) to the Wide image code and/or the image itself, it remains very large.

  I changed to the panorama template. It still asked for px, only in height instead of width.Venicescapes (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  Table: I can remove the px parameter from the table, and it just gets wider. No problem. But if I also remove the px parameter from the images (or substitute it with |upright= (+ some number), the images become huge (I have to scroll both vertically and horizontally to see it).

  I redid the table with a combination of |frameless= and |upright= for the images and width in em for the table. On my screen it looks identical to the previous table with pixels. Could you please confirm that it looks right?Venicescapes (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  Infobox: I can remove the px parameter from the two images, but they become huge (I have to scroll both vertically and horizontally to see it). The same is true if I substitute the px parameter with |upright=.

  I used a combination of |frameless= and |upright= for the images in the infobox. On my screen it looks right. The info box is still the same width as the map of Saint Mark's Square below. Could you please confirm that it looks right?Venicescapes (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for checking and for helping me through this.Venicescapes (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  I just looked at the Great Fire of London which underwent FAR. Instead of the wide image template, it uses the panorama template. Is this a better solution? Venicescapes (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  That can work. MOS:IMGSIZE allows for fixed px size when there is a very good reason, but in some of these cases we do have other options - for example using |upright= in combination with |frameless=. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• Suggest adding alt text, where it is absent

  Added

• Some of the details in captions warrant citation - for example dating

  Done

• File:Maritime_Venetia_c_600_AD.jpg: what's the source of the data presented in this map? Ditto File:Pianta_san_marco.jpg

  I have the sourcing for the map and the floorplan. How/where would you like that added? To the image or as a footnote?

  I added the information to the image files

  That's fine for the moment, but be aware there is a current discussion which may change practice on this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• File:San_Marko_(reconstruction).JPG needs a US tag and author date of death

  tag added. I'll need to research the author's date of death

  Antonio Pellanda died 13 November 1890

  I added the information to the image file

  When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Published as early as 1888 in Cattaneo, Raffaele, L'architettura in Italia dal secolo VI al Mille circa (Venezia: Ongania, 1888). I added the information to the image file as a note. There may be a slightly earlier version.

• 'Spoils from the Fourth Crusade' - is there sourcing supporting that that's the provenance of the tetrachs?

  sourced

• File:Thomas_Stuart_Smith-Interior_of_San_Marco.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Canaletto-sketch-the-choir-singing-in-st-mark's-basilica.jpg

  I wrote to the museum to ask if they have any record. I'll also continue to look.

  I was not able to find information on the first publication, and neither museum responded. So I deleted the images.Venicescapes (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• File:Portal_of_Santo_Stefano_(Venice).jpg needs tagging for the original work. Ditto File:Venezia_Chiesa_di_Santo_Stefano_Innen_Langhaus_Süd_2.jpg, File:Madonna_dell'Orto_Portail.jpg, File:Santa_Maria_dei_Miracoli_facciata_sud_Venezia_notte.jpg, File:Arc_Foscari,_pati_del_Palau_Ducal_de_Venècia.JPG, File:Scuola_Grande_di_San_Marco_Ospedale_di_Venezia_facciata.jpg.

  tags added

  I added the tags, specifying in the edit summary that the PD tags concerned the original work and that the addition of the tags was per FAC review. However, the photographer deleted them. See, for example.

  I contacted the photographer and am awaiting a reply.

  The photographer did not reply and apparently will not accept PD tags on his photos. So I deleted the imageVenicescapes (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the thorough image review. Some items will require a few days of research.Venicescapes (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

Thank you for a piece of love, - I'll read slowly, having many other things on my mind, and skipping the lead until last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time and input. I hope that you enjoy reading the rest, and I look forward to your further observations/suggestions/corrections.Venicescapes (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Name

I wonder why the name of this place is St Mark's B., the English way, while in the rest of the world, it would be St. Mark's B., with a dot. I know it simply as San Marco, btw.

The article already had the English abbreviation. To change it would also require changing the spelling throughout the article (Oxford English) plus, for consistency, the other pages: St Mark's Clocktower and St Mark's Campanile. As I understand it, a contracted form of a word that ends with the same letter as the full form should not have the dot. So Saint = St, Doctor = Dr, BUT Professor = Prof..

I understand, and for the same reasons we have St Matthew Passion, and everytime I see it it looks wrong ;) - because iit's a German piece, and the German abbr. would be "St.". But I'm too lazy to initiate a change, and when someone else did it found no consensus. - This is an Italian building, not an English one. --GA

Infobox

• I miss an Italian name, and would place Basilica di San Marco at the very top, followed by the English short name - a derived name - the following line.
• I miss many links, beginning with Venice.

  I added the Venice link. Are there others specifically?

  Yes, because for many, the infobox is where they will look first. Roman Catholic (why Roman, btw, when our article is Catholic Church?) - Mark the Evangelist - Mark, Peter, John, Matthew, Luke, Bartholomew, Isidore of Chios - minor basilica - Patriarchate of Venice - Doge of Venice - Byzantine, Romanesque, Gothic --GA

  I personally see 'Catholic Church' as ambiguous. Both the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed refer to the 'Catholic Church' in the sense of universal church and are recited by many different Christian denominations. 'Roman Catholic' is clearly the specific church with the pope as its head. For the rest, I suppose it depends on how one sees an Infobox. My personal opinion is that an infobox should give all of the pertinent information at a glance and shouldn't function as a navigation bar to leave the article. But I bow to whatever is the prevailing vision.Venicescapes (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  (you didn't repeat the bullet) - You are right that Catholic Church would be ambiguous, but not Catholic Church. Same for some other links missing. Which Peter? I never heard of Isidore of Chios, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  I can put in the links, but bear in mind that this is going to make infobox almost solid blue.

  (please repeat the bullet when replying to a bullet) Are the relics - besides Mark's - really crucial enough to be mentioned (while artists and composers are not)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Point taken. What if we simply delete the relics or say Mark the Evangelist and others? Did I get the repeat bullet right this time?Venicescapes (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

TOC

• "St Mark's relics" - I see that it is the name of our article but think that this article would profit from consistently distinguishing the evangelist from the building. I'd say "Mark the Evangelist" vs. "St. Mark's", but "Saint Mark" vs. "St Mark's" would also work.

  They're venerated as the relics of 'Saint Mark'. Whether they are the remains of 'Mark, the Evangelist' is another matter. So I moved the page from St Mark's relics to Saint Mark's relics to avoid nitpickers. Good suggestion.

• Why are the Mosaics not under Interior?

  As is, the interior is under the broader heading of "Architecture". So the mosaics are treated separately.

• Why three numbers for the references, instead of one with two subsections?

  Excellent idea! I grouped them together. I'll do the same on the other pages for the buildings around the square for consistency.

Aquileia

• I confess that it tired me a bit, and that the map is too small for me to help. How about merging most of it to the "Schism" article, and leave only a summary, as for the relics?

  I increased the size of the map. If needed, I could also redo the image and write Aquileia, Grado, and Venice more prominently. Let me know.

  yes, please --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Redid the map and enlarged the names of Aquileia, Grado, and Rialto (Venice).Venicescapes (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Others have made similar observations. So I'm clearly going to have to explain this better. The Aquileia/Grado conflict explains why Saint Mark is adopted as patron and why his church becomes so political. Its the reason why many of the mosaics in the chancel illustrate the transfer of metropolitan authority from Aquileia, through Grado, to Venice. Demus spends 13 pages at the beginning of his book on the subject. While I don't think that I can cut it down any further without losing coherency, perhaps I could add an introductory paragraph for 'Background', letting the reader know upfront why this is being discussed. Would this help?

  The Schism of the Three Chapters concerns several churches in northern Italy (not just Aquileia) and is largely a prelude. It is the theological dispute that leads to the creation of two bishops (Aquileia and Grado). But that aspect is resolved at the Synod of Aquileia in 698–700, after which it becomes a purely political question of jurisdiction. Only this second aspect is the background for the relics and St Mark's Basilica.

  Think about it, - I remember this wish to trim the article, and see a way here. Like we made Messiah structure when Messiah got too long. - How many readers of this article do you expect to care about the fine details presented here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Yes, I shall have to give this some more thought. On the Messiah page, the Background section seems to have the same function of setting the stage. I don't think you could break that off from the rest of the article.Venicescapes (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

    I would probably have had more music, and referred to the composer's bio more, but I was only a helper at the time, invited by masters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

    I added a few sentences at the beginning of the section to explain why it is so important to understanding the importance of St Mark's for Venetian self-identity. Does this help?Venicescapes (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Read up to title Architecture, with no problems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Please keep a bullet when replying to a bulleted list, per the essay on top of User talk:Drmies. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Western façade

• I try to avoid images right below a header, especially if that header is short.

  I noticed that you moved the interior photo right (I believe for the same reason). What about if we slid the heading to the side? If possible, I'd like to use the photos on the left to prevent the stacking up on the right, but also to help signal major shifts in topic.

  In former times, we even had guideline to prohibit a pic directly under the header. It makes sense to me: it's irritating for the reader to have to move right in the next line. In 'my" articles, I have left images only when a person looks right, and then only if enough space abelow to now displace the next header. Displays on different devices differ. This is not a point I'll not support over but perhaps think about it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I moved the image of the western facade around, but nothing worked. Moving it down, it sandwiched with others. Moving it to the right, it stacked up and pushed others further down. For the interior image, I tried moving the heading to the side.

• "Gentile Bellini's Procession in Piazza San Marco" - I'm used from Classical to not link a creator when the work has an article, to avoid too much blue.

  fixed

• why Virgin (capital) but evangelists (lc)?

  this will create a problem with apostles as well. Looking at MOS:Titles of people, I think that if it's plural it should be lower case, unless Four Evangelists (group) and Twelve Apostles (group). Single Evangelist and Apostle (in substitution of name) should probably be capitalized.

  You are right about apostles as well, but I was too tired to mention that. I read the guideline different: if these specific four, then Evangelists (not any evangelists), and if these specific 12, then Apostles (not any apostles), such as Reformation vs. reformation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I capitalized all Apostles and Evangelists

Entry hall

• "his gospel" - why lc when his specific Gospel?

• Fixed

Narthex

• "The story of Joseph, also a type of Christ" - how that?

  The explanation I'm familiar with is that Joseph is sold into bondage. Yet through that bondage he becomes the savior (from famine in Canaan) of his people. Similarly, Christ is sold into bondage and saves humanity.

  Not enough that you are familiar with something ;) - if it's needed (which I doubt) please supply a link or a footnote. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I thought you were asking because you were curious. Sorry. It's in the reference, but you're right in that I can simply delete it.

Decorative programme

• Why is Last Judgment linked in the last para?

• Removed

Chancel ...

• "Saint Pope Clement I" - I thought it's Saint or Pope.

  Italian usage would be with both since Clement is his name as pope. I did a search for 'Saint Pope John Paul II' and found both 'Saint John Paul II' and 'Saint Pope John Paul II'. However, I noticed that the Catholic sites generally use 'Saint Pope Paul II' as, for example, here and here. The Vatican also retains Pope in the Latin title as saint, here.

  What matters is what Wikipedia says, not Italian, not the Vatican: Pope Clement I. I recently wrote about St. Sylvester, - I don't think a church would be named St. Pope Sylvester. Keep simple, if in doubt? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I stripped him of his earthly title.

Read until the title Mosaics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm pleased with all replies, and the indenting now ;) - You decide wether to keep more relics (but then linked please), and the analogy Joseph-Jesus (but then with explanation) - Only open point from above open is that I'd really like to see an Italian name on top of the image in the ibox. I prefer first line, but second line is better than nothing. I'll see if I get to reading further today: rehearsal! Until then, I want to write an article in English, and one in German, women of course ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I added the native name to the Infobox and deleted the relics (simpler, plus they're mentioned in the text). I'll reword the part on Joseph.Venicescapes (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

any other than "Saint" which - in this article - means the saint, not the place --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I read the article now.

Music

• "the procurators of Saint Mark" - not sure that is about the Saint. Will turn to the lead hopefully tomorrow. --

  The title is variously translated. In English sources, of Saint Mark (or of St Mark) tends to prevail, but the more accurate title, given the full original Latin, would probably be of St Mark's. What would you prefer?Venicescapes (talk) 10:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead The lead is mostly fine, but I think should cover more aspects, such as importance of the relics, history of building and music (Monteverdi and the Gabrielis are recognised names).

I have the relics. Yes, I do have to do something about music.

• episcopal in 1807 - can we have a bit more about before, such as the Doge there already? that late year comes as a complete surprise ;)

  I have 'what it is' in the first paragraph and 'what it was' in the second.

• Concio - yes there's a link but how about adding "assembly"?

  It's a little further along.

• limited Islamic? - "some" or something else? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  'some' (unnumberable) created a problem with influences (numberable). So, I simply deleted 'limited'.

  All fine by me now, support. A treasure of an article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Gerda, thank you for taking the time to read through the article and for judging it on its merits. I’m grateful to you for your suggestions and corrections and, ultimately, for your support. Best wishes.Venicescapes (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by No Great Shaker

• Tentative support. As the recent GA reviewer, I'd be happy to answer any questions about that aspect although I realise FA is a much more searching process than GA. Please note, though, that I'm very busy offsite at present.

I agree entirely with the comments by Johnbod and I'll be interested to read the whole of Gerda's comments when she has had chance to finish.

I sincerely hope the opposition to 19th century sources is rejected because it simply doesn't follow that a modern source necessarily has more to say than the older one, or can somehow improve upon the information it presents. That seems to be a case of WP:RECENTISM, in my opinion.

AirshipJungleman29, I'm glad to read that you are well again and hope you are making a full recovery. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose from Gog the Mild

• 15,000+ words. You have to be kidding. Oppose on WP:CANYOUREADTHIS and WP:SUMMARY. A clear candidate for WP:SPLITTING. It would seem to me appropriate to have a separate article for each [most?] of the separate buildings at about the level of detail given here, and for this article to be a much shorter and punchier summary of these "child articles". Currently fails the FAC criterion "without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style" horribly. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  The article is actually about a single building. So please let me know what gives the impression that it concerns "separate buildings" so that I can at least make the necessary clarification.Venicescapes (talk) 08:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  I see the prose as 12,349 words, roughly 18% less than 15000+. What does the 15000+ refer to?Venicescapes (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  The oppose seems blanket, rigid, with no suggestions, and thus not actionable. I can't understand why anybody in 2022 couldn't imagine that any fabled reader is looking to read the article from top to bottom, rather than be lead here via a search query and will then digest as much of the coverage of that area as they can, and then blue link out. Ceoil (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The oppose is eminently actionable. Read WP:SPLITTING and act accordingly. I am sure the coordinators are capable of deciding whether so splitting is possible and therefore actionable.

There were 12,349 words of "readable prose" as defined in WP:LENGTH (12,026) as of now). There are a further 3,003 words of footnotes. This does not include captions.

If it is not felt that the article could sensibly be split by building/structure/component/facade/whatever (and apologies if I confused and/or continue to confuse with my poor nomenclature) then both history and architecture could be spun off as separate articles. Or it could conceivably be split some other way, as the nominator or a consensus of interested editors preferred. I am not persuaded that this is one of those very rare exceptions which could not be split.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course one could split off the history or architecture of one of the most famous churches in the world for just these things, but it would be madness to do so, and I'm sure the nominator has far too much sense to do it. If the article cannot pass in a high-quality and well-balanced state, which inevitably means a long article, it would be better just to withdraw it, & just leave FAC to the pop-songs and other microtopics. Johnbod (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Not true at all that a "high-quality and well balanced" article requires excessive length; that is what summary style is for. It is possible to write concise overviews of broad topics and get these to FA status. (t · c) buidhe 22:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

We all want "high-quality and well-balanced" articles, especially FACs, and, Johnbod, I find it offensive that you suggest that I don't. What we are doing here is discussing just what that means, in the context of the FAC criteria - which ("It follows the style guidelines") includes the MoS and criterion 4. It would be helpful if everyone took a deep breath and WP:AGF. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I certainly agree that it is necessary to assume good faith. On my part, I have continued to streamline the article, eliminating roughly 1000 words (circa 8 %) since it was first nominated. I also believe that it is necessary to carefully consider the needs of the subject and particularly of the reader and to put those needs in the forefront. In this case, the average reader is most likely someone who is actually in Saint Mark's Square and wants to understand the building. Some will have probably chosen to consult Wikipedia, rather than a guidebook, simply for convenience and cost. But others (I hope the majority) look to Wikipedia for encyclopedic information that isn’t included in the standard guidebook.

What constitutes 'too long' or 'overly detailed' is of course subjective, varying on the basis of the individual's personal likes and interests. Notably, the actual reviewers (coordinators aside) have all remarked that the length is not necessarily a problem and, more importantly, that the various aspects of the building cannot be "spun off" or "shunted away". I should note that both the relics and the treasury have already been broken off and that some aspects that could stand on their own, such as preservation, were not even included so as to not excessively lengthen the article.

With regard to breaking apart the article further, I advise caution. If St Mark's had been designed and built as we see it, it might be possible (although in my opinion still not advisable) to separate history and architecture. But St Mark's is the result of an evolution: knowing that there are remnants of earlier constructions and that the structure has been radically altered over time (its history) is necessary to understanding how it looks (its architecture). The two cannot be disentwined. The background section, already concise, is also necessary to understanding why St Mark's was built in the first place and why it was so central to Venice's national identity. I also doubt that the section could stand on its own.

Simply put, St Mark's is complex, and many aspects need to be covered. If each section of the article is considered singularly, none is excessively long or overly detailed.

Summary style has been repeatedly invoked in this conversation. But this too is subjective. I agree that topics that can be reasonably developed into articles can be summarized. Yet FA, as defined in the quality scale, remains: "thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information." I do not interpret summary style as reducing the article to a mere directory to other pages or a "concise overview". It should not be necessary for a reader to go to other pages to get basic information (again subjective), but only to delve deeper into certain aspects, such as the mosaics. In considering what summary style means, the fifth pillar comes to mind: "policies and guidelines are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions".

St Mark's is a level-5 vital article in Art, meaning that it should eventually reach FA, and as a world-renowned monument, it would certainly be included as a subject in a printed encyclopedia. It would be a sad commentary on the Wiki community if it were not able to come together to produce a high-quality article that meets the needs of all its readers.Venicescapes (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment from Tim riley

There's bags of good stuff in this article, but I think the lead needs a good deal of work to get it up to an acceptable standard. The MoS guide to leads lays down that they must summarise the main text, and that there shouldn't be anything in a lead that isn't in the body of the article. Here we have mentions in the lead of, inter alia, the capitano generale da mar, the solemnising of peace treaties and alliances and celebration of victories, the dissolution of the Concio in 1423, 8,500 square metres of gold-ground mosaics, and a quotation about "the key to the understanding of all of Venice" none of which are covered in the main text as far as I can see, though perhaps I have missed some or all of them in this enormously long text. Tim riley talk 11:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Greetings, I'm glad that you found the article's content interesting. It is a fascinating building with a long and rich history. Thank you for taking the time to read through it. For the information in the lead that is not included in the body, the MOS/Lead Section-relative emphasis section specifies "... not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles." The quotation and the examples you mention were included simply to give a sense of the importance of the building and its central role in Venetian history. To include them in the body would require adding a whole new section to the article where it would be necessary to cover the many historical events that took place in the church and the various civic events, such as the consignment of the banner of Saint Mark. The Concio is mentioned, albeit briefly, in the section on the Orseolo Church. Please let me know if there are other aspects that could be further improved.Venicescapes (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

From the lead of MOS:LEAD "As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I did not consider the reference to the capitano generale da mar to be 'significant information' but rather an example of the church's central role. At any rate, it's gone.Venicescapes (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Gone are also the quotation by Demus and the brief reference to peace treaties and alliances, in case they, too, are considered 'significant information'.Venicescapes (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Red panda

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) and BhagyaMani (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

In time for the release of the new Disney/Pixar film Turning Red. This article was at GA for some years and the user who brought it there appears to be inactive. We've re-written and revise it, got a peer review, a copyedit and source cleanup. The time has come for FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Image review—pass

• Sources are cited for the panda distribution on File:RedPanda distribution.png, but not the source of the underlying topographic map. Is it freely licensed?

BhagyaMani? LittleJerry (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the underlying topo map is freely licensed. – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

BhagyaMani Where does the topo map come from, or did you draw it? Even if it's a free license, it might require attribution or not be compatible with CC-By-SA-4.0, so it's essential to list the sources you used in the image description. (t · c) buidhe 08:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I changed the map using the basemap by Wikimedia. BhagyaMani (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Other licensing, and image placement, looks ok (t · c) buidhe 19:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Sdkb

