Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

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

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

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

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached;
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. The only templates that are acceptable are {{xt}}, {{!xt}}, and {{tq}}; templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples; and {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions.

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

To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere.

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

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

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

Greed (game show)[edit]

Nominator(s): Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the short-lived Fox game show Greed, which was considered to be the network's answer to the success of ABC's Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. It was hosted by Chuck Woolery of Wheel of Fortune, Love Connection, and Scrabble fame, lasting for roughly eight months from November 1999 to July 2000. The article just passed a GA nomination last month. I've brought a handful of game show articles to FA status before, but it's been a few years since I've been at FAC, so any and all feedback is welcomed and appreciated. Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Aoba47[edit]

I am leaving this as a placeholder. If I do not return to post my review by this time next week, please ping me. This article brings back fond memories of watching GSN reruns with my mom when I was in middle school. I just have one quick comment right now. The part about Jerry Springer being a host needs a citation as it is currently not supported by anything. Aoba47 (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Please add ALT text to the infobox image.
  • I am curious on why citations are used in the infobox rather than putting that information in the article with the citations there? Either way is appropriate, but I would like to hear your reasoning behind this choice.
  • It looks like most of the information in the infobox is not supported by a citation. This includes Bob Levy being the director, the Fox Television Center being the location, Floyd Ingram being the editor, and the names of the distributors. This information should be supported by citations.
  • The formally known as bit in the lead reads somewhat awkwardly to me. I think this information may be better represented in a footnote rather than as a parenthetical in the first sentence. That way, you can also include a citation to support this alternate name.
  • This part from the lead, that premiered on Fox on November 4, 1999, and last aired on July 14, 2000, with a total of 44 episodes in one season, seems unnecessarily wordy. I would condense it down to something like the following, that aired on Fox for on season between November 1999 and July 2000. I do not think the amount of episodes or even the exact premiere and finale dates are notable enough to be mentioned here.
  • I have a comment related to this part in the lead, with Mark Thompson serving as primary announcer. I would avoid that kind of sentence construction (i.e. with X verb-ing) as it is normally discouraged in FA writing.
  • I have two points about the tagline in the lead. The citation seems unnecessary to me. I have rarely seen citations used in the lead of a television article (and in those cases, citations are used to support controversial or contested information or when quotes are absolutely necessary or very beneficial to the reader). If the tagline remains in the lead, I would mention it in the article and cite it there. But that leads into my second point. Is it necessary to have the tagline in the lead at all? I have not really seen taglines used in television article's leads and this one does not seem particularly noteworthy to me.
  • For this sentence, The series was created by Dick Clark and Bob Boden of Dick Clark Productions in response to the success of ABC's Who Wants to Be a Millionaire., I would put it in an active voice instead (i.e. Dick Clark and Bob Boden of Dick Clark Productions created the series...).
  • In the lead, I would link ratings and timeslot. Most readers will likely be familiar with these things, but I think it is always beneficial to remember readers who may not be that familiar with more television-specific jargon.

These are my comments for the lead and infobox. I only have relatively nitpick-y comments for the lead, but I do see some sourcing issues with the infobox that should be sorted out. Thank you to Nikkimaria for doing the image review below. My review will be mostly focused on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

For the Night[edit]

Nominator(s): ShootForTheStars (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a song by American rapper Pop Smoke, featuring Lil Baby and DaBaby. This article has received a peer review and has been heavily improved since its last nomination. Any criticism on how to improve the article would be truly appreciated! ShootForTheStars (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  • HumanxAnthro not sure if you want to comment but if so, would you say your concerns from the last FAC were adequately addressed? (t · c) buidhe 08:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The Ultimate Boss I'm gonna say this article looks a lot better than I remember. There are a few nitpicks, like how the Background section is one long paragraph and I don't see why we're only mentioning top-5 positions of other countries in the lead when there are top 10 and top 20 positions in other nations like Canada that are just as noteworthy, but I prose looks a lot better than I remember it, citations are perfectly formatted, and it's comprehensive, so Support for those areas. This article has yet to be spotchecked, however, although I don't doubt there will be many issues. I will ask someone else to spotcheck info cited from the Complex feature about the album, because on my computer it's somehow too much for my computer to load on, and my computer has a ton of data and GBs on it! 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
HumanxAnthro thanks so much. I have changed it to the top-10 in the lead and made the background to paras. ShootForTheStars (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose on prose. I didn't contribute to the original nomination and haven't looked over the feedback there, but the prose isn't working for me. If I had to describe it in a word, it'd be staccato—the prose, to borrow something I saw Sandy say once, "isn't singing". I don't think the prose has to be a work of art, but it doesn't feel like there's any flow; it’s a list of statements that doesn't especially tie together. I don't have the time to do a full review, pointing out all of the issues, but FAC isn't the place to fix this all of this to force through an FA to 'honour' an artist. All of the little issues really do grate me: references are placed after punctuation; there's no need to provide initialisms for organisations named in the last sentence of the article; if a source's wording is used, they must also be named; why is the bit about DaBaby in "Writing and composition" instead of critical reception? The article just feels bare. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
ImaginesTigers Because it is talking about DaBaby's honoring Pop Smoke in his lyrics. They are not praising his lyrics, just talking about what he rapped about. And I am pretty sure references are placed after punctuation when it comes to articles. HumanxAnthro can you help me explain to Tigers with these issues? ShootForTheStars (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
My comment was that references should be placed after punctuation in the article. That isn't currently the case. Is it a small thing? Yes, but in a tiny article, it should have been caught before coming here, and the issues add up. It’s an oppose from me. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
HumanxAnthro can you help me explain to Tigers with these issues?
Thank you for commenting, ImaginesTigers. I don't think the article is in a strong "Oppose" mode. The "little issues" he discusses are either easily fixable or non-issues.
(1) "there's no need to provide initialisms for organisations named in the last sentence of the article" Is this a MOS requirement at all? Because we shouldn't have the fate of FA nominations determined by extremely personal and trivial preferences of one editor that may not violate any guidelines.
(2) "references are placed after punctuation" I'm not sure how this is an issue as we always place citations after periods, commas, semi-colons, and other punctuation. I don't know how this is a problem. Or are you expecting citations after complete sentences, even though quotes, commas, semi-colons, and colons are punctuations too? This is not something to WP:SNOW end a FA nomination over.
(3) I expressed similar concerns about the prose ImaginesTigers is worried about in a previous FA nomination of this article, when it was in a lesser state. Honestly, I'm not finding these kind of "staccato" issues in its current state, as it does vary sentence length to keep it interesting. Even if there are instances where it feels a little bit like a list of details in a sentence, that's either easy to fix (at least in my experience working on articles) or the result of available reliable coverage of most pop songs being plain and overly-non-analytic in their opinions, facts, and interpretations. There are exceptions, of course, like "West Ass P-Word", in that they're so discussed within the sociopolitical landscape they can't help but get depthful coverage, but that is far from what "For the Night" got.
Excuse me for going WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here, but I honestly think the prose is just as good as the recently-nominated-to-FA "Lips are Movin", which has "staccato" prose especially in its reception and "chart performance" section and are still well-written sections with the material it has to work with. What else is there to talk about with worldwide commercial performances besides peaks and certifications when no analysis of commercial performances of those countries exist, for example?
In my honest opinion, in situations like these, the biggest concern would be if the prose was understandable and concise to readers. I still take organization and flow into consideration, don't get me wrong, but I think at its current state its the best it is for the milquetoast coverage it got.
(4) "The article just feels bare." If you're referring the length, please understand that featured articles don't have to be long (although they can't be stub length) to qualify; they just have to be comprehensive, and I can tell you it's comprehensive as that's all that was available in the sources.
(5) "All of the little issues really do grate me" I understand small things can annoy a reader emotionally where noticing all the other good things about it can get impossible, but please make sure your emotions don't affect the objectivity of your comments. I've been guilty of that before, trust me, and I've been metaphorically kicked in the ass for it.
I'd like to get perspectives from this who have reviewed and written pop song articles for featured article promotions. @MaranoFan:, @:, @SNUGGUMS:, would to like to chime in on this? 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
HumanxAnthro, it is definitely a weird move to criticize my article (which you made me rewrite for days and eventually supported for promotion) and then invite me to offer suggestions on how to improve this one. Anyways, I am of the opinion that if something truly represented "some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer" then you wouldn't have to use another article as a scapegoat to defend it.--NØ 03:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Wait, I wasn't criticizing your article. I was praising it and supporting as an example of good prose. Huh? 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

From a glance, I don't think the prose is so bad. The only thing that stuck out like a sore thumb was not using Hannah Giorgis's first name when first introducing the critic. A couple more minor issues are instances of two consecutive sentences starting with the same word (namely "The" in the last paragraph of "Critical reception" and "Jess Jackson" under "Background"), which feels repetitive. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Good catch! Fixed the author plus the minor issues brought up 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
1. MoS doesn't supercede common sense. Why include an initialism for it to be never used? 2. Read my clarification -- I was saying that there is a reference not attached to punctuation, which should have been caught in a small article like this. 3. The prose isn't ready to me; this isn't saying that the prose has to be completely stellar, but just because it's better than it was before does not mean it's good. Likewise, article feeling "bare" isn't me saying it is short; it's me saying that the writing does not fill those gaps; the article feels bare because the prose is bare. It isn't about length. I'm not going to comment on other recent successful nominations because I haven't read them. Other stuff does, indeed, exist! 5. Questioning my integrity as a reviewer over emotionality is a bit ridiculous. I gave an honest appraisal, which is that the article's prose grated on me; stuff like "Retrospectively, critics have considered "For the Night" one of 2020's best songs. The Line of Best Fit ranked "For the Night" at number 46 on their list of 2020's best songs". Critical reception is, by my eye, the worst offender. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
(1) Actually, I did notice the "retrospectively" thing and thought it was kind of odd, so you're right about that.
(2) Just because I don't want to focus on this anymore, I removed those initialisms
(3) Apart from a couple of small edits I just made in the commercial performance section, there is not punctuation mark issue. Every reference is attached to a punctuation mark. Quote marks are punctuation marks. Commas are punctuation marks. Semi-colons are punctuation marks. I really hope you know this.
(4) I have taken a closer look at Reception and actually, you're right it could be better. Looking at it now 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Look at the first sentence of critical reception. Are we reading the same article? :P That's a disjointed reference — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, now we're reading different articles because I just revised it. If you're talking about the cite after the quote marks, quote marks are punctuation marks. If that's the issue, don't simply say "punctuation mark." Specify to cite after only periods or only commas and periods or only, comma, periods, and semi-colons. Otherwise, you're just throwing us off with vague wording. Like I said, this doesn't sound like a blatant issue to WP:SNOW end a nomination over. 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Nichols's Missouri Cavalry Regiment[edit]

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 01:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

While this one's on the shorter side, I believe everything is covered thoroughly - this isn't the most large-scale topic. Formed in mid-1864, the unit was generally unkind to railroad property on multiple occasions, saw some minor fighting, and played a significant role in the Battle of Little Blue River. At some point in 1865, the unit dissolved, although the details are really hazy. What is known is that most of the unit's men didn't care enough to get their official surrender paperwork. Hog Farm Talk 01:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Image review—pass: File:Battle of the Blue by Benjamin D. Mileham.jpg is possibly PD but the licensing needs more documentation, we need to document Mileham's death date to apply the stated PD tag, and the creation of the painting is not equivalent to publication. (t · c) buidhe 03:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Can the Price's Raid section be split into subsections for improved readability? (t · c) buidhe 03:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • @Buidhe: - Couldn't find dod for Mileham, so I replaced it with a different artwork of Price's raid by a person confirmed to have died in 1914. I've also added three subheads to the Price's Raid section. Hog Farm Talk 13:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • FN14: website isn't needed here
    • Removed.
  • The "Official Records" source credits editors who should be included here. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    • @Nikkimaria: - Thanks for making me do this. In the process of hunting down the editors, I discovered I had actually been using a 1902 reprint edition, instead of the 1893 original, and have changed the citation as well to reflect that. Hog Farm Talk 21:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The 1975 (2019 song)[edit]

Nominator(s): — Bilorv (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

One might expect The 1975's fourth song titled "The 1975" to be a difficult search term, but unlike the other three—which are about... um, oral sex—this one has the keyword "Greta Thunberg", who delivers this protest song about climate change. If promoted, this will be the first green plus from the nominated Good Topic Notes on a Conditional Form (for which all credit goes to (CA)Giacobbe) to turn into a gold star. I'm confident that the article is comprehensive and look forward to suggestions for further tweaks and improvements. — Bilorv (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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
  • The song was released on 24 July 2019, - is it fair to say it was released as a single?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Check the footnote on this—"People" is now acknowledged as the lead single (implying that "The 1975" wasn't a single, because of the way it was/wasn't released), though some news reporters at the time of "The 1975"'s release were a bit lazy and threw the word "single" around. It's possible you could call this a promotional single but I looked for sources saying such and in their absence, I think that's original research. Let me know if the footnote placing isn't the best it can be to draw attention to this. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The band previously opened each of their albums with an eponymous song featuring the same lyrics; however, the fourth version deviates from this set of lyrics. - I don't know what this means? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I could tell what it means. Unlike the band's other opener of albums that are self-titled, this one is not about oral sex. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      • It's the "featuring the same lyrics" bit that has poor wording... Same lyrics as what? I realise the answer is "same lyrics as each other", but on first reading this wasn't clear at all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Yeah I agree it had this ambiguity, but "shared set of lyrics" (and the other changes) hopefully fix this. — Bilorv (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • So, there are four albums, and all four start with a song called "The 1975", the first three have the same lyrics as each other, but this one was different? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah, exactly correct in the latter point here. I've tried to rephrase. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In it - probably worth saying in the 2019 version, as "it" is a bit confusing to me given the above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Our House Is on Fire" - caps needed? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Confusion abounds. In my copy of No One Is Too Small to Make a Difference, the title is capitalised (minus "Is", but our style is to capitalise it), though you can find examples and non-examples of capitalised/uncapitalised speeches on Wikipedia e.g. Ain't I a Woman? vs Never was so much owed by so many to so few. I do think caps is right (it's a title of a work). There's also an italics/quotes question but I think the No One article is just wrong to be using both quotes and italics(!) and it seems like most articles are using quotes. So I'm defaulting to no change but let me know if you feel strongly. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I think the question is not how it appears on the track, it's the capitalisation of the speech. I'm happy if that is how RS's describe the speech (and not the derivative work). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Yep, I think that's the case. — Bilorv (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Probably worth mentioning the relationship between Greta and Rebellion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The body mentions that the donation was at Thunberg's request, but though Thunberg and XR are conflated by news commentators, or perhaps part of the same phenomenon, I can't see any formal ties. She's spoken at an XR speech but hundreds of other organisations too—no more relation to XR than she has to the UK parliament. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • by the 1975 - by the band, or we're in super complicated territory. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    •  DoneBilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Sure. I realise this is a super difficult topic, due to this sort of thing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The band opened their encore with "The 1975" before the COVID-19 pandemic halted their touring. - probably worth mentioning "When touring in 2020, the band opened their encore with the song...." or it's confusing what we are talking about. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Prose
  • We generally like images to have the face pointing towards the text, or on the right. Is there any reason to not right-align? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • No particular reason, changed to right-align. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • instead be an "era" of two albums, which were recorded together - this probably needs some explaination.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Okay how about just On 31 May 2018, the band announced that they were splitting the planned Music for Cars content into two albums.? — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The 1975" is the opening track on the second of these two albums - this might be a litle confusing, because "The 1975" is also the title of the opening track of the first of these two albums. Perhaps change this around, and say "The second of these two albums opened with a track titled "The 1975". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    •  DoneBilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Greta Thunberg. Thunberg - try to avoid repeating words like this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    •  DoneBilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thunberg began skipping school - began to not attend... Skipping is a bit informal. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Changed to "missing school". — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The "Our house is on fire", maybe this would be suitable as a WP:REDLINK? I'd be surprised if her speech wasn't notable in its own right. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The closing lyrics are: "So, everyone out there, it is now time for civil disobedience. It is time to rebel. - it's not really my favourite to say "these are the lyrics", without making commentary. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The point of this bit is more to explain what the song is about but civil disobedience is mentioned at the start of the paragraph. I've replaced it with She says that the rules in place need to be changed and urges rebellion because it's a fair part of the speech in which she argues that rules in place are insufficient and acting within them is insufficient. — Bilorv (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Healy described the song as "quite beautiful superficially", but also "quite sad, quite pretty" and "quite ominous" - do we need to quote here? Couldn't we say "song as superficially beautiful but also sad and ominous." Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    •  DoneBilorv (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate the review, thanks for taking the time. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from 👨x🐱[edit]

A song named "The 1975" with Great Thunberg?... Oh, it's not about sex. Thank god. Otherwise, I would've sworn the song was about a sex doll of her....... I'm not kidding, that exists.