Resolved comments from {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

As background, I have no particular expertise in biology or animal articles on Wikipedia, so I'll be reviewing this from a lay perspective. Looking forward to it! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Lead The unbolding of the scientific name threw me off for a minute, but on checking it appears to conform to our recommended style. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC) I question whether there's a need to wikilink million years ago—everyone knows what years are, and multiplying that by a million is a pretty straightforward calculation. The wikilink to the toolforge page very much caught me off guard, but I assume that's our normal way of handling links like that? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC) This link is automatically generated by the {{mya}}. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC) There were others at the template talk page with the same concern, so I've gone ahead and updated it to remove the overlink. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Perhaps wikilink coniferous forests, as some readers may be unfamiliar with what they are. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Done. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC) It is threatened by poaching, destruction and fragmentation of habitat due to deforestation. This isn't grammatically correct, since it's a list of only two items (the second being a compound item) separated only by a comma. I'd suggest changing to It is threatened by poaching, as well as destruction and fragmentation of habitat due to deforestation. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Added. LittleJerry (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Should [Ee]ndangered be capitalized? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC) I think so, because it is also capitalised by default in the taxobox. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC) The taxobox is part of the infobox, and we begin each line in the infobox in sentence case, so I think that's likely why it's capitalized there. But we don't capitalize it at the endangered species article, and it doesn't look like a word typically capitalized in normal usage. Is it a formal term or just a word? We could look at MOS:LINK, ask at that talk, or look to examples of other featured animals to get more clarity on this. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC) I consider it as a formal term when used in the context of Red List classification, like the other terms as well, e.g. Least Concern, Near Threatened that are capitalised in taxoboxes. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC) There's been some recent discussion on whether to wikilink lesser-known countries that found a consensus that articles about less recognizable countries...can and should be wikilinked if doing so would benefit the reader. Bhutan seems likely to be in that category, and perhaps Nepal as well. This is an editorial discretion thing, so I'm fine with whatever you decide, but just something to consider. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC) I linked them all. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Hmm, I definitely wouldn't link China, though; that's a clear MOS:OVERLINK. Sorry it's such a blurry line haha, but it's somewhere in the middle. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Unlinked China. LittleJerry (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC) International Red Panda Day is italicized in the lead but not the body; which is correct? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Done. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC) What guidance does MOS:ITAL have on italicizing this or not? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC) This is now italicized in the lead but not the body. Please address. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Overall impressions so far are good! The lead photo is fantastically cute {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Sdkb any more? LittleJerry (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC) I didn't yet change the sentence in the lead .. by poaching, as well as .. suggested by Sdkb. LittleJerry: if you also think that this is necessary, please amend. – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC) The [Ee]ndangered capitalization question and the holiday italicization question are the two other things I'd still like to see resolved a little more thoroughly, but happy to move on while those are being addressed. (I also may return to the lead at the end for any lead-body integrity stuff.) Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Done. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Etymology I'm surprised {{transl}} doesn't have a |lit= parameter for "claw" or "paw", but seems not, and that's outside the scope here (just noting in case anyone's interested in taking it on). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC) I made this tweak. Deciding when to write out the full term vs. just use "it" is always a tricky balance. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Some editors might object to wikilinking Latin and Ancient Greek per MOS:OVERLINK, which advises against linking major languages, but IAR I don't have an issue with it, and Nepali language is certainly linkable. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Taxonomy Species description should probably be wikilinked (and also in lead). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Added. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC) @BhagyaMani: Per @AryKun below, it appears you did not actually add this. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC) There's inconsistent Oxford comma usage, given no comma after "jawbones" but one after "comic books" in lead. MOS:OXFORD merely requires consistency, but as a dedicated Oxford comma partisan, I'm afraid I'll have to instafail this if you decide to leave it out 😛 {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Done. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Also after "less white face". You may wish to go through the article to check for other consistencies. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London should be italicized, right? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Removed as not important. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Sichuan should probably be wikilinked. More generally, I'd suggest reviewing the geographic wikilinking decisions throughout the article, as having Northeast India linked but this not is inconsistent no matter where one falls on the overlink-underlink continuum. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Done. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC) The introductory portion of this section cites a lot of people by name, but then the 2020 phylogenetic analysis doesn't give any name(s). Is this deliberate? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Yes, the linked people are authorities for scientific names. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC) A 1982 study examined the dental and cranial similarities and differences between the red panda and the giant panda, other bears and procyonids would lead to the species being placed in its own family Ailuridae. Do you mean 1982 study that examined? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC) The following cladogram is based on This seems like a WP:SELFREF; is there any way to avoid it, or is this typical for articles of this type? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC) This is not a selfref, but not uncommon to explain the basis of a cladogram. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Could you point to any recently promoted animal articles that have something similar? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Turtle. LittleJerry (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Dentition is a potentially unfamiliar term and should probably be wikilinked. More generally, as a lay reader, I'm finding all the taxonomy section rather jargony and hard to follow, but that may be unavoidable. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Done. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Removed some jargon. LittleJerry (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Looks better! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Why is Alopecoyon not linked? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Done. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC) the phylogeny section begins with "The placement of the red panda on the evolutionary tree has been debated." re-emphasised in the lead as "The red panda's place on the evolutionary tree has been debated, but modern genetic evidence places it … " is this an extraordinary fact? ~ cygnis insignis 13:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC) When we started to overhaul this page, there was a similar sentence in this section. I suppose, ↑ sentence is a kind of residue of this old version. LittleJerry? – BhagyaMani (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC) I don't understand the question. The red panda's taxonomy was historically debated but DNA evidence has clarified it. LittleJerry (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Characteristics The red panda's coat has a striking colour pattern Is it our place to say what's striking vs. not? Seems a little questionable on neutrality grounds. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Changed. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC) The article appears to use British English (or some non-American variant), so it might be a good idea to put {{Use British English}} at the top to aid editors or bots in knowing this. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Added. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Colon (anatomy) is another example of underlinking. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Added. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Sdkb: what do you think of the sequence of paragraphs in this section? – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC) I'm not sure I care all that much. Putting size first is definitely good, but beyond that I don't see a clear order among coat, thumb, and skull. I might have done size, skull, coat, thumb, trying to put the most important aspects first. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC) I moved coat up to first. The size section is really meant to be an "overall body description" section and the skull section is about its adaptations to its bamboo diet. LittleJerry (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Thanks for moving. I like this sequence much better. – BhagyaMani (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Distribution and habitat The image captions seem a little inconsistent, in that some say a red panda whereas others just say red panda. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC) You've got another clear overlink with India. Could you go through the article overall to refine the linking so I don't have to keep pointing out specific instances? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC) A trickier linking situation: Gongshan Mountains. I can't find any article on them here or (using Google Translate) on zh-WP, but I'd think a mountain range would be notable. Should they be a redlink? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Same with Liangshan Mountains. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Linked both. LittleJerry (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Rhododendron looks to be a scientific name italicized at its article; should it be here, too? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Why is slope linked to wiktionary? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC) The % symbols go against MOS:PERCENT, I think, but IAR I don't mind them (perhaps that guideline should be revised?). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC) The Fengtongzhai and Yele nature reserves seem like the sort of topic that would 100% have articles if they were in a western country; for here, that means redlinks or ILLs. I found Fēngtǒngzhài (Q22329689), which has an article in one language, which is of course...Ukrainian... Not sure about Yele, but if you don't speak Chinese, probably worth asking someone who does. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Added redlinks. LittleJerry (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Should the habitat map appear in this section, not just the lead? (Also, it probably needs a reference, as I'm not sure it's enough just to have the reference on Commons, as that's external.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC) This is typical for animal and mammal articles. LittleJerry (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Reviewing WP:IMAGEOR, it does not appear to offer an exemption for a circumstance like this. I'd like to see either a reference to be safe or a pointer to a non-local discussion establishing that range maps don't need references. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC) I don't see what the application is. The range map is sourced in commons. There's no policy that says it needs to be sourced in the article. If anything it is tedious. LittleJerry (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC) The relevant policy would be WP:V. I've requested broader input there, as this question applies widely to many map images. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC) This should be a wider discussion for another time. Does it really have to be in the middle of FAC? LittleJerry (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC) Fine. Added cites. LittleJerry (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC) Behaviour and ecology The majority of studies between 1827 and 2020 have been based in captivity. I think you mean based on animals in captivity—the studies themselves are not captive haha. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Revised. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC) There's some plurality inconsistency—compare singular It typically rests to plural Their lifespan in captivity. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Revised. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC) I assume it likes to hang out in trees due to predators at ground level, but I haven't found any discussion of predators yet. Could that be added? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Nothing is known about potential predators. I thought we made clear that it hangs around in trees because that's were it finds the majority of its food?– BhagyaMani (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC) I feel like it's rather unusual for a small animal like that not to have predators. Could a note about that be added somewhere? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC) I searched for info on predators multiple times, but found only two mentioned in grey literature without any reference. Several potential ones come to mind, but nobody published anything about a single red panda having been killed by a cat or a raptor. But to state this on the page itself would be WP:OR. – BhagyaMani (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC) I found the Smithsonian saying leopards and jackals. Could you look further? An animal's predators are a key fact about it, and although I grant that competition isn't as fierce in the mountains as in e.g. a jungle, I still think we need discussion here to meet WP:FACRIT 1b. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC) If scientific papers and academic books don't mention predators then it is not that important. I don't see the need to dig up a Smithsonian website. Predators are not always necessary for animal articles. Certainly not as important as diet. LittleJerry (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC) If a simple fact sheet lists the predators, I'd be surprised if none of the more academic treatments discuss them. I don't think we need a whole section on predators, but something that eats them and that they've evolved to avoid certainly seems relevant enough for a sentence to me. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC) I don't think it really lists them. It states "Red pandas will climb trees and rocks to escape predators, such as leopards and jackals." It seems to be mentioning these offhandedly as potential predators. There doesn't seem to any documentation of red pandas being preyed on. Believe me, BM and I would have put them there if they were mentioned in the literature. LittleJerry (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Note the absence of an explicit statement on this website that any of the 2 carnivores actually preyed on a red panda. Or that hair, teeth, claws, paws were ever found in their scat. This is an arbitrary selection. – BhagyaMani (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Are there any estimates of average lifespan in the wild? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC) No. To figure this out, somebody would have needed to identify and observe individuals from birth to death. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Would it be possible to use "stem" or "stalk" instead of "culm", or would that be inaccurate? It's jargon, and although it's linked on first mention in the previous section, readers who jump around (which is many/most of them) may be thrown off by it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Culm is the term used in several sources. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Changed, Culm is a type of stem. LittleJerry (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC) The red panda is a poor digester of bamboo, which passes through its gut in two to four hours. I'm curious why this would be—aren't most animals adapted to be good digesters of their primary food? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC) How is : shoots are *easier* digestable than ... ?? – BhagyaMani (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC) shoots are better digestible than leaves This sounds a little weird; maybe more digestible instead? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Bleating is recorded after scent-marking and sniffing and males may bleat during courtship, particularly before mounting, while twittering is made by mating females. I feel like this could be worded better. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Split up. LittleJerry (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC) adopt a bipedal posture "Bipedal" is unlinked jargon. Linking it would help, but I think it'd probably be even better to just use plain language, e.g. "stand up on their hind legs". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Revised. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC) the couple may groom each other between mounting bouts I'd wikilink only over the word "groom". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Revised. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC) The sentence about lordosis pose might be better placed in the reproduction section. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Moved. LittleJerry (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC) builds a nest using material from nearby This is a little vague—are there typical materials? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Added. LittleJerry (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC) There's inconsistency between "faeces" and "feces"; choose one and stick with it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Revised. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Indeed one of them has to be chosen, but keep in mind that changing to "feces" will require the whole article to be changed to American English, which in its current state is in British English. Wretchskull (talk) 09:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Thanks for your note! Changed this again. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC) The "health" subsection might be more specifically titled "diseases". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Revised. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Langtang National Park is not linked on first reference. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Threats The primary threats to the red panda are destruction and fragmentation of habitat caused by multiple circumstances such as increasing human population, deforestation, illegal collection of non-timber forest products and poaching, disturbances by herders and livestock, lack of law enforcement and funding. We need to decide which level we're listing on. Having both poaching and "lack of law enforcement and funding" doesn't make sense, as presumably the poaching is just a consequence of the lack of law enforcement. I'd suggest removing that last item, as it's not particularly clear. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC) Agree that lack of funding is not a threat : removed. – BhagyaMani (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC) What about lack of law enforcement? And increasing human population. Neither of those things directly lead to red panda deaths in the way that e.g. poaching does. Instead, lack of law enforcement presumably leads to poaching, and increasing population presumably leads to habitat destruction. We shouldn't be mixing direct causes and root causes together in the same sentence. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC) 3,597.9 km2 (1,389.2 sq mi) of red panda habitat were logged between the mid 1970s and late 1990s. I highly doubt they were able to measure that precisely. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC) since roads to the border with China were built starting in the early 2000s, red panda skins and live animals are traded and smuggled across the border. Tense mismatch between "since" and "are". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Describing the uses of the fur in Chinese culture in the "threats" section rather than the "cultural significance" section is a highly loaded choice, and one I don't think we can justify as neutral. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Moved. LittleJerry (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC) I made a similar tweak here for Nepal. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC) There is a lot of overlinking in this section. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Trimmed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC) The cut lumber stock in Sichuan alone reached 2,661,000 m3 (94,000,000 cu ft) in 1958–1960 This is an extremely old statistic. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC) It seems important for historical perspective. LittleJerry (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Are there any more recent numbers to add too, then? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC) This was during the peak of deforestation in China (Great Leap Forward). BhagyaMani? LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Correct. I checked again, but did not find more recent figures about deforestation in Chinese red panda range. Figures on deforestation after 2000 have no whatsoever connection to red panda habitats. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Okay; sounds alright. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC) Conservation The International Red Panda Studbook is the only italicized link in this section that makes clear sense to me. Can you justify the others under MOS:ITALIC, or do they need correction? (I made a query on this same question in the lead.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC) To preserve the link to studbook, how about In 1978, a breed registry, the International Red Panda Studbook, was set up, followed...? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC) The Nepal government ratified I think we want Nepali government here, since it would sound odd if it were e.g. The France government ratified rather than French government. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Cubs that were born later were sent to other zoos so that about 250 red pandas had been exhibited in zoos by 1969. Needs rephrasing for grammar; I'd suggest Cubs that were born later were sent to other zoos; by 1969, about 250 red pandas had been exhibited in zoos. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC) For the protected areas, we should either just give the numbers or we should list them out; we shouldn't mix the formats by listing those out in other countries but not in China. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC) BhagyaMani? Perhaps we should remove the table? LittleJerry (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Hm, protected areas form the core of nature conservation, so would be missing if we now omitted such details, in particular in view of so many details in all the other sections. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC) I'll check whether the Chinese authors provided their names. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC) How about just giving the number of parks for each country? LittleJerry (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC) Wei et al. (2021) did not provide their full names, hence it is complicated to figure them out. E.g. they list "Qomolangma" in Tibet, but unclear is whether they refer to this huge Qomolangma National Nature Preserve or Qomolangma Feng National Nature Reserve : I did not find anything about records in either one. Nor did I find records in most of the others listed by Wei et al. (2021). Re Sichuan : acc. to Dong et al. (2021), Giant Panda National Park was established in 2017 + encompasses several nature reserves where it has been recorded. Therefore, I propose to list ONLY those with published records in the table. That way we can keep the table but without having to redlink some 30+ reserves. – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC) You've revised the conservation table to list ONLY those with published records, but it's not clear to me what "published records" means, and there is nothing in the article itself saying that it's only a partial list. It seems like a rather hard thing to establish—how do you know there aren't "published records" in Chinese that list out the reserves? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Clarified that is just a partial list. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Reply to Sdkb : a published record is evidence that the red panda indeed occurs in a particular site, published in an article or book. Wei et al. (1999) listed counties and areas such as mountain ranges east of .., northwest of .., but NOT a protected area or nature reserve. Nor does their list of references include a publication in Chinese about records in a protected area. And the book chapter by Wei et al. (2021) is largely based on earlier articles by Wei and colleagues. – BhagyaMani (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Reply to LittleJerry: we should then also clarify that the list is complete for PAs in Nepal, Myanmar, Bhutan and India. But : I'm very confident that also the ones in China are all in. – BhagyaMani (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Yarlung Tsangpo Grand Canyon Nature Reserve is a MOS:PARTIALNAMELINK violation. I'd suggest creating a redirect from Yarlung Tsangpo Grand Canyon Nature Reserve and linking to that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC) I would presume that all national parks are notable, so Imawbum National Park should be redlinked or {{ill}} linked if it exists in Burmese (which I'd hope it would). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC) This section feels a little like it's just listing out individual conservation programs rather than giving a broader overview. Without subject-area knowledge, it's hard for me to tell whether the listed examples were carefully curated or are just a mix with geographic or other biases, but I'd encourage other reviewers to scrutinize. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Another MOS:PARTIALNAMELINK issue with studbook. Oh, and later in that sentence, too. Both of these links are valuable, but we should rephrase so that they can be kept without this issue. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Why is the 2015 Japan sentence after the 2019 Europe sentence and 2016 Padmaja sentence? If this section is chronological, stick to it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Cultural significance an ethnic group is vague. Specify. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Arunachal Pradesh is linked twice above in the article, but not again here. Why? I'm quite lenient on MOS:REPEATLINK, given that most readers skip around, but it needs to be done deliberately. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Tribal people in Arunachal Pradesh Is it several groups or just one? If just one, same concern as above. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC) an Indian artist Any reason not to name them? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Thomas Hardwicke commissioned several Indian artists to paint animals, but their names are not known. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Okay; maybe write an unknown Indian artist, then? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC) Changed. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC) The 1820 painting is presumably in the public domain; it (or another cultural depiction of the red panda) should be included as a visual for this section. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC) I did not find this watercolour painting in Commons. Likely that not all the paintings of Hardwicke's large collection of some 4500 paintings were made available. This painting is not part of the small selection published by John Edward Gray in 2 volumes in 1830–1835. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Per Hardwicke's article, The collection was bequeathed to the British Museum in 1835 which was later partly moved to the Natural History Museum. So reach out to the museums if you have to, but it should be possible to obtain. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC) It seems a bit much for a Wikipedian to have to track down an image not available on the web or commons. The best I got was a reproduced copy in the sourced article. I don't know if we can use remade copies of PD works. LittleJerry (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Agree! Lowther explicitly stated that the painting has not been published, hence is not license-free. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Work from 1820 is in the public domain, no matter if it's been published before or not. See the Hirtle chart. The good news: sourcing from a reproduced copy from the article is fine, so long as it's of sufficient quality—a PD work is still a PD work, even if it appears (unmodified) in a licensed work. It's a similar situation to commons:Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC) That may be true for a large number of art pieces. But not for all : some drawings by Hemprich & Ehrenberg from the 1830s are worth so much money that collectors did not make them public. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC) Added drawing, but it is more fitting for the taxonomy section. There are hardly any available red panda art in commons that count as "culture" but are more for education/science. LittleJerry (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC) hardly any available red panda art? What about File:Tobu Zoo Park Shuttle Bus lesser panda.jpg, or (just imported from Flickr) File:Flower red panda.jpg / File:Ruby the red panda, mascot of the 2018 IAAF World Indoor Championships.jpg / File:International Red Panda Day sign at the San Francisco Zoo.jpg? File:Firefox logo, 2019.svg is free, too. We have enough for an entire gallery if we wanted. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC) Added firefox logo. LittleJerry (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC) Why do you consider the firefox logo relevant here, and not e.g. the 19th century painting that used to be in the section *Taxonomy*? – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC) I explained above. The 19th century painting is scientific/education. LittleJerry (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Per MOS:SPECIFICLINK, List of Indian state animals might be a better wikilink than state animal (although if you don't want to change which words are linked over, there's an MOS:EGG concern, so I'll defer to your preference; this is a recurring issue that I wish the community would discuss further). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC) The red panda is the namesake of the Firefox browser, and it has been used as the namesake of companies and music bands. This should be rephrased, as Firefox is a company, whereas this holds it in a separate category. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Cultural significance sections quite often become listcruft, so I'm glad to see that avoided here, and I'd suggest adding a hidden comment with some strongly worded language as an WP:ENDURE precaution. However, overall, this section feels rather anemic compared to the quite detailed coverage above of e.g. conservation, so I'd like to see more. I clicked through to doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-823753-3.00002-8, which seems like an excellent source, but it doesn't appear fully mined, as even just in the abstract, things like do not seem to constitute a substantial part of the culture or folklore of their range states and particularly popular on the social media seem highly relevant but are not included. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Expanded. LittleJerry (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Looks better. I wonder, should we give in-text attribution for Glatson/Gebauer? And sorry to be picky on this after I asked you to expand, but the local brewery thing is the type of listcruft I'd like us to avoid—I can't see any way that'd be due. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC) And about the WP:INTEXT comment for the first two sentences of this section? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC) I don't see why thats needed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC) I would suggest it since the sentences are close enough to opinion/speculation that it'll help readers to know where the opinion/speculation is coming from. But I don't feel super strongly on this, so I'll leave it up to you. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC) I also don't see why that is needed. Nor do I see that these 2 sentences are needed because of the speculation. – BhagyaMani (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Re the image in this section : I still liked the one of the old Chinese hunting scene much better than this logo, as showing the logo has a whiff of advertisement. The animal in the logo really looks more like a fox than a red panda because of its pointed nose. – BhagyaMani (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC) The reference re the watercolour painting commissioned by Hardwicke is not relevant in the section on *Taxonomy*. Hardwicke did not even use it in conjunction with his taxonomic description of the "Wha", but his article only shows drawings of red panda paws. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC) I can see where LittleJerry is coming from on this. The art of scientific drawings is somewhat lost nowadays since we have photography, but back in 1820 it was very distinct from non-scientific art. The artist wasn't making it as a contribution to culture: it was a technical document to help scientists understand the animal. Given that, it's not as appropriate for the cultural significance section, as it has never been widely exhibited in culture. The Firefox logo, on the other hand, is probably the single most prominent depiction of a red panda ever created, so it's a great fit. I don't think it's really advertising, as we're not being paid by Mozilla or anything—we're just acknowledging that brands are a part of the world. In other words, it's neutral rather than anti-corporate. That said, we do have other options from commons:Category:Ailurus fulgens in art and its subcategory, and as mentioned above we could do a gallery. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC) The section on *Taxonomy* is about the classification of a taxon, i.e. who described the taxon when and the geographical location where the described specimen/s were originally found. I think it ok to keep the image of the painting in this section, but the info about its artist is not relevant in the context of taxonomy. – BhagyaMani (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC) The naming of the browser has been discussed over several years, see arguments at Talk:Red panda#Firefox browser name redux and the sections #Add the information "Firefox Cubs" + #Naming the panda. And I still agree with those who argued that the logo shows a red fox, see File:Fox Head.jpg and also because the tail in the logo is NOT ringed like in all the other illustrations of the red panda. So I propose to replace the logo by a different unambiguous file, e.g. File:International Red Panda Day sign at the San Francisco Zoo.jpg. – BhagyaMani (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC) Other alternatives : File:Stamp of India - 2009 - Colnect 159926 - Red Panda Ailurus fulgens.jpeg or File:Stamp of India - 1963 - Colnect 238977 - Red Panda Ailurus fulgens.jpeg – BhagyaMani (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC) Added 2009 India stamp. LittleJerry (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC) External links Dedicated to always irks me as promotional language (see WP:MISSIONSTATEMENT); could that be changed? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC) This is perhaps a hot take, but I have to question the presence of {{Wikispecies}}. The external links guideline recommends against including Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. Looking at Wikispecies' rather pitiful entry on the red panda, I'm not seeing anything of value there that we don't also have here. (Or am I missing something?) For neutrality reasons, we shouldn't give preference to other sites just because they're WMF-affiliated, as past precedent with {{Wikinews}} has affirmed. So is there really any reason to include it? Note that even if it's removed here, it'll still be present in the left sidebar under "in other projects". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC) It is a fairly standard wikispecies entry, afaik, I don't see it as comparable to linking wikinews ~ cygnis insignis 10:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Yeah, I realize it's been used elsewhere, but that's other stuff; is there any justification under the external links guideline for including it? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC) I'm not presenting an argument either way, it was a response to the description as a "rather pitiful entry". ~ cygnis insignis 06:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Could this be addressed? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC) I don't think external link guidelines applies to linking to other wikiprojects. LittleJerry (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC) What benefit is there for readers, then, to have the box linking to the Wikispecies entry? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Sdkb, I think we fixed everything. LittleJerry (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC) @LittleJerry, I've followed up above about several remaining concerns (and one new thing I spotted). We're close! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC) The only remaining things now are "studbook" above and you two figuring out how you want to present the protected areas table in a way that's equitable between countries and accurate about its scope. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC) I agree with BM's changes to the current chart. LittleJerry (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC) Are we done? LittleJerry (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• No further concerns. Although I lack enough expertise with the subject to make a formal support, all of my concerns above have been sufficiently addressed. Thanks for bearing with me through this—I know that there were some tricky things that came up, but I think the article is measurably stronger for having worked through them. Once other editors have gotten a chance to offer their comments and do things like a source check, I look forward to seeing this get its gold star! Thanks both LittleJerry and BhagyaMani for your hard work! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Sdkb, you don't need expertise to make a give a final conclusion. You've given a detailed review that lasted weeks and we are getting closer to a month since this was nominated. I think you should give a formal conclusion. LittleJerry (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, sure—support on prose, style issues, and comprehensive from a lay perspective. Congrats again on your hard work on this! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Sdkb, would you mind putting your comments in a Resolved comments template? They're taking up a large amount of space and necessitate a lot of scrolling to reach the bottom. AryKun (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  Done. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from AryKun

• Will do soon. AryKun (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Resolved comments from AryKun (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

* Link described in the Taxonomy section. Done. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC) "his paper was published only six years later" → "his paper was only published six years after Cuvier's" Revised and added ta ref to this article. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC) "For a long time" → Kind of ambiguous, any exact-ish dates? I removed this sentence, as knowledge about the red panda's behaviour is anyway not relevant in this section. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC) "(sensu stricto)" Sensu stricto should be italicized, and perhaps consider using a less technical phrase. Revised + removed the int link – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC) "lineage of the modern panda" → Presumably you mean red panda, but just panda is usually used to refer to the giant panda. Revised + removed the int link – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC) Many of the images lack alt text. Added. LittleJerry (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC) More to come. AryKun (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC) "side angle of the eyes" → What is a side angle? Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC) "The inside of the ears are covered" → Tense mismatch, should be either "The insides of the ears are covered" or "The inside of the ears is covered" Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC) "red and buff" → Link buff. Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC) "red moss- and" → Should the hyphen be there. Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC) "The pelvis and hindlimbs" → Link pelvis. Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC) "tail acts as support" → "tail acts as a support" Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC) "distributed from" → You don't give a range, but rather a list of regions it inhabits, so "distributed from" is incorrect here AryKun (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC) You use British English in the article, so all mentions of "percent" should be replaced with "per cent" per MOS:PERCENT. Revised – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC) Just noticed this, but in Subspecies and species, you use Siang River, although it is much more commonly called the Brahmaputra. We use Siang River in accordance with the ref'ed source, and we know that that the link redirects to Brahmaputra. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC) "The London Zoo acquired two red pandas in 1869 and 1876 that were caught in Darjeeling" → "The London Zoo acquired two red pandas that were caught in Darjeeling in 1869 and 1876" would be better .. but not correct. The source does not explicitly state WHEN they were caught, but only that they were acquired in those years. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC) "first red panda cubs" → "first captive-born red panda cubs" Revised, but without duplicating the word 'born'. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC) "the San Diego Zoo imported four red pandas via India that had been caught in Nepal" → "the San Diego Zoo imported four red pandas that had been caught in Nepal via India" Changed 'via' > 'from' – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC) " ubs" is a typo Corrected – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC) "watercolour painting by an unknown Indian artist" → Any date or date range for when the painting was made? It was commissioned in about 1820, see caption in section *Taxonomy*, but exact date is not given. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC) I question the relevance of the Youtube statistic; it not only needs a time reference as it is prone to changing, 3,000 out of around 800 million seems like an insignificant number. Honestly, pretty much anything is likely to have a couple thousand YT videos with its name if it's even remotely well-known. AryKun (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC) I agree. What do you think of changing the figure > a few thousand ? – BhagyaMani (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC) Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Haven't checked references. AryKun (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. AryKun (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

• What makes https://wfo-about.rbge.info a high quality reliable source?

• Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Can we use this by Triplett & Clark (2010) as source instead? – BhagyaMani (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  You can just add it. But don't link to ResearchGate. LittleJerry (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Cuvier, G. (1829). "Le Panda éclatant". Le règne animal distribué d'après son organisation. Vol. Tome 1. Chez Déterville, Paris. p. 138." needs to note its in French.

• Done. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Flynn, J. J.; Finarelli, J. A.; Zehr, S.; Hsu, J. & Nedbal, M. A. (2005). "Molecular phylogeny of the Carnivora (Mammalia): Assessing the impact of increased sampling on resolving enigmatic relationships". Systematic Biology. 54 (2): 317–337." - this page gives a doi - should list to be consistent with other entries.

• If doi access is free, a url is not needed. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• The DOI should be listed, that's what is being asked for. As of right now, there is no doi. But most other journal articles list it, so to be consistent, you should list it. Refs for FAs should be consistently formatted across the type of ref. (And I've never seen a "if doi access is free an url is not needed") Ealdgyth (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  DOI added/ LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Double check that all the journals without doi's are lacking them in the actual publication. Since you are linking to research gate rather than to the journal websites, I shouldn't have to be expected to double check those...Note that WP:RSP on it's entry for ResearchGate (where it is deemed to be "self-published") it states "ResearchGate is a social network that hosts a repository of user-generated publications, including preprints. ResearchGate does not perform fact checking or peer reviewing, and is considered a self-published source. Verify whether a paper on ResearchGate is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access link to the paper (which may be hosted on ResearchGate)." We should link to the offical journal publication in the title of the article (using the url parameter) and then put in

• These journals do not use doi: Current Science, Small Carnivore Conservation, The Himalayan Naturalist, Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, Journal of the Bhutan Ecological Society and Zoological Studies. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I replaced the links to researchgate. LittleJerry (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations - this site's comparison to our article is not useful because - the top of the actual outside site says "This is the interpretation of the species as published in English Wikipedia - Species Pages". The other things flagged appear to be short statements that would be very difficult to phrase in other ways.

Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Another thing about ResearchGate links is that in almost all cases, the published versions of papers that are not open access are the copyright of the journal and the author does not have the right to publish them separately. Since free access versions available online are technically copyright violations, they must not be linked per WP:COPYLINK. (I almost never link preprint repositories for this reason...) (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I replaced the links to researchgate link with links to pdfs from the publishers' websites. LittleJerry (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from SilverTiger

Placeholder section for when I get to read through this article later today. SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• In Fossil Record, first paragraph "Other early or basal aliruds include..." (bolding mine) Is that supposed to be ailurids?

• Corrected. – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Similar problem in the first sentence of the second paragraph, same section. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Corrected. – BhagyaMani (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Could the etymology of the Chinese species/subspecies' name styani be included in the etymology section?

• This is already explained in the *Taxonomy* section that it was named after Frederick William Styan. – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Beyond those nitpicks, though, I honestly have nothing.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• These weren't really nitpicks : at least 6 people oversaw these typos. Thanks for reading this with the eyes of a hawk !! – BhagyaMani (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Super Mario 64

Nominator(s): Coolperson177

This article is about the platformer that changed 3D gaming forever (according to every video game journalist, anyway). I originally came to this article to fix a cite error, but then I saw the talk page and all the opportunities for improvement. Since then, I and many others have been working on the article to fix its prose, complete citations, and expand this article's coverage. Now, I think it's ready. Let's work to get back its star. Again. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 15:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size
  • Removed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 17:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• File:N64_Super_Mario_64_whomp_fortress.jpg needs a more extensive FUR. Ditto File:Super_Mario_64_DS-Graphics_comparison.jpg and File:Super-mario-64-camera-system-ai.jpg - there would need to be stronger justification to include this number of non-free files. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I improved the first image's FUR and have removed the other two for now as they are already in other articles. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 17:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Think the purpose of use in particular could be elaborated on. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
    • (drive-by comment) I think the camera system image really shouldn't be removed. The camera movement is an important aspect of the game and its depiction would benefit the article and readers. Neocorelight (Talk) 04:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Sorry about that, I've added it back with a new FUR. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 13:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Still needs to be stronger if we're going to justify multiple non-free screenshots. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
          • Okay, I think we can use File:Super-mario-64-camera-system-ai.jpg. I think that contains the most information. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 15:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Panini!

It was disappointing to see this delisted, so it's great to see you step up and return it to its former glory! I will review this sometime in the future. See, instead of reviewing this, a commercially and critically groundbreaking video game that reshaped both platforming and paved the future of 3D gaming and established the genre as we know it, I'm working on Color Splash. No need to thank me. Panini! • 🥪 15:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! It's people like you that inspired me to do this. Great job on all the article improvement you've already done! — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright; review time!

Infobox

• Is there a difference between the North American box art in comparison to others? This doesn't count a language distinguishment, rather what's pictured. If there isn't, "North American cover art" would be redundant.
  • I believe that there is a difference: [38]. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 19:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yōichi Kotabe is sourced, but nobody else it. Could you cite the others? Use sources like the Kotabe one if possible, but if you can't find any, you can use the game's credits and the game itself is a primary source. See Paper Mario: The Origami King as an example.
  • The others are now cited (with the instruction booklet's credits). — Coolperson177 (t|c) 19:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Wow, I completely forgot that games used to come with instruction booklets. I guess the Switch has just been around for so long that it slipped from my mind. Panini! • 🥪 17:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Can you find a source for the iQue Player release?
  • Sources provided. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 19:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Never mind. Now the release date is gone, per discussion below. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  Aaaaand now it's back. For now. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 14:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead

• "feature 3D gameplay, it features" - "feature" is used twice in quick succession.
  • Removed the second "feature". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 19:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• "it features traditional Mario gameplay" - Are you still referring to the Super Mario series or the franchise here? If the former, some better clarification could be used, if the latter, I'd link it.
  • I meant Super Mario, I'll clarify. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 19:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• "—designed to include more details than previous games—" - This is a general statement made by every developer one way or another, which boils down to "we wanted to make this game better than the last one". It doesn't necessarily need to be there.
  • Removed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 19:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Overall, this lead section seems a bit on the short side, and I'd suggest expanding it into four paragraphs instead of three. Paragraph one can be kept intact, although the last sentence could expand on the plot a bit more. I'd move the Power Stars detail to the second paragraph, which could be used to describe gameplay. The third could be used for development and release info, as it currently only really lists names and could benefit from more detail, and the fourth for reception and legacy.
  • There are now four paragraphs. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 19:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Gameplay

Seeing "Mario can do so many, like crawl, climb, and kick!" is a weird sight, but considering the gap between this and its 2D counterpart, there isn't too much that can be done about it.

• The majority of the sentences in the first paragraph begin with "The player"; see if you can find ways to switch it up!
  • Removed about ten instances of "the player". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 20:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Mario's abilities in Super Mario 64" - Considering how the game's title was mentioned in full prior to this, I don't see it necessary to do so a second time.
  • Removed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 19:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• "—operated by a friendly Lakitu—" - "friendly" is unnecessary. How about instead you mention here that the Lakitu is acting as a cameraman that's broadcasting Mario, which could serve more purpose to what the Lakitu is doing?
  • Removed "friendly". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 22:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Underwater, Mario's health represents how" - Add an "instead" after health to help distinguish that it's still the same health bar.
  • Added. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 19:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• When linking Princess Peach's Castle, I'd instead link to Mushroom Kingdom#Locations rather than the series page.
  • Retargeted. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 22:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'd mention and link overworld somewhere in the second paragraph, where you mention that the levels are open-ended.
  • Actually, "overworld" is already linked ("The hub world takes place in Princess Peach's Castle...") — Coolperson177 (t|c) 22:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Fair enough; I wasn't aware "hub" was a redirect. Panini! • 🥪 17:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Also link Bowser where it first appears here.
  • Linked. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 19:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• I've always been curious about it (and never looked it up), so I can offer a good reader perspective. What's the context behind the 'endless staircase'? What is it blocking? As in, does it block the player from entering until they've collected 70 power stars, to which it then opens up? If so, some clarification is needed.
  • Is it clear now? The text now says: "With seventy Power Stars, the player can access the final level of the game, blocked by "endless stairs", as described in the game". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 19:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I think the "as described in the game" is oddly placed, but this may be because I didn't describe what I meant properly. Here's a suggested phrase: "The final level of the game is hindered by an 'endless staircase', and Mario can only bypass them by collecting seventy power stars." Am I interpreting these stairs correctly? Panini! • 🥪 17:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Okay, I changed it to "The final level of the game is blocked by "endless stairs", but Mario can bypass them by collecting seventy Power Stars". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• The Plot section is a fun read. Good Job! However, this does explain my query about the endless staircase, so my above statement applies. It's also considered a proper noun here; is it some fancy thing Bowser set up that should be capitalized, or just an endless staircase?
  • Went with "endless stairs". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 19:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Development

• I would also mention that Shigeru Miyamoto is Mario's creator to better help signify his importance.
  • Also, you can link his name in the image caption.
    • Did both of your suggestions. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 20:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Nintendo's booth demonstrated a 3D polygon animation of Mario's head." Is this the same head as the one in the beginning menu of 64?
  • Both heads are quite similar, so I added a sentence saying that the head also appeared in the game. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 20:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• "most of the time" and "approximately" are synonyms. It was also confusing to read, so one of them can be cut for clarity.
  • Removed "approximately". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 22:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Side note; I used this source when I rewrote the Appearances section for the Mario article, which documents Mario's animation and Yoshiaki Koizumi's thought process while designing. See if you can find a use for it!
  • Used. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 03:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• There's a source needed for the ending sentence of the third paragraph. The info came from somewhere!
  • Provided source after a search that took much longer than it should have. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 20:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Information about Super Mario 64 was leaked in November 1995" - How?
  • I don't know, no source in the article talks about a leak. I don't know how that sentence got there. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• The majority of the sixth paragraph deals with the game's release and the struggle that came with it. Some of this info is repeated in the actual Release section below, so I would move this info down there. The first sentence about puzzles should be moved elsewhere, too.
  • Moved to the release section. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Do we know just exactly how many sound effects there were for the game? That could be a good detail to know, especially if it's compared to the Zelda games in some way.
  • I'm going to try to find that out. Give me a minute. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Right, so it's been a day, and there are many websites that have a database of this game's sound effects. Most have around 100, but I couldn't find one that seems to not miss at least one sound effect, nor any sources that make a mention of it. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

      That's alright, just checking to make sure. You don't need to include it if there's no good source explicitly talking about it. Panini! • 🥪 17:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• The Sales section should be moved down as a subheader for Reception; it's common practice for video game articles.
  • Moved down. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 22:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Reception

• Your call: I feel this second paragraph applies more towards the demo and the game's anticipation, so one possibility is to move it under Release. Alternatively, since the next paragraph jumps immediately into post-release, some emphasis is needed to explain that.
  • I swapped the first and second paragraphs à la Sonic '06, is that better? — Coolperson177 (t|c) 20:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Yep, this looks like a good change. Panini! • 🥪 17:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• If "The Whizz" is a pseudonym, you don't necessarily need to mention it; you can just cite the magazine (GamePro)
  • Removed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 22:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• The organization of these paragraphs seems a bit robotic at some points. While I have no problem with the way the information is presented, some readers might get bored if every sentence is similar to one another. Here's what I mean:
  • Paul Davies of Computer and Video Games
  • Doug Perry of IGN
  • Jonti Davies of AllGame
• There are others not listed here. Note how these all follow an "A of B" format. You can shake things up a bit by using "B's A", "A, writing for B", "Writing for B, A", and "B reviewer A".
  • Shook things up a bit. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 20:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Awards

• You're about to become a professional programmer: there are too many awards and reviewer recognition, in my opinion, to adequately be displayed in the reviewer table. Do you know what that means? Table time! It can be put under the paragraph that's already under Awards. If you know how to put a table together, great! If not, Pssh, good luck let me know and I'll help you out.
  • It took about two hours, but I finally got a table in there. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 15:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Legacy

• "Some fans believed that the Wario head remained in some copies of the game, which was part of another theory that "every copy of Super Mario 64 is personalized" - I'd say these two theories are too distinct from each other, and if you separate them into two different sentences you can describe more details of what they are.
  • Separated sentences. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• "including a coin that had not been collected until eighteen years after release" - Could you specify that the coin wasn't supposed to be collected?
  • Okay. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 20:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Beyond that, I don't see any other issues with this entire section. Again, Good Job!

Overall, that's all from me. Any questions you have I will follow up with, and if you oppose any of my comments, as long as there's a reason to justify doing so I won't fight you on it. If you have the time, I also have a video game FAC that I would appreciate comments for. It's only a quarter the size of this article. Panini! • 🥪 17:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Panini!: Pinging, I've addressed all your comments. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Everything appears to be addressed, and although I had one more comment, I'm not going to let it impede a Support. Excellent work! This amazing project will look great under your belt, and I look forward to seeing more content improvement from you in the future. It's been almost two decades now since this article appeared on the front page, and since this article received the overhaul treatment, I highly recommend you nominate this for WP:TFA. Panini! • 🥪 18:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Support from Ajpolino

Alright, I'm not particularly knowledgeable on video games, but I did own this game back in the day, so perhaps I can serve a "layperson"'s view of the article. I'm mostly reviewing on prose quality, since that's about all I'm qualified for here. Comments/suggestions below:

Lead

• "it features freedom of movement within a large open world..." seems redundant? Open world suggests freedom of movement is a given. How about "The first Super Mario game to feature 3D gameplay, it features traditional Mario gameplay, visual style, and characters in a large open world."?
  • Went with your suggestion. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• "based on polygons," can be cut. I don't think it's critical for this point in the lead (also I'm not sure it's discussed later).
  • Removed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Depending on what you do with the above, this may be moot. But I'm not sure the wikilink Degrees of freedom (mechanics) actually helps a reader understand "freedom of movement" as you mean it.
  • I just removed "freedom of movement". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Second paragraph - It seems like the first sentence could go a bit later in the paragraph to improve chronological flow.
  • Flipped the first and second sentences. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• "The game was originally conceptualized... as an open-world game." - not sure this needs to be in the lead
  • Removed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Last paragraph - Wikilink analog (I assume Analog stick is what's being referred to?)
  • Wikilinked. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Consider wikilinking "ported"
  • Wikilinked. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Rephrase "The game has attracted a cult following, a large speedrunning presence, and many fangames and rumors surrounding the game have appeared." I don't have a great idea, but maybe even something like "The game has attracted a cult following, spawning many fangames, a large speedrunning presence, and enduring rumors surrounding game features." would read clearer?
  • Rephrased. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Gameplay

• "diverse than those of previous" > "diverse than in previous"
  • Fixed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• "wall jumping" > "wall jump" (to fit with the rest of the list)
  • Rephrased. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• "The player can replenish... a value of five." Not to be dense, but does the blue coin replenish five health, or none? If it's five, maybe you could shorten the sentence to "The player can replenish Mario's health by collecting three types of coins: yellow, with a value of one; red, with a value of two; and blue, with a value of five."?
  • Sorry about that lengthy sentence, I thought it was necessary to explain another part of the gameplay section but now I don't think it does. Fixed it. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• "The player can also heal by walking through a spinning heart" - are spinning hearts found throughout the levels? Only in Peach's castle? At the beginning of each level? The current source doesn't specify, but maybe you have another source that does?
  • I'm sorry, but I couldn't find a source for that. I don't really see why it's necessary to specify where they are found, though. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• "depleted or if he falls" > "depleted or he falls"
  • Changed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• "comes back up to the surface" > "surfaces"
  • Changed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Second paragraph - maybe you could mention earlier in this paragraph that the stars unlock parts of the castle? Currently the stars are introduced several sentences before their purpose.
  • Moved the relevant sentence closer to the start of the paragraph. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• "Once the player gets at least seventy Power Stars, they can access..." > "With seventy Power Stars, the player can access..."
  • Changed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Plot

• Maybe there's a well-established order you're following, but I feel the Gameplay section would have been more clear if I'd read the Plot section first. Consider flipping the order?
  • Actually, I believe it is an established practice to put the plot after the gameplay. I merged the two sections together, is that fine? — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Merging the sections doesn't make a big difference to me. Just registering my opinion. Do as you prefer. Ajpolino (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• "...the castle for these portals to enter the worlds and..." > "... the castle to enter these worlds and..."
  • Fixed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Development

• "According to engineer Dylan ... but the codename of the Super FX chip." Could this go as a note after the sentence two above (" Miyamoto considered... miniature trains'".)? It reads like a "sources disagree" type of statement. If that's not the intention, maybe you could clarify? If that is the intention, it's odd to have it separated from its partner point.
  • Good catch, I reordered the sentences. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• "Development of Super Mario 64 began on September 7, 1994, and concluded on May 20, 1996,[27] with one year spent on the design concept and approximately two on production" Confusing to read since the period between those dates is less than 2 years. Is Sept '94 - May '96 the "two on production"?
  • Changed "development of" to "production of" and removed "with one year spent on the design concept and approximately two on production". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• "most of the time there were approximately fifteen to twenty people working on the game" > "... most of the time approximately fifteen to twenty people worked on the game".
  • Fixed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Third paragraph - The order of sentences here is a bit jarring. Maybe "Super Mario 64 is one of the first games... of by outsourcing." could go earlier (maybe even first?) and "The game was first run... not the hardware" could go later where you're discussing test runs and game physics?
  • Changed the order. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not against quote boxes generally, but I don't think this quote ("When we were stuck... I'm serious") adds much to the article.
  • Yeah, I removed that. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• "Super Mario 64... who wrote the English text." makes it sound like Princess Peach wrote the English text. Rephrase for clarity?
  • Rephrased to "Leslie Swan—then senior editor of Nintendo Power and English localizer for Super Mario 64—as the voice of Princess Peach". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Release

• "... and only about two percent of mapping was finished." I'm not sure what this means. Is there a Wikilink or rephrase that could clarify?
  • I added a wikilink to "texture mapping", does that help? — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• "...Nintendo 64s set up for more people to play..." > "...Nintendo 64s set up for people to play..." (more than what?)
  • Removed "more". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• "...the handheld Nintendo DS..." > "...the Nintendo DS"
  • Removed "handheld". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Reception

• "Mario 64 has received" > "Mario 64 received"
  • Fixed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Legacy

• "wide variety of launch games were necessary for" > "wide variety of launch games was necessary for"
  • Fixed tense. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• The sentence "Though not the first... called the medium's true evolutionary leap." kind of drags. I'd suggest trimming it to just the part about camera control being a huge leap, and possibly moving it down into the influence subsection below.
  • Did that. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• "...now a staple of the 3D platform genre" - should this be "platformer"?
  • Changed for consistency. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• "... the 3D platform genre.[107] As the 3D platformer genre..." jarring to read "3D platformer genre" twice in a row. Maybe the second one could be shortened to "As the genre evolved..."?
  • Went with your suggestion. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Medical literature - This is the topic I normally edit in, so I'm probably stingier on this than most, but I'll go ahead and say that I think this subsection is unhelpful trivia and WP:UNDUE coverage of these studies (unless other sources on Super Mario 64 discuss the studies?). I'd suggest removing the whole subsection. If it must stay, at least change the last bullet point. The study was published in NeuroImage (it was conducted by an academic lab in Germany).
  • Fixed the error for now, but do we need consensus for removing the entire section? — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Okay, so I found this source that mentions Super Mario 64: [39]. Is this high-quality enough? I'm asking because WP:RSP says Quartz might be a source to be "treated with caution" for science. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
    • As I said, I may be an extremist on this, but I think the fact that it has been used as a video game condition in a few studies is way over-covered here. WP:PROPORTION suggests articles cover aspects of the subject proportional to their treatment in reliable sources. Right now you have more text on medical studies than on the game's awards or sales figures. I just think it's undue, even with the Quartz article. Ajpolino (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Okay, so I've cut down on the medical text, but I've still kept some and moved it to the beginning of the legacy section. Does it still violate WP:UNDUE? Because, I'm going to be honest, I really still want some of it in the article because of a did you know I did for this article in the past. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 13:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Will take another look once you get through those. Thanks for the interesting read! Ajpolino (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok great, just a few more suggestions from a second readthrough, then I'm happy:

• Gameplay - "far more diverse than in previous Mario games."
  • Fixed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 17:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Gameplay - "The life system from previous Mario games is kept, and Mario loses a life when..." > "As in previous Mario games, Mario loses a life when..."
  • Fixed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 17:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Gameplay - "There are fifteen courses... There are fifteen Power Stars ..." It's weird to read "There are fifteen" twice in a row. Rephrase? Even something as simple as "Each of the fifteen courses has seven Power Stars. An additional fifteen Power Stars are hidden..." would be more interesting to the eye.
  • Rephrased to "Each of the fifteen courses has seven Power Stars, and an additional fifteen are hidden..." — Coolperson177 (t|c) 17:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Plot - "he recovers more Power Stars, and once he gets..." > "he recovers more Power Stars. Once he gets..."
  • Fixed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 17:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Development - I guess I'm not sure what you're trying to get across with "he and the level designers then took notes on the key elements of each level."
  • Just removed that since the reference wasn't verifiable. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Development - "the rabbit was included in the final game" it's been a while and I can't recall how the rabbit was included. May be worth adding a few words?
  • Trying to find sources... — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm back. Found a source that talks about how the rabbit holds secret stars: [40]. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 22:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Development - "...but the number was reduced to fifteen" any idea why? Time constraints?
  • Trying to find sources... — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I couldn't find anything that talks about that. My guess is that they may have merged courses together for the final version, but... — Coolperson177 (t|c) 22:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Release - "At the 1999 Milia... the previous year." Is this a significant award? Feels a bit random as currently worded.
  • I changed it to "At the 1999 Milia festival in Cannes, it won a Gold ECCSELL prize for earning revenues above €21 million (equivalent to €31.5 million in 2022) in the European Union in 1998", is that better or does it still feel random? — Coolperson177 (t|c) 17:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Reception - "... and the fact that its replayability reveals new areas and challenges" the wording doesn't seem quite right. I assume they praised its replayability, and that replaying the game reveals new areas and challenges? If I'm understanding correctly, a wording tweak is probably in order.
  • Changed it to "...its replayability, comparing the game to Super Mario World and citing its similar gimmick of allowing access to new areas upon finding switches". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 17:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Reception - "but suggesting to players to 'skip...'"
  • Fixed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 17:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Reception - "Game Informer stated that... broken'" It's not clear to the reader what the "present day" is here.
  • Clarified to "in their 2007 review". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 17:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Reception - You introduce Paul Davies' publication several times. After the first time you can probably just say "Paul Davies".
  • Ditto for Doug Perry and Jonti Davies.
    • Fixed all. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 17:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Reception - I haven't looked through all the references, just happened to notice the author's name is misspelled in reference 69 (Jonti Davies)
  • Fixed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 17:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Legacy - "generally only allow the" should be "allowed".
  • Fixed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 17:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok I think that'll be it for me! Thanks again. Ajpolino (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your responses. I'm happy to support this FAC on prose. A last few thoughts pulled out of the above for you to consider (though I won't be watching, so no pressure from me!): (1) I still think the medical paragraph is undue, but if it must stay I'd suggest moving it back to the bottom where it was before. The new location feels abrupt, and distracts from SM64's actual legacy discussed in the rest of the section. (2) I'm not sure I understand the revised version of the replayability sentence. I figured I'm probably becoming annoying at this point, so I read the cited review. I'd suggest something closer to your first version; maybe "Maximum found its strongest points were the sense of freedom and the fact that replaying a level reveals new areas and challenges." Not the most exciting prose of all time, but I think it better conveys what the Maximum reviewers were getting at. (3) One more "Name of Publication..." that can be shortened is Nebojsa Radakovic of GameRevolution.

Otherwise, thanks again for an interesting read! I hope all is well. Ajpolino (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the review! I got your last comments, and for the second one I made a mention of the switches in Super Mario 64 in the Gameplay section. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 02:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Support from Hurricanehink

It's a-me! Hurricanehink. And yea I gotta review this!

• "Nintendo EAD" - you're supposed to spell out acronyms when they are first used in an article. That would make the first sentence on the long side, so I suggest the first two sentences be retooled, like - "Super Mario 64 is a 1996 platform game for the Nintendo 64, the first Super Mario game to feature 3D gameplay." That makes it stand out more what makes this game so important, which can then be followed by the bit about Nintendo's publishing role and Nintendo EAD developing it. Then get into the traditional Mario gameplay. I think that would be a better explanation setting up everything
  • Rephrased to "Super Mario 64 is a 1996 platform game for the Nintendo 64. Developed by Nintendo Entertainment Analysis and Development and published by Nintendo, it is the first Super Mario game to feature 3D gameplay, combining traditional Mario gameplay, visual style, and characters in a large open world". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Reference for the Japanese title?
  • Reference provided. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• I think the lead should expand on the plot a bit more, since the lead is on the short side.
  • Expanded a bit. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Better. I'd split the below into two sentences. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

      As Mario, the player collects Power Stars while exploring Princess Peach's castle and must rescue her from Bowser, who has kidnapped her and hidden the castle's Power Stars in many different worlds behind magical paintings.

      • Rephrased to "Bowser, one of the main antagonists for the Mario franchise, invades Princess Peach's castle and hides the castle's Power Stars in many different worlds behind magical paintings. As Mario, the player collects Power Stars while exploring Princess Peach's castle and must rescue her". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 14:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
        • Better, but - while exploring Princess Peach's castle and must rescue her. - the writing isn't FA quality here, using the two different verb forms. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
          • Is "As Mario, the player collects Power Stars to unlock enough of Princess Peach's castle to get to Bowser and rescue Princess Peach" better? — Coolperson177 (t|c) 17:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
            • I think that's a good summary, yup. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• " Its art was created by Yōichi Kotabe," - the infobox mentions four other people
  • Removed from lead, I attempted to rewrite some of the paragraph. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
    • OK, but now that you added more artists, could you explain what they all did? You mention five in the article of the nine listed in the infobox. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Added the rest, except one, Masanao Arimoto, which is only credited for "additional graphics". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• "were created using the Nichimen N-World toolkit" - reference?
  • Removed from lead. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
    • You removed it entirely from the article. Was it not worth including? I'm starting to get worried about comprehensiveness for the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
      • I have to apologize for that, I have a bad habit of wanting to remove unsourced content too hastily. I found a source that I thought was unreliable, but the poster seems to have sufficient credentials, so I'm adding it. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
        • Great, glad it's back in. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• "The hub world takes place in Princess Peach's Castle, which consists of three floors, plus a moat and a courtyard. " - there's also a basement, so it's four floors, five if you include the mezzanine where the secret slide and first Bowser stage is.
  • Fixed error. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Does ref 13 really cover this change? I don't see pages 18-23 mentioning the floors. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
      • I made a mistake, I meant to add another reference there. Did that now. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 14:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
        • That ref and those pages still don't back up that content. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
          • Um, yes they do. Pages 4 and 5 show an illustration of the moat and a diagram of the three floors, basement, and top tower, and page 49 shows the courtyard. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 17:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
            • Thanks, my mistake, I missed it! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• "The worlds are filled with enemies as well as friendly creatures that provide assistance or ask favors." - is the pink bomb-omb worth mentioning here? You do mention the cannon later.
  • Made a mention. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• "one hundred coin points on a stage" - coin points? Also, numbers greater than 10 should be written as numbers. You do this later with "one hundred extra lives", "fifteen to twenty people", and "five hundred sound effects"
  • No, MOS:NUMERAL says that writing those out as words is okay as long they're expressible in one or two words. Removed "coin points" though. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
    • That's fair. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• 'endless staircase' - why the single apostrophe? If it's a quote, it should be "endless staircase", as described in the game, or something else. Also, is it "endless staircase" or "Endless Stairs"? You use both in the article.
  • Changed to "endless stairs". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• three special cap power-ups appear throughout many stages - the "throughout many stages" bothers me a tiny bit, since they're in most stages. I think you can just cut that part. Maybe.... three special cap power-ups appear to alter Mario's abilities.
  • I actually completely redid that part of the gameplay section, is the "throughout many stages" still inappropriate here? — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
    • That works. I did some research, and Cool, Cool Mountain, Tall, Tall Mountain, Tiny, Huge Island, Tick-Tock Clock, and Rainbow Ride don't have any caps, so yea, I think "many" is fair. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• the Metal Cap makes him immune to most damage - not all? It's not an issue if this is what the source says, but I didn't know Mario could get hurt with the metal cap.
  • Clarified the effects. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Some courses feature owls hidden in trees that the player can grab onto for elevation and a view of the stage from above. - maybe a dumb question, but does the owl appear anywhere other than Thwomp's Fortress?
  • I don't think so, removing the sentence. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Do they call it the "Jumbo Star" in the game?
  • I think people call it that, but if that's an issue, I changed it to "another Power Star". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• "The team prioritized Mario's movement and, before levels were created, tested and refined Mario's animations on a simple grid." - source?
  • Removed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
    • How come? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
      • This is the last bit of my review that concerned me. This seems like a useful bit of information about the development. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
        • Added it back with this source that was already in the article: [41]. Sorry... — Coolperson177 (t|c) 02:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• "In the game, the Boos shrink when Mario looks at them, but grow large and menacing when he turns away" - do they grow? Maybe I haven't played the game in a while, but there are regular boos and the big boos, but I didn't think they got bigger. Correct me if I'm wrong.
  • That's what the source says, but I don't think that was really necessary for the comparison, so I removed it. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Super Mario 64 had a marketing budget of $20 million." - two things. First, this is the only dollar figure that isn't inflated. Second, you should mention somewhere that the figure is in USD.
  • Fixed both issues. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
    • You should use the inflation template so the article won't become out of date in a year. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Okay, although it only goes up to 2020. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 14:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
        • That's fine, it'll automatically update so you don't have to. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

All in all, it's a pretty good article on one of the most important video game articles, so I was extra picky. Hopefully none of these comments are too difficult to address. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't see this before, but could you get a source for it appearing on iQue Player? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Got sources. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 14:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Is it worth mentioning this system under "Other re-releases"? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Added a mention. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 17:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Thanks so much for your quick replies! I'm happy to support now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Jibreel23

I will review the article more tommorow, but as of right now I think a table or infobox should be added in the awards section similar to Super Mario Odyssey's award section. Jibreel23 (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Added a table. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 15:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed it a bit more, and in the lead of the article it says "Bowser, one of the main antagonists for the Mario franchise" should be changed to "Bowser, one of the main antagonists in the Mario franchise" or "Bowser, one of the main antagonists of the Mario franchise". Also, I think there is some good additions that should be added such as adding a little more to the Super Mario 64 DS section, and possibly or even merge it with the "other re-releases" section and make it just "Re-releases". Although I personally think you should just expand the Super Mario 64 DS section. You can also add quote box to the development section with a quote from Giles Goddard interview similar to the Paper Mario: The Origami King article and Mario Odyssey.

• Jibreel23(talk) 20:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Fixed the grammatical error and added a quote box. As for your second suggestion, I don't want too much information of Super Mario 64 DS in the Super Mario 64 article, since Super Mario 64 DS has its own article and adding too much might make it a coatrack article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolperson177 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Jibreel23: Hello, so are there more things you're concerned about? I've done some of the things you've suggested. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Coolperson177: Nothing else at the moment, but I will review it more and let you know.Jibreel23 (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Jibreel23, 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) 12:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I support this article becoming a featured article Jibreel23 (talk) Jibreel23 (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Spot-checks not included.

• Source 4 - what makes ChuApp a high-quality reliable source?
  • Sources (at least ones that aren't wikis) that mention the release date of the iQue Player are hard to find, but I'll take another look for a better source. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  There's one by The A.V. Club but it only says that iQue debuted in November 2003 and Mario 64 with it. FrB.TG (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  @FrB.TG: After some more looking, I found this from the EE Times. Unfortunately, there's no link to a profile of the author (Yoshiko Hara), however, the magazine is owned by Aspencore, which describe themselves on their about us page as "the voice of record for the electronics industry". What do you think? — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  This seems to be a better source but it only discusses the then-upcoming launch of iQue. Nowhere does it say that it was released in November that year or that Super Mario 64 was part of it. The link I suggested above at least provides the info that it was in 2003. FrB.TG (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  Right, in that case, I'm removing the iQue Player from the release date section in the infobox. The sources that claim they know the dates conflict anyways (November 16th? 17th? 21st?). I'm just going to limit it to the release section. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 17:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: I'm so sorry for bothering you, but the iQue release date has recently been added back, sourced by iQue's website. I've let the change stand, but I just wanted to check if the source meets WP:PRIMARY. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 14:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, yes. If anything, it's much better than any other source you could possibly find on the information. What better source than the one straight from the horse's mouth? FrB.TG (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright then, thanks for the review! — Coolperson177 (t|c) 15:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Source 6 - the publisher needs linking and should be Nintendo of America, not Nintendo. According to archive.org that it links to, the title is "Super Mario 64 NUS-NSME-USA Manual", whereas it's called "Super Mario 64 Instruction Booklet" in the article.
  • Fixed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Source 9 - nintendo.co.jp is redundant when you have already listed Nintendo there.
  • Removed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Source 11, 132, 179 - The Guardian sources should have Guardian Media Group as their publisher.
  • Added publisher. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Source 6, 13, 15, 27 - you need to cite the book only once in a subsection (of References) called "bibliography" and use {{sfn}} to cite the four sources. If you're not familiar on how it works, see Robin Williams filmography as an example or read the documentation.
• Source 12, 14, 16, 18–20, 26 - same point as above.
• Source 35 - Andy Crane should be listed by his last name and first name as with other sources. Use |authorlink parameter to wiki-link him.
  • Did that. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Source 40 - Zelda Universe needs linking.
  • No it doesn't. "Zelda Universe" is a redirect to "Universe of The Legend of Zelda", not an article about the website. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Source 60 - same as the point about source 9.
  • Removed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Source 74 - the author is listed as K. Orland; it doesn't say if K. stands for Kyle.
  • Actually, clicking on the author's profile will show the unabbreviated first name. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Source 85 - I don't see an indication that the issue is called "Now Playing - September 1996". In archive.org, it's called Nintendo Power.
  • That's not the title of the issue, it's the title of the chapter. Is it not supposed to be like that? — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Source 95 - a |via= parameter is needed and should have Newspapers.com.
  • Added |via= parameter. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Source 121 - zoonami.com is unneeded when you have Zoonami as publisher.
  • Removed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Source 123 - it is The New York Times.
  • Fixed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Source 162 - same point as source 121.
  • Fixed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Source 164 - what makes Notebookcheck a high-quality reliable source? FrB.TG (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Looking back, I'm not entirely sure why I even added that since the Kotaku article already states pretty much the same things. I removed it. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Just interjecting, but "you need to cite the book only once in a subsection (of References) called "bibliography" and use {{sfn}} to cite the four sources. If you're not familiar on how it works, see Robin Williams filmography as an example or read the documentation" is not required. There is not a requirement that books be treated this way nor that sfn be used. (And using "bibliography" as a section header for that is discouraged anyway by the MOS - see MOS:NOTES for information. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    • The sfn part is definitely not needed (just a personal preference I guess) but I do think listing the book once in a subsection is better than repetitively citing it in references. FrB.TG (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
      • I went with your suggestion since I started editing the article before Ealdgyth's reply. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review passes based on formatting and reliability. My concerns have been properly addressed and I found no sign of copyvio or close-paraphrasing. FrB.TG (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Pan Am Flight 7

Nominator(s): RecycledPixels (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Pan Am Flight 7 is about an airline flight from San Francisco to Honolulu that never reached its destination. The article describes the flight, important details about the aircraft, the enormous search and rescue operation that was carried out when contact was lost with the aircraft, and details of the investigation that was carried out using a few pieces of recovered wreckage and the remains of a few of the victims. To this day, the cause of the crash has never been determined. Although there have been various theories, this incident remains an unsolved mystery.