Great work on 1975 articles. I find they get bloated at points, but they're great nonetheless, although that's for another discussion. This article looks really well put together, as the prose is understandable and most of the sources are reliable. However, I have a few major issues:

  • The first paragraph of "Background and recording" has no place in this article. It doesn't connect to anything else, and the only relevant point is that it's the first track on a single album. Readers have the respective album articles if they want to learn more about the history of those.
    • I'm going to push back on this: it's normal to give surrounding context to minor works within a broader context e.g. on the Black Mirror articles I've been working on, they all have a paragraph about the series they're within (example: top of San Junipero#Production). Odd coincidence in that series 3/4 of Black Mirror were originally commissioned as series 3 and then split into 2, and Music for Cars was originally album 3 and then split to albums 3/4. Another example that springs to mind is the Boat Race individual articles, number of GAs must be in the three digits by now (example: The Boat Race 1909#Background). As for the connection here, a lot of the secondary coverage about this song talks about how it was used on Notes on a Conditional Form (transition into "People", used to set the tone for the album), and it connects to a lot of "Release and promotion" content. — Bilorv (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I am well aware (and have written and edited) many articles have background sections to establish context. However, these sections usually cover the parts of a wider context that most affect or relate to the rest of the article. I see zero how an album being split into two affected how this song was made, released and promoted. Am I missing it? 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
        • How the song was made—as part of the Music for Cars "era" of the band's music, which means that its production cycle overlapped with other songs in that era and they used the recording studios that they were using at the time and perhaps (depending on who you ask) there's a common musical style. The article later mentions some ideas about this being part of how both albums marked a transition to more overtly political messaging. (And the background ambient music in this song is the same sort of stuff they use on A Brief Inquiry... and elsewhere on NOACF, so clearly written/produced as part of the same sessions, but that's original research on my part.) How it was released—the initial early date that Healy promised followed by continual rescheduling led to a lot of the NOACF album music being released prior to the album dropping. If it had been one album or released on time then this song would be part of another album, or never recorded, or would have been recorded several months earlier. How it was promoted—promoted on tours for Music for Cars (including tours for the first of the two albums). In essence, the production cycle was not of two consecutive albums (in which case I wouldn't mention the previous album). The production cycle was two albums at once. Maybe I can draw out some of these connections in the paragraph in some way? — Bilorv (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
          • Point taken. I didn't catch that connection at first when writing. I just thought sentences said the songs of both albums were more political than previous albums, and that they had four tracks from Notes ready as of 2019. I didn't connect or catch those were a result of the album split. I can't tell if I didn't read closely enough or if the article could've made this clearer to the reader, but I would do what you're suggesting nonetheless to be safe. 👨x🐱 (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
            • Alright, see what you think about the newer iteration of this paragraph. — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the type= feature in the Infobox template be "Promotional single"? It obviously wasn't first released as part of the album release.
  • Reception section, although well-paraphrased, suffers from having that "A argued B" thing WP:RECEPTION frowns up.
    • Can you give an example or two? I have actually used Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections immeasurably often over the last few years and it's what I was going for here (assuming this is the page you meant—WP:RECEPTION actually didn't redirect there even though listed as a shortcut, but I've boldly changed that). They say "Avoid 'A said B'. ... Variants include 'A of B said C' and 'A said that B'." I've aimed to use a good mixture of those and vary sentence rhythme and combine reviewers' points where possible, but at a certain point I think summaries of reviews are a bit constricted in possible formats so feel a bit repetitive. — Bilorv (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Actually, on a second closer look, this is actually well done. I suspected it used a "A said B" format because the first half of the section seemed to be just a list of opinions. The opinions are actually consolidated in the first paragraph, in that they're about how the song handled Greta's message. I'll admit I rushed to judgement when I made this statement. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
      • However, I feel this part is pretty quotefarm-ism despite being about the same topic: "A number of critics felt emotional when listening to the song, including Dillon Eastoe of Gigwise, who had to "pull over and cry" upon first hearing it in the car.[55] Mitch Mosk of Atwood Magazine described it as "soul-stirring".[24] A PopMatters reviewer saw it as "evocative and gripping", while Madison Feller of Elle said that the "pretty stunning" track gave her chills.[18][56] The Big Issue's Malcolm Jack analysed the speech as "intelligent and stirring".[57]" 👨x🐱 (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Yes, this was a weaker passage. I think fewer examples can get the point across so I've gone with: A number of critics felt emotional when listening to the song, including Dillon Eastoe of Gigwise, who had to "pull over and cry" upon first hearing it in the car, and Madison Feller of Elle, who got chills from the song.[57][58] The Big Issue's Malcolm Jack and Mitch Mosk of Atwood Magazine found it stirring.[59] I think it's an appropriate amount of weight to one of the most major axes of feedback, but if it's still belabouring the point then maybe I could even just contract it to just mentioning the two reviewers who found it stirring, and the rest as additional references. — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Additionally, I wouldn't use an opinion from the Washington Examiner, a conservative publication that, like other far-right publications, is filled with climate denialism. If he's writing that "climate change was not the issue that should be sparking global protests" and the journalist that wrote that also prominently appears on Fox News, it's very likely he's denying the issue of climate change, or trying to bullshit his way looking like he thinks it's an issue while writing for a source that doesn't. I would not give validity to such an questionable claim as that.
    • Alright, WP:RSP notes some disputes over the reliability of the source but this comment and the idea here of avoiding WP:FRINGE have pushed me to remove it. But to clarify a couple of the facts, I'll note that Schultz is a woman, and I don't see any connection to Fox News. — Bilorv (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

👨x🐱 (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

That's (CA)Giacobbe you have to thank for the other articles, by the way, didn't mean to claim credit for the GT nom so I've adjusted the wording. Replies to these comments coming now. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Replied, let me know what you think. — Bilorv (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
More comments
  • ""The 1975" is a protest song, where Thunberg delivers a spoken word performance" Neither CNN or The Guardian cites categorize the song as these two genres. Speaking of CNN, the cite as well as ref 3 (BBC) categorizes it as ambient music track. I would suggest using that alongside the PopMatters cite to further confirm its genre as ambient. The Guardian also categorizes it as "minimal" which I don't see in the article.
    • Telegraph source was originally there for "protest song" but got lost in a reshuffle—fixed. Insider added as "spoken word" as you suggest below. Ambient music mentioned and on its next mention we now say "minimal" with the Guardian ref. — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Interesting, and unique criticism of the song in ref 3 that I don't see in Reception: "The essay is direct in its message but short on actual practical measures which she thinks should be put in place." That same cite also attacks the 1975 for flying on airplanes for touring which I think strongly relates the subject matter of this song: "The 1975 are currently on a world tour, and will play gigs in Italy, Korea, Romania, Singapore, Ukraine, Dubai and Australia in the coming weeks. It is likely they will fly to many of those countries, despite air travel being a significant contributor to climate change."
    • Now mentioned the plane thing just before the measures they announced they were taking to reduce negative environmental impact. Added a sentence to Reception: A writer for the BBC viewed the song as light on concrete suggestions, but direct on messaging. I don't think it's clear that it is criticism specifically, as the BBC haven't marked it under a byline and they have at least the claimed position of not making value judgements in the organisation's own voice ("impartiality", as they call it). — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • AllMusic is not a work and its name should not be formatted as such in the citation template and prose.
    •  DoneBilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I just found the Insider album review categorizes the song as spoken word. Use that cite for the categorization.
    •  DoneBilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

👨x🐱 (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Let me know if any of these issues haven't been resolved sufficiently or if there's anything more. I think the article is looking better from these changes. — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I would avoid one-word quotes like "failing" and "heartfelt" as I do not think they are particularly beneficial to the reader and it may detract from other quotes. I have received this note in a past FAC so I just wanted to raise this to your attention as well.
  • In the "Background and recording" section, the 1975 should be linked on the first instance. The lead and the body of the article are treated separately so the band should be linked on the first instances in both.
  • This is a super nitpick-y note, but for this part, a perceived convention of guest appearances in music being, I would say their perceived convention to more so emphasize that this was coming from them (if I am reading this part correctly).
  • This is probably a very dumb question, but I will ask it anyway. I am uncertain about this part, The song was produced by the label Dirty Hit. How can a song be produced by a record label? I have mostly seen the word "produced" associated with the song's producers and not the label.
  • The article repeats that this song is the first on the album (Notes on a Conditional Form opened with a track titled "The 1975". and "The 1975" is the first song on the 22-track Notes on a Conditional Form.) and it comes across as unnecessarily repetitive rather than helpful. I would only say this information once. I would recommend keeping it where you think it is the most relevant.
  • I am uncertain about the link in the part, more explicitly political messages, as I believe it comes across as an Easter egg. I do not think that it is immediately clear that the "political" link would lead to the article on music and politics. If you want to keep the link, I think more clarification in the prose would be necessary.
  • For this part, the Conservative politician Theresa Villiers, please link Conservative as it would be helpful for unfamiliar readers, particularly those living outside the UK.
  • In the note, the four citations seem like an example of citation overkill and I would recommend bundling the citations to avoid this.
  • This is not required for the FAC, but I would strongly encourage you to archive your citations to avoid link rot and link death.
  • This is more of a clarification question, but has there been any scholarly articles written about this song? It looks like most of this citations are online sources, which is understandable since this song is relatively recent. I was just curious about the scholarly coverage as this seems like the type of thing that would invite that kind of attention and study.

I hope my comments are helpful. I have focused on the prose and will leave the sources, images, and media to other editors. Once everything is addressed, I will support this article for promotion. I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

William Lyon Mackenzie[edit]

Nominator(s): Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Journalist. Politician. Rebellion Leader. William Lyon Mackenzie held many roles and got into a lot of trouble. He tried to reform the Upper Canada political system (what is now known as Ontario, Canada) and became Toronto's first mayor. He led the Upper Canada Rebellion, went a little crazy, and fled to the United States when government forces defeated the rebels. He organised an invasion of Upper Canada with American volunteers but was arrested by the American government and pardoned by President Van Buren. Upon his return to Canada, he became a politician and ranted against government proposals.

There are too many people to thank for their comments, both informally and in the PRs and GAN, so I will post a note on their talk page. I hope you enjoy reviewing this important biography in Canadian history as much as I enjoyed researching it. Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/William Lyon Mackenzie/archive2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Watchlisting with an eye towards supporting; please ping me when independent reviewers have been through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Image review—pass
  • File:Second market in York (Toronto).jpg, File:MrsMackenzie.jpg when was it first published? (t · c) buidhe 21:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Second market image: work produced in 1888. MrsMackenzie: work produced in 1850. I updated the copyright tags on both images at Commons to reflect that. Let me know if you need more information. Z1720 (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Date of production is not necessarily the same as publication. AFAIK the former work was not free in Canada on the URAA date based on author's death date, so it would need pre-1926 publication to be PD in US. The second doesn't have author information so it's not clear when its Canadian copyright expired, although if it was made in 1850 I assume it's old enough. (t · c) buidhe 22:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I posted my followup on this FAC's talk page. Z1720 (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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
Prose
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 (talkcontribs) 13:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

HF[edit]

I've got this weekend off work, so I'll try to review this over the next couple days. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 23:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • @Z1720: - Ping me when Johannes Schade is done, and I'll review. I'd rather wait to review, because I don't want to work at cross-purposes. Hog Farm Talk 00:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Johannes Schade[edit]

I am here because I contributed in an Peer Review of the article and was invited by the nominator to participate here again. This is my first as a FA reviewer and have no FA article to my credit. I am not so sure of the rules of the game and the criteria. Please call me to order for any faux-pas immediately. Seen my lack of experience, I feel I should not vote (neither support nor oppose) but I hope some of my comments might be useful.

General Remarks[edit]

I have reread the article, read the GA review and some WP articles about Canadian History. I agree with the GA reviewer, the user "Go Phightins!", that the article is generally well-written, informative, well researched and verified with many citations, but that the doings of the subject, William Lyon Mackenzie (WLM), remain difficult to understand because of a lack of suitable (but concise) background information. This essential lines of this background seem to me that Canada had an old-fashioned relatively authoritarian government on the British model that did not compare well with the more democratic structures of the neighbouring United States. The Parliament was bicameral with an lower house elected by the land-owning class and an upper house whose members were appointed for life. The country was ruled by the lieutenant-governor, appointed by the king, who had a right of veto. The Anglican church got priority-treatment while Catholics, Presbyterians etc. were side-lined. WLM wanted Upper Canada to become a Republic on the American model and took up arms for this purpose. Papineau did the same in Lower Canada. Both failed the article should try to explain why WLM failed in this endeavour. However, his struggle seems to have brought improvements the new structures of the Act of Union (1840) for united Province of Canada were a bit more democratic.

Prose[edit]
Lede

Generalities: The first two paragraphs follow the chronology of his life but the third paragraph is a miscellany containing many elements that do not belong in a lede and elements that should go elsewhere. Perhaps the lede should have 3 paragraphs that describe his life before, during, and after the revolt. The revolt, its reasons and consequences should be described in more detail than what is there now. Remarks per paragraph and sentence below.

  • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. I would move the Efn from after the lifespan parenthesis to immediately after his name.
    • Done
  • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. As the lede should give less detail than the body, I propose to leave the exact dates of the lifespan to the body and give only the years in the lede "(1795–1861)".
    • MOS:OPENPARABIO says to give the "Dates of birth and death" and later talks about what to do if only years are specified. Recently promoted biographies also have the full birthdate in the lede, so I am hesitant to change this. Z1720 (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. I suggest to be more precise with the tenses: "Growing up in Dundee" -> "Having grown up in Dundee"
  • 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. "immigrated to York, Upper Canada". I had never heard of York or Upper Canada and I believe few readers would have. Toronto however is widely known. I suggest to help the reader by introducing Toronto right here, e.g. "immigrated to Toronto, then York, Upper Canada" or "immigrated to York, Upper Canada, now called Toronto."
    • Added "(later known as Toronto)" Z1720 (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. "publisher" is not a well-known profession. I would have called him a "journalist", or perhaps "journalist and publisher".
    • I have added information about his newspapers as part of expanding the biographical aspects of the lede, per "Generalities" above. Z1720 (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. The how-maniest parliament of Upper Canada this was is unnecessary detail at the level of the lede. Hide the "10th" in "10th Parliament of Upper Canada"; "Parliament of Upper Canada" should be good enough but keep the original link. However, as Upper Canada had a bicameral system it would be necessary to specify that he sat in the lower House or House of Assembly.
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. I found "elected ... as a legislator from York" confusing. Aren't all MPs legislators? -> "elected to represent York in the lower house of the parliament" I find all this talk about legislators and legislature is confusing unless the term is first defined as the article does not oppose the legislature to the executive and the judicial. What were the MPs really called at the time?
    • As far as I know, people elected to the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada did not have official titles like "MP" or "MLA". The sources refer to the position as a "legislator" or a "Parliamentarian"; for consistency's sake, I kept with legislator. I don't think I need to define what a legislator is because it is a common enough word. Also, the executive council (the equivalent of today's Canadian Senate) did not legislate that much, as their role was more of an advisory board to the lieutenant-general at the time (and the council consisted of around 7-10 men). Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. The two parts of the sentence are quite unrelated. Perhaps split.
    • Done
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. "investigated" I would propose "investigated corruption" or "researched corruption" or "researched corruption and abuse".
    • Done.
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. The word "aristocratic" is misleading. Ver few members the Family Compact were noble. It seems that most of them were members of the parliament's upper house (the legislative Council) which was not elected but appointed (by whom?).
    • Changed "aristocratic" to "elite". Most of the members were not appointed to the executive council, so we can't use that as a moniker. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. "he called", he was not the only one and did not invent the term, perhaps use passive voice "was called".
    • Mackenzie did not invent the term, but he did popularise it. He produced the first list in 1833 of Family Compact members that historians use to identify members of this group. I want to avoid the passive voice in this instance. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 1st paragraph, 4th sentence. "expelled many times" A quick look at the text of the body seems to suggest it was five times.
    • After reformatting the lede, I decided to remove this sentence. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 1st paragraph, 4th sentence. "expelled after" -> "expelled for"
    • Done
  • 1st paragraph, 5th sentence. "which caused" -> "causing"
    • Done
  • 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. I find "chosen as its first mayor" a bit vague. I suppose he was elected. You do not seem to say until when he stayed mayor.
    • Added: " but was not reelected the following year." Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. "and became" seems to link two quite unrelated events. I hope it was not the loss of his seat that pushed him to revolt. I suggest to split. More details should be given here. The revolt is quite essential in the article and in his life. The five first sentences of the 2nd paragraph are all of the structure A and B. It is often recommended that two sentences that follow each other should differ in structure so that they do not echo each other but vary.
    • The loss of his seat was a major factor in Mackenzie leading a revolt. I have added information about the revolt per the "Generalities" statement above. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. "getting disillusioned" seems not entirely right. He did not seem to harbour many illusions since quite a while and this is not enough to explain his drastic reaction.
    • Before his 1836 election loss Mackenzie thought he could enact change within the government structure. After his 1836 election loss, he thought change to the government structure was only possible with a revolt. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence. "He was imprisoned" -> "In the United States he was imprisoned".
    • Done
  • 2nd paragraph, 5th sentence. "After becoming" there seems to be no logical relation between having become an American citizen and being pardoned in Canada. I suggest two separate sentences.
    • Removed info about becoming an American citizen.
  • 2nd paragraph, 5th sentence. "amnesty from the Canadian legislature" -> "amnesty from the parliament of the Province of Canada, which had been formed by the union of upper and lower Canada in 1841" or something like this. I am not an expert on Canadian history but the jump from "Upper Canada" to "Canada" is confusing and needs to be shortly explained. Especially since the new constitution brought some improvements for which WLM had fought.
    • Added. However, the union of Upper and Lower Canada was not something Mackenzie wanted or fought for. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 2nd paragraph, 6th sentence. I suppose he was elected again.
    • Technically, yes, but in the 1830s Mackenzie represented a constituency in York in the Upper Canadian legislature, while in the 1850s he represented Haldimand County in the Province of Canada legislature. The differences are so varied that I am hesitant to use the word "again". Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 2nd paragraph, 7th sentence. I think we do not need to know from when on his health deteriorated and do not need to be told he died, at least not in the lede. Simply omit.
    • I think his death is an important part of his biography and gives a good transition to the obituary stuff in the newly formatted lede. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 3rd paragraph. 1st sentence. Obituaries should be discussed in the body only.
    • In a previous review, an editor liked this addition because it gave information on Mackenzie's reputation while he was alive (and shortly after his death). Obituaries were written by various newspapers independently of Mackenzie and his family, were not necessarily kind in describing his reputation and provide a great snapshot of his reputation and legacy. I think it should stay in the new lede. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence. He seems to have been sometimes independent and sometimes aligned with the Reform movement (Upper Canada) (link). Perhaps I do not understand. Could it be clarified?
    • You are correct: He always claimed he was independent but often aligned with the Reform movement. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence. legislator" -> "politician" or "MP"
    • Changed to "politician"
  • 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence. "misguided patriotism" is a label stuck on him that should be explained. I suppose one might also argue Hitler acted by misguided patriotism.
    • Removed
  • 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence. "sought to remove corruption from government institutions" -> "fought corruption"
    • Done
  • 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence. The problem of being independent and aligned at the same time also applies to his newspapers.
    • I think this is solved in the new lede. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence. "opposed any special status and benefits for religious institutions, particularly acres of land " -> "opposed religious discrimination, especially advantages granted by the government to the Anglican church such as land ".
    • This was removed in the newly-formatted lede. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence. "monopolies" -> "economic monopolies". Monopolies and buying land are unrelated and should not appear in the same sentence. Split the sentence.
    • This was removed in the newly-formatted lede. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence. Why "land parcels" rather than just "land"? or should it be "agricultural land" or "farms" or is it the land one needed to own to become a voter"?
    • This was removed in the newly-formatted lede. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 3rd paragraph, 7th sentence. Omit the fireboat and the use of his name in a much later election are not needed in the lede.
    • Removed.