After its initial expansion and rewrite, the article appeared on the WP front page's Did You Know? section. It later received a GA review by @The Rambling Man: and was promoted, and after a couple years of rest, recently finished a Peer review where @Zetana: and @Gerald Waldo Luis: jumped in and made some helpful suggestions for improvement. And course, there have been dozens of other editors who have made improvements and suggestions in the past couple of years. At this point, I feel it's ready to appear on the main page in the Featured Article slot. Do you? RecycledPixels (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Image and source pass

Images have appropriate purpose, caption, alt, and licenses. Sources are all reliable and I have archived them, except for Google Books as it's naturally unarchivable. I will be posting comments soon, though it will definitely be short since most of my concerns have been addressed at the PR. GeraldWL 07:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• This would be RecycledPixels' first FA so a source check will be needed as well, assuming that the nomination gets supports. (t · c) buidhe 10:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  I have checked all the sources during the PR, they all support the claims of the article and has nothing wrong. If that's what you mean by source check. GeraldWL 10:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comments by Heartfox

• Why aren't the Newspapers.com links clippings so everyone can view them instead of just those with a subscription? I'm also confused by the date formatting. The prose uses month-first but the references are day-first. The article was first written using month-first and the first reference used month first so as a reader this inconsistency is a bit odd, especially the refs are not using year-month-day. Heartfox (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Date format changed to be consistent m-d-y. GeraldWL 01:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• My initial response to the newspapers.com clipping issue was, first, that it wasn't possible to do that for articles spanning multiple pages, and second, that the publisher preferred that I link directly to their page since I've obtained my Newspapers.com account through the Wikipedia Library. However, in searching for some answers, I found some enlightenment on the WP:Newspapers.com page that showed that I was wrong on both parts, so I'll put some time into converting those reference URL links into clippings that can be accessed by anyone. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I created a newspapers.com clip for the first reference in the list just as a test, and it doesn't look like it is worth the effort involved. The clip is here so you can see what I mean. The article, which is nearly a full page, when you view the clip, is so tiny that it is impossible to read. The only way I see to increase the size is to click on the article image, which takes me to my newspapers.com account so I can zoom in, which is the same exact page I had originally linked. If I go in private browsing mode, when I click on the image, I'm prompted to sign up for a Newspapers.com account if I want to zoom in. So I don't think the clippings feature is an improvement, and will hold off converting more unless there is a compelling argument that doing so is an improvement. RecycledPixels (talk) 07:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

That's an issue for articles spanning multiple columns, but it's not an issue for articles that are one or a few columns wide—which is most articles. Also, for multiple pages, you can do references like this: "Busy Summer is in Sight for Many Carolina Profs". UNC News. Vol. 1, no. 3. Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 23 June 1960. pp. 4–5. Archived from the original on 30 March 2021 – via Newspapers.com. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comments by SandyGeorgia

• "At the time of Flight 7, he had accumulated 11,314 hours of flight experience ... " makes no sense; Flight 7 was a regularly scheduled flight (it operated more than once). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• SandyGeorgia, I think you might've misunderstood the sentence. What it means is, as of the date of Pan Am 7, the pilot had flown for 11,314 hours in total. GeraldWL 03:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Convert? "The flight plan called for a cruising altitude of 10,000 feet ... " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Done.

Comments from Mike Christie

Support. The article is well-written and concise. I have a couple of suggestions that don't affect my support.

• There's an article in the San Francisco Examiner for November 10 that gives some human interest background on the passengers; I had a look through it to see if there was anything worth including. I think it might be worth mentioning that two entire families were killed in the crash.

  I've used that article as a reference in a couple of the crew members, so there is a link to it in the references from the article. There is a longstanding convention in the Aviation WikiProject to not name any of the occupants of the aircraft except the flight crew or people who are notable enough to have their own WP article. RecycledPixels (talk)

• The evidence of carbon monoxide poisoning seems definite enough to mention in the lead, and I think the information about William Payne's insurance could also be mentioned in the lead.

  It's one of several theories, none of which could definitely be pointed out as the primary cause of the accident. None of them are mentioned in the lead, because they're all reasonable guesses but with no conclusive evidence as to which one is true. The talk page of the article includes a similar discussion I had with someone else about a month or so ago. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

OK on both points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Gerald Waldo Luis

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 01:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

* I feel like "The flight's fate" and beyond can be given its own paragraph, to give it a sense of equality. Right now, it's 9 lines vs 4 lines. Breaking that apart can make it 3v6v4. I also think the whole search merits its own paragraph; the first paragraph will thus be a kind of encapsulation of what happened to the plane. "Honolulu from San Francisco" --> "Honolulu from San Francisco" "recovered about 900 miles (1,400 km) northeast of Honolulu." Link Honolulu here The map can be given a caption saying "Map showing the flight's origin, planned destination, and crash site" or of the sort "and New York City before"-- add comma between "City" and "before" "Honolulu International Airport" --> "Daniel K. Inouye International Airport, located at Honolulu, Hawaii" The airport wasn't renamed Daniel K. Inouye International Airport until 2016. Between 1951 and 2016 it was the Honolulu International Airport. But wikilinks exist to the airport article, where readers can familiarize themselves with the airport and its history if needed. RecycledPixels (talk) "Romance of the Skies" --> "Clipper Romance of the Skies" "Pan Am notified the Coast Guard" --> "Pan Am notified the United States Coast Guard" United States Coast Guard is linked at the first use in the lead section. Done. "in more than ninety minutes" --> "in more than 90 minutes" "After another ninety minutes" --> "After another 90 minutes" You are inconsistent with your referrals to the Coast Guard; sometimes it's "the Cost Guard", at others its "the U.S. Coast Guard". Corrected. The first usage in the article, in the lead section, is identified and spelled out as United States Coast Guard. All subsequent references use "Coast Guard". RecycledPixels (talk) Link Pacific Ocean Pacific Ocean linked at first use in the lead section. RecycledPixels (talk) Done. "ordered the USS Philippine Sea"-- drop the "the" per the article, which doesn't use "the". As well as for "the USS John R. Craig and the USS Orleck", as well as "commander of the Philippine Sea". "the Navy" --> "the United States Navy" "Upolu Point" --> "ʻUpolu Point" At "eight coast guard vessels", it must be "Coast Guard" "On November 14, the crew of a Navy search plane observed wreckage and bodies in the water, about 900 miles (1,400 km) northeast of Honolulu, and about 90 miles (140 km) north of the flight's intended track." I think you can move [6]:2 to the next sentence, then remove the [18] ref in this sentence. Link Rear admiral (United States) "Investigations by the CAB" --> "Investigations by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB)" CAB acronym introduced and linked in the lead section, all other uses of Civil Aeronautics Board used CAB. RecycledPixels (talk) Done. Link Amazon basin, decapitalize "B" "noting in his report that "you could duplicate loud noise by stepping hard on door between cockpit and cargo. Also loud bang could be duplicated by dropping forward toilet lid."" This can be paraphrased to "arguing in his report that the noises can be duplicated." "Pan Am Flight 6, the Sovereign of the Skies, ditches" --> "Pan Am Flight 6, whose aircraft was named the Sovereign of the Skies, ditching" Remove link to Honolulu International Airport, remove "International Airport" for consistency "The captain of the flight was Gordon H. Brown, age 40, who had been flying for Pan Am since his 1942 graduation from Northeastern University. At the time of Flight 7, he had accumulated 11,314 hours of flight experience, including 674 hours in the Stratocruiser. The first officer of the flight, William P. Wygant, was 37 and had been employed with the company since 1946. He had a total of 7,355 flying hours, including 4,018 on the Stratocruiser." Remove the references in these sentences, as they're covered in the next sentence. As well as in "He had a total of 2,683 flight hours, including 1,552 in the Stratocruiser." Left the first one in because part of that sentence was sourced to the San Francisco Examiner article and the information was not duplicated in the CAB report. RecycledPixels (talk) "Second officer William H. Fortenberry, acting as pilot-navigator on the flight, had worked for Pan Am since 1951 since graduating from Spartanburg Community College in South Carolina." Move the ref 28 to the final sentence, remove all references, in this sentence. Same issue with Fortenberry, with one part cited from the SF Examiner article, which contains a fair amount of "human interest" details about the crew members that I didn't feel was relevant enough to include in the article, but may interest someone who looks up that reference. RecycledPixels (talk) I have addressed and/or responded to the comments so far in this section. Let me know if you would like to discuss it further. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Before I move on with my last batch of comments, I'd like to say that the lead is different from the body. Leads are like summaries of an article, whereas body is the core content. So even if the lead does link to the CAB, it must be repeated again in the first mention of it in the body. Other GAs and FAs have also followed this style, and you have too in a way: you linked Pan Am in the first section despite there being a mention in the lead. GeraldWL 01:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Ok, I took another look at WP:REPEATLINK and saw the mention that an object may be linked a second time in its first use after the lead section, so I've adjusted those responses and made those changes. Thanks. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Awesome! Only thing I did left to resolve this first batch is extending "Coast Guard" in the first body mention. Now moving on the last batch. GeraldWL 08:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC) "By the time the carrier returned".. "the carrier" can be trimmed to "it" since "the carrier" has been mentioned a few words ago. "an engine cowl support ring"-- you mean Towned ring? I believe you meant to link to Townend ring. No. See Cowling for a description of an engine cowling. I've seen "cowl" and "cowling" used interchangeably in aviation writing, I used the word "cowl" because that is what the original source used. I assume that an engine cowl support ring is something that attaches the cowl to the airframe although I have not specifically researched what the exact part is. I can link "engine cowl" to the cowling article for clarity, though. RecycledPixels (talk) "Representatives from the airline" --> "Representatives from Pan Am" "In their investigation, CAB officials".. "officials" --> "investigators" for consistency "levels of carbon monoxide in 14".. "in" --> "within" Not done, "in" is a better preposition in this case. "Investigators conducted".. "Investigators" --> "CAB investigators" since it's the first mention in the paragraph. You often switch between "the CAB" and "CAB". Must be consistent. When used as a noun, it is "the CAB", as in "The CAB concluded that that the somewhat cursory investigations...". When used as an adjective, as in "CAB Investigators found several instances..." there is no "the" preceding it. I wasn't able to find any inconsistencies there, and the Civil Aeronautics Board article uses "The CAB" when using CAB as a noun (except for one inconsistency in the "offices" section) and "CAB" as an adjective, as in "CAB Chairman". Link turbocharger "In 1958, the following year" --> "In 1958, a year after the crash of Flight 7" "The passenger, William Payne, 41, of Scott Bar, California" --> "The passenger, a 41-year-old man from Scott Bar, California named William Payne" I think you can put the inflation adjustments as footnotes, since they're merely inflations and it makes the prose unecessarily longer; those who want to know can hover over the Efn. That's all I have for this article; if all of them are resolved I'll support. GeraldWL 07:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Thanks again, I've implemented those suggestions or responded here to a couple that I didn't implement. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: in case you didn't see my response. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry there, the watchlist got piled with other stuff that I didn't see this. It looks all good for me now, so I'm supporting this FAC. GeraldWL 01:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

• "a massive search" seems a little POV/tone problem.

  Changed "massive" to "extensive".

• Honolulu is linked twice in the lead but to different targets, I would suggest expanding the airport link(s) to avoid confusion.

  The link to the airport was an edit suggested by Gerald Waldo Luis in this FAC. I prefer the visible wording of Honolulu and San Francisco but he suggested linking it to the airport instead of the city. I didn't see a problem with that, but I don't want the long names of the airports to appear in the first sentence of the article, because it's just clutter to me and a bit over-precise. When I get on a plane to fly to Honolulu, I don't say I'm going to the Honolulu Airport, I say I'm going to Honolulu. So not sure how to address this suggestion.

  My only guide is to not have two different articles piped to the same visible text. It's not fair on our readers. By all means reword it accordingly, even just adding "airport" or something. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Changed it to the names of the airports involved. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Infobox, not seeing in ref 1 the exact geolocation of the crash mentioned?

  The wrong source is cited. The final CAB report gives a probable point of impact on page 5, and that is probably where ASN got the coordinates, that don't appear in the current version of the page. I have updated the citation for those coordinates.

• That ref also says 937 miles/1500 km which is a bit more than the values mentioned in the lead.

  That's wrong, see next comment.

• Isn't the crash site "approximate"? I assume that since it took several days, the wreckage/bodies etc could have moved by dozens of miles?

  So there are actually two data points here that have problems in the article. The first is where the Philippine Sea found the bodies and the wreckage, which the Oakland Tribune article cited in the body describes as "about 900 miles northeast of Honolulu" and the CAB report on page 2 describes as "some 940 miles east of Honolulu and 90 miles north of the flight's intended track". Later in the CAB report (page 5) we find that the wreckage was found at 29° 36'N, 144° 3'W. (29.60, -144.05 in decimal notation). Diving into OR-land, I used an online distance calculator, and using 21.332689, -157.919769 as the coordinates of the Honolulu Airport, I end up with a distance of 899 nautical miles (1034 miles, 1664 km). The CAB report (also page 5) further gives a probable location of the actual point of impact of 29° 26'N, 143° 34' W (29.434, -143.567), based on known ocean current vectors and reported winds. That's 916 nm from Honolulu airport, (1054 mi, 1696 km). What I don't know is whether the distances "from Honolulu" describe the distance from the Honolulu Airport, the geographic center of the city, the edge of the city, or some other location near Honolulu. None of the sources specify, so "about 900 miles" is about as close as I'm comfortable specifying. But looking into these questions has identified that the CAB report is reporting in nautical miles, so my conversions were all wrong, so I'm updating the article accordingly. I don't think the difference between "about 900 nautical miles" and "916 nautical miles from Honolulu Airport" is significant enough to affect the understanding of the article, and the more precise figures should raise WP:OR concerns. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• The "10–29" suffix to the aircraft type is only in the infobox, I suggest it's in the prose too.
• Could link flight plan.
• "10,000 feet (3.0 km) " I know Sandy asked for conversion (and I know we know that flight altitudes are always given in feet) but I suggest the conversion be made to metres rather than km.

  Lol...I didn't see that!

• "aircraft from Honolulu conducted" could link actual Honolulu here as the first time after the lead.
• "was just malfunctioning" no need for "just".
• "anti-submarine planes" is there a link?

  Not that I could find. I figured if there is one, it would be in the Lockheed P-3 Orion article, and I don't see anything like that other than generic Anti-submarine warfare.

• "ordered USS John R. Craig and" this is piped to a redirect back to itself?

  Almost, except there is markup in it to italicize the name of the ship (but not USS) that would break the hyperlink. I kept the pipe but moved the link from the redirect to the actual article.

• "the most promising sign" again, POV/tone issues here, promising to whom?
• Both 500 kHz and International distress frequency have articles, worth linking for me.
• What's a "dye marker"?

  Linked to distress signal#Maritime. It's a packet of brightly-colored dye that's put in the water that can be seen by aircraft for a short period of time (like 30 minutes).

• What are "merchant ships"?

  Linked.

• "about 900 miles (1,400 km) northeast" see earlier comment.
• " a Boeing 377 Stratocruiser" see above, should you add the 10-29 suffix here?

  Normally, I wouldn't, but since this section is a fairly technical discussion of the aircraft I added it.

• "Pan Am Flight 6, whose aircraft..." that caption is a fragment so no full stop.
• "was the second worst accident involving the Stratocruiser" ever or at the time?

  Both.

• Might link "centrifugal force".
• Probably should link "feathering" to something like Propeller (aeronautics)#Feathering.
• "The flight carried 36 passengers..." reinforce "Flight 7..." here as the previous para was about a totally different flight.
• "Thirty two of " don't we normally "Thirty-two" that?
• "The flight carried 36 passengers and 8 crew members on the flight to Honolulu.[6]: 1  Upon arrival, 20 of the passengers were scheduled to disembark, while 16 would have continued onward at least as far as Tokyo. At Honolulu, 17 passengers were waiting to board the plane for the next segment of the flight.[5] Thirty two of the passengers were from the United States, one was from Australia, one was from Japan, one was from Turkey, and one was from Indonesia.[26][27]" does the maths work here for these passenger numbers?

  Yes. When the plane crashed on the way from San Francisco to Honolulu, there were 36 passengers. 20 of them would have left the flight while 16 of them would have remained on for the next leg. 20 + 16 = still 36. After the 20 passengers left the flight, a different 17 passengers would have gotten on for the next leg, in addition to the ones who stayed on the plane. But they never did because the plane never arrived. Of the 36 passengers who crashed, 32 were from US, 1 from Australia, 1 from Japan, 1 from Turkey, 1 from Indonesia. Still 36. I changed the order of the sentences around to hopefully make it less confusing.

• "first officer" link?
• "since 1951 since" ugh, repetitive.
• Is there a link for Flight engineer?
• "flown to the carrier to begin" what carrier?

  Philippine Sea, identified in the previous sentence. Linked earlier in the article.

• "overhaul station" what's that?

  I'm guessing it's a maintenance facility for engine overhauls and other time-consuming repairs performed on aircraft, separate from where quick repairs and inspections would be performed. The CAB report uses the term "The Pan American overhaul base at San Francisco" while the San Francisco Examiner reference only called it "a warehouse at San Francisco International Airport".

• "embedded in a floating pillow" picky, but with all this technical talk, one might be convinced that a "floating pillow" was part of the aircraft, rather than an actual pillow which was floating on the surface of the water...

  I personally assumed it was more like a seat cushion that was designed to act as a floatation device as in modern aircraft, but "floating pillow" was as descriptive as the report got. A different article mentioned that seat cushions were recovered. I Reworded it.

• "one and a quarter pounds (1 kg) of" 1.25 lb -> around about 560g, not 1 kg.
• "debris came up negative" - "came up" is a little colloquial.
• "knocked unconscious or stunned by " is "stunned" a medical condition?

  The source doesn't get any more specific than being knocked unconscious or stunned by the crash. I assume "stunned" includes, for example, a traumatic brain injury that does not result in unconsciousness. Such an injury can leave the victim dazed and confused and unable to care for themselves. Another might be a spinal cord injury, but those are just guesses on my part. But basically I interpret it that the investigators were saying that the victims weren't necessarily unconscious when they drowned.

• "In 1949, Albert Guay had" maybe "Six years earlier", or pop these into chronological order?
• "a total of $230,000[b] in" put the inflation in the article, not a footnote (like the conversions).

  A different FAC reviewer suggested that putting them in footnotes would make the article less cluttered.

• "n 1958, a year after the crash of Flight 7, ..." why not "A year after the crash..."?
• "Helena, Montana had" comma after Montana.
• Inflate the following monetary values too.
• "from Scott Bar, California named" comma after Cali.
• "filed a $300,000[d] damage" see above.

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I've addressed or commented on all off the items here. Thank you for the time looking at the article and for your feedback. If you see anything else or find something else I've missed, let me know. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Harry

I know nothing of this particular incident, but I've watched a lot of Air Crash Investigation!

• There are some details that add words without improving the reader's understanding here: Admiral Felix Stump, commander-in-chief of the United States Pacific Fleet, ordered USS Philippine Sea to join the search from the port of Long Beach, California, with its helicopters and radar-equipped anti-submarine planes.[6] A few hours later, the United States Navy also ordered USS John R. Craig and USS Orleck to depart from San Diego to assist the search. You could lose almost all the names and places except the ships. Eg, "USS Philippine Sea joined the search from Long Beach, California, with its helicopters and radar-equipped anti-submarine planes. It was joined a few hours later by USS John R. Craig and USS Orleck to depart from San Diego". That reduces your word count by a third but doesn't remove any important detail.
• On June 18, 1957, it had suffered a runaway propeller as it departed San Francisco. The crew was unable to feather the propeller and performed an emergency landing back at San Francisco some redundancy/repetition that could be eliminated with careful copy editing.
• to determine if any of the passengers if → whether
• For what it's worth, I respectfully disagree with TRM and think the inflation sums work well in footnotes to avoid cluttering the prose.

Little to criticise really. A tidy article that does a good job of presenting the facts available. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I have made the changes you suggested. Let me know if you see anything else. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

One more query: should the ships have a definite article, eg the USS Philippine Sea? I don't know the answer to this and it doesn't affect my support. Just something to ponder. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The US Navy Style Guide says to not use "the" in front of a ship's name: "USS San Jose", not "the USS San Jose". I'm pretty sure this came up recently on one of the articles I had submitted for review, I just can't find it at the moment. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, here's what I was looking for... Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Using ship names in articles. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

1838 Jesuit slave sale

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 05:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This article has been a long time in the making and is long overdue. It is about a fascinating historical event that has become the subject of much inquiry in recent years. I believe the article is now at featured quality and suitable for submission. Ergo Sum 05:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• The switcher does not appear to be tab-accessible - suggest moving this into the body as a more standard multi-image
  • What do you mean by tab-accessible? Ergo Sum 01:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I was referring to [42] but I think I was mistaken on this point - although I still think it makes sense to present this in a multi-image inline, it's less pressing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
      • I tried to think of the best way to present the images, but I since the images really don't do much as thumbnails (you can't really read the text without clicking on and enlarging the images), I think having all the images presented at once might not be terribly useful for a reader. Ergo Sum 02:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Why then is it useful in the present form? All that changes is you need more clicks and the rest of the content gets pushed down. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
          • I think it's the same logic of having an image of the first page of the Constitution of the United States in its infobox. It gives readers a visual idea of what kind of document represents the ideas discussed in the article, e.g. on parchment, handwritten, its formality, etc. And, if readers are so inclined, they can flip through the whole document, especially to the signature pages and list of slaves, which are of interest. Ergo Sum 12:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks pretty bad on my screen too[43], and it appears the long row of pages is pushing other images down, so that the two photos of building are now in the reference section, with references superimposed over them. I would also suggest a better solution would be some sort of gallery or multiple image template. FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Having just the first page, as in the constitution article, would also work. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I've done a bit of reorganizing. What do you think now? Ergo Sum 02:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Definitely better. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Yep! FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Don't use fixed px size
  • For some reason, it seems I can't use an upright scaling factor. It has no effect on the image's size. Ergo Sum 01:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
    • It does so long as your default is set to something other than that. Perhaps that is an issue with the switcher template? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
      • I think I found a solution. Added |frameless, which allows an upright scaling factor to be added and have effect, but it seems it's not really necessary anyway. Ergo Sum 02:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• When and where were the articles of agreement first published?
  • Corrected the license. Ergo Sum 01:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• File:Mulledy_Hall_1898.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Corrected the license. Ergo Sum 01:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
    • For both this and the above, what checks were made to determine these were unpublished? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Did a reverse Google Image search, checked the image links in Internet Archive, and checked the major books about Georgetown University history. Ergo Sum 02:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisTheDude

• Making a start on this now but probably won't make it all the way through as I only have 15 minutes of my lunch break left :-)
• "Roothaan removed Mulledy as provincial" - feels like there's a word missing there, unless his title was simply "provincial".....?
  • Provincial is a common shorthand for provincial superior that the Jesuits use. I've added the full name of the position for clarity. Ergo Sum 01:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• I would merge the last two paragraphs of the lead as they are both very short
  • Done. Ergo Sum 01:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• That's all I got as far as the end of the "background" section. More later.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

More comments

• "It provided that 51 slaves would be sent to Alexandria, Virginia, immediately, where they were then shipped to Louisiana" => "It provided that 51 slaves would be sent to Alexandria, Virginia, immediately, where they would then be shipped to Louisiana"
  • Done. Ergo Sum 01:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• "Johnson allowed these slaves to remain in Maryland because he intended return" => "Johnson allowed these slaves to remain in Maryland because he intended to return"
  • Fixed. Ergo Sum 01:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• "Soon after the sale, Rooathaan decided that Mulledy should removed" => "Soon after the sale, Rooathaan decided that Mulledy should be removed"
  • Fixed. Ergo Sum 01:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• "published an article that brought the history of the Jesuits' and university's relationship with slavery came to national attention" => "published an article that brought the history of the Jesuits' and university's relationship with slavery to national attention"
  • Fixed. Ergo Sum 01:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• "On April 18, 2017, the DeGioia" => "On April 18, 2017, DeGioia"
  • Fixed. Ergo Sum 01:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• "apologized on behalf of their respective institutions institutions" - duplicated word
  • Fixed. Ergo Sum 01:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• That's what I got. An interesting read! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, ChrisTheDude. Glad you found it interesting. Ergo Sum 01:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• I would give Mulledy's full name in the lead, and link his article from there.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 16:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• "on the Lord Baltimore, Cecil Calvert's, voyage" and "from the Lord Baltimore in 1636": can we make this just "on Lord Baltimore's voyage" and "from Lord Baltimore in 1636"? I don't think we need the "the", and his name is available via the link if a reader is interested.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 02:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Due to these extensive landholdings, the Catholic superiors at the Propaganda Fide in Rome had come to view the American Jesuits negatively for living opulently like manorial lords." Two -ly words near each other is unharmonious, but another issue is that the reader takes this at face value, but finds out in the next sentence that it is a mistaken view. And I think we could lose "like manorial lords" or "opulently"; they mean more or less the same thing. Can we use a verb like "assumed" or find another way to warn the reader what's coming?
  • I've tweaked the sentence slightly to make it flow better. I'd be hesitant to rephrase because I think it might just become wordier at the cost of clarity. I also think opulence and manorial lords are both necessary because they communicate different things; simply saying like a manorial lord could mean a variety of things and saying only opulently does not communicate exactly the way they were viewed. I'm not really sure a preview is necessary since the contradiction occurs in the very next sentence, which begins with a transition. Ergo Sum 02:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• "as a canonical visitor in 1820": I think most readers won't realize that this "visitor" is there to find and correct abuses; a couple of words of clarification would be good.
  • Added a brief word of explanation. Ergo Sum 02:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• "The condition of slaves on the plantations varied over time, as did the condition of the Jesuits living with them. While Kenney found the slaves facing arbitrary discipline, a meager diet, pastoral neglect, and engaging in vice, by the 1830s, their physical and religious conditions had improved considerably." Does the first sentence give us any information not in the second sentence? And instead of "While" for the second sentence the date would help the reader, since we are comparing decades. How about tweaking the sentence order here to mention Kenney's visit at the end, instead of in the middle? That naturally gives us the 1820 date for comparison with the 1830s.
  • On second look, I think it makes sense to split this into two sentences. 02:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• "The Maryland Jesuits, having been elevated from a mission to the status of province in 1833": "province" clearly has some specific meaning in the Society of Jesus; is there a suitable link?
  • Linked. Ergo Sum 02:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Not all of the 272 slaves intended to be sold to Louisiana met that fate. In total, only 206 are known to have been transported to Louisiana, while 91 remained in Maryland." Reading the rest of the paragraph I see how the arithmetic works, but can we make it clearer on first reading that 91 + 206 is not intended to equal 272? Perhaps delay giving the number 91 until after the explanation. I see there's a footnote, but something inline would be better.
  • Added a bit of explanation to the sentence. Ergo Sum 02:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• "There was outcry from numerous Maryland Jesuits": this sounds wrong to my ear. I assume you're avoiding "an outcry" because it's multiple Jesuits? I think that would be better, but if you don't like that I think another word or a rephrase is needed. Also, the second clause as structured ought to be referring to the subject of the first clause, but here that's "outcry". How about "Numerous Maryland Jesuits considered the sale to be immoral and were outraged, and many of them wrote..."? Or ""Numerous Maryland Jesuits were outraged by the sale, which they considered to be immoral, and many of them wrote..."?
  • Went with your phrasing. Ergo Sum 02:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• "However, the remaining $90,000 did go to funding Jesuit formation": how can this be squared with the statement in the next paragraph that the Jesuits never received the full balance of the sale money?
  • That was sloppy math on my part. I've changed it to just the remainder, since it is unclear/unknown how much was actually received. Ergo Sum 02:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Johnson's sale of his slaves in 1844 is mentioned twice, once in the financial outcome section and once in the subsequent fate section. I think if you combine these sections under a title such as "Outcome" you could reorganize this a little and avoid the duplication.
  • I think it's worth keeping them separate, since they deal with quite different subjects: one is finances and the other is the "human factor." It's really only a minimal duplication, as it stands. Ergo Sum 02:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

    OK. I tweaked the phrasing so the reader is aware we're referring to something that has already been referred to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• "While the 1838 slave sale gave rise to scandal at the time, the event largely faded out of the public awareness over time." Can we avoid "...at the time...over time"?
  • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 02:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, Mike Christie. Sorry for the delay. Ergo Sum 02:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Support. My issues have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review

Coming up. JBchrch talk 04:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• The correct hyperlink for ref 44 has changed, it's now https://gu272.americanancestors.org/historical-timeline. JBchrch talk 14:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Updated. Ergo Sum 22:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• I have the same problem for ref 29, but maybe it's me: is it possible that the hyperlink has changed? JBchrch talk 14:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Hmm, it does seem that that website has moved around some of its pages, changing their addresses. The old page redirects to the homepage and this other page, which appears to be a cached version of the old page, doesn't seem to be working at the moment. It might start working in the future, but since I can't find another location of the old page right now, I'm going to set the archive link as the active one. Ergo Sum 22:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks, that works. JBchrch talk 23:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• The 1838 slave sale returned to the public's awareness in the mid-2010s, due to new attention paid to two buildings on Georgetown University's campus named after Thomas Mulledy and William McSherry. Is this sourced?
  • Not really. I meant it as a general sentence to introduce the rest of the section, which would otherwise seem a bit disjointed. I suppose I could trim it a bit to minimize any perception of OR. What do you think? Ergo Sum 22:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I see. To me, the paragraph seems legible if we just drop the whole thing altogether, but I don't want to encroach on your style too much. So yes, if you could trim it a little bit, that would be great. For instance, if we just keep The 1838 slave sale returned to the public's awareness in the mid-2010s, that is IMO sufficient. JBchrch talk 23:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
      • I think that works. Trimmed it. Ergo Sum 00:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Aren't there any chapters from Facing Georgetown's History: A Reader on Slavery, Memory, and Reconciliation that would be worth citing in the article? JBchrch talk 14:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I only have access to the preview through Google Books. But, from the table of contents, it seems that everything that is encyclopedic (i.e. not a primary source or purely opinion) has already been cited. There isn't anything that strikes me as lacking. Ergo Sum 22:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• OK thanks will AGF on this one. JBchrch talk 23:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, JBchrch. Ergo Sum 22:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Ergo Sum. There's only one point outstanding above, and no other problems, so I will move to the spot checks. I will do about 10-15. JBchrch talk 23:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Spot checks

• 2 OK
• 5a OK
• 8a OK
• 18b OK
• 24f Does the source say that it was contrary to Roothan’s orders? 90k out of the 115k were still allocated to training.
  • I've modified the citation to include p. 46, which explains that Roothaan said all the money had to go to Jesuit training. Ergo Sum 02:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks, I had seen that part, but does it say that all the money had to go to training and that the actions were contrary to Roothan's order? I have not read Cooran's primary source but perhaps it was acceptable under his orders ("that the money be invested for the support of Jesuits in training") that 20% of it go to repay some debts? JBchrch talk 03:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• The source does not explicitly say that his order said all of the money should go to training. It just simply says that the money should go to training, which in my mind implies all. Ergo Sum 13:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• In that case, would you be willing to change the "contrary to"? JBchrch talk 15:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure it would change the sentence much. Even removing that, the sentence would still indicate that the money was spent against Roothaan's order. Ergo Sum 01:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  Ok, do you have a proposition about how you could tweak the wording to match the source more closely? JBchrch talk 01:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't really see an issue with how it is phrased now. I think it accurately reflects the text. The text (pp. 46-47) says that Roothaan said the money had to go to Jesuit training and that part of it didn't go to that, so I think it's not a stretch to say that that was contrary to his order. Ergo Sum 02:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm reading that Roothaan said that the proceeds needed to go to training, and the money was then allocated at 80% to training and at 20% to repay some debts. The concept that the actions were in contradiction to Roothaan's instruction is not evident from the sourcing. I don't intend to fail this source review for this point, so I'll let you decide what you want to do. JBchrch talk 02:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• 26 OK. I’m reading "the sale got the Jesuits out of an unprofitable business and raised much-needed capital for their operations". Is this covered somewhere in the article?
  • The unprofitable business was the plantations and, by extension, slavery itself. The floundering finances of the plantations are discussed in the Background section. Ergo Sum 02:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  👍 JBchrch talk 03:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• 27d OK
• 31 OK
• 47 OK
• 48 OK
• 51c OK
• 67 OK
• 70 OK

JBchrch talk 02:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Nizar ibn al-Mustansir

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 15:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a Fatimid prince who should have become imam and caliph at the death of his father, al-Mustansir, in 1094, but was thwarted by the machinations of the powerful vizier al-Afdal. Nizar led a revolt in Alexandria, but was ultimately defeated and killed. Given the close intertwining of religious and political leadership in the Fatimid-sponsored Isma'ili faith, this succession dispute also caused one of the major rifts in Isma'ilism, with the supporters of Nizar (among whom were the famous Assassins) breaking off to form the Nizari sect, against the supporters of the puppet caliph, al-Mu'stali. The article was rewritten from scratch in January 2020, and became GA shortly after. It has been edited with some slight additions and improvements since. I think that by now it is comprehensive enough for FA. I also hope that it provides sufficient context to the uninitiated reader, but of course any suggestions for improvement are welcome. Constantine ✍ 15:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• The succession diagram is not currently legible - suggest presenting this using a chart template rather than as an image
  • I've created Template:Nizari-Hafizi-Tayyibi schism and used that instead.
• Don't use fixed px size
  • Done, since no image is now used apart from the infobox.
• File:1a_Fatimid_Coin_of_Imam_Nizar.jpg: can we confirm the institute has released the image under that license? Also a tag for the coin itself will be needed
  • That is a good question. I have sent an email to the IIS and am awaiting a reply.
• File:Shiite_Calligraphy_symbolising_Ali_as_Tiger_of_God.svg: what's the copyright status of the original design? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The original png is properly licensed, but the question is whether the png creator also drew the design. Such zoomorphic representations of Ali are fairly common for centuries now, however, and given that the image has been online on WP since 2008, I don't know that we can trace it. I am pinking the original user, Ishvara7, just in case. Constantine ✍ 13:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, it's been two weeks now, and no response to my email. How shall we proceed? The coin designitself is obviously PD (old and non-original design), and IIRC coins are considered two-dimensional works of art, hence their photos fall under PD-Art (I've added the tag to the file), so the copyright situation should be clear (unless I am mistaken). On the calligraphy file, I don't know how to best proceed. Constantine ✍ 10:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

PD-art cannot be used for coins - see commons:Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Photograph_of_an_old_coin_found_on_the_Internet. As for the calligraphy, can a pre-2008 model be located? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: OK, then I will remove the coin image pending a possible reply, as its copyright status is unclear. On the calligraphy, I just found the original from as Sotheby's action. Anonymous, Persia 19th/20th century, I suppose it qualifies as PD. Constantine ✍ 14:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: a small reminder :) Constantine ✍ 11:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The calligraphy image needs tagging reflecting the status of the original design. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Support from 54129 BC

• Suggest paragraphing the lead, a possible break is at /Many Isma'ilis, especially in Persia. Also tweak the first sentence of which, it's quite complex  :)

• Good point, done.

• "Internal turmoils led the dynasty close" -- something like "Internal turmoil threatened the dynasty..." or something.

• Rephrased.

• "Likely involved" -- you mean in its planning, or that he was sent elsewhere as well? If the latter, then you've already said the sons were being scattered.

• Changed, hopefully clearer now. I also discovered that I had not associated this event with the one mentioned later on, which are actually the same. Now fixed, hopefully without making it more convoluted than the whole succession affair already is. ;)

• "This flight" -- their absence/disappearance etc

• Rephrased.

• " by attempting to appoint another to the vizierate" -- this sounds redundant to me? As you've already said he was a figurehead.

• Good point, removed.

• "In 1022, al-Mu'stali's son...not even allowed to leave the palace" is a massive sentence, combining both colons and semicolons. Perhaps

In 1022, al-Mu'stali's son and successor, al-Amir (r. 1101–1130), issued a public proclamation, the al-Hidāya al-Āmiriyya, to defend his father's succession and counter the claims of Nizar's partisans. He put forth a number of arguments, such as the fact that when al-Mustansir sent his sons to the army, he did so by rank, those closest to Cairo being the highest. Abu Abdallah was to go to Acre, Abu'l-Qasim Muhammad (father of the Caliph al-Hafiz) to Ascalon, Nizar to Damietta, while al-Musta'li was not allowed to leave the palace.

There's a few linkable things in their too?

• You mean the various princes? Unfortunately they are mostly names to us, we don't have much information about them other than what is included here.

• If someone is immured, aren't they inevitably alive? Also—if you happen to know—was he later reinterred after the eventual collapse of the regime? (Or any other time of course.)

• True, and no, unfortunately, but very unlikely. The Fatimid regime was very anti-Nizari until its end, and its successors were Sunnis, with little interest in an Isma'ili pretender's burial place.

• New sentence at "A grand assembly of officials..."?

• Done.

• Might want to use a WP:NBSP at "as a ruler [...] it was the"

• Done.

• Avoid "to this day" per MOS:REALTIME.

• Done.

• " heralded the final decline " --- "final" is unnecessary here as it preceded an "eventual collapse".

• Removed.

• Thanks for this, nice article. SN54129 16:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Serial Number 54129, thanks a lot for your review, and I am glad you liked it! I've tried to address the points you raised, and have had to make some rewrites as to the dispersal of the princes. Please have another look. Constantine ✍ 14:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Very nicely done, Cplakidas, and thanks for the interesting points you made here, very informative. SN54129 14:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "a deep-seated enmity between the two men". Which two men? Of the three just mentioned.

• Fixed.

• "would preclude him from being sent to the army either way." What does "either way" mean in this context?

• This has been removed in a rewrite about the sending of the princes away from Cairo, please have a look.

• "Ibn Masal abandoned the city with most of the remaining treasure". Just checking that you mean that he abandoned both the city and the treasure.

• Indeed no. Rephrased.

• "where they formed a sort of opposition in exile". Not a Government in exile?

• No, there was no such attempt. None of Nizar's known sons is attested to have claimed the caliphal title or designated ministers etc.

• "dāʿı̄s and ḥujjas ('seals, proofs')." Should that be 'dāʿı̄s and ḥujjas ('seals', 'proofs').'?

• hujja means 'seal' or 'proof', da'i simply means missionary, as explained further above. Rephrased slightly to avoid confusion.

I have added some colour above to try and emphasise the change I was suggesting.

• Ah, of course. Fixed.

An excellent article. I expected no less. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the kind words, Gog the Mild, it means a lot. I've addressed the issues you raised, anything else? Constantine ✍ 15:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

One minor issue above outstanding, but insufficient to prevent my supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Gog the Mild! Constantine ✍ 16:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• I'm not keen on "(see below)" in article text; I think it would be better to give a very brief parenthetical gloss, and then give the details later in the succession section.

• Indeed. Done.

• "In 1022, al-Mu'stali's son and successor, al-Amir (r. 1101–1130), issued a public proclamation": presumably a typo for 1122? I tried checking other articles but I see the same date is given in Al-Musta'li

• Yes, of course. Fixed.

• Reading the first paragraph of the succession section, I didn't immediately realize that the enmity between Nizar and al-Afdal might have only been of a few months duration. According to our article on him, Badr al-Jamali's date of death is known; any reason not to use that? Do we know if the machinations that al-Maqrizi refers to were before or after Badr's death? The description of al-Afdal attempting to enter the palace on horseback refers to him as "the vizier", so it seems to be afterwards. If any of this can be recast in a more linear chronological way I think it would help readers unfamiliar with the material. Then "who himself had only recently succeeded" would be unnecessary, for example.

• Good point. Have rewritten this part.

• "whose birth had been publicly announced in 1160": surely 1060?

• Yes, fixed. Thanks.

• "In November, Ibn Masal": it's been a while since Ibn Masal was mentioned; how about a word or two to give the reader context? Maybe "In November, Nizar's military commander Ibn Masal" if that's an accurate description?

• Good suggestion, done.

• What's a writ of safety?

• Rephrased and clarified.

• "but the events surrounding al-Musta'li's accession was the first time": needs rephrasing; "events" is plural, but "were" won't work because the object is "the first time".

• Deleted 'the events surrounding' as superfluous

• "a convenient excuse to rid himself of Cairo's tutelage": I don't think "tutelage" is the best word here; it does mean a position of authority but has connotations of instruction. Perhaps just "rule"?

• Replaced with 'control'.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mike Christie and thanks for the very good suggestions. I think I've addressed them. Anything else? Constantine ✍ 10:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Support. All my concerns have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

• Someone rang for a source review??
• The one source in German shows a suitable number of academic libraries in the US holding it so it meets the test of being a high quality source. World Cat results
• All the other sources are from suitable academic publishers and presumably by experts in the field or they wouldn't be published by the publishers...
• It looks like "Walker, Paul E. (1995). "Succession to Rule in the Shiite Caliphate"." is actually "Walker, Paul E., Walker, Paul (1995). "Succession to Rule in the Shiite Caliphate"." according to JSTOR? But the top page of the article just says "Paul E. Walker"... odd...
• Spot checks (since I'm here...)
  • "Over the following decades, the Nizaris were among the most bitter enemies of the Musta'li rulers of Egypt." is sourced to Stern 1950 p. 20, which it supports.
  • "Given the pivotal role of the imam in the Isma'ili faith, this was of momentous importance: the issue of succession was not merely a matter of political intrigue, but also intensely religious. In the words of Stern, "on it depended the continuity of institutional religion as well as the personal salvation of the believer"." is sourced to Stern 1951 p. 194 which it supports (not just the quote, but the preceeding sentence also)
  • "There are indications that another of Nizar's sons, named Muhammad, left for Yemen." is sourced to Walker p. 256 which it supports.
• I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
• The one weirdness should not hold up promotion (it may just be JSTOR being .. weird... )

Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth, I can't explain the JSTOR discrepancy, likely some error in data input. Paul Walker is well known in the field, and is obviously the same person as Paul E. Walker. Constantine ✍ 10:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by AhmadLX

Seems very interesting. Just a few points below.

• In the 2nd para of "Life" little background is given of the turmoil, but the detail of which princes were sent to which places (which to me seems irrelevant) is given with detail.
• "until the Armenian commander Badr al-Jamali assumed power in 1073". At the first reading, it seems as if he was a commander in the Armenia region and seems weird that he became Fatimid vizier. Only after hovering over the link does it become clear. Maybe you should note that he was Fatimid commander of Armenian ethnicity. Also, that he was Armenian and a commander is given at the second mention; the first mention occurs without context and one wonders "who was he".
• al-Hidāya al-Āmiriyya → al-Hidaya al-Amiriyya; dāʿı̄ → da'i; qāḍī → qadi; al-Muṣṭafā li-Dīn Allāh → al-Mustafa li-Din Allah; amān → aman; daʿwa → da'wa; daʿwa jadīda → da'wa jadida; ḥujja → hujja; naṣṣ → nass; ʿiṣma → isma
• "According to the historian Paul Walker..."; later on you call him "the historian Paul E. Walker" as if they were two different persons.
• " In the words of Stern..." Please introduce him.
• The historian Paul Walker in the first footnote links to the American actor ;) AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Neutral Milk Hotel

Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

This article is about Neutral Milk Hotel, an important and influential indie rock band from the late 90s. One thing I should note is that regarding Adam Clair's book, I only own the E-book version which uses Reflowable text, so I can't include specific page numbers. However, I'll be happy to provide the necessary quotes during the FAC process if needed for spotchecking. Famous Hobo (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Please fix the following harv error: "McGonigal 1998; McGonigal 2008 Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation." (t · c) buidhe 09:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Fixed Famous Hobo (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support by Wetrorave

This is one of those bands that I always tell myself I have to listen to but end up forgetting about hehe. Comments coming soon. Sorry if it seems as if I've read the article in reverse btw. Wetrorave (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended content

"Neutral Milk Hotel songs explored" - "explored" should be "explore" since the songs do not exist only in the past "other Neutral Milk Hotel recordings" could be reduced to "other recordings of the band" "a subject of debate, however." - Having the 'however' at the end of the sentence rather than at the start feels a bit awkward to read "his subconscious. 'Some of it" - since these two sentences are highly connected, I'd suggest changing them to "his subconscious, saying 'Some of it" "style of songwriting. While the lyrics" - same as above, the full stop could be changed with a semicolon "early music was rough," - could be changed to "was considered rough", or quotation marks could be placed around "rough" "described some of the acoustic songs as 'lifeless acoustic warbles.'" - unnecessary repetition of the word "acoustic", the first use of it could be removed "of the band members. The band members would" - same as above, could be changed to "of the band members, who would often ask" "He then became a vagabond" - what exactly does "vagabond" mean? In my language the word "vagabundo" is associated with negativity towards a person's actions, though this may just be a difference in meaning of two similar-sounding words "including nontraditional rock" - there should be a hyphen in "nontraditional" The Decemberists should not have a capital The, per MOS:THEBAND These are my comments. The article's overall prose is pretty good, and you could easily get it to FA. Wetrorave (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC) @Wetrorave: Addressed each point except the vagabond one. In English, vagabond simply means a person who moves constantly without a home or a job, which in retrospect, doesn't seem to accurately describe that period of Mangum's life. Rereading Adam Clair's book, it appears as though Mangum was never homeless, but was what I would describe as "restless." The dude just didn't like living in one spot for long periods of time for one reason or another. I'll think of something better to replace vagabond and get back to you. Famous Hobo (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Hmm I see. It's strange when words from gramatically close languages have different meanings. That definition of the word seems fine for this use, so prose is good. Wetrorave (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support. A well-written article overall (and a good band overall, just finished listening to ITAOTS and it's... interesting). Wetrorave (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by re. ebooks

This has come up before. The reason page numbers are required is for reasons of policy rather than internal FAC processes (e.g. spot checks, although of course, they're interrelated), so the current situation—linking to chapters rather than pages—could be unsatisfactory. @WP:FAC coordinators: the relevant discussions are at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive80#When are page numbers needed.... The suggested path forward seems to be to use the |loc= parameter; this will allow either a hyperlink to a page (if available), or a searchable term for the reader to ctrl+f within the document. (I think it was Ealdgyth's suggestion, but as usual with WT:FAC, bugger all consensus was come to!) SN54129 19:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The relevant FAC criterion is "claims are verifiable". Personally I would not feel that linking to chapters meets this. There are probably several ways of satisfactorily addressing it, and IMO providing a searchable term per Ealdgyth's suggestion is one of them. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It depends how long the chapters are whether that is an acceptable solution. I mean, some books have chapters that are like 100 pages long. So if the chapter is pretty short, like 10 pages, that is an acceptable solution although providing a quote might be even better for WP:V. Of you could list the lowest-level subheading that the information is under, since many books have sub-chapter organization. (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129, Gog the Mild, and Buidhe: Sorry to ping all three of you, just wasn't sure who to exactly respond to. So I like the idea of including a searchable term. Take for example reference 28. Chapter 11 of Clair's book mentions April 28, 1997 as the start date of the national tour, and then spends the next five paragraphs talking about the growing pains of the members playing in a band. The reference with the search term would look like {{sfn|Clair|2022|loc=Chapter 11 (Search phrase "April 28, 1997")}}. Would this be acceptable? Famous Hobo (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

While I can't pre-judge any individual cite, in general terms that seems entirely satisfactory to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea; perhaps use the first sentence of the relevant paragraph? (Or a chunk of it if it's as long as one of mine!) Also, try and avoid using particularly common forms of words, as they might appear multiple times. I really do think this needs codification though, @WP:FAC coordinators: , as it's a situation that's only going to increase in frequency, and we should have an across-the-board to approach rather than on discrete FACs. SN54129 18:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure codification would be the right way to address this problem. The FAC criteria are not that specific when it comes to the exact citation style because we recognize there are multiple correct ways to do citations. (t · c) buidhe 01:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

This is about WP:V, not cosmetics such as citation style. SN54129 12:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• By the way, @WP:FAC coordinators: , could one of you advise Wetrorave not to bold both of his "supports" (once in the section heading, and once in his review)? The nominations reviewer script reads that as two opposes rather one, due to the bolding, and as such misleads on the main FAC page. Cheers, SN54129 20:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. Wetrorave (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware of this problem, but a lot of people do this not realizing it throws off the script... I don't think there is technically any rule against it. (t · c) buidhe 01:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• I think the dates should be given in the first or second sentence -- even if it's as vague as "late 1980s" and "2015, most recently" or something like that -- we need some sort of framing.

Added a sentence to the lede

• Our article on the Casio digital horn says that noone but Neutral Milk Hotel calls it a zanzithophone. I don't know if that's true, but unless we've some evidence that the term is in use I think we shouldn't use the word (even linked) as if it were something some general readers might understand. Perhaps call it a Casio digital horn, with a footnote giving the band's name for it. I see you have it the other way round in the body, but I think in the lead we have to be clearer. In the body you could call it by either name with a parenthesis giving the other.

Changed zanzithophone to Digital Horn, as that appears to be the proper title of the instrument (including the capitalization). Slightly altered the footnote pertaining to the instrument

• "the band's newfound stardom through the Internet": "stardom" seems too strong a word, judging by what I read in the article on In the Aeroplane Over the Sea.

Reworded

• Suggest linking "Synthetic Flying Machine" to the Olivia Tremor Control, and then unlinking it in the explanatory footnote.

Done

• "overcame his apprehensions of the music industry": I don't think this works, because "apprehension" can mean "understanding", and with "of" that's the more natural way to parse this. Perhaps "apprehensiveness about the music industry"?

Reworded

• I seem to recall there's a MoS rule about this, but shouldn't it be "The Apples in Stereo" inline, if you're going to link the "the"? Or else "the Apples in Stereo"? But it appears the band name does include the "The".

So admittedly I'm also confused about this. According to MOS:THEBAND, the word "the" should not be capitalized, and should only be linked if the word consistently appears on releases (which it does)

• "how he felt he was being led down a different life than he was supposed to live": I had to read this a couple of times to make sense of it. I think it means something like "how he felt circumstances/chance/something was leading him down a path in which he wasn't living the life he felt he should be living"; that's clumsily phrased but I think that's what's meant. If so I think it needs rephrasing.

Reworded and added a quote to clear up some confusion

• "to improve upon the lo-fi sound of On Avery Island": is "improve" the right word? No doubt the fidelity was better for the second album, but the lo-fi sound of the first album wasn't a mistake, so I think this is a misleading word choice. I see a couple of sentences further down that "lo-fi" is still being used to describe In the Aeroplane Over the Sea, too, which makes it more confusing to say "improve".

Reworded

• "who would often ask some audience members if they could spend the night at their house": was this as a sort of performance art or were they really looking for somewhere to crash?

No they just needed somewhere to crash. They were kinda broke. Being an indie rock musicians in the late 90s wasn't a particularly profitable career choice

Can we make this clearer to the reader? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Reworded, although I think it looks a bit clumsy. What do you think?

I tried a rephrase. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• "while others perpetuated hoaxes around what might have happened": vague, and do you mean "perpetrated"? Perpetuate implies that the hoax already existed. Either way a bit more specificity would be good.

Added more details according to the source

• "The large response helped": I don't know what "The large response" refers to. The previous sentence talks about fan anger and hoaxes. Do you mean something like "The speculation and online discussions raised the profile of the band, to the point that Neutral Milk Hotel and, in particular, In the Aeroplane Over the Sea gained..."?

Reworded

• "became incredibly passionate": "incredibly" is a bit non-encyclopedic, though if you can find a quote that says something like this that would work.

Reworded

• "Neutral Milk Hotel was known for its experimental sound": surely "is known"?

Whoops, got too caught up with making sure to refer to the band in the past tense that I let that one slip through

• "As the song progressed, more instruments could be introduced": I think "would be" or "were" rather than "could be", unless I'm missing some nuance here.

Reworded the sentence. I wanted to make sure not to specify that every NMH song builds up with more instruments, but a good chunk of them do

• "Neutral Milk Hotel's early music": I don't know what "early music" refers to -- there are only two albums, only separated by two years. Or is the distinction between those two albums as the early music, and Ferris Wheel on Fire and the live sets of 2013-2015? The quote from Mark Richardson implies we're talking about pre-album material, but that doesn't seem to be generally available, so I'm not clear what's being discussed.

So early music in this case refers to recordings made prior to the first album. Not all of these recordings are availble, but the demo album Hype City Soundtrack and the 1994 song "Everything Is" is available. I changed "early music" to "early recordings"

Now we have "Neutral Milk Hotel's early recordings was considered rough, and featured a considerable amount of distortion": how about "Neutral Milk Hotel's early recordings, prior to On Avery Island, featured a considerable amount of distortion and are considered rough". It needs to be "were", not "was", and reversing the order gives the description before the opinion which makes more sense; and I think "prior to On Avery Island" or something similar would clarify what "early" means. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Reworded

• Why isn't Ferris Wheel on Fire included in the discography? I see from the discography article that it's just an EP, but you describe it as a boxed set?

So Ferris Wheel on Fire is an EP of unreleased songs that was bundled with the boxset, which is mentioned in the Reunion section. Per WP:WPMAG, articles about musicians and bands should generally only include studio albums in the discography section, which is why Ferris Wheel on Fire isn't included

• You're inconsistent with the tense you use to describe critics' opinions: "Kim Cooper cites" but "DeRogatis described", for example. I think present tense would be the best choice.

Pretty sure I changed every instance of past tense to present tense in regards to critics' opinions

• "have labeled In the Aeroplane Over the Sea as a concept album": I'd make it either "have labeled In the Aeroplane Over the Sea a concept album" or "have described In the Aeroplane Over the Sea as a concept album".

Reworded

• Any chance of more recent sales numbers than 2013 for In the Aeroplane Over the Sea? Understandable if nothing is available.

Yeah, sadly 2013 seems to be the most recent update

• "publishing emphatic reports on his life": I don't know what "emphatic" is intended to mean here. Strongly-worded? Forceful? Neither seems likely.

Changed to detailed

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Oh god, it's been a while. Real life problems and all that jazz. But I finally took care of the issues you brought up, or at the very least answered them. Famous Hobo (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries, I understand about real life. I've struck a few that I could check quickly; will look at the others this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

A couple of points outstanding above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Responded to the remaining points. Famous Hobo (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Support from 100cellsman

The only thing I suggest is unlinking "the" in the blue link for the Apples In Stereo. Otherwise I support this nomination. Nice work! 웃OO 08:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Media review

• File:NeutralMilkHotel-InTheAeroplaneOverTheSea.ogg: part of the FUR refers to a different band/article - possibly it was copied from another work? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Typhoon Mujigae

Nominator(s): ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Rapidly strengthening tropical cyclones heading straight into populated areas seem to have been a recurring theme of the past decade. This one's from 2015 and had its name retired after hitting coastal South China, even managing to spawn tornadoes in Guangdong. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Image review

I'm having trouble verifying the source of some of the images. The first two satellite photographs in the article link to sources that don't display the image. The third one File:Mujigae 2015-10-05 0600Z.jpg has a dead link and the fourth one File:Mujigae 2015-10-03 0300Z.jpg links to a generic page. I think it's highly likely that these are NASA images but it should be able to verify with the source links.

Other comments

• The lead looks disproportionately long compared to the length of the article. I would try trimming some detail, making sure it covers only the main points per MOS:LEAD.
• The article cites sina.com, marked unreliable by Headbomb's script. It also cites The Economic Times (I think this is related to Times of India)? What make these high quality reliable sources according to the FA criteria?

Note, this is not a full source review. (t · c) buidhe 06:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The first image has data only going back to 2017 for some reason, not sure if Meow knows where an archive is? The link for the second image, File:Mujigae 2015-10-02 0525Z.jpg, works for me, it's just very zoomed out. AFAICT the source for File:2015-10-03 0300Z.jpg is likely a snapshot taken from approximately this, though I can swap it to File:Mujigae 2015-10-03 0305Z.jpg instead which has a working link that goes directly to the image. For File:Mujigae 2015-10-05 0600Z.jpg, the link should probably be pointing to https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/ but I can't locate the full pass, need Nino Marakot to help me out here. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not responsible for images that I did not upload.  🐱💬 11:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Meow: I'm referring to commons:File:Mujigae 2015-10-04 0620Z.jpg. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

For sourcing, Sina republishes content from various news agencies/newspapers, which is why it's marked as unreliable since the source's reliability is equivalent to that of the original source. I'll go modify the citations in a bit to show where said news originated from, to be more transparent. The bit cited to The Economic Times isn't crucial and I've gone ahead and removed it. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Ditto with the gov.cn refs – they republish stuff from Xinhua or other ministries and I've used those where I can't track down the original links. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, any come back on the above. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not supporting or opposing. Still needs a proper source review. (t · c) buidhe 20:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Reading through and not finding much to complain about. I've copyedited a bit; please revert anything you disagree with.