-- to be continued -- Johannes Schade (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Background, early years in Scotland, and education
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. "née Chalmers". You are mistaken here. His mother was widow Chalmers, née Mackenzie, when she married his father.
    • Fixed. Added that Elizabeth was a widow before her marriage to Daniel.
  • 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence. Please add something after Alyth like "NW of Dundee" so that the reader must not look up Alyth to learn it is nearby, not in New Zealand.
    • Added "Alyth, Scotland"
  • 3rd paragraph, 5th sentence. Perhaps add "moved to southern England." The end of the sentence seems to preempt what is described in the next section. Avoid repetition.
    • Added. I removed the sentence about abstaining upon his move to Upper Canada.
Early years in Canada
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. Perhaps drop the end of the sentence about the drug. It is confusing as it is written now and would probably take up too much space if explained properly.
  • 1st paragraph, 5th sentence. "Dundas, Ontario" -> "Dundas, Upper Canada"; "branch manager" -> "manager"
  • 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. "immigrated" -> "joined him in" or "joined him by immigrating"
Creation of the Colonial Advocate
  • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. "Queenston"-> "Queenston, near the Niagara Falls,". Whenever introducing a new place name whose location is not self-evident add a short location description. Briefly explain Brock "hero of the British–American War of 1812" or similar. Make it clear that Mackenzie did not build the monument but somewhat sneakishly profited from the occasion.
  • 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence. Shortly introduce Macaulay. "Somebody linked to the Family Compact?
Types riot
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. "into the bay". No bay has been mentioned so far; either explain or change to "Lake Ontario" or similar.
Election to the Legislative Assembly
  • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. Since you call it the legislative assembly, perhaps we should use "Members of the Legislative Assembly" or MLA for short. That would be better than legislator. The members of the upper house are also legislators. According to the articles 10th Parliament of Upper Canada and 11th Parliament of Upper Canada, there were two constituencies with York in their name: "York" (or York County) and "York (town)" (or Your Town). His was York County. Please make sure there is no confusion. I feel never say just York when you mean the county seat. Clarify this also in the lede where you say just "York". At the times of the 12th Parliament of Upper Canada, the 13th Parliament of Upper Canada, the 1st Parliament of the Province of Canada, and the 2nd Parliament of the Province of Canada, we find four constituencies called York numbered 1 to 4. Mackenzie sat for "2nd York" in the 12th parliament but lost his seat in the election held for the 13th. This is cumbersome but the article has to be exact.
  • 1st paragraph, last sentence. "York" -> "York County".
  • 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. "legislator" -> MLA or whatever you prefer.
  • 2nd paragraph, last sentence. Explain "Executive council" or just say "government".
  • 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence. "lost their majority". This is a major change that merits a break and an explanation Why? Probably even start a new paragraph. I think the reason was that a new Lieutenant-governor had come into office.
  • 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence. "an agricultural society" "St. Andrew's Presbyterial". Two unrelated issues thrown together in one sentence: split. The 1st is not understandable at all. For the second the reader must interrupt and read another article, but your article should be readable and understandable without interruption. Either expand or delete.
  • 4th paragraph, 1st sentence. Did he meet one of the better known reform leaders of Lower Canada? If yes, give a name and a link. Profit from Wikipedia's special abilities.
Expulsions, re-elections, and appeal to the Colonial Office
  • 4th paragraph, penultimate sentence. "by acclamation" sounds very odd. Is it what you called "by voice" before?
  • 4th paragraph, last sentence. "not permitted" If he had been elected, how can he be not permitted. Not understandable.
Municipal politics
  • 2nd paragraph, last sentence. "delayed collecting" and "equitable assessment". Not understandable. What has his salary to do with equitable assessment laws and what are the latter? Or if it applies: do not throw unrelated issues together in one sentence.
Provincial politics
  • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. I have lost count of the elections and which ones he won and which ones he lost. I would say it would be easier for the reader if you would each time link to the article about the election. Of course you have to explain that the two constituencies York town and York Country have been reorganised into 4 constituencies.
  • 1st paragraph, last sentence. "first corresponding secretary". What is that? Is it a secretary who handles correspondence? Perhaps drop the title (if it is one) and just say he collaborated in this Alliance or similar. Besides, Gates just says "corresponding secretary" without the "first".
  • 3rd paragraph. Why did he lose the election?
Planning
Rebellion and retreat to the United States
Attempted invasion from the United States
Support for Patriots and Mackenzie's Gazette
Neutrality law trial
Imprisonment
After the pardon
Amnesty and return to Canada
Return to the Legislature
Later life and death
Writing style
Political philosophy
Religious views
  • 2nd paragraph; 1st sentence. "sects" sounds very negative. Propose "denominations".
Economic policies
Historical reputation
Depictions and in memoriam
References[edit]

Dear Z1720, in general you are to be congratulated on the attention you paid to the referencing, which you give in plenty and present in a neat and consistent form. But please note the following:

  • The Dictionary of Canadian Biography should be cited with "Sfn" and "Cite encyclopedia" just like most other such sources are handled, not as <ref name="Biographi">{{Cite web ... }}</ref>. This website does not give page numbers, which are helpful when citing. Therefore please use Sfn and the following entry in the source list: Armstrong, Frederick H.; Stagg, Ronald J. (1976). "Mackenzie". In Brown, George W.; Hayne, David M.; Halfpenny, Francess G. (eds.). Dictionary of Canadian Biography. 9. Toronto: Toronto University Press. pp. 496–510. ISBN 0-8020-3319-9. (please check it, it is a mouthful). Johannes Schade (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Done

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • Some of the details in the lead don't appear to be cited anywhere - for example, that the post-pardon papers failed due to lack of subscribers
  • Similarly some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be cited anywhere - for example, the role of Alexander Macdonell
  • Explanatory notes should generally be in a different section to references
  • FN262: if you're going to cite the updated version, this should also credit the author who did the update
  • FN263: page? Ditto FN265, check for others
  • How are you ordering multiple works by the same author in Works cited?
  • Archive link for Armstrong 1971 is non-functional
  • Was the print version of DCB the one consulted, or the online version?
  • Volume statements generally shouldn't be part of the title
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Hamil is missing publisher
  • What makes Hoar a high-quality reliable source?
  • Dundurn Press or just Dundurn? Check for consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Raiders of the Lost Ark[edit]

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the 1981 action-adventure film Raiders of the Lost Ark (a.k.a. Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark). Though not my favourite film in the series it's the most important one, not just for the film series itself but for its influence on films that followed, it's massive success, and somehow George Lucas was making this and The Empire Strikes Back simultaneously. Questionable talent that he may have become, the man was a genius at his peak. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from theJoebro64[edit]

Gonna leave some comments soon. I may make slight edits while I go through, as I think it'll be easier than just leaving comments on minor points. JOEBRO64 13:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks TheJoebro64 Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!

Comments from 👨x🐱[edit]

Excited to review this. BTW, given the comments you've received on your previous, if you'd like to review other featured articles in the review, I would strongly encourage it. I'm planning some film FA nominations in the future, although I don't have any right now.

Initial comments and lead
  • I'll start out by saying every citation here is from reliable sources and formatted perfectly from a skimthrough, so that's a good sign.
  • Poster doesn't have WP:ALT description.
  • "While the pair had ideas for notable scenes in the film" Clarify. Are we meaning concepts for scenes that would be known years after release, or scenes that are the most essential in progressing the plot?
  • An oddity I noticed with the locations listed. I get why La Rochelle and Tunisia were there because they were filmed the most prominently judging by the filming section, and I get Hawaii because even though it was filmed there for one scene, it was filmed in several areas of the state for the scene. However, I don't know why the entire state of California is listed. Only one scene used only one location of California, a University. Additionally, by that logic, shouldn't England also be listed since it was also used for one scene in location of the country, Rickmansworth?

More comments coming soon to a theater near you. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Added an ALT caption for the poster. I changed the lead part to setpieces and stunts. The gist of it from my research is they had an idea like "Oh let's have a big boulder chase Indy" and it was Kasdan's job to get Indy in front of the boulder and then NOT in front of the boulder, if that helps understanding. England is technically mentioned but not in an on location capacity so I've reworded and took out California. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Media review from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Are you by any chance hoping to get this featured on the main page for its 40th anniversary in June? Either way, here are some comments:

More to come later. From a glance at the prose, I'll say now that "notable" from "notable scenes" is inappropriate POV and editiorializing, and that you could link to Indiana Jones (character) in the "Cast" section. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Yes, I might be cutting it close but I'd like to get it there for its anniversary. I didn't anticipate Die Hard's FA taking so long (thanks for your help with that). I have enough 80s films setup now that I'm set for 40th anniversaries to appear on the front page until 2024 if I can get this one done (Got to get Ghostbusters up to FA). Too late for The Empire Strikes Back sadly but of the ones I've done it's the one I'm least interested in so I put it off until last.
  • I've replaced the Karen Allen one with one with a clearer author. I assume if its on Wikimedia it's already been verified but this doesn't appear to be the case very often in reality.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I've removed the Raiders March file. It was already in the article but I admit I wasn't in a rush to remove it because these 80s film scores are boss and I love listening to them. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I can see your point on the trailer but I just thought it was an interesting aspect to see HOW the trailer was marketed to people at the time. It's 40 years old so I don't think it's too promotional, but I feel it's justified. Normally I'd include an image of the theater it premiered in but it doesn't appear to have had a standard big time premiere anywhere notable. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The Indiana Jones Spectacular image is attributed to Cybjorg, and doing a reverse image search it only seems to come up at Fan Wikias that have sourced it from here. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm gonna stick up for the Sean Connery image as similar to the Jeremy Irons image in Die Hard, in that he is mentioned in the text accompanying the section and it's relevant to that, even if its 60% decorative. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh, also Indiana Jones character is linked in the plot section, that's why it's not in the Cast. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough on the linking. File:Karen Allen (8707577445).jpg is definitely a better choice for Allen since I could verify its copyright status. As for the "Indiana Jones Stunt Spectacular" pic, it's too bad Cybjorg hasn't edited since 2018 or we could ask that user for clarification. You're better off replacing it with something else or having no pic of it at all. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Other comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

  • Starting two consecutive sentences with "it" like you've done in the lead's third paragraph feels repetitive
  • "that includes three more films"..... are you only saying this instead of "four" because the fifth film hasn't been released yet?
  • The use of "affair" (both in "Plot" and "Casting") makes it sound like Indy and/or Marion were unfaithful to other partners during their first entanglement (which I don't recall being the case but maybe I'm forgetting something here when it's been a long time since I last watched the movie). You could simply say "relationship" instead.
  • "An imam deciphers the medallion for Jones; one side bears a warning against disturbing the Ark, the other the correct measurements for the "staff of Ra", an item used to locate the Ark" is quite a mouthful! I'd split it into separate sentences by turning the semi-colon into a period.
  • The plot's last paragraph is rather short with only two sentences. Super tiny paragraphs like that are discouraged because they make the flow of text feel choppy.
  • From "Conception", "Development and pre-production", "Post-production", and "Special effects", I'd avoid having two sentences in a row begin with "Lucas", and there's a similar issue with "Spielberg" under "Writing"
  • Within "Casting", remove the colon from "Those considered for the role included"
  • The use of "Ironically" from "Ironically, the actors' strike of 1980" is inappropriate editorializing
  • Not sure what you mean by "hold their own" from "who could hold their own against their male counterparts"
  • "after his wife's grandmother"..... grandmother-in-law
  • "because the pay was better"..... it offered more money
  • For "Filming", I think you can guess my thoughts on opening two straight sentences with "the", and its last paragraph should be merged to expanded to avoid looking so stubby
  • "Post-production lasted a few months"..... can you be more precise on whether this was 3, 4, or 5?
  • Three consecutive sentences starting with "he" under "Music" is even worse than the prior concerns of two in a row.
  • From "Stunts", the term "several" is an ambiguous word that's best avoided whenever more specific descriptions can be used, its first paragraph should be expanded/merged, and too many sentences from its second paragraph start with "the"
  • "Allen was reportedly so scared"..... any confirmation or denial on this?
  • It should be obvious by now what I'd do with the fourth paragraph's use of "the" to begin sentences in "Stunts"
  • "Visuals and sound" has a bit of repetition with "Slocombe" openers
  • Expectations on Superman II don't seem very relevant here, and neither do the other 1981 films predicted to earn the most money that year
  • Wanna guess what's wrong with the first paragraph of "Critical response"?
  • "Several reviewers noted the film's PG rating"..... I'd use "asserted" or "believed" instead of "noted", and see my previous comments on "several"
  • Spell out Videocassette recorder for "Home media". Don't just assume all readers will know what "VCR" stands for, though it's fine include that abbreviation right next to it in parantheticals.
  • Link the first instance of VHS, and it looks like you forgot a comma after its mention within "Like the VHS it was a success".
  • Another misuse of a colon for the overly short first paragraph of "Other media", and almost every sentence of its second paragraph starts with "The" or "A".
  • "There is irony in the Nazis attempting to use a Jewish artifact to subjugate the world"..... see my prior comments on using "ironically"
  • Wanna guess how the third paragraph from "Cinematic homage and nostalgia" could be improved?
  • Under "Legacy", it feels like puffery to say "significant and lasting impact" when you could simply say "lasting impact" or "major impact"
  • Don't italicize Rotten Tomatoes from "Modern reception", and try not to have back-to-back "In *year*" sentences (this is how literally each one from the fourth paragraph starts!)
  • "Several publications have ranked it as one of the greatest films of all time, including:"..... do I have to spell it out again?
  • "A 2013 episode"..... "A 2014 essay"..... see where I'm going? You could at least mention the Esquire writer by name.
  • The last paragraph from "Prequel, sequels and adaptations" could use some elaboration
  • Remove the italics from "Creative Bloq", "Cinephelia & Beyond", "Syfy", "Collider"
  • How trustworthy are "Moviefone", "Screen Rant", "SuperHeroHype", "TravelPulse", "The Ringer"
  • "Slashfilm" → "/Film'
  • Ref#194 has a stray comma in its title
  • Capitialize the W for Wired (magazine)

While this definitely needs some work to become FA-material, instinct tells me you can spruce it up enough within a reasonable time. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Huaynaputina[edit]

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, the first nomination didn't work out but at least one editor who had raised concerns back then appears to have been satisfied by changes performed at Peer Review, so I am trying again. This article is about a rather unimpressive-looking volcano in Peru which in 1600 had a major eruption. This eruption devastated the surrounding region and caused worldwide climate change, including one of Russia's worst famines. Pinging participants of the PR, these mentioned there and of the previous FAC: @Gog the Mild, Iridescent, Femkemilene, ComplexRational, Fowler&fowler, MONGO, Ceranthor, SandyGeorgia, AhmadLX, Heartfox, Buidhe, and Z1720: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Image review licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 04:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Fowler&fowler[edit]

  • Notes: this is the lead. Its language should be accessible and explain the science easily. "Central Volcanic Zone" redirects to a section of the AVB, so no need to repeat. No need to explain either that the SA plate might have an oceanic half, but some clue should be given of its birth (without going into the convection in the mantle). More later. Good to see this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Hmm. This is better, but the past tense is problematic (subduction is still occurring and Huaynaputina still exists and still could erupt again). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Seems like I missed one other issue ... " and by the former's molten contents being forced up" isn't really how the process works. The article does not discuss this but the main process is the release of fluids by the downgoing slab into the overlying mantle, which causes the latter to melt. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • That's in, minus the last sentence which isn't supported by the rest of the article (yet). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

London and North Western Railway War Memorial[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Another war memorial! I think there's something fascinating about pieces of stone that have stood on the same spot for 100 years. This one has seen some changes over that century, some of which are illustrated by the photos in the article. Once part of an impressive classical arrangement, it's now one of only two traces remaining of the "old" Euston; the rest was swept away in the 1960s in the name of progress. Meanwhile, the company whose employees it commemorates has been amalgamated, nationalised, and then privatised.

I'm grateful to Carcharoth for his input in the article's development, Thryduulf for his detailed photos of the statues, and the reviewers at the MilHist A-class review who provided some very useful feedback. Hopefully you agree it's up to standard, but all feedback is welcome! :) Due to real life, it might take me a couple of days to respond to comments but I'm not ignoring you, I promise! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC) Image review

  • Images are missing alt texts
  • File:Drawing_of_London_and_North_Western_Railway_War_Memorial_in_The_Builder.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    Reginald Wynn Owen died on 15 May 1950. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    Alt text added (not sure how good or useful it is, though; happy to take advice on improvements). RWO's dates added to the description page on Commons out of an abundance of caution. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Support I supported this article at the A-class review, and I support it now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Thryduulf

Looking through the photos on Commons, there are identical inscriptions on the east and west elevations "Remember the men and women on the London, Midland and Scottish Railway 1939-1945" yet there is no mention of WWII at all. (I meant to comment about this in the A class review but never got round to it). I'll have a more detailed read of the text later. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The article did mention these, but I've added in the dedication.
  • The lead feels rather long. How much of "The memorial was unusual in featuring an airman so prominently." and the final two paragraphs is needed this early?
    • Fair point. Trimmed a bit.
  • Consider using {{inflation}} to give present-day values for the last paragraph of the background section
    • I'm sceptical of the value of these templates. I feel they're comparing apples ang oranges.
  • Is there anything that can be said about the history before the unveiling, e.g. about the commissioning?
    • Not that isn't already mentioned. You can see from the size of the bibliography that this is covered in a lot of places, but none of the sources (even the LNWR's official history of the war) gives any details on the commissioning process. That's not really surprising for a private company building a monument on its own land using its in-house architect—there wouldn't be a lengthy paper trail. This is similar to, for example, the Midland Railway War Memorial; we only know so much about the North Eastern Railway War Memorial because of the controversy over its location, and even then we have barely a footnote from the minutes of a board meeting.
  • Don't need to say both "leaving the war memorial and two station lodges the only surviving parts of the old Euston complex." and "the lodges, along with the war memorial, were the only survivors of the 1960s redevelopment" in successive paragraphs, especially when it's already in the lead. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Trimmed. Thanks for your comments, Chris, and thank you for taking the photos used in the gallery. Just goes to show that you never know what will be useful one day! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Fulfills my source review. I haven't don't any spot checks, but I don't see a strong reason to at this stage --Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks. For what it's worth, Hawkeye did a spot check at the ACR; he appears to have copies of some of the books. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

1987 World Snooker Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC) and BennyOnTheLoose

This article is about the 1987 World Snooker Championship. After losing in the final of both of the previous two tournaments, Steve Davis finally won his fourth title. This event was bookened by Joe Johnson who won the previous year having barely won a match all season, but still making the final. It also marked the final appearance of six-time champion Ray Reardon.