• "Mujigae came ashore during a week-long holiday (known as a "Golden Week") in lieu of China's National Day,": what does "in lieu of" mean here? Normally it means "in the place of", but that would make no sense here.
  • Replaced with "following" - I've always assumed it had a similar meaning to "off-in-lieu" but it appears I've been mistaken all this while. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• "less than 100 were recorded over the past 50 years": we need a date for this observation; perhaps "as of 2016, less than 100 had been recorded...".
  • Reworded this quite a bit since I somehow?? did not see "average annual" twice?? which now makes a lot more sense given EF3+ tornadoes are much rarer than 1 in 5. The paper that this statistic is attributed to was dated to 2015 (can't find it online, unfortunately). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• "By the evening of October 3, 39,103 people in Wenchang had been resettled in 57 shelters": can you rephrase to avoid "...3, 39, 103..."?
  • Added "a total of". ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• "Final repairs to the power supply—mostly in Guangdong, where Zhanjiang suffered the most from power outages—were expected to complete in a week.": if nearly seven years later we don't have a source saying when power outages were resolved, I think we should drop this -- saying what the prediction was at that time isn't much help to the reader.
  • Removed accordingly. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Overall this seems solid enough. It's hard to make lists of statistics engaging, and I don't expect sparkling prose for those paragraphs; I think this just about gets over the line. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Support from Hurricane Noah

• I would believe this to be relevant:

• https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2020JG006031?casa_token=akl9FvilkcgAAAAA:mQuryyNBV8-bzJ633q5f6lWczRApKmd4d2UpTw_M_NLAYDUnyj8Cpj26Qrp6b-EyGOmlk7JPyATynN6zgA

• Name formatting in sources should be consistent
  • @Hurricane Noah: added the tidbit, and removed commas from the Chinese names. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Support on criteria 1C Noah^Talk 16:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "earlier in its existence it impacted the Philippines as a developing tropical cyclone, and later on it brought heavy rain to parts of Mainland Southeast Asia." I doubt whether you need this as it is covered below and the main impact was in China. It is also ambiguous whether "later on" means later than China or the Philippines. I found the frequent jumping around in the lead confusing and would prefer a chronological treatment.
• You give details of effects in the Philippines - including strangely someone killed by a snake bite - but you should also give total dead.
  • I included a total in the lead – I can add another in the body if that's what you're looking for; the absolute minimum is 4 but that's ignoring the "partial and unofficial" report which has another 3 dead (though whether that includes 1 of the other 4 is impossible to tell). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• "warnings for storm surge and large waves that same day" surges?
  • I've rarely if ever seen "storm surges" used in such a context – I suspect it's because the whole surge is technically one event tethered to one storm. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• "where winds gusted up to Force 12 on the Beaufort scale". What speed?
• "from Force 11 to 14 on the extended Beaufort scale" Ditto.
• The article seems to me unbalanced. The vast bulk of the effects were in China, where $3.7 billion losses occurred in Guangdon out of a total of $4.3 billion, yet the section on Guangdon is only slightly longer than the ones on other areas, where you report very minor effects such as slight injuries and minor transport delays. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I'll get to this next weekend - been taking a bit of a break recently due to IRL stuff. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Make that next weekend, life is coming at me fast and I am woefully unprepared. It may take me some time to look for more RSes that give specific details on Guangdong impacts but I should be done by the end of the month, at worst first week of April. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Hurricanehink

• Be sure to link Guangdong in its first usage in the lead.
• "Brief power outages were reported and ports and schools were closed." - I'm not a fan of the passive voice, and all of this in the same sentence implies that the schools and ports were closed because of the power outages. If the power outages were brief and not that significant, then I don't think that's needed for the lead.
• "223 injured" - be sure to use non-breaking spaces for all units that aren't converted.
• The met history might be able to be expanded using journals such as this, this, and this
• Several incidents of flash flooding were reported, with 50 barangays inundated with up to 3 ft (0.91 m) of water - I'd specify what a "barangay" is. Also, make sure metric units go first, both here and throughout the article.
• "while another from Bongabon municipality was killed by a snake bite" - what does this have to do with Mujigae? I could see if it was a snake on a plane full of evacuating people.
• "making Mujigae the strongest typhoon to make landfall in China in the month of October since 1949." - correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the "since 1949" bit is just when accurate records start, and not when there was a stronger October typhoon.
• I notice you using m/s in the China section, but nowhere else in the article. Most TC articles don't use m/s, because it's not widely used by the public, and instead we just use km/h and mph. If you want to keep the m/s, then the entire article should have that as well.
• "tripped an electrical substation" - is tripped the right term? I'm not sure
• " The strongest winds were recorded in Bobai County, where winds gusted up to Force 12 on the Beaufort scale" - how strong?
• "Ahead of the storm, train services between the island and the mainland were suspended from October 2 to 5" - there's no train service connecting Hainan to the mainland, but there are ferries. Double-check this.
  • There actually are train services between Hainan and the mainland, albeit the train cars are carried across the Qiongzhou Strait by ferries. (Personally I thought they used undersea tunnels – this is far more interesting.) ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Good stuff! I knew China was planning on building a tunnel or a bridge, but I didn't think train ferry was an option! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Typhoon Signal No. 3 was raised from the evening of October 3 till morning on October 5" - "till" doesn't seem appropriate
• "The combination of Mujigae and a cold front brought up to 100 mm (3.9 in) of rain to mountainous regions in the provinces of Quảng Ninh, Lạng Sơn, and Cao Bằng." - this should be specified it's Vietnam
  • Done ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• No impacts in Cambodia or Laos?
  • As far as I can find it was typical heavy rain. Their Typhoon Committee member reports don't pay any special attention to Mujigae, and local news is limited to pre-event forecasts of heavy rain – no mention of landslides, flash floods, crop damage, or anything like that. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

In all, it's a pretty good article! The coverage in China was thorough and well-written, which is important since that's where impacts were greatest. I don't think any of the comments should be too difficult to address. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

• The damage figure in the infobox doesn't match the text
• "disturbed weather that formed just east of the Philippines on September 29" - text says Sept 30
• "fallen trees, landslides, and collapsing buildings accounted for most of the fatalities" - source?
• Some of the claims in See also warrant citing
• There appear to be a number of scholarly works on this topic not currently cited, eg [44][45][46]. How was it decided what sources to include?
• FN1: the link provided returns "no data available"
• In what cases are you include publication location?
• Why spell out BBC and not CNN?
• FN38 is missing agency
• FNs 39 and 40 have different website formatting. Ditto FNs 41 and 46, check throughout
• How have you verified that the state-run agency reports are accurate? See WP:RSP. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Clonmacnoise Crozier

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

An 11th century Irish Insular crozier that had been lost until the around the 1790s, before which it was presumably buried by its keepers to avoid plunder from internal or external menace. It dates from the so called early medieval "golden age" of Irish metalwork, but contains a number of design and construction elements influenced by Viking art. Croziers of this era were built from precious metal by the highest regarded (but largely unknown) metalworkers and intended to give status and weight to their owners, usually bishops, but later clansmen seeking to establish authority during disputes or swearing of oaths. The object is in good condition and widely considered the finest example of its type.

Feedback and demands gratefully welcome. Ceoil (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Image review

File:Screen Shot 2022-01-23 at 7.37.54 PM.png

The licensing looks OK, but there are serious issues with image sandwiching, primarily in the "description" section. In addition, ref 2 "Colmcille 1500 Lecture Series: St Columba's crosier: power and devotion in medieval Ireland" needs a timestamp in order to be verifiable, in the same way as you have to provide a page # for a book. (t · c) buidhe 04:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi & thanks, have reduced River Laune (Inisfallen) Crozier Drop.jpg which I think caused most of the overlap. Looing re timestamp re Colmcille 1500...Ceoil (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

That does not fix the sandwiching problem, unfortunately, I see the image captioned "Drop-plate with human figure..." sandwiching the next image, "Drop-plate of the contemporary..." which sandwiches the third image: "Upper knop decorated..." Possibly a multiple images template would help. (t · c) buidhe 05:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Timestamp (4:50–6:07) added to the video lecture. Gaa re the image squash, revisiting. I did try multiple images in preview earlier, but it diminished the impact of File:River Laune (Inisfallen) Crozier Drop.jpg, which I am very fond of. Hold on. Ceoil (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, the images are now well spaced with rows of text separating each on my desktop. I'm not sure of your settings, but bear in mind that most readers will be using mobile, where the images appear by default in consecutive rows. Ceoil (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Ceoil, I have taken a screenshot of what it currently looks like to me. I am using default (100%) zoom in my browser and the default image thumbnail size, so I expect it to display without so much sandwiching. (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

ok, may have a look at going for a gallery rather than aligning left and right. Will ping when done.Ceoil (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Ceoil: Can you also resolve the sandwich problem in the Origin and dating section? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Hi CPA, yes will be looking at later this evening. Ceoil (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe:, to let you know this mostly done, and more images will be added, but in gallery format. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I will let someone else evaluate this. It seems like the sandwiching problems are better, but on the other hand some of the added images seem duplicative. (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to note Gerda is on the case and has improved the layout quite a bit, with helpfull discussions on-going below. Ceoil (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

source review

• Passes my source review. Everything looks in order and all of the citations are of a high quality. Spot checks are not done, but this is by no means Ceoil's first rodeo so I will leave to the coords if they need to be done here. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

thanks for the look!Ceoil (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Support from §Serial Number 54129

...speculates :) I'll look in in a couple of days Ceoil, just need to find something to oppose over first :p (Joke—looks great already!) SN54129 14:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Apologies in advance for anything overly pernickety; these are mostly suggestions. SN54129 19:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Lead

• How about "one of the best preserved pieces of surviving insular art"?

  Done Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Function

• "Like all Irish Insular croziers" --first pernicketiness! I note our article says they were both Irish and Scottish, and I think the description you give here could apply to the Scottish ones as well?

  Yes, removed the word "Scottish". Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• "in addition to some sixty fragments... to...fragments"" Repetition of fragments, "pieces"?

  Done Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Origin

• repetition of "accounts"; "some early discussions/analyses/theories"?
• Arm-shrine sounds cool, can't be explained, perhaps in a note? On edit: I looked for a link, but the nearest I found was this. And then saw the author!  :)
• "Ciarán is recorded as appearing "to smite a would-be raider with his crozier" centuries after his death" --I found this slightly ambiguous: was he recorded by someone centuries later, or was he going to strike a raider centuries later?

  Clarified as him having come back from the dead Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think I agree with not linking High Kings of Connacht to List of kings of Connacht, but should Ard Rí be moved to cover both uses?
• NMI in full and linked din the body as well as the IB.

  Done Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• How come "the archaeologist A. T. Lucas" earlier and "Anthony (A.T.) Lucas" now? I don't think "Anthony" is really necessary when you could call him that, with his descriptor, on the first mention and on this second mention, he can just be "Lucas".

  Yes, Done Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Dublin School is crying out for an article  :)

  Its the Wood Quay findings from the 1960s, yes deserves exp, and will add a red link. Ceoil (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Link Zoomorphism (or perhaps Zoomorphic style)

  "Zoomorphic style" dabs to "animal style", but yes better Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Link Prosperous Crozier on the first mention.

  Done Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• As it happens, we have Confronted animals; a link is up to you, but it does discuss, albeit briefly, confronting animals in insular art.

  Nice find, done Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Description

• "about the length of a walking stick" - I'm torn by this; on the one hand, it's a useful "real life" comparison for Randy to relate to, but on the other, well—can't they be any size?

  They were all about 1.2M, but this example is slightly shorter as a portion lost when it was broken so that it could be folded up to hide it from the Normans. I picked this up when browsing over the weekend, will add soon as I remember where! Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Talking of which, I'm a bit confused by the measurements. Length is obvious, but I don't get what its width is, or what its maximum thickness means. Is one of these the diameter of the rod?

  Circumference...now clarified. Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• "but were built concurrently" -- meaning, fitted together at the same time?

  Hmm, clarified this Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• "The crozier was built in two phases" -- not sure how this ties in with the above.

  The basic metal staff and crook were constructed at the same time, the later stuff is mostly ornamentation.now clarified. Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Link "acanthus leaves" to Acanthus (ornament)?

  Nice find, done Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• There's a slight difference in how you describe what the bishop on the plate is doing with his staff; in the body, he's impaling the animal, whereas, in the adjacent image, he's holding it down.

• Clarified

• The theory that the drop was intended to hold a relic is pretty logical (if generally discredited), but surely even Victorian antiquarians didn't believe that the staff was made of the original saint's staff?

  Not really..roughly the saints lived 600-700, the were enshrined with metal 800-1200 and some of the later decorations came 1300-1500. We know now that it wasn't the case, but it wasnt huge leap from pre-xray 1850-1900. Ceoil (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Always thought "ie" was i.e., but the MOS is silent on that (which makes a nice change...!)

  grand, dont care :), but done for your pleasure! Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Modern provenance

• Petrie mentioned the chalice and wine vessel, but not the arm-shrine?
• (Non-actionable comment) "the circumstances of his purchase are unknown" -- considering the reputation of Henry Sirr, I imagine there's room for doubt as to whether he paid for it at all!  :)
• "However the claim" -- suggest this is attributed inline, as it sounds like Murray's—rather than Wikipedia's—opinion.

  Good point...now attributed Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Great article Ceoil, really interesting. Curiously, it made me want to listen to Slievenamon. I shall now do so. Cheers! SN54129 19:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  Serial Number 54129, can you now revisit this. Ceoil (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Ah! :) SN54129 10:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• Can we get a link or gloss for "drop-plate"? I see it's defined in the description section, but a word or two of parenthetical definition in the lead would be helpful.

  Have changed wording in the lead to "the and terminal (known as a "drop") on the crook". Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• "his followers as his herd or flock": I think just "as his flock" would do.

  Agree, done Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• "the principle vehicle of [the saint's] power": Is Lucas referring specifically to Saint Ciarán? If so, can we make it "of [Saint Ciarán's] power"? But you do have "the croziers acted", with the plural, so perhaps this is a general statement about the saints of the day? Great quote, by the way; I love the "spiritual electrode" image.

  Lucas is talking in general terms, but take your point...thinking. Ceoil (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  Expanded a bit Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Is the Frazer crozier-head worth a redlink?

yes, and have been toying with the basis for a page for a few weeks, but the sources are scant Ceoil (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think I understand the measurements as given. The thickness of the crozier is given as 15.5 cm, which is presumably across the crook, since that matches the width of the crook. The maximum thickness of the crook is 3.7 cm, but the maximum width of the crozier is 13.5 cm, which is almost as wide as the diameter of the crook. I don't see anything in the images that would explain this width -- can you clarify?

• The width refers to the breath of the crook (as you guessed), and thickness to the tube's girth or circumference. Fixed re 13.5 cm. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• "presumably croziers once held similar , but" -- looks like a missing word after "similar"?

  Done Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• "conferring the saint's authority of to croziers": some editing debris here.

  Done Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Suggest moving the quote from William Frazer about the drop containing a relic down to the section of the description that mentions the theory that this is what drops were for.
• Suggest incorporating note 2 into the text; it seems quite a relevant point that can be made concisely.

  Good idea - done Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

A fine article; I expect to support once these points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

hi Mike, agree with all the above, but tied up unexpectedly for a few days more. Appreciate the close look and will ping when done. Ceoil (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

No worries; I'll be watching and look forward to seeing the fixes whenever you get time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Support. A fine article on a beautiful work of art. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits, helpful suggestions and support. Ceoil (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

Interesting topic, new to me, I'll comment as I read and skip the lead for the end. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Infobox fine

TOC fine

Function

• "a symbol of Jesus as the Good Shepherd and his followers as his flock" - I don't think that "and" works, - not a symbol of his followers

  Yes, reworded and expanded on this Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Do we have a link for European croziers? - Why is it croziers anyway when we have Crosier? (probably an ignorant question) - Perhaps say first what a crozier is and then distinguish Insular and others?

  Take it that the non-Insular examples are European (mostly German and French. Some of the Viking egs closely align with the Irish type, as you would expect, but haven't gone into it here Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• In the Lucas quote, there's "[the saint's]" inserted, but it would work better for me without. Not every bishop or abbot becomes a saint, no? - To be continued after food. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yes...have expanded and tried to clarify this...not signing off yet, to be revisited in next few days. Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Origin ...

• "all of which would had been deposited"? - all of which would have been deposited?

  Done Ceoil (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• "Ciarán is recorded as appearing "to smite a would-be raider with his crozier" centuries after his death" - awkward use of quote which says "his" so can't mean the place. Also: recorded by whom? - reading further I understood that Ciarán meant the person, not Temple Ciarán, but perhaps offer "St." to avoid that? ... and be consistent about St. vs. Saint? If Frazer says "St." we can do the same ;)

  Done except quotes and article (internal and external) article titles. Ceoil (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• the Missal - that I don't know - comes a bit as a surprise, before the location is defined, but I also don't see an obvious better spot for the mention, - do we need it here?

  No - gone! Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• NMI?

  Clarified at first instance Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• we are before descriptions, so "confronting lions" seems a bit early, but attention-grabbing - didn't see them on the pic before, but that just tells you how little I see.

  Good point...thinking Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Desccription

• "thickness" - not sure, - I expect that's what I'd hold but is too large for a hand

  Fixed Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• "handle" - same, I haven't seen a bishop grab the upper part but the shaft

  True, and removed Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Shaft

• "chased or repoussé (ie relief hammered from the back) copper-alloy plates" - even without brackets, that's long

  Its not a long sentance, and (see above) sometimes explaining technical terms helps Ceoil (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  I was unclear: it takes too long until I get to know that we even talk about copper-alloy plates, and without that context I am just confused by foreign words, explained or not. Could the order be changed, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Precious! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

hi Gerda, I’ll be gone for next few days again but looking forward to addressing the above deatailed reviews from all, thanks so much to all for going through in detail... Ceoil (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

ps thanks so much for sorting the images/text squash issue....almost there with your points. Ceoil (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Images again Gog the Mild, this version has less sandwiching. Problem is that the images are super-long. I see repetition only for the little "dogs", which can be seen in the ibox and (in more detail) where they are described, which makes sense to me. The human figure would be even harder to see if the pic was smaller, and same for the fine detail below it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, have replaced the 2nd image of the crook with a close up of the little dogs. With the shaft, logic was to show the full lenght to give indication of size and how the elements fit together, and then the details so people got better resolution, and so could explain explain unfamiliar terms, ie this is a crest this is a drop-plate, this is a knope, this is a ferrule. I "do" like the changes you have made so far though...still thinking about how to better do this. Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

lead

• I made some small changes. I suggest to split the first sentence, because I don't like brackets for something as essential as telling us what a crozier is without a click. The second sentence could talk about the assumed finding.
• Same for the next sentence: the saint and the description are not really related.

  Yes, will fix both shortly. Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• is a hook a crook?

  Yes! A shepard has a hook, a bishop has a crook. Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

That's all, - getting close. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Having looked once more, I'm ready to support. Thank you for a precious gift. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• There is image sandwiching in Origin and dating.

  Alleviated Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• There are a couple of links which need disambiguating.

  Dabed Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• You seem to have a severe case of image overload here. And am I missing something, or are there repeated images of what is essentially the same thing?

  See above in Gerda's review...work ongoing Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• "The staff is made from a wooden core wrapped in copper-alloy tubes". By "copper-alloy", do you mean bronze?

• Yes, now made clear. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

No it isn't. It hasn't changed.

That copper-alloy = bronze is made clear earlier. Ceoil (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Why do you repeatedly describe bronze as "copper-alloy" rather than use the common term?

Rightly or wrongly, "copper-alloy" is now the standard term in art history & museum terminology (hastened by the introduction of standard vocabularies for digitization). You would be hard put to find a major museum labelling things as bronze now, I think. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but noticing (reading about other artifacts) that archeologists often favour bronze. Ceoil (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That said, I'm not seeing that this should be a fail reason, per Johnbod above. Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey, let's not get ahead of ourselves. This looks FAable to me, and that is what we all want. The key question is "What do the HQ RSs say?" In the main body there are "copper alloy" x 4; "copper" x 4; and bronze x 3. Each of these 11 is cited. Do the cites match this mix of descriptions? Ceoil, any chance you could check all 11 and report back?

• "Jesus as the Good Shepherd leading his flock". Why the upper case G and S? Also elsewhere.

• Sorted Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Why the upper case G and S?

The sources capitalize, as does our article. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Sources tend to capitalise things they consider important and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Is there a reason within the MoS for capitalisation?

Said sorted as the more substantial points re the sentance above were addressed. will look at the MOS aspect now. Ceoil (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Still waiting on this.

• Should "Sarcophagus of the Three Shepherds" be in italics?

• Its an object, so now in titles. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• "The distinctive shape of Irish Croziers recalls". Why the upper case C?

• Sorry, have been away and now juggling multiple improvements; had this in the "yes of course" part of my brain, but hadnt got around to it, it seems. Doh! iows. Ceoil (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Eeek, and also allitteration...fixed. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

So, why the upper case C?

• Sorted Ceoil (talk)

• "the function of shepherd's crook in restraining wayward sheep". Either 'a shepherd's crook' or 'shepherd's crooks'.

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• "Some early accounts, mostly based on ..." This seems to start mid-paragraph. Could there be an introductory sentence? Or perhaps recast the opening one?

  Yes, reworded / sniped. Ceoil (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Caption: "depicted in stone on the Cross of the Scriptures". What and/or where is "the Cross of the Scriptures"?

• Made clear that is on a high cross in Clonmacnoise. Alas dont have a good pic to back it up, but post covid we are planning a visit. Ceoil (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• "It is formed from a wooden core overlaid by metal tubes". Is this metal bronze? If so, why not say so? Is the crook entubed by the same metal?

  yes its obviously bronze, as is made clear over and over in the above text that this is the metal covering the wooden core. Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand that. But if it is so obviously bronze, why are you not describing it as such?

• Did Ceoil (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

See above.

• "a protective metal ferrule is placed on the tip of the shaft's base." Is it known which metal this is?

• Bronze; added. Ceoil (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

No it isn't. It still reads "while a protective metal ferrule".

Rephrased Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Bachal Isu" (Staff of Jesus) - why is the name in inverted commas and the translation in italics?

  To indicate a translation. Ceoil (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Could you explain that a little further?

Good point, hold on, but unfortunately and for not good reasons RL has overwhelmed the time I can give to addressing. requesting that this is left open for another two weeks, and all the valuable points raised above and below are pennies from heaven. Ceoil (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil. As a reviewer that is fine with me, but you could probably do with an uninvolved @WP:FAC coordinators: coordinator agreeing, or not, to this. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Similarly, the crook is fitted with an independent crest and drop." What are they similar to and in what way?

Expanded and clarified. Ceoil (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• In MOS:QUOTE it says "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". There are a number of quotes for which there seem to be no obvious reason why they are not paraphrased into Wikipedia's voice.

  Have paraphrased a number, with the remaining ones kept as want to keep specific (usually dated) phrasing (eg spiritual electrode, smite a would-be raider, the buttocks of the preceding animal, ignorant hands, etc). Ceoil (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Do you know what de Paor meant by "pierced eyes"?

• Slitted or narrow. Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• "late-9th-century"; "late-10th century"; etc. Inconsistent use of a hyphen preceding century.

  Gaa. Done. "late-9th-century" is a bit of a headace, so have dropped the 2nd hyphen. Ceoil (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• "presumably croziers once held similar figures". Perhaps 'presumably other croziers once held similar figures'?

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Link figurative art. Are you sure that you mean "figurative art"? Several aspects of the decoration seem to me to be figurative.

• Human figures....the others "evoke" animal forms...ie zoomorphism. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Figurative art is art which represents any real object. If you want a term to mean representing human forms, this isn't it.

Good spot. Now rephrased as Figure painting, which unfortunately needs work as is limited in scope to painting but of course should also apply to sculpture. Ceoil (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• "there is as yet no recorded evidence to support the theories." Is there unrecorded evidence? If not, why add "recorded"?

  Tweaked Ceoil (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Why say "there is as yet no recorded evidence to support the theories" and then contradict this in the next sentence?

  Conveying suspicion/hunches vs fact - will clarify Ceoil (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

"there is as yet no evidence to support the theories." "as yet" is PoV, delete it.

• I dont see it like that. These pieces are 900 years old and their intention is unknown, and not to be confused with a modern art historical perspective. Lets leave a wait and see, an escape clause which even Murray hedges with. Ceoil (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, but, meh, ok.

• "It contains three large and ornately decorated barrel-shaped knops." Could you specify whether "It" refers to "a leather membrane" or "The shaft".

  Done Ceoil (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• "They are fastened to the staff by rivets". Are they fastened to the staff or to the encasing tube?

• The tubes. Done. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• "plated with two copper-alloy tubes"; "They [the knops] are ... separated by lengths of undecorated copper"; "The collar below the upper knop is made of copper-alloy". There would seem to be a contradiction there.

"a wooden core plated with two copper-alloy tubes". Would the plating consist of that substance you seem to wish to avoid naming?

• "interlace patterns and champlevé enameling". Could each of these terms be linked or otherwise explained.

  They are above, and now again. Ceoil (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

"a metal cast plaque in champlevé (carved) enamel". I think that a normal reader is going to struggle to make sense of this, even if they chase the link, which they shouldn't have to. MoS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links."

• "Picturesque views of the antiquities of Ireland" should be in title case.

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• "However Marry regards the claim that it was buried seems doubtful ..." is not grammatical.

• Jesus. Done. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• "Treasury Room" - why the quote marks?

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Note 1: link reliquaries.

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• "they were popular across Europe during the popular across Europe during the Early Medieval period"?

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Why are the two footnotes cited using a different convention to the rest of the article.

• Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Gog, thanks, working through these, will ping when complete. Ceoil (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Note some updates added above, more to follow. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Bear with me Gog....revisiting all points, perhaps I answered individual suggestions before happy overall. To be clear, this review is pennys from heaven and has greatly improved the article. Ceoil (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil, am I still waiting for a ping, or are you ready for me to revisit? I'm easy either way, just checking. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

prob won’t get to until Friday, and will ping then....thanks Ceoil (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Gog, working towards pinging you Sunday night Ceoil (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks good. A few queries/further comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I have added a couple of responses. It should be clear now, I hope, which of my comments I still consider to be open. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Gog, it seems the main o/s issue is copper-alloy vs bronze, but Johnbod has explained how the terminology is used in context, and I'm inclined to stay with the source usage. Otherwise your review has been a great help, so asking that you throw down the hamemr, one way or the other. Ceoil (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, can you revisit pls, I believe all your points are addressed or explained. Ceoil (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. I am not sure why you are getting agitated. According to Mike's stats I have done 308 reviews and only opposed 17 times. Given that I frequently get called in to consider controversial nominations, I don't think that is bad. I am leaning very much support at the moment. Some comments above which I think add up to: what does the MoS say about Good Shepherd, and what do the sources you have actually used say about bronze/copper/copper alloy? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

point taken, and yes we are almost there. Have decapitalized good shepherd and removed “as yet”. The sources are mostly copper alloy, so standardising that again now Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

just as an update, will have access to a desktop tonight, to finish off these. Ceoil (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Johnbod

• Clearly nearly there, & a nice piece. Some points:
• "The Clonmacnoise Crozier is a late 11th-century Insular crozier (a type of early medieval processional bishop's staff)...." rather awkward - obviously croziers aren't just "early medieval", though insular ones are. They are in general "bishop's staffs", but are they purely "processional"? Also in Ireland (and I think elsewhere sometimes) abbots also had them, as seems to be the case with this one, and in Ireland abbots seem to have outranked bishops in the early days. Maybe unpack all this a bit.