Benny and I have done quite a bit of work on this, and have promoted all of the previous three events (plus some newer ones). Please let us know what you think. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Len_Ganley.jpg is missing a fair-use rationale for this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Dupplin Moor[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

In 1332 a claimant to the Scottish throne, Edward Balliol, landed on the north shore of the Firth of Forth with 1,500 mostly English adventurers. Astonishingly, within a week they had defeated the Scottish army - at least ten times stronger, and possibly more than 25 times - with great slaughter. Balliol was crowned king of Scotland and the Second War of Scottish Independence began. This is an account of that battle. There are, I believe, sufficient contemporary accounts of the battle, and modern scholars commenting on them, to support the weight of a FA and I have plundered them to the utmost. Any and all constructive criticism is most welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • What is the meaning of the red square vs blue circle on the map? A legend would be useful
Done.
They have been removed.
  • File:Charge_of_the_Scots_at_Halidon_Hill.jpg: author link goes to a dab page - which one is intended?
Fixed. (James Grant (1822–1887))

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria, your suggestions all actioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Source review

Do we need a blockquote in "Location" section? (t · c) buidhe 20:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Well in my opinion yes, despite my frequent citing of WP:QUOTE to cut down on the use of quotes I believe that in this case it communicates the information well and succinctly and that little or no purpose would be served by paraphrasing it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Buidhe, response above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Jim[edit]

I inserted an obvious missing verb, other comments follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks.
  • between more than 15,000 and 40,000 men—I don't like between more than, just "between" I would have thought?
That is not quite what the source says. I have rewritten to be a little longer but avoid the unwelcome phraseology. My fault, as I was inconsistent and not quite true to the source in the main text - now tidied.
  • Link Fife, Berwick, Dunfermline
Done.
  • Balliol was crowned king of Scotland.—cap King?
Not according to MOS:JOBTITLES. Lots of people have been king of Scotland; Balliol was only one of them.
  • from Yorkshire ports on 31 July 1332.—which ports?
The sources sayeth not. Sumption has "three Yorkshire ports"; Nicholson "the Humber"; others either "Yorkshire ports" or have Balliol's force gathering in Yorkshire and sailing to Scotland without explicitly stating that they left via Yorkshire ports. (I could make a good guess based on this, but that would be OR. I assume some chronicle lists the ports - there may or may not be a good reason why the sources don't name them.)
  • Yes, not many realistic options, but if it doesn't say...
Those Scots who had not been killed or captured fled—perhaps Those Scots who were not killed...
Why? What about those who were captured? (Some of whom would have been captured without fleeing? In these sorts of presses it was common for many prisoners to be those dragged semi- or unconscious from the heaps of bodies. This is not explicitly stated by any source, but it is for similar battles which are covered in greater detail, eg Crecy or Agincourt.)
  • I think my ellipsis above has muddied the waters, I wasn't querying the content of the sentence, just the verb tense, i.e were not instead of had not been. Anyway, I'll leave that one with you, otherwise happy to Support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
D'oh! Fixed.
Thanks Jimfbleak, appreciated. Your comments to date addressed above. Further eagerly awaited. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

HF[edit]

Will take a look soon, might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 23:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Patterson 1996 seems to be unused
Odd, but fixed.
  • It looks like the exact date of 21 March for adding to the historic listing needs an exact citation
Oops. Now covered in main text.
  • In the Omrod reference, it might be wise to add the US state for New Haven.
Done.
  • Same comment about the author link for the battle image as Nikkimaria.
Fixed.
  • Do we really need the accessdate for the Weir book?
Removed

Anticipate supporting. I can barely even find things to nitpick here. Very excellent work; some of your best work, Gog. Hog Farm Talk 17:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

That is very flattering Hog Farm, especially from someone who themselves knows what it means to generate an account of the nuts and bolts of a large scale of a battle which is a generally comprehensible, coherent account which also covers everything of note in the sources while being true to them and yet manages to of a professional standard. I shall endeavour to maitain the standard. Your points above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, source reliability, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, and 4. Did not check others. Hog Farm Talk 21:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Saseno[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine 12:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Part of an ongoing effort dedicated to Venetian naval history, this article is about the destruction of a Venetian trade convoy by the Genoese, via a clever ruse, during the War of Saint Sabas. It passed GA and the MILHIST ACR last year, and I feel confident that it is quite complete and ready for its FA star. Constantine 12:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 12:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • "The cost of the convoy's loss to Venice was estimated at 100,000 Genoese pounds.". The text gives this as the value of the captured materials and ships - not the total loss
  • Be consistent in how citations to notes are formatted
  • Many of the sources cited are quite old - what sort of searching has been done for more recent scholarship? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review. I looked at this at ACR and suspect that you may be correct about its readiness. Let's see what I can find to nit pick at.

  • All entries in info boxes should start with an upper case letter.
  • Foreign language words, other than proper nouns, should use Lang templates, not just italics.
  • "near Saseno island off the coast of Albania". Why the lower case i?
  • "With its victories in the Battle of Acre in 1258 and in the Battle of Settepozzi in 1263". Delete the second "in".
  • "commerce raiding against the Venetian merchant convoys." I think this would read better if you deleted "the".
  • Can we have some in line background on that quote. Who was Camillo Manfroni and when was it written for example.
  • What is the copy right status of that quote?
  • "since the fall of the Latin Empire in 1261". A little more explanation perhaps? That is going to mean little to most readers.
  • "the spring trade convoy to the Levant now represented Venice's "main overseas trading enterprise". MOS:QUOTE states "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion" (emphasis in the original), which this would seem to be.
  • "In spring 1264, "in order to crush the Venetian enemies and to ensure the well-being and defend the Genoese sailing in different parts of the world"". As immediately above.
  • "and had been built by public funds". I think you mean something like 'and their construction had been funded by public subscription".
  • "Grillo was forced to move to Porto Venere, at the southernmost extremity of Genoese territory, and there wait until the fleet was made ready; and he was also assigned four experienced sailors as councillors, with the added task of keeping an eye on his conduct, among them Ogerio Scoto and Pietro di Camilla." Recommend replacing the semi colon with a full stop.
  • "Coupled with news of extensive recruitment of mercenaries in Lombardy, this news worried the Venetian authorities". Is it possible to avoid using "news" twice?
  • "the usual sea lanes". I am not sure what you mean by this. Is it the same as 'trade routes'?
  • "Grillo quickly became aware of the Venetian fleet's moves". I think that some of the speculation on this could usefully be moved into the main article. It is not exactly tangential stuff. For example, I don't understand how news can have reached him of "the Venetian fleet's moves" faster than the fleet itself was moving. And what does "quickly" mean in this context?
  • I have got to the end of "Grillo deceives Barozzi" and have counted seven quotes in 1,200 words of prose - including the quotes. This seems to me to be pushing "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 ..." past breaking point. It is normal to paraphrase sources into Wikipedia's voice.
  • "appears to have sailed slowly". Why would he do that? Regardless of his perception of threat.
  • Why do the Venetians have "armed soldiers" while the Genoese have "marines"?
  • Why were large ships with 40 armed men on board "on match" for other ships with 50? I assume the answer is in their being "swift and agile", but how did this translate into a combat advantage?
  • "valued at more than 100,000 Genoese pounds, an enormous sum for the period". Anything to put it into context? Maybe as a proportion of one state's annual income or something?
  • "altogether of all". One of these is redundant.
  • "the Venetians were deprived altogether of all commerce with the east for that year"; "to escort the previous year's returning convoy back to Venice". There seems to be a contradiction here.
  • "it was not finally ratified". What does "finally" add?
  • "coerced both to sign a five-year-truce". What happened at the end of the five years?
  • "the Genoese admiral may simply have availed himself of a network of agents along the coasts of Sicily". How would these hypothetical agents obtain intelligence on a fleet which never got within 500 km of them?

An interesting story, nicely told. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Love for Sale (Bilal album)[edit]

Nominator(s): isento (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Re-nominating after a controversial source review derailed the previous nomination, which had garnered a good amount of supports otherwise. I replaced a few of the contested citations after that nom ended, but mostly I'm just interested in seeing how this pans out with someone else reviewing the sourcing this time... isento (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Support, per my past support. DMT biscuit (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Ouch, I was going to contribute a review of some sort but after seeing why the article failed last time, I have no inclination to do so. (t · c) buidhe 21:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HumanxAnthro[edit]

  • A fascinating record that I'd love to see promoted to FA. I read the previous nomination discussion, and I understand it got pretty contentious over certain things about sources (and at another point a topic that wasn't even related to the album), so I'm not intending to step on anyone's feet. However, two major issues are already present to my eyes.
    • The first paragraph of the background section is an overly-long paragraph of the artist's early life that establishes nothing relevant in relation to the rest of the content about the album. This is also a CONTENTFORK issue as all of this stuff is not only in the bio article of the artist, but also in the background section of the article about his previous album (which I think works better there). I feel starting the background at the time he was signed to Interscope and released his first album would do it.
    • I feel the "Music and lyrics" subsection isn't the best written. I think it's pretty good but it can feel like an indiscriminate list of critical opinions with no connection to each other at points.

More comments soon. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, all right. I can see how the background section could use some trimming. I'll work on that. And I might see how parts of the other section feel that way, but you gotta name some examples so we're on the same page about it. Looking forward to your comments! isento (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I've trimmed the background section, but I've kept the notes on the Soulquarians, Glasper, jazz-voice training, etc. There are connections to these topics later on in the article. isento (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Namco[edit]

Nominator(s): Namcokid47 18:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

They may not possess the same level of recognition in the Western world as Nintendo or Sega, but Namco is undeniably one of the video game industry's most important, valuable, and beloved developers. The makers of many genre-defining classics, from Pac-Man to Xevious to Ridge Racer, Namco set itself apart from other companies through its unique corporate philosophy, forward-thinking, and ability to adapt in a constantly changing market. This article covers the entirety of Namco's 50 year history, from its origins as an operator of rocking horse rides in the 1950s to its 2005 merger with toymaker Bandai.

This article has been the focus of my editing for the past two years now. A GAN, two peer reviews, and hundreds of edits later, I believe it is finally able to be bestowed the honor of being one of Wikipedia's best articles (Sega's probably getting lonely in there). At over 131,795 bytes, it is certainly the biggest article I've ever worked on. Trying to summarize a company with a 50 year history was certainly a challenge, and underwent at least three rewrites. Due to the lack of "big" anniversaries for the foreseeable future, I am not interested in having this be featured on the main page on a specific date.

The article in its current state wouldn't have been possible without the help of Red Phoenix and Indrian, who have both been incredibly helpful with the writing and sourcing. I greatly thank them for helping get this page into the state it is in now. I also dedicate this to the hundreds of editors that have maintained it for so many years now. Thank you for reading this, and I look forward to your comments. Namcokid47 18:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Namco/archive2 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. I already had my say during the extensive GA review process, so this is not just a drive-by support. I feel this is the finest article on a video game company on Wikipedia, and that even articles on companies not involved in that industry could take some pointers on how it not just describes what happened but also why those things happening was important. It's truly well done! Indrian (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - The amount of work invested into this article should not go unnoticed. This is probably one of the best video game company articles i've seen on Wikipedia and it has my highest support vote! Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. From the merger sections:
The business takeover, where Bandai acquired Namco for $1.7 billion, was finalized on September 29... Namco Bandai's impatience to move forward with the merger and clashing corporate cultures between both parties resulted in a ¥30 billion deficit.

Can this be clarified? I looked at both pages of the referenced source, [1] , but Google Translate is hot garbage at Japanese sometimes. Deficit compared to what? If the two companies were each running a 15 billion yen deficit before, nothing really changed, as an example. An explanation would be nice but "impatience" is not really a sufficient reason for such a deficit to occur. Like, was Bandai impatient in that they overpayed for buying out Namco's stock and paid a higher premium than they really needed to? And when did this deficit show up, anyway? Normally it takes a bit of time for clashing corporate cultures to even "matter", unless the first thing Bandai did after the purchase complete was massive employee buyouts or the like. Has a native Japanese speaker reviewed that source? It have any more details? This sentence raises more questions than answers as written currently. SnowFire (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

SnowFire: That was a mistranslation, which I've since corrected. Bandai Namco experienced a financial loss of ¥30 billion, not a deficit. Google Translate thought it was specifically a deficit for whatever reason, and I never bothered to look into what a deficit actually is, so I put it into the page. Sorry about that, I've fixed it now. Namcokid47 22:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
    • Done
  • Don't use fixed px size
    • Removed, looks like I already did that a while ago but left a few behind.
  • Images are missing alt text
    • Added
  • Some of the captions warrant citing - for example, that Pac-Man was their mascot from 1980
    • Sourced
  • File:Nakamura_Seisakusho_rocking_horses,_1955.jpg: when and where was this first published?
    • It's hard to pinpoint when specifically this image came from, all we know is that it's an official Namco image and was taken in 1955, meaning it meets Japan's copyright law regarding public domain images. It should still be usable, but I can try finding an earlier instance of this image.
      • Can you clarify why it is believed to be PD in Japan? The given tag states photos taken before 1947 or published before 1955 - this would need to have been published, not simply taken, at that time. Plus then we need to look at US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Nakamura_Seisakusho_logo.svg is complex enough to pass the threshold of originality
  • File:Pac-Man_artwork_(2010).svg is incorrectly tagged - it's a character rather than a work of art. Also the FUR needs expansion.
    • Added tag and tried expanding
      • Needs more, or else why not simply use File:Original_PacMan2.png? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I really don't know what else I'm supposed to add. The FUR is taken from File:Sonic 1991.png from Sega since it's being used for the same exact purpose, so I don't know how else I can expand it. Chose not to use the Pac-Man image above as I don't think it does a good job at actually representing the character in the context of the page.
  • File:Taiko_no_tatsujin_arcade_machine.jpg: what's the copyright status of the graphics?
    • Looking at it again, I'm not sure. Part of me is starting to think this is a derivative work as it's just a picture of the machine. I'll check with some folks on Commons.

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Red Phoenix talk[edit]

Don’t expect me to move fast; I’ve been deficient at editing in the last couple of months, I know. That being said, I wouldn’t miss this party for the world. Expect me to, at the very least, contribute a source review, since I know that’s usually the part others don’t want to do, and expect it to be thorough and detailed to satisfy the FAC criteria. Red Phoenix talk 17:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

As a note for FAC coordinators, I have previously provided feedback for this article at my talk page, and Archive 5 of that page has my previous comments. That, however, is the extent of my past involvement in the article. Namcokid47 has done quite a good job with this article.

Now, onto a cursory look at the sources:

  • Taking an overview over the references, there’s a lot of work to be done to meet WP:WIAFA criterion 2c - consistent citations. Don’t worry, that’s to be expected and part of what we’ll nip at through this process. We’ll detail through them as I get time, but I would definitely start now with looking at consistency. You will save yourself quite a bit of effort if you start now.
    • For instance, all internet sources should have the article title, website name, article author if available (“Staff” is not necessary), the date it was published if available, and naturally the URL. For fields such as access date and publisher, these need to be all or nothing - either every source gets them, or none of them do. Be extremely consistent in your source formatting across the whole article.
    • In the same vein, all books should be formatted the same, and all magazines the same. Reference structure naturally varies between reference types, but all references of the same type should be the same.
    • Linking to articles for websites, books, or authors should also be consistent. Personally, I would link all of them whenever possible for the ease of the reader.
    • All books need to have page numbers; this includes the Kent and Horowitz books, as well as They Create Worlds. If all the references are in just a few pages for one source, you can use a small range of pages. If it’s spread out, you’ll want to break that up - I’d personally recommend the method used on Sega, where repeated footnotes of the same book but different page numbers use an abbreviated format that links to the original reference above.
    • Although I know the kind of research you have done, and I commend your efforts greatly, I wouldn’t be doing my due diligence if I didn’t evaluate SandyGeorgia’s comments at the peer review. While I don’t always agree with her, I will review when I go in detail and perhaps suggest some sources if I have concerns. I will let you know if I share her concerns or not when I have had time to review appropriately.

I hope to return soon with a more detailed look. Red Phoenix talk 17:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I knew you'd show up eventually. I'm in no rush, so please take as much time as you need. In the meantime, I'll get cracking on those points regarding citations. Namcokid47 01:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Patrick Francis Healy[edit]

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 13:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Patrick Francis Healy led a remarkable and fascinating life. He achieved many firsts for black Americans, yet never considered himself one. The historiography of this fact is most interesting and discussed in this article. He also transformed Georgetown University into a modern institution along the way. Ergo Sum 13:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HumanxAnthro[edit]

So far, I am leaning Weak Oppose for the following concerns of incompleteness and problems with prose:

  • I've haven't researched the topic extensively, but I'm skeptical about this article's comprehensiveness. While other sources do get cited a few time each, most of this article is cited to Curran 1993 when there is much more literature to represent on this topic, including academic analysis. I find that this article is mostly just a bio of his life without opinions or analysis from outside sources about the impact of his work and why he is significant.
    • I have done a fair bit of research on Healy and have to disagree regarding comprehensiveness. The Curran book is cited only in the Georgetown presidency section, which makes sense because the Curran book is a detailed history of the history of Georgetown and therefore discusses Healy's presidency in detail. I have not come across any significant details of Healy's life that are absent from the article. I agree this article is just a biography of Healy; I don't claim otherwise. I'm not sure I know what other analysis of Healy you are referring to. All the meaningful analysis of his life that I've come across (primarily historiography of his race) is mentioned in this article. They all state approximately historiography, so citing to one reliable one is generally, I think, as good as citing to them all. Ergo Sum 22:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
      • OK, I understand. I'll admit my judgement was based on the amount of citations and what citations were cited. as well as the amount of results in the Google scholar search. If I was a bit ignorant in my response, my apologies. I would still recommended reading the literature in the search I linked to see if there's anything else to include.
        • Absolutely, I'll do that and seee if I come across anything. Ergo Sum 02:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • For Ref 1, it is not harv citation style to use the title of the article in the ref when there isn't an author. You have to use the work or publisher.
    • Fixed. Ergo Sum 22:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Watch out for non-neutral-point-of-view language. For example, "who was an important president of Georgetown University," and "Of them all, Patrick Healy most readily passed as White.[8] Indeed, his passport described his complexion as "light," suggesting he passed as a light-skinned White man, rather than a light-skinned Black man". " Healy experienced poor health, likely suffering from untreated epilepsy." likely to which researchers?
    • Respectfully, each of these is NPOV. These are all factual statements. None of them strike me as particularly controversial statements and they are all supported by reliable sources. Ergo Sum 22:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I'll clarify. Words and phrases like "important," "suggesting he passed" and "likely suffering" seem subjective. Whether person's race "passes" to another person seems to depend on someone's point of view. "Likely" indicates it's not definitely known, so personal interpretation is used to figure out probable solutions. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I understand where you're coming from. These are all things that can be debated because they are essentially one source's interpretation of the world. For example, how important a president he was can be debated. Yet, such claims can't automatically excluded. In articles, I think it's worth qualifying a claim as only "according to X" if there is actually scholarly debate on the subject, i.e. if experts disagree. Here, however, there are reliable sources that make the claims, the claims seem prima facie reasonable to me, and I have not seen any experts reject the claims or arrive at contrary conclusions. E.g. as far as I can make out, there's pretty unanimous consensus among historians that Healy passed as White; i.e. consensus that the world at that time viewed him as White, not that historians agree that he was as a matter of fact White. Ergo Sum 02:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Why are many terms in the body linked on their first mention but not Jesuit?
    • Fixed. Ergo Sum 22:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Para 2 of "Presidency" feels WP:EDITORIAL and non-encyclopedic in tone in places, and is also fluffy
    • I've rephrased some of the sentences that might be a bit editorialized. I'm trying to strike a balance between describing the grandiose plan that Healy/the bishops set out without endorsing this vision in Wikipedia's voice. What do you think of the new phrasing? Ergo Sum 22:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • " until both of their deaths in 1850" --> "until both died in 1850"
    • Done. Ergo Sum 22:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • " Michael Healy was prevented by Georgia law" which law?
    • None of the sources give an actual code citation. They just say that it was the law in Georgia. Ergo Sum 22:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
      • OK, I understand. Don't you love reliable sources that leave things vague, but you can't or clarify to reviewers because the source doesn't? I've experience that a lot.
        • It is certainly frustrating. Ergo Sum 02:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Awkward sentences: "Despite his appearance and self-identity, speculation as to his race remained with him."
    • It doesn't strike me as awkward. (Then again, I wrote it, so naturally I wouldn't). What about it strikes you as awkward? Ergo Sum 23:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
      • What does it mean for a speculation to "remain" with him? Does it mean his race was still speculated in his later life and after his death? 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I've rephrased the latter half to clarify. Ergo Sum 02:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "In 1867, he professed his final vows" This sentence is too vague and is abrupt in the paragraph that it's in.
    • You'll have to help me out with the vagueness. I've linked "final vows," if that helps. Ergo Sum 22:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
      • OK, that helps. Plus previous sections establish he did first vows for a religious institution, so that helps too.
  • If Healy was considered the "second founder" of Georgetown, who was the first?
    • Ah yes, it would make sense to mention that. I've added it as a footnote. Ergo Sum 23:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I noticed instances where full-sentence clauses are incorrectly separated by commas. For example: "As interracial marriage was prohibited by Georgia's anti-miscegenation law, Michael formed a common-law marriage with the 16-year-old Eliza in 1829" and "this proved less of a concern than the fact that because Healy's parents were never legally married in the eyes of the church, he was born out of wedlock"
    • These two sentences are grammatically correct. The commas offset dependent conditional clauses. I suppose they could be broken up into more than one sentence, but I'm generally in favor of keeping a sentence together if it is all concerned with one idea. Ergo Sum 23:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Whoops, there were small words I didn't notice at first that made me misread the sentences. Good catch, 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The subsection about Curricular reform does not introduce the reader properly to it. It starts with "Healy continued the reform of the curriculum he began as prefect." When did he begin reforming? Why does it start abruptly in the middle of curriculum reformation?
    • That section is titled Curricular reform, so I thought it would make sense to start with a discussion of curricular reform. The reform as prefect I was referring back to was his reorganization of classes. Ergo Sum 23:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Healy determined that Georgetown's most pressing need was to expand its physical facilities." Another not-so-good introduction to a paragraph. When and for what reasons did he determine this?
    • I've added a bit of detail I could glean from the source. Ergo Sum 23:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

👨x🐱 (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, HumanxAnthro. I believed I responded to each. Ergo Sum 23:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Great work on the work, and thanks for responding to the comments. I'll admit I misread some things, and some of my comments were from a skimthrough, so I'll re-read it again. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
@HumanxAnthro: Have you had a chance to take another look at the article? Ergo Sum 17:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
My apologies. My work on editing and reviewing other articles got in the way. I'm reading it now. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Patrick_Francis_Healy_solitaire.jpeg: the source provided is a "used by permission" note. Is this actually used by permission, or PD as claimed by the tags? If the latter, what was the first publication?
    • I've updated the tags and description. I'm not able to find it being published before 2003. I've left the bit about permission from Sweet because I have no way of confirming that and his account has not been active in 15 years. It may very well be true and possibly permission was given before OTRS was a thing (not sure when that was set up). Ergo Sum 01:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
      • This appears to have been published in This Week in Black History in 1998. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Thank you for finding that. I have removed the infobox image and replaced it from one lower in the article. Sadly, this result is necessitated by convoluted and retrograde US copyright laws. Ergo Sum 17:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Patrick_Francis_Healy_portrait.jpg: what steps have been taken to investigate publication history? Ditto File:Patrick_Francis_Healy.jpg
    • I have searched Google, the Library of Congress, and the Georgetown University Archives. Ergo Sum 01:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
      • The latter appears to have been published here.
        • Since that publication contains no copyright notice and I find no copyright registration, I believe it is PD and have updated the tag accordingly. Ergo Sum 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Healy_Hall_early_rendering.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Corrected the tag. Work made for hire >120 years ago and not published before 2003. Ergo Sum 02:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Coffeeandcrumbs[edit]

  • "came to own" → "owned"
    • Tweaked. Ergo Sum 17:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "who Michael Healy had purchased" -- why is this here? Is it self-evident if she was his "slave" that he "purchased" her. I also do not see it in the source cited, it is in O'Connor 1955, p. 175
    • It was possible to inherit slaves, to be gifted them, etc. It's not an incredibly important point, but it just makes clear that Healy had purchased her. Fixed the ref. Ergo Sum 17:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "common-law marriage" -- not in the source cited, it is in O'Connor 1955, p. 175
    • Thank you for catching this. Fixed. Ergo Sum 17:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Doctor of Philosophy in philosophy" -- strange, can we use the word "doctorate"
    • It does strike my ear as a bit odd, but I think it's a fairly important point. There are non-PhD doctorates and even non-PhD doctorates in philosophy, such as ScD, DLitt, applied doctorates, and who knows how many new non-PhD degrees that are called doctorates. Plus, there is a lot of variance of names for doctorates around the world and by time period. The source refers only to the PhD, so while most likely that he also received the first doctorate at all, it is not certain and cannot be extrapolated. Ergo Sum 18:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

[To be continued] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Jason Sendwe[edit]

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Jason Sendwe, a politician of the Democratic Republic of the Congo's early years. For a time he was the preeminent leader of the Luba people of Katanga Province and was the central government's "in-man" inside the territory, fraught with secessionist bitterness. He rose to national political prominence and fell in a series of disputes before being murdered under dubious circumstances; in the words of British journalist Ian Goodhope Colvin, "Jason had battled so long for his Baluba idea...had seen victory, worn the leopard skin, been carried on the shoulders of his people...become a minister, touched power and money, lost his aura and perished." This article passed GAN back in March 2018, and though it failed FAn that November, I've since expanded it. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Image licensing looks appropriate (t · c) buidhe 19:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HumanxAnthro[edit]

Can't say I've read the article in depth, but from a skim-through I'm already noticing insanely-long paragraphs, especially the first paragraph of "Rise to prominence." These could easily be split. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I've split two of them, including that one specifically. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I am hoping this article gets far more attention than the last time. I'm not a history buff but I'm hoping I find some stuff to comment on here. Let's also make sure commenters don't get into spats about nonsensical things like what happened with Tony and the nominator last time, and keep it focused on article content instead of behavior and beliefs of editors. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review[edit]

The images should have alt text per WP:CAPTION/MOS:ACCIM. Heartfox (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Plants vs. Zombies (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): Lazman321 (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Plants vs. Zombies is a video game developed and published by PopCap Games. When it was first released, it became the fastest-selling game developed by PopCap Games. I have worked on this article since November 2020. It passed a GA nomination on February 18, 2021. Now a peer review and a copyedit has been done on the Plants vs. Zombies article and now it is ready for Featured Article Candidacy. Lazman321 (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Plants vs. Zombies (video game)/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I'm very familiar with the game. My comments:

  • "If a zombie makes it to the house on any lane, the level is over." Would it be more accurate to say the game is over, or that the player has failed the level?
  • Done
  • Zombie is linked on a second or later use in the lead.
  • Done
  • "The player can only pick a limited number of plants through seed packets at the beginning of each level,[7]" Perhaps you mean "... limited number of types of plants ..."?
  • Done
  • It might be better to describe the stages as the Zombies advancing across the front yard by day, then night, the pooled backyard by day, then night, then the roof. The Lawnmowers are not used on the pool lanes, nor on the roof, though there are analogues, by the way.
  • Comment: It is already made clear that stages 2 and 4 are night levels, stages 3 and 4 are pool levels, and stage 5 is a roof level. Also, the gameplay section did originally did mention the different types of lawnmowers. I removed them following a peer review in order to make the gameplay section more consise.
  • Something more could be said about the role of Crazy Dave, that in addition to running the shop he offers (somewhat eccentric) help and advice, and "chooses" the preselected seed packets when playing Adventure Mode after beating Zomboss.
  • Comment: Like above, they were originally mentions of this but were removed for more conciseness following a peer review.
  • It might be mentioned that as one advances in Adventure Mode, there is access to more types of seed packets.
  • Done
  • You are not consistent on whether the "M" in "Adventure Mode" is capped.
  • Comment: There is only one instance of the "mode" in Adventure mode is capitalized and that is the heading in the gameplay section.
That's what I mean. Does it need to be capped?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I guess it does. Done
  • There is a clarification needed tag that should be resolved.
  • Done
  • Perhaps something could be said about that the zombies' intent is to eat the brains of the house occupants, and if they get past the defenses, they do so.
  • Done
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: I have addressed all your current problems. Lazman321 (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "On May 20, 2009, Plants vs. Zombies was reportedly the fastest-selling video game created by PopCap Games.[103][104]" This seems awkwardly phrased. Perhaps the game "was declared the fastest-selling" or similar.
  • Done
  • Some of the strings of citations are not in numerical order, which is OK if what you are doing is always putting the most important citation (the one the cited material most relies on) first. Is that what is going on?
  • Done
  • Can anything be said about marketing of objects based on the game, toys etc?
  • Not Done Information about that is only possible if reliable sources report on it, which they haven't.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: Done with your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HumanxAntro[edit]

I'm ready to look at this again after the peer review. I will say that I disagree with the use of present perfect tense in the third paragraph, as all of the citations are reviews from 2009, upon the game's release. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Some comments:

  • A possible comprehensiveness issue. I see no representation from scholarly and academic literature; this is especially concerning given that this game has been analyzed for its contribution to the tower defense genre, and the fact that, according to the Edge source in Ref 17, "during the making of this game tower defence kind of exploded in popularity" only adds to this problem. The only thing the Legacy section discusses is its DLCs, sequels and cultural references, but nothing about its impact on the design of games in the industry.
  • Comment: I am looking through the sources and none of them seems to help say how this video game impacted design on video games or the genre of the tower defense genre. While its design was definitely unique, especially in terms of its tutorial, it wasn't ever stated to be influential or having an impact. A lot of the sources just say that Plants vs. Zombies was a popular tower defense game. They often just use the game as examples of something with occasional but trivial analysis. Saying in the article that Plants vs. Zombies has been the subject of many scholarly sources is original research unless a reliable source directly says so, which none have. Maybe if you can find some sources that directly state significant information about Plants vs. Zombies's legacy, maybe that will help.
  • Working: You know what. I've found some sources that I could probably integrate into the legacy section and Plants vs. Zombies impact on tower defense and overall the industry. Lazman321 (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Some cites have work names linked in every instance, while others not all the time and at random moments. This is inconsistent and not in line with the manual of style. You either have to link all source names the first time they're cited, or link them in every citation.
  • Done though I can't do anything about Metacritic at the moment.
  • Whoever programmed cite MC needs to understand Metacritic is not a work. Until he realizes that and changes the template accordingly, you're going to have to manually cite the Metacritic sources with a cite web template, and the name of Metacritic in the publisher= field. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: That was not was I talking about. Metacritic is a website, which by definition is a work, not a publisher as per WP:CS1. I was talking about its link being on every single citation. I can edit the template to remove that. Lazman321 (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

👨x🐱 (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I have addressed your current requests. Lazman321 (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
More comments
  • " tower defense and strategy video game" Redundant. Tower defense is a subgenre of strategy.
  • Done
  • 1b issues. The article does state Weedlings was a working title, but never gives the reason for why its change, which was to differentiate itself in the saturated market of gardening games, which is in the Edge interview. In the same instance where he discusses this, he also gives a reason for why he ultimately went zombies as the antagonist, which I also see nowhere in the the Development section: "In fact, the game was called Weedlings, but many gardening games were coming out at that time and that just didn’t sit well with me. I tend to try to make games that are a little bit original. That’s when I came up with zombies, which are perfect because they move slowly so you have a lot of time to react to them."
  • Done
  • "Showing her how to customize their card decks inspired him to design Plants vs. Zombies with seed packet"
    • (1) I don't see how the experience of teaching her how to play Magic plays into this conception. I think the customability of the Magic is what influence the seed packets, not the girlfriend's learning of Magic. Presenting it like this without specifying Magic is a custom game is both misleading and too vague.
    • (2) Who is "their"? Were there multiple people whose cards were owned by while the couple played Magic?
  • Done
  • "finding common tower defense gameplay elements to be awkward, such as mazing and juggling," I know "mazing and juggling" is linked, but I still think how this sentence interprets the Edge interview is too vague. I find Fan's words in the Edge interview to be far clearer, that the "awkward" thing was that enemies would never go after towers obviously attacking them: "Originally the game was laid out the same way, but I realised there was something unintuitive about it. I always wondered why these guys never think to attack these towers that are shooting at them, so I was looking for a way to have the towers be directly threatened by the antagonist."
  • Done
  • "The Jackson-inspired zombie" Not in citation given. It is only from the subjective viewpoint of the sources currently in the article that it looks like Jackson in Thriller. "Jackson-inspired" implies the creator intentionally was influenced by Thriller to make the dance, which is not covered in the MTV Multiplayer source that cites this phrase. Sure, Jackson's actual estate perceived it as a rip-off, but that's not evidence the game's creator intended it that way.
  • Done
  • I don't see any reason to have the first two sentences of the Legacy section in that section and not in a section about the game's sales. The events discussed in those sentences happened close to the game's release, not a decade later, and the citations used for these sentences were published upon release as well.
  • Done

👨x🐱 (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC) Done with more of your commments. Lazman321 (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Even more comments
  • "The team discovered" Wait, this game was done as a team? I initially thought Fan made the game by himself with his girlfriend. [Looks at infobox] Oh, there definitely was a team to this. Any info on how this team came together? Did PopCap sign the man to make another game with staff? A team is randomly introduced here, and this sudden first mention of it may confuse readers.
  • Done
  • Link "real-time strategy" in "Design" section.
  • Done
  • I would really give Ref 27 another read, because I'm finding major details about the making of this game in it that I don't see in the wikipedia article. For example, Fan designed all of the concepts based on the knowledge of casual players: "Fan knew he wanted to use stationary "towers," and players immediately understand why rooted plants are unable to move. Zombies, on the other hand, are known for moving slowly, making them a perfect fit for the game's single-screen fields." Another example, specifically about how the characters were designed: "In Plants vs. Zombies, Fan made sure that each character visually represented its function. The standard "Peashooter" plant, for instance, has a giant mouth for spitting projectiles, and its name further suggests what it's capable of."
  • Done

👨x🐱 (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC) @HumanxAnthro: Addressed your current requests. Lazman321 (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

4/11/21
  • I echo yet again for the nominator to give Ref 27 more reads, because only those two examples have been added. Trust me when I say there is more than 2 cites worth of material in that source. Given missing info I have found in other citations in this article, I'd recommend the nominator read the other references to look for any other missing details himself. 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review from Nikkimaria[edit]

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Done
  • Missing alt text
  • Done
  • Done for one, not the other. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Plants_vs_Zombies_Gameplay.png needs a more detailed FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It's been expanded, but not appropriately. It looks like it's been largely copied from the lead image? They serve different purposes within the article so should have different rationales. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: The templates being used are different. I'm mostly using the default text on the rationales. Is that wrong? Lazman321 (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. It reads as if the default text is for a lead image; that's not the use of the image here. What are you trying to convey with this image? What benefit does it provide to readers to have it here? Why is it needed in addition to the lead image, which is also non-free? These are the sorts of questions that the rationale should answer. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It is used for readers to have a better understanding of the gameplay itself and can also be used to tell people that they made it to the right article if it was what they were looking for. This is what is mentioned in the rationale and I believe it is sufficient. Plus, I can't even change the descriptions. Lazman321 (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The explanation currently in the FUR is insufficient, because it doesn't tell us what benefit this image provides in addition to the lead image, which is also non-free. If there is no added benefit we won't be able to use it. You do have the ability to edit the FUR here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Okay, I replaced the rationale with a non-free media rationale in order to actually edit the descriptions. I have clarified the purpose of use in the rationale. Lazman321 (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Done with your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Spy-cicle[edit]

I am not sure I have time for a full review but I have a few comments:

  • Per WP:VGBOX the game was released for multiple platforms with a similar cover, art without any platform-related logotypes should be used where possible either from an official source or by editing the cover picture in order to create a platform-neutral picture. The current cover art has various PC logos, etc, found a platform neutral one free from of them here [2].
  • Done
  • In the lead and body "Plants vs. Zombies received critical acclaim" 8 versions on Metacritic 2 (iOS) recieved "universal acclaim", DSiware " mixed or average" and rest "generally favorable", not sure how that results in overall critical acclaim.
  • Comment: Is generally positive a better summary? Lazman321 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Surely Stephen Notley should be mentioned at least once in development section since Notley was the writer, or the fact he only wrote the almanac section.
  • Done
  • Are there any free images avaliable of development staff or any other relevant images (appears to be this at commons [3] though not sure how copyright works in regards to that).
  • Working: I have asked Dean Takahashi through Twitter to license a picture of George Fan he took during a 2018 interview about Octogeddon under Commons. Lazman321 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Possible to mention the link to the series article in some way (i.e. it spawned a series including third-person shooters, etc or something)
  • Done
  • The release section only mentions a PlayStation Network (should also be linked) port as if it is digital only on ps3 there appears to be a disc version also.
  • Not Done: There needs to be reliable sources that mention the physical copies of the PS3 version, not store directories. If you can find some, I will definitely add them. Done for linking.
  • There seems to be some strange inconsistent linking in the reference sometimes websites like IGN other times they are not.
  • Comment: Can you please specify. Lazman321 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • First reference to readme appears to be dead (url-status should be changed)
  • Done
  • Done
  • The usage of USD $ need MOS:NBSP and the M needs to spelt out on first usage per MOS:CURRENCY or spelt out both times since they are in different sections.
  • Done
Hope this helps.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
@Spy-cicle: I have addressed your requests.