• Have started a rewrite of the opening two sentences, which (incorporating the above) are better but not yet complete. Worried about using the word "crozier" too many times. Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• "discovered in the late-18th or early-19th century on the grounds of Clonmacnoise monastery in County Offaly, Ireland." The first bit is a mouthful repeated several times in the article - might it just be easier to say "before 1821" for at least some of them? Of that we are sure. Petrie, who was 10 in 1800, is clearly repeating a story he was told, but is too much credibility being given to this? Some caution might be indicated for the find-spot also. I can't read all of "The history and provenance of two early medieval crosiers ascribed to Clonmacnoise" by Griffin Murray, but he may be the best source for nuanced wording, though he clearly thinks it was made at Clonmacnoise. I'd think "in the grounds of" better than "on the grounds of".

  ok, re-reading. As an aside, pretty good resource here if interested, which has most of what I’ve used for this page [47] Ceoil (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• "the line of dog-like animals forming a ribbon at its top" - elsewhere these are called a "crest", which seems better to me. You might add openwork. Also, do any of sources refer to gripping beasts?

• Have reword as a ribbon of dog-like....forming the crest....Yes "gripping beasts" are mentioned, but hadn't put 2 and 2 together re the Oseberg style. Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• "It is fully intact" - well it clearly isn't quite that - lower down "It was probably once 20 cm longer and had four knops, as with most other intact examples; the losses seem to result from its having been broken apart to make it easier to fold and thus hide from Viking and later Norman invaders". Also the crest is incomplete, and lots of the gem-like bits are missing from their settings (which should be mentioned somewhere). Another "fully intact" at the end of the "function" section.

Have restated as "largely" intact. Will add statement re gems. Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• "is one of the best preserved pieces of surviving Insular art." is there a ref for this? Might be true - might also be better restricted to Insular metalwork. But you want the link somewhere.

• Clarified as metalwork, and linked to the sect. Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• "The crozier is traditionally associated with Saint Ciarán of Clonmacnoise (c. 516–c. 549)" - presumably "traditionally" does not go back beyond the rediscovery. Given the overall time scale, probably best to indicate this.

  Have made first pass at rephrasing, but need to go back to sources. Will update here when done. Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• "Like all Insular croziers produced between c. 800 and 1200" - 2nd link, & true of Western croziers in general, although the Irish shapes are more literal than most, and open, where other ones wind in on themselves. Maybe drop "Insular", or add "open"?

• Added open Ceoil (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've made some changes, including explaining the bronze/copper alloy thing, which I hope are ok.

  Yes, much better. Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• "probably revered as holding a relic of St. Ciaran" - are we going to get where that might have been?
• " "Temple Ciarán" (the tomb of Saint Ciarán of Clonmacnoise d. c. 549)" but then "present on a high cross in Temple Ciarán" - ok seen the pic - "the building containing the tomb of Saint Ciarán" seems better. Is this one of the ruined churches? What date is given to it?

  Restated as "the now ruined oratory holding the tomb of Saint Ciarán" Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• "drop-plate" needs a clearer explanation & location I think.

  Working on a sub-section on drops in the Insular crozier page, so can link there. Agree re location, working. Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

~::Done, but is still intermeditary. Have acquired two new book sources since (Moss and Henry), so can better develop what these elements origions, iconographic meaning, and practical methods of construction. Not done, hold on Ceoil (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Started and linked Insular_crozier#Drop, but needs a lot more work yet. Ceoil (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• I take it "knopes" as plural of "knop" is a typo? I've been changing it.

  More of a fundamental inability to spell on my behalf. knops is the correct plural. Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• " with the later additions including the figures in the drop and " - are these the head, bishop & dragon on the drop-plate? And the row of dogs? Better clarify.

• Claim is now that the head above the drop plate is origional, and the cleric and dragon are later. Ceoil (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Those on the lower part of the row are damaged and have missing parts.[12]" - the Fintan O'Toole ref doesn't mention this, nor is it obvious in the pics. Clearly the top one is missing his head.

• Addressed. As the new image clearly shows, the main damges is to the head of the uppermost beast Ceoil (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Designed in the Ringerike style,[42] they are held in place by thin threads lined with strips of niello that appear as decorative flaps that, according to Murray, "spring from their heads and bodies forming knotted vegetal-like designs around them"[37] before terminating in spiral patterns.[34]" - "held in place" is just within the visual logic of the flat design, yes? Needs to be clearer, what with all the adjacent talk of binding-strips etc.
• I'm afraid the whole crook section is rather confusing.

• Being addressed after some snipping. Ceoil (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• More later. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks v much; great to get an expert content review like this. Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Carrying on:
• I've added "The crook ends in a vertical section called the drop, with a drop-plate on the outward-facing side." to the main "description" section, as I think this needs clearly setting out. No doubt one of the refs covers this. No, the wood is solid but the binding metal is wrapped. Hopefully this is better reflected in the revised text. Ceoil (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  most do and of course its apparent from the images. Ceoil (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Jumping around a bit: Are the wood cores of the shaft and crook actually hollow, as a couple of mentions suggest: "The shaft is formed from a tubular wooden core ...", "The crook " is hollow and made from a single piece of wood"?
• Adressed earlied above.

  The image caption "14th- or 15th-century addition to the drop-plate showing a bishop impaling a dragon with the base of his staff", but the main text suggests the whole drop face, including the face/head at top, is of this date. I think the face is older, from the original, but I might be wrong. Can you confirm, & clarify if needed?

  • The dates do not need to be stated once again. Now reading "A bishop impaling a dragon with the base of his staff on the drop plate." Ceoil (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  I need to dig into this, sounds like conflicting conclusions. Ceoil (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• "The shaft is formed from a tubular wooden core plated with two copper-alloy tubes and is of equal width until the mid-point, after which it narrows until tapering off below the lowest knop." I've raised the question of whether the wood is a tube (ie hollow). If it isn't, then a clearer way of putting this might be: "The shaft is formed of a straight wooden pole [presumably the wood is all one piece?], round which two thin copper-alloy plates have been wrapped; now they do not quite meet, leaving a thin gap at the front. The shaft has a constant circumference between the top and middle knops, then tapers between the middle and bottom ones". Or does it only taper below the bottom knop? Are the knops solid rings that were slid up the pole, then fixed into place, or were they two or more bits fixed after the plates were in place?

  The wood is a single piece, and obv not hollow (have fixed this), its the bronze tubing that is not solid. The knops are nailed to the tubing, the only element that is free is the ring just above the ferrule. I like your suggested wording. Ceoil (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• On the plain "tubes" or plates round the staff, you have "The shaft is formed from a tubular wooden core plated with two copper-alloy tubes" and "They [the knops] are fastened to the tubing by rivets and separated by lengths of undecorated copper" - these are the same things, no? Copper-alloy or just copper?

  Have clarified this (they are positioned equally distant on the staff, separated by lengths of bare tubing). Only Murray in "Insular type crosiers their construction" goes into this level of detail, but doesn't say which metal. Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• top knop: "It is lined with triangular and rectangular copper plaques between which are blue studs formed from glass.[48] The plaques are decorated with interlace and have borders lined with strips of twisted copper and silver wire." From the pictures these were formed separately, I'd imagine by casting, and here and on the similar bottom knop some of them are missing, with nail holes apparent underneath. Might as well say this, if in refs.

  Most of this is in Moss, so have added re losses, and instead of "formed separately" have clarified that they are inserts. The visible nails is on Murray from memory, but not at hand on this computer....hold on. Ceoil (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Now "contains three large and ornately decorated barrel-shaped and individually cast knops.", but Murrary, by far the most detailed source, doesn't mention the nails. Ceoil (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  Trying this reply feature - the Francoise Henry notes say (page with triangles diagram) "The insets are held by rivets (small domed ones; larger ones added)" Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• Is the "collar" with the lions a separate piece? There's "and like the upper knop is biconical (i.e. of two parts)" later.

  Its separate and a number of sources describe it as crest, which I don't entirely get. But of course not a collar, and clarified. Ceoil (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• On the ferrule, I can't see " and an openwork section"? Other than in the knop. Really, openwork is best used when you can see right through a piece (as between the dogs' legs). Not sure from the pics if this is the case with the triangle sections.

• Have fixed this. Re openwork, yes and have tried ever avenue to somehow weave in the Clonmacnoise crucifixion plaque, but its much earlier, and perhaps of even less certain provenance. Ceoil (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think that's it - these are tricky things to describe, that's for sure!
• Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  "tricky things to describe" - for real. Liz's once had a job describing ancient artifacts for a museum, but her skill didnt obv rub off on me. Thanks for schooling and bearing with. Ceoil (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Returning. The lead is better for sure but "11th-century structure repaired and added to in the sometime around the early 15th century" needs a choice, which I didn't like to make.

  Now "added to". Repaired was because some lost components, eg the drop plate, were replaced. Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• We still have it being discovered "on the grounds" of the monastery, rather than "in" - unless this is an Irish English thing; "on" slihtly hints it was just lying on the grass, rather than being dug up, found in a recess or whatever (which we don't know).

  Reworded in lead as "in Clonmacnoise monastery", as the 2nd or 3rd hand story is that it was in a small chapel in the complex. Ceoil (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Designed in the Ringerike style,[42] they are held in place by thin threads lined with strips of niello that appear as decorative flaps that" better, but I still think "held in place" risks confusing the reader that this is a physical rather than purely visual "holding". Might "overlaid" be better? On the same tack, I think straps, strips or bands better than threads, which are typically round rather than flat. What about: "Designed in the Ringerike style,[42] the animals' bodies are overlaid with patterns of thinner strips, outlined with niello, that appear as decorative bands that ..."? The NMI Wallace & O'F book has "outlined", btw.

  Simplified, yes outlined is correct. Ceoil (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• "plaque showing a looming, grotesque animal head that may be a dragon" I must say that to me it looks more likely to represent a very stylized human mask. If the sources allow for this possibility, we should say "grotesque human or animal head". Btw, as mask now says "More generally in art history, especially sculpture, "mask" is the term for a face without a body that is not modelled in the round (which would make it a "head"), but for example appears in low relief.", so strictly the correct term, but perhaps confusing to readers.
  • Its now human head (only), which seems to be consensus. Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Something seems wrong with the You Tube external link.
  • Its working fine for me...what error msg is appearing. Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Although its origins and medieval provenance are unknown, croziers have always acted as ceremonial staffs for bishops and high-status abbots". "Although" wrongly implies that the first part of the sentence qualifies the second part. Also not "always" - below it says since 431.
• "Rediscovered under uncertain circumstances," This is the third time you have said this.
• "Henry Charles Sirr until his collection was acquired by the Royal Irish Academy on his death in 1844" The article on Sirr says he died in 1872.
• "According to the archaeologist A. T. Lucas, the croziers thus acted as "the principle vehicle of [the saint's] power". Is the wrong spelling of "principal" in the source? Also, I would leave out "the" in "the croziers" if he is referring to croziers in general. If he is referring to specific croziers, you need to clarify.
• "a chalice, a wine vessel and an arm-shrine, all now lost,[n 1] all of which would have been deposited at the burial site centuries after the saint had died" Repetition of "all" I think you could delete "all of".
• What is a cross-slab?
• "the crook (the curved head)" It is odd to explain the crook the 11th time you use the word (and the second time in the description section).
• "Many of the patterns and decorations are influenced by the late 10th-century Ringerike and 11th-century Urnes styles of Viking art". Both here and in the lead you describe Viking influence, but not (unless I have missed it) what Irish and other styles influenced the design.
  • Comment: The NMI Wallace & O'F book has "a version of the mid-eleventh-century international style known as Ringerike", which is another way of looking at it, but the style is always mainly associated with Viking art. Equally it clearly relates to interlaced animals from Insular art and Celtic art stretching over the preceding several centuries, not to mention the general Animal style of Migration Period art, but I wouldn't venture onto the precise relationship without heavy referencing. Pages 215-219 in the same book are relevant, but rather vague. Johnbod (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Ok thanks. Very similar to the above is outlined in Moss p.311, where she says the "...croziers display animal ornament, interlace and key patterns in a native idiom, but later examples reflect stylistic changes that took effect [from the 10th-12th c.'s ie...]....The Ringerike & Urnes styles in their Insular adaptations...[can be seen] on the croziers from Clonmacnoise and Lismore." I agree its best to keep close to the source here, and have added a one-liner (this is an introductory para to the description anyway, and the "animal ornament, interlace and key patterns in a native idiom" are detailed below). Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
      • She has a few pages earlier in the book on the process of adaption and the variations, but not in scope here I think. Ceoil (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks Dudley. Addressed with exception of last one. Ceoil (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  • All addressed to here. Ceoil (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• "pre-medieval Celtic art patterns". Pre-medieval is a vague term. Does it mean La Tène? Celtic art jumps from pre-Roman La Tène culture to post-Roman Insular art, but suggests that La Tene continued in Britain and Ireland into the Roman period, so it would seem logical to replace "pre-medieval Celtic art" with "La Tène culture", yet the La Tene article says that it ended in the first century BCE. I am not clear what style pre-medieval refers to. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• The source doesn’t say, so have removed “pre-medieval”. Ceoil (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• "It cast from a single piece of wood, metal onto which is attached and inner, single binding and the metal plates for the crest and drop.". This sounds clumsy and vague. How about "It is composed of a single piece of wood, encased in copper alloy, with an inner binding and plates for the crest and drop." - adapt as correct of course.

  yes better. Done Ceoil (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Each side of the crook is decorated with four or five zoomorphic snake-like animals described in silver cast rows of tightly bound figure-of-eight". "described" seems an odd word here. Maybe "Each side of the crook is decorated with four or five silver cast zoomorphic snake-like animals in rows of tightly bound figure-of-eight".

  reworded Ceoil (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• "knop" is not linked. Dictionaries define it as a knob, but from the illustrations it appears to be a bulge which goes right round the staff. Is it possible to clarify?

  Have linked to [wikt:knop|wikt]], and the lead says "protruding decorative metal fittings". They can fully wrap or be semi-circular. Ceoil (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Wiktionary does not help as it just says knob. I think it would be better to add a note explaining more fully, including whether they fully wrap on the Clonmacnoise Crozier - and referring reader to the image of the upper knop, which is more helpful than any explanation in words. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Agree, and have added a WIP section to Insular crozier which has images of four examples and is now linked to. Its not great; Youngs has a glossary that could use, but am traveling atm and do not have access to my book sources. Meanwhile, we also now say The shaft contains three large and ornately decorated barrel-shaped and individually cast knops, each of which fully wraps around the staff. Ceoil (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• "The positioning of the human figures is likely influenced by the late 9th-century Prosperous Crozier." I am not sure this is helpful in the absence of information about the Prosperous Crozier. It also sounds very speculative as you point out that there were presumably many other croziers which have not survived which could just as well have influenced the design.

  removed Ceoil (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• "The original ferrule remains is intact". I am not sure what you mean here.

  the ferrule is the original, but not sure it needs to be said. Removed. Ceoil (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• "might have obtained it directly or indirectly from the family of its hereditary keepers". What does this mean? The descendants of its discoverers?

  Added "a local family who would have looked after and protected the object over centuries", normally the family tat interited the land after the fall of the monastery, who would have hidden it for safe keeping. Needs a sperate article, which now now goes on my list :) Ceoil (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Dudley Miles, all now addressed. Ceoil (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for a challenging and perceptive review that significantly improved the page and makes FAC worthwhile. Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Harry

• Can we define crozier in the opening sentence?
• Similarly, "openwork" could use an inline definition ("holes" is probably a bit too simplistic, but it doesn't need to be verbose)
• the principal vehicle of [the saint's] power I might suggest replacing "the saint" with "Patrick" if you mean that saint in particular and not saints in general.
• The link on "zoomorphic" should be on the first use of the term
• according to Murray, "spring from their heads and bodies forming knotted vegetal-like designs around them" Introduce Murray in the body (he's introduced in the lead but this is his first mention in the body)
• "fell into ignorant hands, and were probably deemed unworthy of preservation" Ideally, you need a reference as close to the quote as possible (after the closing quote mark or end of sentence) for source-text integrity.
• presumably meaning that their precious metal was melted Who is presuming? As written, it looks like editorialising; if it's the opinion of the source, it should be attributed in-text.

Very little to pick at really. Great work, and an interesting article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Harry, thanks for the look, all addressed now. Re the first two, yes - its important to be accessible for general readers; it can be annoying reading an article on main page clearly written for specialists. Ceoil (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Leonardo DiCaprio

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I had intended to bring this article to a quality level back in 2015 or so when it was in really a bad shape. I could achieve this four years later. I thought to give it a go at FAC as well where it received five full supports and no oppose. However, I withdrew the nomination as it was taking too long to conclude (and because a review towards the end showed some MoS and prose issues). After almost two years of inactivity, I have recently returned to editing and thought to give it another try. Whether or not this fantastic actor's article gets the shiny star, I hope you learn some things about him and watch some of his films in the process. FrB.TG (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Realmaxxver

Resolved comments

Been a while since I've reviewed an article here at FAC. Adding comments soon. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC) Lead "As of 2019, his films have grossed over $7.2 billion worldwide" Any update on this? Unfortunately, Box Office Mojo now requires IMDb Pro membership, which I don't have but given the fact that the only major release DiCaprio has had since 2019 was Don't Look Up in 2021, a Netflix film, I doubt the figure has changed drastically. "He achieved international stardom with the romance Titanic (1997), the highest-grossing film to that point," Instead of "to that point", I would suggest "at the time" Done. Early life and acting background "Leonardo Wilhelm DiCaprio was born on November 11, 1974, in Los Angeles, California,[1] the only child of Irmelin (née Indenbirken), a legal secretary, and George DiCaprio, an underground comix writer, publisher, and distributor of comic books.[2]" Although some FAs like Jennifer Lawrence work with this sentencing format excellently, for this example; I feel like this is more claustrophobic that what is used on FAs like Philip Seymour Hoffman; and would support seperating the sentence like what is used on Philip Seymour Hoffman (like "Leonardo Wilhelm DiCaprio was born on November 11, 1974, in Los Angeles, California,[1] the only child of Irmelin (née Indenbirken) and George DiCaprio. DiCaprio's mother is a legal secretary, and his father is an underground comix writer, publisher, and distributor of comic books.[2]"). Also, not only does source 2 not even mention DiCaprio's mother; you should use url-status=dead for that source. Good catch on the source being dead; the status is now updated. I have divided the sentence in two parts now. As for the WP:OR point, source 10 does mention DiCaprio's mother's name but I get that it should've also been placed where she is named. Anyway, I have added a source for that now. FrB.TG (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC) "His parents met while attending college and moved to Los Angeles after graduating.[8]" I feel like it is weird to mention where his parents met after explaining DiCaprio's family's entire ancestral background; when this could be explained earlier on (such as "Leonardo Wilhelm DiCaprio was born on November 11, 1974, in Los Angeles, California.[1] He is the only child of Irmelin (née Indenbirken), a legal secretary, and George DiCaprio, an underground comix writer, publisher, and distributor of comic books.[2][3] His parents met while attending college and moved to Los Angeles after graduating.[8]" Good point, now rearranged. FrB.TG (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC) "When he was two, he went on stage at a performance festival and danced spontaneously; the cheerful response from the crowd started his interest in performing.[20]" (This sentence does not need a semicolon) → "When he was two, he went on stage at a performance festival and danced spontaneously, and the cheerful response from the crowd started his interest in performing.[20]" I actually prefer the semi-colon as I like to avoid the repetitive usage of “and” wherever possible, especially when they’re placed in such a close proximity. FrB.TG (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Acting career 1991–1996: Early work and breakthrough "In 1992, DiCaprio played a supporting role in the first installment of the Poison Ivy film series,[41] and was handpicked by Robert De Niro out of 400 young actors to star in This Boy's Life, a coming-of-age drama about the relationship between the rebellious teenager Tobias "Toby" Wolff (DiCaprio) and his mother (Ellen Barkin) and abusive stepfather (De Niro).[22][42]" I feel like this sentence is a little bit long; and should be seperated into two sentences. Split into two. FrB.TG (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC) "DiCaprio's first effort of 1995 was in Sam Raimi's western film The Quick and the Dead. Sony Pictures was dubious over DiCaprio's casting, and as a result, costar Sharon Stone paid his salary herself.[48]" → "DiCaprio's first effort of 1995 was in Sam Raimi's western film The Quick and the Dead, but Sony Pictures was dubious over DiCaprio's casting, and as a result, costar Sharon Stone paid his salary herself.[48]" 1997–2001: Titanic and worldwide recognition "With a production budget of more than $200 million, the film was the most expensive ever made" This record has been beaten by films such as Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011), so adding "at the time" to this would be better. "in Randall Wallace's The Man in the Iron Mask, based on the same-titled 1939 film." → "in Randall Wallace's The Man in the Iron Mask, based on the 1939 film of the same name." All revised. "In 1998, DiCaprio was cast in American Psycho (2000) for a reported salary of $20 million, but left the project soon after when he failed to agree with Oliver Stone on the film's direction and took the lead role in The Beach instead.[74]" → "In 1998, DiCaprio was cast in American Psycho (2000) for a reported salary of $20 million, but when he disagreed with Oliver Stone on the film's direction, DiCaprio left the project soon after; taking the lead role in The Beach instead.[74]" 2002–2009: Venture into film production Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio is linked here as a "see also" link; but is also linked in the "See also" section. Removed from the 'See also' section. "The film received critical acclaim and with a worldwide gross of $351 million, it became his highest-grossing release since Titanic.[82]" The way this sentence is worded makes it sound like Catch Me If You Can made more money than Titanic, when that is obviously not true (given note b); so I think this should be reworded. "Director Scorsese initially struggled selling his idea of realizing the film" given the popularity of Scorsese, I am not sure that the "Director" title is needed. "In 2004, DiCaprio founded the production company Appian Way Productions, a namesake of the Italian road.[30]" I would suggest changing the Appian Way link to be extended to the Italian road. Done. FrB.TG (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC) In this paragraph, there is "The Aviator (2004)" and "The Insider (1999)", but on "The Assassination of Richard Nixon" the year of release is not specified. I thought it’d be made clear with its premier at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival but I can mention it explicitly. "DiCaprio's first producing task was as an executive producer in The Assassination of Richard Nixon, starring Sean Penn as Samuel Byck.[91] It was screened in the Un Certain Regard section at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival.[92]" → "DiCaprio's first producing task was as an executive producer in The Assassination of Richard Nixon, starring Sean Penn as Samuel Byck,[91] which was screened in the Un Certain Regard section at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival.[92]" Mind linking to Rhodesia at "In Blood Diamond, DiCaprio starred as a diamond smuggler from Rhodesia who is involved in the Sierra Leone Civil War." The above two done. FrB.TG (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC) "Claudia Puig of the USA Today called it "the first time the boyish actor has truly seemed like a man on film" and Ann Hornaday of the Washington Post positively noted his growth as an actor since The Departed.[107][108]" This sentence is not cited properly. I would suggest "Claudia Puig of the USA Today called it "the first time the boyish actor has truly seemed like a man on film",[107] and Ann Hornaday of the Washington Post positively noted his growth as an actor since The Departed.[108]" Done Hi Realmaxxver, 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) 22:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC) I was actually going to think about going back to adding comments on this review soon, but no vote yet. Realmaxxver (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "DiCaprio was also a creator and an executive producer for Planet Green's Greensburg (2008–2010), a show that takes place in Greensburg, Kansas and is about rebuilding the town in a sustainable way after being hit by the May 2007 EF5 tornado; it ran for three seasons.[113]" suggest changing it to "DiCaprio was also a creator and an executive producer for Planet Green's Greensburg (2008–2010). It ran for three seasons, and took place in Greensburg, Kansas. It was about rebuilding the town in a sustainable way after being hit by the May 2007 EF5 tornado.[113]" Revised. "Also in 2008, DiCaprio starred in Body of Lies, a spy film based on the novel of the same name. He played one of three agents battling a terrorist organization in the Middle East.[114]" → "Also in 2008, DiCaprio starred in Body of Lies, a spy film based on the novel of the same name; where he played one of three agents battling a terrorist organization in the Middle East.[114]" I prefer the former here because the last mention before saying "he played" is the novel, and it might make one think he "played" the role in the novel. Being split into two sentences removes that ambiguity. Also, I am not sure about that semi-colon after "where". FrB.TG (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC) "it was Winslet who suggested that both work with her on a film adaptation of the 1961 novel of the same name by Richard Yates" missing word; " it was Winslet who suggested that they both work with her on a film adaptation of the 1961 novel of the same name by Richard Yates" Added Hi Realmaxxver, would it possible for you to speed up your review a little if you have time? It has been almost a month now since you started your review, and I would like things to go a little faster, if possible. Thank you for your review so far. FrB.TG (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC) Yea. Realmaxxver (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC) "As both actors had been reluctant to make romantic films similar to Titanic, it was Winslet who suggested that they both work with her on a film adaptation of the 1961 novel of the same name by Richard Yates after reading the script by Justin Haythe, knowing that the plot had little in common with the 1997 blockbuster.[117]" run on sentence. Revised. "Peter Travers found DiCaprio's pairing with Winslet exceptional and was impressed with his multi-layered portrayal of an overwhelmed character, while Marshall Sella of GQ called it the "most mature and memorable performance of his lifetime".[121][119]" same WP:OR issue I mentioned earlier. Changed "exception" to "impressed with" (the source describes their pairing as "could not be better"). This should be closer to what the author means, I think. FrB.TG (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC) FrB.TG I was specifically referring to this previous example: "Claudia Puig of the USA Today called it "the first time the boyish actor has truly seemed like a man on film" and Ann Hornaday of the Washington Post positively noted his growth as an actor since The Departed.[107][108]" (so the sentence above would be "Peter Travers found DiCaprio's pairing with Winslet exceptional and was impressed with his multi-layered portrayal of an overwhelmed character,[121] while Marshall Sella of GQ called it the "most mature and memorable performance of his lifetime".[119]") good change though. Realmaxxver (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC) Ah, okay. I have now placed each reference right next to the end of the individual statements; it should make it easier for the reader now. FrB.TG (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC) 2010–2013: Films with high-profile directors "Because of the film's plot involving disturbing scenes," maybe this could be simplified to "Because of the film's disturbing scenes," "Also in 2010, DiCaprio starred in Christopher Nolan's critically acclaimed ensemble science-fiction film Inception.[130]" This starts the same way as a paragraph in the previous section ("Also in 2002, DiCaprio starred in Martin Scorsese's Gangs of New York,") so maybe change the wording, like "The same year, DiCaprio starred in Christopher Nolan's critically acclaimed ensemble science-fiction film Inception.[130]" Both done. "After playing demanding roles in Shutter Island and Inception, DiCaprio took a small break from acting to have some time for himself.[136] He returned to film the following November in Clint Eastwood's J. Edgar (2011), a biopic about J. Edgar Hoover. The film focuses on the career of the FBI director from the Palmer Raids onward, including an examination of his private life as an alleged closeted homosexual.[137]" → "After playing demanding roles in Shutter Island and Inception, DiCaprio took a small break from acting to have some time for himself,[136] returning to film the following November in Clint Eastwood's J. Edgar (2011). The film is a biopic about J. Edgar Hoover, and focuses on the career of the FBI director from the Palmer Raids onward, including an examination of his private life as an alleged closeted homosexual.[137]" Revised. "In 2012, DiCaprio starred as a plantation owner, Calvin Candie, in Quentin Tarantino's Spaghetti Western, Django Unchained." I think it would be better to word this more passively, like "In 2012, DiCaprio starred as plantation owner Calvin Candie in Quentin Tarantino's Spaghetti Western, Django Unchained." Done "His first was in the role of millionaire Jay Gatsby in Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby," remove the first "in"; "His first was the role of millionaire Jay Gatsby in Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby," I think the "in" is correct because "his first film was the role of.." doesn’t sound right. FrB.TG (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC) "In his review for The Hollywood Reporter, Todd McCarthy lauded DiCaprio for fully realizing his character's potential with a carefree performance.[162]" → "In Todd McCarthy's review for The Hollywood Reporter, he lauded DiCaprio for fully realizing his character's potential with a carefree performance.[162]" Revised. "The film premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival in April 2014. DiCaprio received nomination for the 2015 Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Documentary or Nonfiction Special.[166]" The source does not mention that the film premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival → "The film premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival in April 2014, and was nominated for the 2015 Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Documentary or Nonfiction Special.[166]" Source added. I have retained the part that says DiCaprio was nominated, as it would not directly be clear that he was also a nominee since he was "just" an executive producer. FrB.TG (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC) "Mark Kermode of The Guardian wrote DiCaprio shone with a performance that prioritizes physicality over speech,[173]" I think there is a missing word; "Mark Kermode of The Guardian wrote that DiCaprio shone with a performance that prioritizes physicality over speech,[173] " Added. "In 2016, he was an executive producer for The Ivory Game and Catching the Sun;[179][180] produced, hosted, and narrated the documentary Before the Flood about climate change;[181] and produced the crime drama Live by Night. The lattermost received largely unenthusiastic reviews and failed to recoup its $65 million production budget.[182]" → "In 2016, he was an executive producer for The Ivory Game and Catching the Sun;[179][180] and also produced, hosted, and narrated the documentary Before the Flood about climate change.[181] He also produced the crime drama Live by Night, which received largely unenthusiastic reviews and failed to recoup its $65 million production budget.[182]" Done. "In 2020, DiCaprio served as an executive producer for The Right Stuff, a television series adaption of the 1973 namesake book. The series had been in development at National Geographic for three years but was moved to Disney+ for a release in October.[194]" → "In 2020, DiCaprio served as an executive producer for The Right Stuff. A television series adaption of the 1973 namesake book, the series had been in development at National Geographic for three years but was moved to Disney+ for a release in October.[194]" That would introduce a repetitive usage of "series" within a close proximity but I’ve simplified the sentence. FrB.TG (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC) "a risk that has led to failed films like The Beach (2000),[49] but also to his several successful collaborations with Martin Scorsese.[218][219]" already linked De-linked.

FrB.TG I am done with the review now. Support. Realmaxxver (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Support by Aoba47

Resolved comments

I am leaving this as a placeholder. Please ping me if I do not post anything in a week. To be fully transparent, I did participate in the first FAC and support that nomination. Since the article is on the longer side (which is understandable given DiCaprio's career), I want to make sure I have the time to read everything thoroughly. Since DiCaprio is still very active, I'd encourage you to be mindful of the length in the future (though I believe this is a standard note for any FACs/FAs about living individuals with active careers). Apologies for not being able to post a review today. Aoba47 (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC) I look forward to it. As for the article's size, I don't think we need to worry much considering how selective DiCaprio is in his choices of roles but I see your point. FrB.TG (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC) That is a good point. I do not think it is anything to worry about right now. It was just something that came to my mind while briefly looking through the article again. Aoba47 (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC) I have a suggestion about this sentence: Disillusioned at this, he initially decided to quit acting, but his father encouraged him to further explore his creative side, introducing him to underground art and art in general. Since the following sentence uses two citations, I'd put a citation for this one to be very clear about what is used to support this information. I am guessing it is citation 28, but I think further clarity would be beneficial. I have some clarification questions about Growing Pains. To be clear, I have not seen this show. Could DiCaprio just quit a show like this as I would have thought there would have been some sort of contractual obligations? Also, the Wikipedia article about the show says DiCaprio was a part of the final season, so is this more the case that the show got canceled and DiCaprio was able to leave because of that? Well, he quit toward the ending of the show, citing "bad writing" as the reason to quit. Had he stayed, he would've appeared in three more episodes. I have tried clarifying it in the article now. I see your point now. I would have thought there would have been some sort of contract requiring him to appear in a certain amount of episodes, but your explanation makes sense. I did a slight copy-edit to the sentence if that is alright with you. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC) It definitely looks better after the copy-edit. Thank you. For this sentence, The film was a commercial success, grossing $294 million worldwide, I would include the budget so the reader could have a better understanding of how it was a commercial success. I believe this part, DiCaprio liked the experience of working with Pitt, could be shortened to just DiCaprio liked working with Pitt. I have a question about The Crowded Room. Is DiCaprio producing the series starring Tom Holland? I could not find any mention of him or his production company in the source, but I could have overlooked it by accident. Good point. I did some research and nowhere does it mention in any source that he or his production company has any kind of involvement in the film-turned-show. Thank you for further looking into this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC) I would revise this part, In 2017, Paramount announced that, to Paramount announced in 2017, that. The previous sentence uses "In X year" so I would do something similar to my suggested edit to avoid repetition. Was there any criticism towards DiCaprio's environmental activism, such as him being potential hypocritical with his activism and actual actions and lifestyle? There is one citation used in the article that mentions this in the title. The third paragraph does actually mention that. "However, his use of private jets and large yachts has prompted criticism due to their large carbon footprints." Apologies for missing that. That was the information that I had in mind. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC) I have a question about this part, but he has been the subject of several articles detailing his involvement with women aged 25 or younger. The note only mentions the jokes made about his dating habits, but have there been more serious criticism of DiCaprio dating younger women? Added further sources that criticize him as a misogynist and commitment-phobic person. Thank you for including this information in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC) I hope these comments are helpful. I will look through the article again once everything has been addressed. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Thank you for your comments, Aoba47, they have been most helpful. Where I haven't stated otherwise, I have done as per your suggestions. Do let me know if there is any more to be done and if I can return the favor by reviewing one of your works here. Cheers. FrB.TG (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC) Thank you for addressing everything. I really enjoyed reading this article again and you have a very good job with writing a solid article about a very famous individual with a long career. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any comments for my current FAC, but I understand if you do not have the time or interest. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC) Thank you, I’m glad you enjoyed reading his article again. I’ll definitely review your FAC in a day or two. FrB.TG (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC) Of course, and thank you. Take as much time as you need. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Just chiming in as this FAC review features a few things I was involved in some way or another. Anyway, around the time he was dating a Danish woman named Nina Agdal, which I initially added, we kind of implicitly decided to stop updating his personal life section because it was becoming so-called gossip-y down there. I removed many of his significant relationships and only kept 3. This was before anyone really cared per se that the women he publicly dates are "25" or younger. Personally, I truly think it should only be briefly mentioned and further detail can be made into a "Personal relationships of Leonardo DiCaprio" article. Calling him a misogynist by the media for consensual relationships or even having a type teters on the wrong side of BLP to me. Especially when those sources aren't so reliable or high quality. Trillfendi (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for the message and ping. I can understand and agree that the misogynist criticism is rather extreme, but I do think it is odd for a man in his 40s to be consistently dating women in their early 20s (particularly given the power dynamic and parasocial aspects) but that is just my personal opinion. I only asked about it in my review as it was something that I thought about while reading the article. I agree that the sources for these claims are not the best, and I would be okay with losing them if other editors disagree with their inclusion. I would highly doubt that DiCaprio's personal life is notable enough for a separate article, when compared to others like Lindsay Lohan.
• I have not worked on a lot of BLPs so I am not knowledgeable or experienced enough to really say what relationships are notable enough for inclusion. I would just hope that there is a clear cut reason and rationale for why certain relationships are covered over others (i.e. the significance in his life, the coverage in reliable and third-party sources, etc.). Apologies for the long response. My main point is I will defer to more experienced editors/reviewers and this should not change my support of this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• I don't watch movies so this guy's habit of dating much younger women is pretty much the only thing I know about him. Like Aoba, I believe it merits a mention in the article—not using any labels necessarily but just stating the publicly known facts. (t · c) buidhe 08:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Support from Pseud 14

Resolved comments

Placeholder. Going to review soon. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC) In 1979, DiCaprio was removed, at age five, from the set of – Perhaps it would be better if "In 1979, at age five, DiCaprdio was removed from the set of" The teenage DiCaprio was cast by the producers to appeal to the teenage female audiences – one would assume as this is 1991 that DiCaprio was a teenager, we can probably drop the first mention of teenage to avoid repetition. The film is a coming-of-age drama on the relationship between the rebellious teenager Tobias "Toby" Wolff (DiCaprio) and his mother (Ellen Barkin) and abusive stepfather (De Niro). -- I think “and” before “his mother” should be removed and replaced with comma I think the 'and' is well justified there since the film explores DiCaprio's relationship with his parents, and not the relationship between the three. Its director Michael Caton-Jones has said DiCaprio -- has said that DiCaprio.. played a self-mocking role in a small appearance in Woody Allen's -- I think “brief appearance” is much suited DiCaprio was cast in American Psycho (2000) in 1998 -- Perhaps you can restructure, the release year in brackets close to 1998 may be confusing for some. Maybe begin with "Also in 1998, DiCaprio was cast" comedy drama Gardener of Eden, which, according to The Hollywood Reporter's – I think there should be no comma after which Brad Pitt/Paramount Pictures -- maybe split with "and" First pass, have reviewed down to the end of upcoming projects. Hope these comments are helpful. Will review the remainder. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC) I took care of these except where I have stated otherwise. Looking forward to the rest of your comments. FrB.TG (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Satisfied with the replies. Relatively minor point in the "Philanthropy" section is how three consecutive sentences start with month/year, beginning with "In 2010, In April 2013, and In 2016", could use some minor tweaks so it doesn't come across as listing dates/events. Otherwise, I'm happy to support this article. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. I have tried to vary the sentences. FrB.TG (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by from CPA

• There are MOS:SANDWICH issues in both the 2010–2013: Films with high-profile directors and the Environmental activism sections. Please remove these issues. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Done, thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Panini!

Resolved comments

Lead Could you link Biographical film here? You should also link Los Angeles while you're at it. Much like some small city in West Virginia, it helps for a user to have a reference (even though it's popular) It borders on WP:OVERLINKING, which frowns upon linking popular locations. Since Romeo + Juliet and Titanic are next to each other, and the next portion of the sentence specifies a "highest-grossing film", I'd specify it's the latter. Do you think it'd be better to list Titanic as "the highest-grossing film at the time" or "the third highest-grossing film of all time" (where it currently stands)? I prefer writing its highest achievement in the lede. I'm not 100 percent certain if you are correct or not, but should there be an "organization" after "nonprofit"? You are right. "Nonprofit" is an adjective and should be followed by a noun. I hate to leave you with a measly lead glance-over, but yyyyyyyyyikes am I low on time! I'll be back in the future, sometime this following week, hopefully. 18:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC) No worries. Take your time. Thank you for the review so far. FrB.TG (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Alright, I'm back. I have the free time right now to finish but I'm working on other things in the background so the review will be a little slow, but I'll be posting after reviewing each section so you can work in between pauses. Early life and acting background I'm jealous of this man's name. And to think that an agent wanted to Americanize this man's beautiful name. Thank Goodness he did not agree to it. If you're gonna link German, you might as well link it's first appearance, which is a couple words before it. Well, the first instance of "German" refers to his heritage, while the second one is linked to the language. De-linked anyway, per WP:OVERLINKING. "When his stepbrother earned $50,000 for a television commercial, DiCaprio, fascinated with this, decided to become an actor" -> "His stepbrother earned $50,000 for a television commercial, which fascinated DiCaprio and helped him decide to become an actor." (less commas) "At the beginning of his career, DiCaprio had difficulty finding an agent and when he did find one, he suggested DiCaprio change his name to Lenny Williams to appeal to American audiences, which he declined to do." This sentence drags on a bit, so I'd suggest a full stop after "finding an agent". Maybe a comma after "a year and a half"? 1991–1996 Early work and breakthrough "what not to repeat" is pretty vague; as in, a role not to play again or a movie not to make sequels out of? "...mischievous on set." In what ways? Now I'm curious... I'd specify that This Boy's Life is a biopic, considering these are what the actor is known for. This movie is a biopic, right? "...Streep's character's troubled son" -> "the troubled son of Streep's character" (less of a mouthful) Wow, this was a fun section to read! Good Job! I'm glad you had fun. :D 1997–2001 Titanic and worldwide recognition "...at the time; and was shot..." - a semicolon with an "and" is gramatically incorrect, so one of them has to be cut. Oooh, choices! Jack Dawson (character) is a redirect and therefore isn't necessary. Bilge Ebiri is mentioned twice within two paragraphs, so the second instance can be shortened to Ebiri since they don't need another full introduction. Speaking of which, is there another reviewer that can be called upon here? These instances are too close in my opinion. "but became a box office success, grossing $180 million internationally." Against what budget? Yeah, says who? Can anything else be said about DiCaprio's roles in The Man in the Iron Mask? There's a critic that praises him, but then the article goes on to say he was the Worst Screen Couple I have added another praising review but added a contradicting conjunction before the part with the Razzi. I found mostly praise for his performance: "DiCaprio ... acquits himself well alongside his more seasoned co-stars and has immense fun with his dual roles, especially the villainous monarch." "Leonardo DiCaprio, delivers a wonderful double star turn in 'The Man in the Iron Mask.' ... DiCaprio’s presence assures a strong opening" "he rivets attention in practically every scene. With captivating ingenuousness, and with a physical beauty that reduces the camera to one more worshipful fan, he fares well in one of his most ill-advised film projects." Despite zero sleep last night and two cups of weak coffee, I'm going to plow through the rest of this review. Sorry for the large gaps in between comments, I've been having a rough week... 2002–2009 Venture into film production Although I don't remember any other instances of this, try to stick with either "biopic" or "biographical". Also mention the budget for Catch Me If You Can, since you seem to hop between the two and I feel mentioning it is better than not. This is more of a general comment, but a lot of these prose mentions of reviewers seem to follow too similar of a format: a thought he was good, and said "[direct quote, usually about how talented and sexy he is]". Some cases are small little blurbs of fancy words, and it breaks up the prose in those cases and should rather be paraphrased. Here's some examples: "breezy and charming" - This is a reviewers description of his departure from dark and troubled characters, and I honestly think it's super vague and doesn't give much context. "perfectly watchable" "conspicuously excellent performance" - These are fun words, but are also super vague ones. What did he do that was "conspicuously excellent"? I had to look up "blown-out budgets" to see if it was just "going over budget". This query of mine might just be from my severe sleep deprivation, but it could also appear jargony to other viewers and could be more generalized. "DiCaprio's performance, although well-received, was overshadowed by that of Daniel Day-Lewis according to many critics." This is a good example of what I'd prefer to see over the quotes above. Good sentence, A+. What does obsessive refer to in "obsessive American film director and aviation pioneer Howard Hughes"? Were DiCarpio and Scorsese obsessed with him? "The Aviator became a critical and financial success" - Do the math: there's no math. Against what budget and how much did it make? The 11th Hour? What a nerd. Reuniting with Kate Winslet for another romance drama sounds as if it were a big deal, but it's kind of glanced over. Could you expand this section with budget and box office details, as well as other critical mentions (preferably if they ever compared the two movies together)? 2010–2013 Films with high-profile directors General comment, is there other ways we can spice up this article image-wise? It's great to see all these photos of him, but at the end of the day, they're too similar in my opinion. This man does not age. "After playing demanding roles in Shutter Island and Inception, DiCaprio took a break from acting to have some time for himself." I'd specify just how long this break was because the article immediately jumps back into other acting ventures. "Although it was poorly received by critics—Mary Pols of Time magazine named it one of the ten worst films of 2011" - But why didn't they like it? "largest and best screen performance, one in which he lets loose as he never has before, is not protective of vanity or a sense of cool and, one feels, gets completely to the bottom of his character" - this is a really choppy quote and was hard to follow along with. Could it be paraphrased or fiddled with to fix this? 2014–present Focus on environmental documentaries and awards success Once again: what a nerd. "DiCaprio received nomination for a" - "DiCaprio received a nomination for the" I'd link fur trapper (it's a section in the mountain man article) "the eponymous retelling of the legend Robin Hood." The "eponymous retelling" link went under my radar and I couldn't tell what movie it was referring to; maybe do something here that's similar formatting to the Romeo + Juliet instance above it? Aaaaand see you tomorrow. I know I said I'd finish but something came up just now and I must skeddadle. Tomorrow, I promise! Panini!🥪 15:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Thank you for the comments, Panini, especially the ones regarding the unnecessary quotes. I admit I tend to get a little carried away with the number of quotes I use. I have paraphrased a good number of them now. Do let me know if there are others that stick out. FrB.TG (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Okay, nine hours of sleep and an additional 3 hour nap and I'm ready to rumble. Reception and acting style "That year, he sued Playgirl magazine over plans to publish a fully nude picture of him." This sentence is mushed between critical opinions, so I'd move it below or after. Moved to the paragraph mentioning his sex appeal. "doing some trick which is pretty mysterious to everyone watching" - Quite confused about this quote, does the reviewer give an interpretation of what it is? Or is this just saying, "He's doing something, I just can't quite put my finger on it..." It's a direct quote from the director but I agree it does not add much. Left that part out. But that's it, really. Again, Good Job! Environmental activism + Misc Please delete this entire section, because global warming is not real and therefore a WP:HOAX. If global warming is real, why is there ice in my drink? "I see people wearing trenchcoats lecturing us on global warming. Irony much? This whole thing is totally made up by the government to scare us." "According to him, he was eager..." The "according to him" here makes it sound like this is his "alleged" story, and other evidence proves otherwise. I think that can be cut down to "He was eager to learn about ecology from an early age..." "and that he is agnostic" - This could be mentioned in the Personal life section. Alternatively, you can leave it, but I would link Agnosticism. Thing is he makes an odd comparison between environmentalism and spirituality, which is why I placed it in that context. "DiCaprio gave a charity donation and spoke about environmental issues" - What did he donate to, and who did he speak to? Whom? To the pope. Donated to what? Unknown. "DiCaprio's foundation..." - Isn't this the DiCaprio Foundation? Why is it referred to as just "the foundation owned by DiCaprio"? "...DiCaprio joined Titanic and Revolutionary Road costar..." - Despite the "costar" here, the way this is formatted makes it sound like he wasn't in these movies. Maybe just "costar" here? I'd link review aggregator That should be it from me! This has probably been my favorite FAC to review; even though it's a very long article it kept my attention and made the timeline fun to follow along with due to how you've organized information. I've apologized a lot already, but once again, I apologize for taking a week to finish this! Please let me know when you have fulfilled all these queries/suggestions; anything you disagree with please say so, because normally I'll drop it. I don't make it an absolute requirement that all of my ideas need to be satisfied to gain my support, and as long as you have a reason to justify against one of them I won't argue back. Panini!🥪 17:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC) I am glad you enjoyed reading it. No apologies needed whatsoever. One week to complete a review is not much compared to how long some take (not complaining as I understand that people are busy). Unless I have claimed otherwise under your points, I have taken on board your suggestions. Thank you again for your review; it really helped the article improve. FrB.TG (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Everything looks clear, so I leave my Support. Great work! Panini!^🥪 19:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

JBchrch driving by

You cite Sandler & Studlar 1999 but Sandler and Studlar are only the editors of the book. Rather, the relevant chapter and its author should be cited. JBchrch talk 04:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

They are ones listed in the place where you normally mention the author(s) so I think they really are the authors and not just the editors. In any case, I do not see any mention of someone else; I would think authors would be listed before editors. FrB.TG (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Have you looked at p. 6-7 of the archive file? Also, it's standard practice for the editors to be listed on the front cover (which says "edited by"). JBchrch talk 14:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Taking a closer look: you are citing the chapter written by Melanie Nash and Marti Lahti. JBchrch talk 14:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

As I was not the one having added this source, I do not have access to the book to be able to see the chapter's name (not in the archive file either). Replaced with other sources. FrB.TG (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. It was the page linked from the book's title. Just so you know, if you create an account at archive.org, you can read and "borrow" digital books like this one. JBchrch talk 15:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

However, it's unfortunate that you replaced Rutgers University Press with news sources. It would be preferable if you accessed the book from the URL and did the proper formatting. JBchrch talk 15:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that invaluable information. Despite being a frequent archive.org user, I did not know you could borrow books like that. I have now restored the Rutgers source with the proper formatting. FrB.TG (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome! JBchrch talk 16:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Harrias, hi you did the source review on its first nomination. Since not a lot of major things have changed (except for some updates) in terms of sources, would you be able to also do it this time around? I understand if you don’t have the time or inclination. Have a good day. FrB.TG (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Source review

Resolved comments

I'll take a crack at this. I see Harrias, pinged above re the source review hasn't edited for a few days; Harrias, if you want to chip in, please do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC) First a couple of things I can spot with scripts. It looks like you're inconsistent about including publisher locations in cite book; none of the books in the sources section include locations, but you do have a location for Marani's Leonardo da Vinci. Any reason why that book is embedded in a ref when all the other books cited are in the sources section? I tend to avoid using sfn when I use the book source only once. But here are many others which I also have only used once (and they are under sources) so done as the rest. As for publishers' locations, I’ve added those wherever available. Can we get a page range for the chapter by Nash & Lahti in Sandler & Studlar (1999)? Other points, added as I find them. I'm working my way down the list, checking that URLs are working; I'm not doing spotchecks, but I did see something I want to ask about. Your note [a] says the da Vinci mentioned "must have been one of" the three in the Uffizi, but why couldn't it have been one of the paintings in Milan? Considering his mother was in the Uffizi at the time, it is not possible for one of the paintings she looked at to have been in Milan. Sorry, I wasn't clear about what I was asking. I meant that the E! source doesn't mention the Uffizi, or Florence, unless I'm missing something. It says "DiCaprio got his first name by kicking in the womb while his parents viewed a da Vinci painting at a museum in Italy". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Oh, I have replaced it with a better source. It says, "Visiting Florence, they stopped by the Uffizi Gallery ... As Irmelin paused to admire a painting by Leonardo da Vinci she felt a strong kick inside her ... She'd name him after the Italian genius." FrB.TG (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC) The archive link for FN42, [48], isn't working for me. For FN67, your title is "Was Leonardo Robbed?", but both the current and archived link are titled "Leonardo DiCaprio: Robbed of a Titanic Nomination?" FN82: archive link [49] is not working. FN 87: For Ebert's review you cite the Chicago Sun-Times as the source; I know he reviewed for them but I don't know for sure that everything on his website appeared in the paper, or that the date on the website is the date of publication in the paper if it did appear. I think it would be better to cite to the website itself. FN 112: archive link [50] is not working. FN 135: is no web link available? Unfortunately not. I'm curious to know why you're citing The Hindu for his awards? Seems like there must be more natural sources. The Hindu is a reliable source per WP:RSP but replaced with one from The Guardian. Link validation done through FN180 (this version); will continue probably tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Thank you, I addressed your concerns in these changes. FrB.TG (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC) More: FN 197: the archive link [51] doesn't work. FN 228: the archive link [52] isn't working. FN 233: the article [53] doesn't seem to mention DiCaprio -- I assume this is intended to cite that he was on the list of highest paid actors for 2013? You would need to click on the gallery to see the complete list and slide through. It now directly links to DiCaprio's earnings that year. FN 253: the archive link [54] works, but I don't see any mention of DiCaprio there. Unfortunately, I could not find any reliable source listing the nods that year, so I have removed it. Considering the number of many high-profile awards DiCaprio has won, it should not affect the article's comprehensiveness. FN 257: the archive link [55] isn't working. FN 276: the Twitter link [56] isn't working. The archive link is working, so not necessarily a problem, but since I am under the impression that tweets stay linkable unless someone deletes them, can you confirm there's no error in the link here? It's not working for me but the Instagram source should be okay to cite that claim. FN 307: the archive link [57] is not working. That's it for the link checking. I'll take a look at reliability next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC) What makes Cowspiracy] a reliable source? And unless I'm missing something the linked page doesn't support everything it is used to cite; perhaps other pages on that site should be cited, if it's reliable? It's the official website for the film and it is only used to cite information about the film itself so it should be fine IMO. There are a few sources that aren't the most reliable -- Hello and E! for example -- but they seem fine for what they're used for. Exactly, they aren't used to make any contentious claim. That's everything I can spot. There are some cases where links have not been archived, but though it's recommended it's not a requirement. I can't see any formatting errors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Thank you for your review. All of your concerns should be addressed now. FrB.TG (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review passes; all the above fixes have been verified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, do you have some time to conduct an image review again considering you also did it the last time? FrB.TG (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't duplicate captions in alt text; if there's nothing different to say, the alt can be simply 'refer to caption'. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Done, thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: Two questions. May I nominate another article? What's the status update on this nom? FrB.TG (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

1. Yes.

2. Waiting for further comments from Amakuru as mentioned below, and, possibly, your response to them.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by review by Amakuru

• "His father is of Italian and German descent; DiCaprio is conversant in Italian and German" - not keen on the semicolon in the middle of this sentence, a simple "and" would be better. Also not sure if the sources support the assertion exactly. The Italian one simply says that he spoke to the Pope in Italian, which doesn't prove he's "conversant" in it... (perhaps the Daily Mirror source says more, but I can't access that); and the German one says he learned and practised German with his grandmother, but again not really giving his level. Business Insider is also a source whose reliability is often questioned.

I agree on the Italian bit but a fan keeps insisting on its re-addition. I've removed it until we find a better source that explicitly confirms that he speaks the language. As for German, the Douglas Wight biography explicitly denies this: "Leonardo never really got to grips with the German language" (p. 22) but somehow I missed it in my early research. Business Insider is reliable according to WP:RSP when reporting on culture.

• "In an interview in Russia" - when was this?
• "DiCaprio was named Leonardo because his mother, then pregnant with him, first felt him kick" - feel like this could do with tightening. The "then" seems to refer to a point in time we haven't mentioned yet. Maybe something like "his parents chose the name Leonardo because his pregnant mother felt his first kick while she was looking at..."
• Also not sure note (a) about the paintings should be there. It looks like original research or WP:SYNTH, unless there is a source which says this in connection with DiCaprio specifically.
• The two sentences beginning "his parents separated..." and "For a while though" seem a bit stilted to me... The second almost seems to contradict the first, and leaves the reader wondering when this "while" was that he lived with his father. "to not deprive DiCaprio of his father's presence" and "For a while though" could also be improved for encyclopedic tone IMHO.

Looking into his biography, it says they lived next door to each other though the newspaper source insists he lived with his father. I trust the biography more as when they lived in the same neighborhood, he lived with his mother. After that, he moved to other LA districts with his mother. So there is no time in between where he lived with George.

• "moved around to multiple Los Angeles neighborhoods" - could be just "lived in multiple..."
• "He went to the Los Angeles Center for Enriched Studies" - maybe "He studied at..."?
• "moving onto" - informal tone
• "asked his mother to take him to auditions instead to improve their financial situation" - which kind of auditions, did his mother actually agree to take him to them, and how does this relate to school? Would it be that if he got an acting role he'd drop out of school? Or instead go to acting school?

Revised. The source does not say whether his mother agreed to it, but considering the next sentence says he dropped out after his third year in high school, I would think he got what he wanted.

• "as he was fond of" - informal tone

Sourcing points

• If "Refinery29" is a website, should its name be in italics? (I know the article title isn't in italics, but this may be an error)

Per below.

• This is probably a style I don't know about, but what does "(2003) [2000]" mean?

In the parameters, 2003 refers to the year the book was published whereas 2000 means the origin year. However, it's a moot point considering the source has been removed.

• Young Artist Award has an article, so could link

It is already linked in ref. 30. I do it only on the first instance to avoid overlinking.

• Roger Ebert's name is mentioned twice

That's because he's the author and the publisher.

• Also curious about "Rotten Tomatoes" not being italicized. Maybe websites aren't routinely, but the website= parameter at {{cite web}} would imply they should be.

I usually go with how the Wikipedia article does it. As per MoS, we should italicize newspapers, magazines etc. so unless that is changed in the website parameter, I'll use publisher instead.

That's all for now, from just looking at the first paragraph... I will have a closer look later hopefully, but (and sorry to have to say this) I am a little concerned that overall the prose is not polished enough to satisfy criterion 1a (which I still think of as "brilliant, refreshing prose" even if the label has changed!) I see SandyGeorgia raised prose as an issue at the last FAC in 2019 so not sure if major copyediting has been done since then? If not, I think this might benefit from a thorough comb through and perhaps a peer review to get it up to the requisite standard. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I was mostly inactive in the next two years but I do remember the article going through at least some copy-edit. I asked SandyGeorgia for feedback a few months ago but she did not respond. Thank you for your review. Do let me know if your current comments have been properly addressed and if you find more (major) issues after you look more closely. FrB.TG (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

So sorry, I have not been able to keep up, and can't promise to look in here-- depends on progress on other articles. Amakuru, you have me giggling for the second time this year over your use of "brilliant, refreshing prose"; I will explain on your talk :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: thanks for your response here. Given that you seem amenable to discussion on this point, do you mind if I do some copyediting on the article to attempt to improve on some of the prose? I've made a start just now. Obviously feel free to dispute anything I've amended, and we can discuss. This may be more fruitful than my going through raising issues here line by line. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I don’t mind at all. I would be most grateful for any kind of help. Thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@FrB.TG and Amakuru: How is this going? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: urggh, forgot about it again! You might have to withdraw your note of appreciation at this rate... I'll try to have another look over the weekend  — Amakuru (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Amakuru, hi sorry to bother you but any update on this? FrB.TG (talk) 11:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)