Project Emily[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the deployment of American-built Thor intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) in the United Kingdom between 1959 and 1963, which were operated by the Royal Air Force Bomber Command as part of the British nuclear deterrent. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Image licensing looks good. Many of the source links are now dead but it would be surprising if any of these were not genuine US government photos. (t · c) buidhe 21:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
    I've done a pass over them, and they all should be good now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HumanxAnthro[edit]

References

On first impressions, cites are well-formatted, though I don't know why any of the publisher and work names aren't linked to their respective articles.

Lead
  • I find lead pretty lackluster given the several details and sections in the body; not even its preservation gets a sentence.
Background
  • I've noticed this sentence suffers from long sentences and a lack of varying lengths to keep it interesting, and the sentences are the same overly-long length.
  • Most of the jargon is linked and elaborated, but there's a couple that still needs elaboration or linked to introductory readers. What is a "manned bomber"? What is a "production model atomic bomb" and how does it differ from a regular atomic bomb? What are nautical miles?
  • Why is the first atomic bomb landing specified by an operation name and a full date, yet the first production model atomic bomb launch is present with only the location, month, and year without a day or operation name? Is it because of the reliable sources not revealing it? Just want to know, that's all.
  • "Britain's nuclear weapons armament was initially based on free-fall bombs delivered by the V bomber force, but the possibility of the manned bomber becoming obsolete by the late 1960s was foreseen"
    • (1) What does it mean for the nuclear weapons to be "based on" a type of bomb? Did their designs take influence from them?
    • (2) Like I asked, what is a manned bomber?
    • (3) What is the message of this sentence, and how do the two clauses connect to each other?
  • "In parallel to the ICBM programme, the United States developed three separate intermediate range ballistic missile (IRBM) systems." Even though they're named later in the paragraph, I would still follow this sentence with a list of the three names of the IRBMs for ease of navigability.
  • "The United States National Security Council gave the ICBM and IRBM projects the highest national priority.[16]" How?
Negotations
  • "Implicit in Wilson's decision to develop an IRBM was that it would be based overseas." It may be I'm not the biggest history expert, but I find the use of "based" confusing? The following sentences seem to indicate this sentence means that he want IRBMs to "launch" overseas, not that they were "based" (or as I read it, located) overseas.

I'll stop here for now. So far, the prose is generally well-done and understandable (though as an American I can't tell if it keeps true to British English) but could use the fixes I mentioned above. 👨x🐱 (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

To address your points:

  • A "production model" of something is a mass-produced version as opposed to a prototype. Bombs used in nuclear tests were normally prototypes, although occasionally a production model was used.
  • Nuclear tests invariably have code names, but the delivery of production ordnance rarely does. Sources only give the month; my practice is to make dates as specific as possible, to make life easier for the people trying to paraphrase the Wikipedia.
    1. By "based on free-fall bombs delivered by the V bomber force" I meant as opposed to missiles
    2. The term "manned bomber" is a bit of a tautology, as bombers invariably have crews. Linked "bomber" and removed "manned" per MOS:GNL.
    3. The point is to emphasise the distinction been aircraft and missiles.
  • The NSC simply declared that the projects had the highest national priority. In practice this meant that they had priority for human, financial and materiel resources, over other uses.
  • The missiles had to be based overseas. Deploying them at the last minute was not an option.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered[edit]

Nominator(s): Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the 2016 remaster of the 2007 video game Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, titled Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered. I have been the largest contributor since the article's inception in 2017, and assisted in getting it to GA a few months later. Since then, I have continued to improve and expand upon it in that time. This is my first FAC nomination, and in preparation, the article has undergone a peer review earlier in the year: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_Remastered/archive1.

Being a remaster of an existing product, my only major concern with the article is that (as I've experienced already by editors) coordinators may struggle to reach a consensus on whether the article's Gameplay section should simply list the notable changes between it and the original game, whilst linking to the original game's article for a full rundown of gameplay features (as it currently does). The other alternative is to give the remaster article a full breakdown of gameplay information, mirroring the original game's article, and allowing the remaster article to stand on its own and not rely on the other for clarity. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by AviationFreak[edit]

This will be mostly a prose review, but if I happen to see anything else that needs fixing I'll point it out. I tend to be pretty nitpicky and generally go by what sounds best to me, so feel free to ask me about these changes and/or not make some of them.

  • The second sentence in the lede has a few issues - 2007's Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare sounds like the game was published/developed by "2007", it's unclear whether initially released as past of... applies to the base game or the remaster, and I believe the comma after November 2016 is extraneous.
  • I've re-worded to "the 2007 game". To avoid repetition and length, and the fact it's a remaster (self-explanatory), I didn't bother to give the genre again, and the alternative "the 2007 first-person shooter" didn't seem suitable. My only concern now is that the sentence length is almost at that point where someone might ask for it to be split (again). Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Online petitions aren't really "released", perhaps "gained traction" or something similar would work better here?
  • Changed to "circulation", in line with how it's described in Development. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Raven Software assisted in the development of previous games.
  • remastered original sound effects - There's nothing inherently wrong with this and it gets the point across well, but perhaps an adjective besides "remastered" would work better given the game title?
  • While the preceding sentence makes the changes sound sweeping, they are then described as "small improvements".
  • The "small improvements" are referring to the gameplay changes, hence why it's mentioned straight after gameplay in that sentence. I've added "to it" at the end for clarity though. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe ...multiplayer content, and additional single-player achievements... should be multiplayer content, as well as additional single-player achievements
  • It was actually that initially, but was changed during one of the copy-edits. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • enhanced graphics, sound, and range of improvements. - This is awkward, perhaps it should be enhanced graphics, improved sound, and a range of other improvements.? The word "enhanced" should apply to only the first item or all of the items, not the first two.
  • Changed to "revised sound" (and used the same prose for its mention in Reception), but I feel it sounds better without the "and". Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oops, meant to say I don't agree with the "a", considering both use "and". Changed your edit. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • What exactly does "grounded" mean in the context of single-player campaigns? I've never played the CoD series, but this adjective seems weird in this context. The same applies to "freshness" in the next sentence.
  • I did think recently this might prove confusing for some. I basically meant in the sense that it was down-to-earth in contrast to later installments that have futuristic elements (e.g. jetpacks). Replaced with "realistic". Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The lede sentence on criticism seems like it's trying to fit too much information into one thought, resulting in a lot of commas - Maybe split it into one for singleplayer and one for multiplayer?
  • Probably best it is changed as the criticism and controversy sentences do flow very similarly from both giving three examples on the topic in question. I've re-worded but I can't really decide what sounds better; it's a toss-up between "Criticism focused on the multiplayer mode for balancing issues and the single-player mode for its pacing and artificial intelligence." or "Criticism focused on balancing issues in the multiplayer mode and the pacing and artificial intelligence in the single-player mode." Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • in the eyes of players - I assume this would be more correct as in the eyes of most players.
  • True, but I think this is potentially WP:OR. None of the sources explicitly describe it as "many" either. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Gotcha - Hadn't looked at the sources. If that's what they say, I agree with the current wording. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ...overcharge for the downloadable content and standalone version of the game. - Can't quite place it, but this just sounds a little off to me. It may very well be grammatically correct and not require an edit.
  • Left as is, but I know what you mean. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The second sentence in "Gameplay" is a bit confusing to me. "Encompassing" doesn't seem like the best verb here, but more importantly I can't understand what "remained nearly identical to their original counterparts". Was it the controls? The timing of existing animations?
  • Both aspects remained nearly identical. Propose the following: "However, it includes a few modifications comprising of improved controls and timing of existing animations, while remaining nearly identical to their original counterparts." Let me know what you think. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm still a little confused - If both aspects remained nearly identical, why are we mentioning the modifications? I would think those modifications would be insignificant if the aspects they modified remained nearly identical to the original. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I see what you mean, but I still think it's still worth mentioning as almost all of the interviews highlight it. I've just read through it again and it's kinda tricky how I should word it because of this, but seeing the player character's arms while prone doesn't fall under what's sourced as the improved controls or animation timing; as such, the sentence erroneously starts off with "For example", so this bit should probably be removed. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Not sure if replacing the NPCs' heads with watermelons warrants mentioning, even if it is funny. This sentence could also use a change, maybe something like ...keeps the same collectibles and cheats while adding several new cheats.... As-is, it seems clunky to me.
  • I believe "as" would work better than "from" when talking about the differences between MW and MW:R's multiplayer modes.
  • new modes like "Prop Hunt", in which players hide as inanimate objects from the opposing team is a fragment, because it doesn't fit into the "modes present in other installments" category. Maybe append , are included as well to the end of the sentence.
  • Done, and split into two sentences as it was getting too long. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "through microtransactions" could be appended to completing challenges, crafting, or buying in-game currency to give an inline definition of the term.
  • Extraneous comma after the SAS team escapes with its manifest.
  • Should "Ultranationalist party" be capitalized?
  • It's the name of the political party in-game so yes. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • There should be something like "in another" after ...in a secret level titled "Mile High Club" since we have during one level in the previous statement.
  • Done, and removed the title of the level as it's unnecessary. The prose on the Plot and Characters has been taken from MW's article and simplified. However, I'm just thinking, and no one has ever brought this up before, but is it an issue that the Characters section in MWR is not sourced at all? The Plot section of MW is wikilinked from MWR but this is only referencing the plot, not the characters. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It looks to me like the relevant guideline here is MOS:PLOTSOURCE, which says that plot citations are nice but not necessary. If secondary source summaries of the game exist it would probably be worth citing them in the Plot section. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The first image in "Development" features a weapon being held by the player, while the second doesn't. Unless this difference is part of the remaster, it should probably be consistent in the comparison.
  • Source 18 uses "source code", not "source codes" as the article does - I believe the source is correct since we are only talking about one program, even if it may contain multiple scripts.
  • "Full" 1080p? Also, does the game use a more widely-known engine (e.g. Unreal, Source)? If so, it should be mentioned and wikilinked.
  • Changed to "a native 1080p", per wording in the source. The problem with details on the engine is that they don't explicitly give the name of it, only that it's an upgraded version of the one for MW, which is the IW game engine (and its unique for MWR owing to some tinkering), so I'm not sure this warrants wikilinking to the IW engine page as proof. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It looks to me like the IW Engine is used exclusively for the series, so I think it would be worth piping "the series' game engine" to the IW article. This does mean we'd have to remove the link to game engine though, so I'm open to other suggestions. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about wikilinking the IW article, primarily because it doesn't mention Remastered and games that use heavily-modified or almost brand-new versions of the engine aren't listed in its table, but maybe it's acceptable. We also have a note for the engine section on MWR's article, saying "Do not add any engines without a reliable source", but now I don't know if this should remain if we link to the IW engine. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Gotcha - It's not crucial that the engine is linked, but from my perspective it would be useful to identify the engine somehow somewhere in the article. This could even be in the infobox, with something like "IW Engine (heavily modified)" for the Engine field. AviationFreak💬 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Extraneous comma after nostalgic experience for fans of Modern Warfare.
  • Extraneous comma after and the desire to meet expectations.
  • Unless Pellas was encouraged by the leading principle, there should be a "they" before were encouraged by their leading principle...
  • Source #1 supports almost the entire 2nd paragraph in "Development" - If possible, there should be corroborating sources added.
  • I don't think the article describes "paint-over" very well - Is it just adding assets to existing environments?
  • It's basically a draft in preparation for when they're properly created. Propose the following: "Enhancements to the environments were designed (or perhaps "drafted"?) using a procedure called "paint-over", establishing a color scheme and taking screenshots of levels from Modern Warfare before overlaying them with concept art." What do you think? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Much better, prefer "designed" to "drafted". AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • While the last sentence in "Development"'s third paragraph describes its idea well, the "vice versa" doesn't really work - Does the environment now respond more realistically to the NPCs' artificial intelligences?
  • Propose the following: "The artificial intelligence of NPCs was improved to respond more realistically to the environment; conversely, grass was animated to react to the player character's presence." Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Better, but I don't know that the average reader will recognize the connection between the two statements. Maybe instead of just "grass" we could say "environmental features" or "aspects of the environment, including grass,"? The source uses the term "foliage", which would work better as well IMO. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm going to look into changing the prose on character AI because reading the source again, reacting to the environment was just one improvement made to them; their movement system was also another. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Maybe spell out "Experience" in "Call of Duty: XP 2016"? My brain intuitively reads "XP" as an emoticon, but if this is how the event is marketed/commonly referred to it should stay how it is.
  • Left as is. Seen several articles that refer to it as such. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • the weapon audio was revised to more closely resemble those found in the original game. - I believe this should read that the audio was revised to better resemble that found in the original game, since we're talking about "audio" and not "audios".
  • In addition to the remastering process, the game had an array of new features. - For a paragraph lede, "had" is a bit lackluster. Consider "contained", "offered", or something similar.
  • Cheats are mentioned three times in the article, from the lede to "Gameplay" to "Development". "Gameplay" and "Development" basically the same thing about them, so they should probably be scrapped from one of those sections.
  • I believe the comma after ...released as a free update several weeks later is extraneous. Ditto for the one after Raven published various playlists and seasonal events.
  • Target is not an exclusively online store - If the reservation was explicitly for Target's online store, the sentence should be reworded. If not, just say "Target". Also, I may just be out of the loop, but what exactly is a "reservation card"? If an article exists it should probably be wikilinked.
  • Changed to just "Target" as the sources don't give further details. One of them calls the reservation card a "pre-order card", so have just wikilinked to the pre-order page. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • CoD:XP is duplinked, and see my above comment about the use of "XP".
  • I think ...other improvements to Remastered should be ...other improvements to Modern Warfare, since it's the product that was improved upon.
  • The Push Square opinion at the start of the third paragraph in "Reception" needs an inline citation, either at the comma or along with Electric Gaming Monthly's citation.
  • Extraneous comma after writing it was welcoming to more casual players.
  • more enjoyable from allowing different gameplay styles - The "from" doesn't make grammatical sense here. I can't think of anything particularly concise as a replacement, so maybe something like "more enjoyable because it better accommodated different gameplay styles" would be better.
  • I don't see an issue with the grammar here, and I feel this alternative is too long. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm just reading it wrong, but to me the "from" still sounds wrong in this usage. Looking at it again, "more enjoyable because it allowed for different gameplay styles" would also work IMO. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • and attributed this to a desire to preserve... can be shortened to "attributing this to a desire to preserve..."
  • The first sentence in the last paragraph before "Infinite Warfare bundling" is clunky.
  • See below comment re. Pellas.
  • The Pellas sentence looks great, but I'm talking here about the first sentence in that paragraph. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • My bad! The wording was changed during a copy-edit from the similar "The multiplayer mode in the Windows version of Remastered was criticized by players for the available settings and from suffering from a number of technical issues." If it still sounds clunky then I don't know if the copy-editor was intending to avoid this or not. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, those both sound "off" to me - I think the issue is using the structure "Players criticized <x> and (for/from) <y>". Removing the "for" or "from" would create a smoother structure, so you could say something like "Players criticized Remastered's limited number of multiplayer settings and its large number of technical issues", or something similar. AviationFreak💬 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Extraneous comma after "On Steam".
  • It should probably be mentioned that David Pellas was closely involved with development in this paragraph, even though it is stated earlier in the article.
  • Propose the following: "As part of his close involvement in the game's development, David Pellas playtested the PC version, stating before release that it "play[ed] amazingly" and had a "fantastic" frame rate; he acknowledged, however, that the game had been played on a high-end gaming PC." Let me know what you think. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe Hardcore Gamer noted many fans had... should be Hardcore Gamer noted that many fans had...
  • In the sentence on Rock, Paper, Shotgun in the "Infinite Warfare bundling" section, I don't think we need to use "fans like themselves" - just "fans" would work.
  • ...some perceived as a future inclusion of virtual goods should probably be ...some perceived as an indication of future inclusion of virtual goods or something similar.
  • Changed to "an indication of future virtual goods". Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Follow MOS:INOROUT when adding quotes. For instance, this is done incorrectly at the end of the "reeks of money grubbing" quote.
  • Done. I'd checked all of these previously, so must have missed this one. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe there should be a "that" between "PCGamesN lamented" and "Activision".
  • I have to assume that not all of the guns were "locked behind [a] paywall", but the article doesn't make that clear.
  • Need a "that" between "Complaints highlighted" and "the publisher". This sentence is also quite long and overuses commas, consider splitting it.
  • Combined the end of the sentence with the following one, so both sentences are of similar length. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Whoo, that should give you a bit to work on! Don't worry too much if this seems overwhelming, most of the changes are small and should only take a minute or two, tops. As this appears to be your first FAC, I want to say congratulations and good luck! Looking over the talk page, the only thing that appears as an outstanding issue to me is the question raised in the "Use of quotations" section. If possible, I would recommend slimming down or eliminating some of the direct quotes. Overall this article looks nice and doesn't contain too many MOS issues (it could use a few more images, but I understand that as a copyrighted work this is not easy). Again, good luck and stick with it! I completed my first FA a few weeks ago and it's a great feeling once you get all the source and prose drudgery out of the way. Let me know if you have any questions! AviationFreak💬 01:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

AviationFreak Hi, and thanks for the response! I'll go through those presently. I had extensively trimmed down the length of quotes (and all but removed them for the Development section) as part of the peer review, but I understand where you're coming from in that I think perhaps a few could be removed from Reception (I did struggle with how I might paraphrase these though). The use of an image for the Gameplay section I'd proposed previously, and I will look further into the possibility of using one; at the time, I think ImagineTigers' wording confused me and thought he meant only one image should be in the article, period! Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Also, almost all of the extraneous commas (which I sympathise with) and the omissions of "that" were made by two editors as part of full article copy-edits, so while I disagree with most of these choices I'm sure their editing prowess gave them good enough reason to believe these changes were preferable. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Gotcha - Again, I tend to go by how things sound to me. If other commenters here at FAC agree that some or all of those changes should be made though, I think they ought to be implemented. AviationFreak💬 18:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
AviationFreak I've now made all the required changes, with the exception of a couple I wanted to know your thoughts on first before I published them. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
These look great! I believe I've replied to all of your questions, let me know if you have any others! AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
AviationFreak Made the agreed changes. I've still queries about the gameplay modifications, linking the engine, line summarising criticism of the PC version, and the prose on the AI/environmental behaviour. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I think I've responded to all of these, contact me with any follow-ups! AviationFreak💬 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Panini![edit]

Coming soon to theatres near you. Panini!🥪 14:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Jamiroquai[edit]

Nominator(s): 옷OO 17:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

This is an article about the English funk and acid jazz band Jamiroquai. They are well known for their music video of "Virtual Insanity" and the song "Canned Heat", the latter which appeared in Napoleon Dynamite. My previous attempts to nominate the article in 2019 failed and understandably so, as it had cluttered writing and excessive detail, but has now improved in comparison. I've worked on this since 2018, which has been challenging but rewarding, as I've learned alot from it. This article is in hopes that it will represent the band's artistry and success above all the tabloids and sensationalism that overshadowed them. Thank you and I hope this passes. I want to give a special thanks to Ceoil for helping out. With his guidance, this article will age like fine wine. 옷OO 17:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Ceoil and MaranoFan because I should have done so earlier. 웃OO 03:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • What are the copyright statuses of the headdresses? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
CC-BY-SA 2.0, CC-BY-SA 2.0, CC-BY 2.0. Or were you referring to the headdresses themselves? 옷OO 22:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
The headdresses themselves. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I never knew that there would be guidelines for clothing. If need be, the images could be removed from the article. Though they have been photographed by photographers releasing their work under CC. Overall, I'm unsure of the licensing regarding this. 옷OO 00:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
As per commons:COSTUME, costumes can receive copyright protection when distinct from clothing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I guess what I can come up with as an argument is that he isn't portraying as anyone else but himself. (though there could be some issue with the native american headdress) some of his hats are designed by himself, otherwise the other designers, such as one who created the Automaton LED hat, would create them for the brand of Jamiroquai. The photos taken are also freely licensed as well. I also want to add that they are all concert photography which is generally acceptable. 옷OO 01:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
That's fine, but the photographers can only release the rights to their photographs, not to the designs which are not theirs. Is there any indication these designs have been freely licensed? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I keep eyeing this quote: "If the costume is not the central focus of the image but only an incidental feature, or one among many costumes, it is likely to be considered de minimis." it's probably the best representative for the situation is it portrays him performing in a concert. But also the issue may just be the three images in the artistry section that give them closer looks to illustrate the hats apart from the other photos where the Kay the singer is singing zoomed out in the photo. Other than that, determining the license of headgear and such is beyond my knowledge. 옷OO 01:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In the infobox, please provide a better caption for the image identifying the band members by name according to their position in the infobox. Consider cropping out the guy on the left if he's not important, as it would make the rest of the image much easier to see at the infobox size. (t · c) buidhe 08:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you for removing the headdress pics. I feel like the infobox pic before at [4] gives a slightly better view of the band. Though the purpose I had with the images of the band was too illustrate the band's lineup from the left side of the stage to the right. 옷OO 15:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Delaware Tercentenary half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is about... another of the 1936 crop of commemorative coins, which was the largest in US history due to the boom (and subsequent bust) in their values that year. This one wasn't struck until 1937, and escaped the scandals and recriminations for some of them, since the goal was worthy and the profits went to a legitimate cause. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review—provisional pass
Both replaced with two that are OTRS pending.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
This proves publication not later than March 1924 (page 59).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Provisional pass with the understanding that this article should not be promoted until the OTRS is confirmed. (t · c) buidhe 17:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, Buidhe, OTRS has come through.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

HF[edit]

Looks interesting, will review. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 01:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  • There seems to be something wrong with note a. I don't think starting off with "In addition to the Bridgeport piece," was meant for this article; it looks like you want "In addition to the Delaware piece,"
  • Why did the Treasury Department oppose the bill?
  • "The original coin holder in which up to five Delaware half dollars were sent to purchasers are worth from $75 to $125," holder --> are; tense mismatch
  • Some infobox stuff not directly cited - mass, diameter, thickness, composition, amount of silver
  • While someone familiar with US coins from this time period (I'm reasonably familiar) would be aware that a US silver coin at this time would be reeded, and that the Philadelphia Mint didn't place a mint mark on coins at this time (with the exception of those wartime silver-content nickels), I would recommend citing reeding and lack of mint mark in the infobox as well, since those aren't going to be common knowledge for everyone.

Interesting article, anticipating supporting. Hog Farm Talk 14:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I've gotten those things. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support on 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4, and source reliability; did not check others. Hog Farm Talk 13:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HAL[edit]

  • Could first successful European settlement in Delaware be linked to an appropriate article?
  • Is there any other viable lede photo? The white plastic tabs (NGC I assume?) detract from the images imo.
  • "A first attempt" to "The first attempt". First seems to suggest multiple "first attempts". Bit of a nitpick.
  • "The bill was signed despite the fact that the Treasury Department and prepared a draft veto message" Missing something.
  • Change "make things easy" to something like "embolden" or "aid".
  • "who more usually picked an artist by other means." What means?
  • I would link Kalmar Nyckel in the image caption.
  • "The design of this coin is effective and simple. The legends are particularly clear, and the coin as a whole is very tastefully wrought". Should the period be before the quotation mark? Don't know myself.
  • Source/referencing looks good.

That's all I got. Terrific work. ~ HAL333 21:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

All done. The two images are OTRS pending, so I will post again when that's done..--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Happy to support this nomination. ~ HAL333 23:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Jim[edit]

  • destroyed by the Native Americans.—very vague, do we know what tribe?
  • acting though its president
  • The edge is ridged.—is that what we would call milled, with ridges across the edge, or does it mean the edgs of each face is raised? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic[edit]

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

A country, if one can call it that, which existed for little more than 6 weeks in the spring of 1918, the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic was formed out of desperation. A union of Armenians, Azerbaijanis, and Georgians, it was not likely to have lasted even if it wasn't facing an imminent invasion. I've slowly worked on this for the past while, and got it up to GA recently, and now think it is ready here. I will note a couple things: the dates used are a mix of Julian and Gregorian, a consequence of the era; and while this is nominally a "country" article, the fact that the TDFR spent nearly its entire existence trying to defend itself militarily means that there are not much that can be said about more conventional topics for country articles. Scholarship on the state as a whole is also limited, though a regional journal did publish some relevant articles in 2020 (which are being released in book form in 2021) that have proven quite useful. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Image and source reviews
  • I'm satisfied with image licensing (t · c) buidhe 21:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "As the TDFR lasted only a month, it did not leave much of a legacy." This sounds like an opinion based statement, it may make sense to attribute to a source or else delete it. (t · c) buidhe 21:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced that giving non-English names of entities which are not the subject of this article and have their own articles is helpful, since this info is or should be in the dedicated articles. (t · c) buidhe 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the image review. For you other two points: I'll take a look at the sources, see if I can support the statement; otherwise I'll remove it. And for your third point, I'm a little uncertain what you mean. Can you clarify for me? Kaiser matias (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
For example, "Council of People's Commissars (known by its Russian acronym, Sovnarkom" with a footnote "Russian: Совнарком; short for Совет народных комиссаров, Sovet narodnykh kommissarov". I do not think the footnote is helpful. (t · c) buidhe 23:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I understand now, thanks. I had that as I felt it appropriate to include the Russian version, but I'm certainly not married to the idea and if it's felt to be unnecessary can certainly remove it. Also will note I modified the "Legacy" introduction to be more neutral. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Hovannisian 1967, p. 75 Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation. (t · c) buidhe 23:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Fixed that (had the wrong year at first). Kaiser matias (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from LouisAragon[edit]

Claiming my spot. Will review over the following days. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Funk[edit]

  • Some nicely obscure history, will have a look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • At first glance, I wonder if O.S. has to be linked at every mention?

Berlin to Kitchener name change[edit]

Nominator(s): Tkbrett (✉) 15:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is about how a small German-Canadian city in Ontario, Canada went from being named Berlin to Kitchener and the context surrounding that change. Tkbrett (✉) 15:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


  • Image review—pass, see talk. (t · c) buidhe 17:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Too many quoteboxes. These give excessive weight to certain quotes or opinions above others, and should usually be minimized. Try instead, axing or integrating into the main text. (t · c) buidhe 15:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I see you have removed one – do you think any others ought to be removed? Tkbrett (✉) 16:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I removed the diary entry as that seemed to give undue emphasis to a single person. The remaining two quoteboxes are quoting historians. Tkbrett (✉) 17:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Too many notes. Work on axing and/or integrating some of them into the text. (t · c) buidhe 15:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Why so much further reading? If they are not a unique resource on the article's topic, they should not be there (possibly moved to another article where they are more relevant); if they do give unique info on this article's topic, they should probably be cited. (t · c) buidhe 15:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Most of the further reading deals with the the event tangentially and only accent the information provided in the article, so I've gone ahead and cut most of it. Tkbrett (✉) 16:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

In general, it looks good. I'm slightly concerned however by some phrasings that look a bit odd to me, which may be ENGVAR.
  • "Sergeant-Major Blood" Do we have a link or a first name? Or is this the same as the Sergeant Blood arrested later on in the article?
  • They are indeed the same person (Sergeant-Major Granville Blood). Unfortunately there's no page and my sources have no information on his life besides the mentions in this article. I've fixed the naming so they are both the same. Tkbrett (✉) 18:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The blockquote by Lt Dacey seems to be missing an internal close quotation mark.
  • "In January 1916, members of the local 118th Battalion campaigned in the streets of Berlin, harassing men who had not signed up for service.[45] " Is campaigned the proper term here?
  • Good point. There are really two thoughts being teased in this sentence – the unsuccessful recruiting campaign and the harsh tactics the recruiters pivoted towards. I've split the sentence and expanded each to further explain. It now reads: "In January 1916, members of the local 118th Battalion campaigned for new recruits but – like most battalions in Canada – found little success. Recruiters resorted to harassing men in the streets who had not signed up for service and forcing them into the recruiting office.[59]" Tkbrett (✉) 18:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • " The result of the vote elicited celebrations in the streets from supporters." Elicited seems a bit of an odd word here.
  • Changed to "The result of the vote prompted supporters to celebrate in the streets." Tkbrett (✉) 18:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "In early 1916, Canada's Militia Minister Sam Hughes made a speech in the House of Commons" Shouldn't there by commas surrounding "Sam Hughes"?
  • "Tappert was threatened to leave the country by 1 March.[64]" This reads oddly.
  • Changed to "Tappert ignored threats to leave the country by 1 March; ..." Tkbrett (✉) 18:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • You have "Ontario's legislature", "the Legislature" and "the Ontario Legislature" within a short passage, and you link later to Legislative Assembly of Ontario.
  • Standardized across the page. Tkbrett (✉) 18:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! Tkbrett (✉) 18:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dnllnd[edit]

Overall the page is a huge improvement from earlier versions and I appreciate how much you've accomplished - well done. I have a few general comments to offer:

  • Several paragraphs are way too long, impacting how browsable the page is despite the use of subheadings. One aspect of a topic doesn't need to be completely covered in one paragraph. The information the longer paragraphs contain is interesting and useful but they'd benefit from being broken up, where appropriate.
  • That's fair. I've split several. Let me know if you think it is needed anywhere else. Tkbrett (✉) 00:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Looks and reads a lot better! I made a few additional splits.--Dnllnd (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree. I rejoined one where the information is better served as one paragraph. Tkbrett (✉) 15:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The reaction and aftermath section doesn't address more recent media coverage about changing the name as it relates to discussion of anti-racism. There doesn't need to be extensive coverage about this, but acknowledging that aspect of things would add some additional depth to the page with regards to the 'why' the name was changed and what the long-term impact of that decision has been.
  • This was an area I was unsure about including. John Allemang's piece from 2016 is flowery in prose but light on substance regarding any push for renaming the city Berlin. If you look up more recent articles regarding this you find there were several in the immediate aftermath of the killing of George Floyd, mostly popping up in June 2020. The city council shrugged it off and things don't seem to have gone anywhere. The petition had fewer than 400 signatures when mentioned in the Record, so I don't think the movement is especially notable or relevant to this page. I worry that mentioning it would veer into editorializing by placing undue emphasis on it. Tkbrett (✉) 00:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Isn't editorializing more of a concern if recent questioniong of the name is omitted? You're right, council did generally dismiss the 2020 calls to revisit the name but in doing so they also said the following: “We acknowledge that the legacy of our namesake, Horatio Herbert Kitchener, a decorated British Earl who established concentration camps during the Boer War, is not one to be celebrated,” [5]. That's relevant to the topic. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Appealing to WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE, it would be inappropriate to include the 2020 story (or any others, like the 2016 piece) given that no notable movement to change the name back to Berlin has materialized since 1919. Tkbrett (✉) 15:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
If it wasn't notable why did the city respond to it? And why is there more than one news item, across multiple years, about it? This isn't breaking news or an idea I pulled out the air. It's been repeatedly documented in the news and engaged with by city officials. Since you've pointed to specific guideline as reasons not to include relevant info I'll use the same guidelines to explain why it should be included:
  • WP:NOTADVOCACY point #2 sates: "Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete." Acknowledging the more recent criticism aligns with this guideline.
  • WP:NOTNEWS point #1 states: "Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information." Acknowledging the more recent criticism aligns with this guideline.
  • WP:UNDUE states: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Acknowledging the more recent criticism in a sentence or two doesn't given it undue attention and aligns with this guideline.--Dnllnd (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
To move this discussion forward I added in a short paragraph to the bottom of the Reaction and aftermath section. It seems more productive to discuss actual text than debate hypotheticals. The text I've added focuses on the facts and is relevant to the discussion. Feel free to edit the text as needed. Thanks again for your work on the page. --Dnllnd (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
These are fair points. I have added two sentences mentioning the issues raised by Outhit's Record article to the end of the Reaction and aftermath section. (I overrode the edits you made there accidentally b/c we were making edits at the same time) Tkbrett (✉) 18:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd personally like to see a sentence or two acknowledging how awful Herbert Kitchener was. The quote about him being a war martyr doesn't really cut it. He was a scorched earth-er who relied on concentration camps - that's pretty relevant to the decision to have his name on the change ballot and to the current discussions about racism in the Region.
  • No doubt that when judged by the standards of today Lord Kitchener was awful, but I think this may be a bit outside the scope of this page and going beyond WP:NPOV. All of the sources I've used mention that he was well known but don't go much further than that. Moyer calls him "the famous British General" who "won fame during the Boer War in Africa and in the early years of the Great War." Crerar calls him an "English field marshal" who "was lost in the North Sea just prior to the vote". McLaughlin & Jaeger call him "the recently deceased British secretary of state for war". Wilson calls him, "the popular British Secretary of War". English & McLaughlin don't say much of anything about him. My phrasing is closest to Hayes, who mentions that he was the British Secretary of State for War and that the name became popular among the business community despite the Stratford Herald' complaints. Tkbrett (✉) 00:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not up for debating if there was ever a time concentration camps were good based on the standards of any era - I'm an archivist and I'm well versed in the questionable (to me) logic of that discussion. That said, thank you for explaining why you approached mention of Kitchener the way that you did. The unsavory side of his legacy can be reasonably be addressed in the reaction and aftermath section with regards to more recent calls for a reconsideration of the name. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The changing reception of his legacy would be better placed on the Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener page. Including it here would contravene WP:SOAPBOX given that none of the sources discuss it. Tkbrett (✉) 15:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree that a more robust discussion about Kitchener belongs on his page. The sources you're pointing to as not mentioning criticism about his legacy, however, were written in 1979 (Moyer), 1983 (English), 2006 (McLaughlin), and so on, making the suggestion that adding a sentence about the recent push back about the city's name as soapboxing confusing. You appear to be treating WP guidelines like rules. Each of the WP references you've pointed to, here and in responses to other comments, are intentionally open for interpretation. I left comments in good faith with the goal of making the page as complete and accurate as possible. I pointed to specific examples of how the guidelines can be interpreted as supporting a mention of the criticism about the name as it related to Kitchener's legacy above. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
(This point addressed above) Tkbrett (✉) 18:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not a huge fan of info being cited mid-sentence and try to phrase things so that it's not necessary. I recognize this is a personal preference. Not sure if there's a way to minimize instances of it or if anyone other than me is concerned about it.
  • WP:CITEDENSE talks about this a little bit and doesn't say to avoid it. I agree that it can sometimes be unsightly so I merged some into single citations. Others – like the opening sentence of the body – have a lot of information already packed into both citations. I worry about packing too much information into a single one at the end of a sentence lest it becomes difficult to verify what information is coming from where. Tkbrett (✉) 00:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:INTEGRITY is more important than looks :) (t · c) buidhe 01:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

That's it from me! Thanks again for all the hard work you've put into the page. --Dnllnd (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the kind words. Tkbrett (✉) 00:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Glad to see this topic get the page quality it deserves! --Dnllnd (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

Passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • FN103: if you're going to cite the updated article, then you should credit the update author; also the encyclopedia title should be italicized
  • Where are the Bassler stats from?
  • Lawson, quoting Bassler, doesn't say the origin. I'll get back to you on this one. I have to go get Bassler back from the library and they're not open until Tuesday (they're closed for Easter weekend.) Tkbrett (✉) 23:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I didn't feel like waiting until Tuesday; looking at Avery (2005), he indicates there were 393,320 people of German origin listed in the 1911 census. Lawson says "By 1911, almost half a million people of German ancestry were disperssed across Canada." I've updated it with the more precise figure from Avery. Tkbrett (✉) 00:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • What makes Leibbrandt a high-quality reliable source? Moyer? Lefcourt?
  • Here's what English & McLaughlin have to say about Leibbrandt: "A recent and unusual work deserve special mention: Dr. Gottlieb Leibbrandt has written a valuable history of the Germans of Waterloo County. Trained as a scholar, Dr. Leibbrandt reveals a thorough command of his sources and a sensitive appreciation of the experience of his own ethnic group in this area" (p. 229).
  • English & McLaughlin describe Moyer's earlier work as "folksy and interesting popular histories", adding that Kitchener: Yesterday Revisited "follows the style and level of research in Moyer's other publications" (p. 229). They cite him throughout their endnotes.
  • The German Quarterly included Lefcourt in a recommended reading list. Tkbrett (✉) 23:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • That seems to be a bibliography rather than specifically a recommended reading list - anything more on that source? Regarding Moyer, I'm not convinced that being a "folksy and interesting popular histor[y]" recommends a source as being high-quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • These are fair points. I have removed Moyer and Lefcourt as sources and used others in their place. Nothing much was lost as both were mostly corroborated in other sources. I think the only notable loss of content are the names of the two women who suggested "Kitchener" and "Brock"; Lefcourt got that claim from a March 1963 article in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record. It's difficult to get into archives during the pandemic but I've reached out to the Kitchener Public Library to see if I can get a copy of the article. I don't plan on citing it, I'm just curious if it indicates where the claim originates. Tkbrett (✉) 13:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I managed to get a hold of the column Lefcourt cited ("City's Name Story Contradicted," Kitchener-Waterloo Record, March 23, 1963. p. 3). As the title suggests, local stories are somewhat contradictory as to who suggested the name, which is perhaps why none of the other sources I have mention it. Given the silence on the issue from reliable sources, I think I'll just avoid mentioning it in the article. Also, re:Bassler numbers, it was the 1911 census, just as Avery 2005 mentions. I also see the same numbers used in Granatstein 2005 and McKegney 1991. The page has been updated to reflect this. Tkbrett (✉) 14:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Date ranges should use endashes, including in titles. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias[edit]

I'm vaguely aware of the name change debate, but here's what I have to add:

  • Have you considered adding the date the name Berlin was adopted to the lead? Not necessary of course, but I think it may be worth including it in the clause about where the name comes from: "Berlin adopted the name in 1833, after the capital of the German Empire..." or something like that.
  • Good idea. (further address on next point below). I've also included the official switch date of 1 September 1916 in a sentence added to the second paragraph since that seems another important date. Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • On the same sentence; it notes the name came from the capital of the German Empire, but if the name was adopted in 1833 then that isn't true, as the Empire wasn't established until 1871. It would be more accurate to either say the capital of Prussia, or even future capital of the Empire. I see this is actually noted later in the article (via a letter to the Berlin News Record and a couple other mentions as well).
  • "In early 1916 business and community leaders began pushing for Berlin to either seek a new name or amalgamate with Waterloo." I think adding a reference to Waterloo being close ("amalgamate with neighbouring Waterloo", for example) would be useful, as people aren't going to know the cities are effectively twinned.
  • Waterloo is mentioned as neighbouring Berlin in the first sentence of that paragraph so I didn't want to repeat it unnecessarily. Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Towns across the English speaking world..." Should be "English-speaking", no?
  • "In the months following the outbreak of the war, Berlin's Board of Education voted to end the use of German in schools." Does this mean German was the language of instruction, or one of the topics taught?
  • The former. I'm not sure how to phrase it better since "German instruction" or "instruction in German" would seem to imply the opposite. Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Both Sir Wilfred Laurier and Sir Robert Borden are noted without the honorific; is that a deliberate omission?
  • Whoops! Not intentional. I've fixed the instances when they're first mentioned. Do I have to use it when not using their full name? For example, I initially write "On 24 November 1917, Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden visited Kitchener ...". When I next mention him I simply say, " ... a group of disgruntled citizens heckled Borden." Is this sufficient? Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Young German men were harassed in the street if they had not signed up for military service." This was not exclusive to German-Canadians; were they targeted even more so than others?
  • That's certainly true. I suppose it's more that most of the men expected to enlist were German. McKegney clarifies: "Many of the young men who were expected to enlist in the 118th Battalion had studied the German language and literature in Berlin and Waterloo schools, the majority of them were members of German-language churches that were either neutral or opposed to war with Germany, and most of them were Canadian rather than British born." (McKegney p. 169). I've changed it to, "Young men, many of them German, were harassed ..." Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Tappert became a controversial figure locally after several of his actions, including his continued use of German in religious services, telling his children to avoid saluting the Union Jack and to not sing "God Save the King", his refusal to contribute to the Patriotic Fund and his public doubting of anti-German propaganda." This needs to be fixed grammatically: the "after several of his actions" implies something is coming after the list there, but it doesn't. Instead go with something like "Tappert became a controversial figure locally for several controversial actions, including..." It has a more definitive result that way.
  • Much better. Fixed per suggestion. Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Ironic that one of the two soldiers who assaulted Tappert was named Schaefer, a decidedly German name. Have to wonder if that influenced his actions.
  • I looked through my sources and didn't find anything regarding Schaefer's German heritage, but I did stumble upon a very interesting nugget. "Blood and Schaefer, let off with suspended sentences, were warned by Magistrate Weir that he remembered Schaefer, who had been connected in 1914 with throwing the bust of Kaiser Wilhelm I in the park lake ..." (McKegney p. 160). That's too interesting a factoid to leave out. It's also all I can really find about Schaefer. Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Did L. J. Breithaupt elaborate on why he opposed the name change? If so it would be good to have that, but I understand if that's not available.
  • Yes! He opposed the resolution because he thought the name change would have no effect on British success in the war and that any change should be voted on by the entire city, not simply the 12 alderman council. I've added this to the article. Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Use Adam Crerar's full name on his first mention in the article (at the start of the "Voting and results" section).

Solid article overall. Once the above are addressed I'll be happy to support

Thank you! I'm especially happy to have someone named Kaiser reviewing this article. Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Glad to review it, and happy to offer my support. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

2021 Masters (snooker)[edit]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 00:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the latest Masters championship from January this year. 20 year old Yan Bingtao won the event on his debut appearance. The Masters invites the 16 best snooker players in the world for a single-elimination bracket. I've spent a bit of time on this article, and gone through GAN earlier this year. Let me know what you think of the article. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 00:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Kickstarting this FAC with an assessment of its images:

Might come back with more later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I'll put something on there (pictured) to show who is who. I don't feel that moving items to the left arbitrarily makes the article easier to read, personally. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
For the record, MOS:IMAGELOCATION says It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text. On another note, the caption for the Ronnie O'Sullivan picture still is ambiguous since two people are shown within it. You can use "(left)" and "(right)" to distinguish them from one another. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Sure, but that also says that they should mostly be on the right. As much as having all of the images look at the text, I don't think this is particularly warranted; although happy to discuss. I have fixed the O'Sullivan image Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

I may claim WikiCup points, if I consider my review to be substantial enough. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Lead: "Sixteen players were invited to the event, the highest from the snooker world rankings..." - how about something like "The top sixteen players from the snooker world rankings..."?
  • Lead: "The World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association organised the tournament broadcast by the BBC and Eurosport in Europe, but was played behind closed doors because of COVID-19 restrictions." needs a bit of rework.
  • Lead: Should be "Yan" throughtout, rather than "Bingtao" twice, I think.
  • Overview: "The World Snooker Tour, a subsidiary of the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association, " - this statement has been accepted in numerous reviewed articles, but as the WPBSA is a 26% stakeholder in WST, is it really right to say that WST is a subsidiary? WST is "administered by" World Snooker Limited, which is 51% owned by Matchroom Sport Ltd. Source
    • I have zero idea. The current wording was suggested by someone else (I think Rodney Baggins.) This will be wording we use a lot, so probably worth coming up with a suitable wording for the relationships in these. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Tournament summary:"Steve Davis referred to Yan as "naive" saying," - I think the comma should be a word earlier.
  • Optional: Tournament summary: paraphrase "flying start and get his tail up"?
  • Tournament summary: There is a duplicate link for "plant" but might be worth retaining this as it could be an unfamiliar term to many readers.
    • I'm happy to remove or keep. I have no worries either way. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Tournament summary: The archived page for "Masters snooker 2021 – Yan Bingtao holds nerve to beat John Higgins 10–8 in gripping final" appears briefly for me but then blanks. I assume that "The odds were 50–1 against Yan winning the event" was the case before the tournament started - can the timing be added in?
  • Tournament summary: "Other players appreciated Yan's play." - if this is about the Davis and O'Sullivan comments following, it seems redundant. Davis, who is mentioned earlier, isn't an active professional tour player, and O'Sullivan is also mentioned earlier.
  • Tournament summary: Davis commented he was "impressed with his temperament" and his nerve" - stray quotation mark.
  • Tournament draw: "Numbers given show the players' seeding for the tournament."- add that it is the numbers to the left of the players' names, and the numbers in parentheses for the final.
  • Century breaks: source retrieval date has to be on or after 17 January to support the content, doesn't it?
  • Looks to me like the captions are all sentences rather than sentence fragments so should all have full stops, per WP:CAPFRAG. (Happy to be corrected on this.)
    • This is one of those "rules that are mostly not true" deals, at least for me. I almost never use fragments in captions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Caption: "making his debut at the event" - suggest slight reword as his actual debut match was against Robertson. Maybe something like "who made his debut Masters appearance at the event," ?
  • References: For Snooker Scene, "|magazine=Snooker Scene" rather than "|publisher=Snooker Scene"; location is Halesowen rather than Haloswen.

Comments from Willbb234[edit]

As promised.

  • by sports betting company Betfred. "bookmaker" could be a more concise description.
    • Sure, but then it would read bookmaker Betfred, which I'd like to avoid. I think everyone would understand what a "betting company" is, but a bookmaker could be something like an accountant to those not in the know. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The defending champion was Stuart Bingham, who defeated... to "The defending champion, Stuart Bingham, had defeated..." for flow.
    • I've made the change, although I'm not convinced it's an improvement. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • You could mention that Barry Hawkins was the second reserve player as this is what I believe he was.
  • to host an audience since the 2020 World Snooker Championship. you could include a date or month for this event for perspective.
  • See first comment regarding the second mention of Betfred.
  • A breakdown is shown below: "is as follows" might be more appropriate wording.
  • The Masters began on 10 January 2021 we already know it's in 2021.
    • You'd be surprised - quite a few events take place in different years than their titles suggest! We do define this earlier, so I've removed from the summary. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Gary Wilson, world ranking number 18, you previously say Hawkins was ranked 18th. Presumably the rankings changed in this time, or is this a mistake?
  • Remove the duplicate link to 'fluke'.
  • Steve Davis suggested Ding had "panicked", while the 1997 world champion, Ken Doherty here you give a mention about the achievements of Doherty, but not about Davis. Any reason for this?
  • on the 14 and 15 remove 'the'.
  • played between David Gilbert and Wilson why do you refer to Gilbert by his full name here?
  • Six-time champion Steve Davis see three comments above. This mention of his achievements should be moved upwards to his first mention. Also, why do you refer to him by his full name?
  • after a 47-minute ninth frame why is this length of time considered significant? You might want to clarify this.
    • I've added "lengthy". Almost an hour is quite a long frame. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Former world champion John Parrott described Higgins' performance as "spellbinding", whilst Stephen Hendry see five comments above for the same query.
  • Both semi-final matches were played on 16 January 2021 we already know it's in 2021.
  • contested between David Gilbert and John Higgins any reason why you refer to them by their full names?
  • I've noted a general trend where you refer to players by their full names if they weren't mentioned for a while. Just wondering whether this is something you deliberately do, which is absolutely fine, or whether this needs to be addressed?

Looks good. Please let me know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  • No problem. Willbb234, thanks for the review. You aren't wrong, it's mostly people putting links into the prose and me not catching they have first names as well. I have answered all of the above. I think the only thing I didn't implement is the "bookmaker" suggestion, which if you have alternate wording I'm sure we could deal with. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
    • If you're happy with how it is, then I don't have anymore suggestions. I'll hold back on a support or oppose for the moment as I'd like to see what others have to say, especially regarding a source review. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


Older nominations[edit]

Shoom[edit]

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Seminal late 1980s Acid House nightclub in London that almost single-handedly introduced Chicago house and Detroit techno music to the UK mainstream, creating an explosion of interest in electronic music and repetitive beats that culminated in the Second Summer of Love and still reverberates in contemporary European dance music culture. Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    Alts now added. Ceoil (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Support: I have issued, now resolved, comments on the talk page. I'm satisfied that this article is comprehensive, well-written and well-sourced—although a separate source review is still absolutely necessary. DMT biscuit (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for support, talk page suggestions, and copy edits. Ceoil (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Placeholder by The Ultimate Boss[edit]

I'll be leaving some comments in a few hours after I get some sleep -_-. ShootForTheStars (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

All About That Bass[edit]

Nominator(s): NØ and Lips are movin 16:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Meghan Trainor's song "All About That Bass", which she initially offered to other artists but decided to record herself. It reached number one in 58 countries and became the best-selling song by a female artist in the 2010s in the United States, earning two Grammy nominations. Over the past few days, I started rewriting it "from the bottom to the top". After a copyedit from Baffle gab1978 and peer review comments by Aoba47 and SandyGeorgia, I am confident about this article. It is quite large so thanks to everyone who will take the time to offer their feedback here.--NØ 16:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/All About That Bass/archive2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Media review from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Guess who's back, back again? ♫ Wait a moment, wrong track :P. On a more serious note, I'll start by assessing the files used here:

Other details will follow later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the image review! I removed the Minaj and Lopez pics and added a screenshot that would be more beneficial for readers' understanding. Looking forward to your other comments ;)--NØ 17:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome, and this portion of the article now passes when the critical commentary focused on File:All About That Bass screenshot.png is definitely a better inclusion that the previous video screenshot. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Other comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Resolved
  • July 2013 is actually when the song was written, not necessarily recorded (all I can say for sure from the given link is how recording took place in between that month and January 2014)
  • Kadish says he finished the demo two to three days after the session and confirms it is the version that was released: "what I sent her is what you hear on the radio", this is also confirmed by Reid here.
  • Not sure why the US of all places is being singled out within the lead among the many charts it topped. Perhaps you could rework this so it says something along the lines of "These included ________, where it also received multi-platinum certifications" after mentioning how it went number one in 58 nations?
  • I changed it to a mention of its US sales record.
  • Is "played an important role in the song's rise to prominence" based on the subsequent "rock star in two days" bit regarding the music video?
  • That and its viewcount.
  • Since "attractive" is an inherently subjective description (people's tastes widely vary on what does/doesn't look good), I'd scrap "conventionally attractive"
  • Removed.
  • Two reviews on their own don't seem like much to substiantiate "Some" from "Some music critics viewed 'All About That Bass' as a novelty song"
  • Added more.
  • For the accolades it only got nominated for, let's mention who won instead
  • I guess this is considered out-of-scope, since the FAs I was looking at—Shake It Off and Blank Space—do not include it.
  • Is it known when the video was filmed?
  • I don't think so.
  • Try to avoid having super short paragraphs like the first and third ones from "Background and concept"; that makes the text flow seem choppy
  • Fixed that one.
  • Something about the tone of "essential" from "Social media was an essential factor" doesn't feel optimal
  • Rephrased.
  • Done.
  • "2014–16" from "Live performances" should be "2014–2016"
  • Fixed.
  • "Cover versions" is better off being its own section instead of a subsection of "Cultural impact"
  • Split.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • I can't say for certain whether Stereogum or Idolator are supposed to be italicized
  • Salon isn't the strongest of sources to use
  • Removed.
  • Fixed.
  • Done.

Once these are resolved, I'm sure the article will be closer to FA-material. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments, SNUGGUMS. :) I made the changes and have responded above.--NØ 04:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, and I now support the nomination. My bad on recording time (I initially misunderstood the demo part when reading about it). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I am less certain about the music video screenshot. I understand SNUGGUMS' comment about the original screenshot, and I do understand the purpose of it as it does illustrate a common point of criticism directed at the video. I just have not seen a screenshot used to emphasize negative reviews, and I would like to hear @SNUGGUMS:'s perspective on this as they are far more experienced than I am. I was just under the impression that images were not used to focus on negative reviews, but avoiding that completely may cause some NPOV issues. If the current screenshot is kept, I would move it down to the "Reception" subsection as it is more about the critical response to the video.
  • In the "Critical reception" section, the first sentence of the first paragraph has four citations. I understand why the citations are there to support that information, but to prevent citation overkill, I would encourage you to bundle the citations instead.

Thankfully, I was able to get around my current computer issues by figuring out how to connect my wireless keyboard to my computer. I had participated in the last peer review for this article, and all of my comments were addressed there. I just have two quick comments (i.e. a question about the music video screenshot and a recommendation about citation bundling), and once both are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Best of luck with the FAC this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Criterion #8 of WP:Non-free content criteria is Contextual significance, requiring that files such as these help illustrate a point more easily for viewers when text alone wouldn't be helpful enough. I've seen other pages use screenshots featuring aspects of videos that get criticized by reviewers, especially during instances where it sparked controversy. In this case, I feel the image of twerking helps give readers a better sense of what the complaints were about. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the very quick response. That makes sense to me so the image seems appropriate to me now. I have moved it down to the "Reception" subsection per my suggestion above as I think it is a better fit there, but feel free to revert if you disagree. Thank you again for the help. It is always nice to learn something new about Wikipedia. Aoba47 (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments, Aoba47. I removed the AllMusic ref. The other three are cited multiple times so bundling them could cause confusion. And as for the music video screenshot, I do agree it looks more relevant in the reception section :)--NØ 06:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support the article for promotion. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Buidhe[edit]

I am also not convinced about the screenshot. The description already in the text of the scene is sufficient to understand why critics objected, I am not convinced that its "omission would be detrimental to that understanding" as required by WP:NFCC. It is not the specific action of twerking that is significant here but its cultural identification with a specific group of people, so I don't think the visual is necessary. Likewise, I am concerned that it highlights a negative aspect of reception that barely gets 2 sentences in the article, thus potentially being a POV issue especially considering BLP implications. (t · c) buidhe 08:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

buidhe, I will remove it if you insist. However, I think the screenshot is demonstrating a number of things in this section—the pastel pink backdrop, the "retro pop world" comment, Trainor's size (which resulted in a debate), the dance sequence and colorful sets being designed to attain online popularity, the "Baby Got Back" influence, finally the accusations of cultural appropriation—the latter is just the one I considered the most worthy of being the caption. So I do see its omission being detrimental to readers' understanding of this section.--NØ 09:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, I can see that, but if it's being retained for other uses, I would change the caption to reflect that, rather than giving undue prominence to cultural appropriation claims by repeating them in the caption. (t · c) buidhe 09:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Done, thank you for the comment!--NØ 09:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • Is fn 11, 153, 163 necessary?
  • None were, so I removed them.
  • I am not exactly certain of this, but I believe titles/references are supposed to be converted as if they were prose. For example, All About That Bass would be "All About That Bass" and Billboard would be Billboard in a title parameter.
  • Done.
  • fn 24 is not the Cape Cod Times; unsure of its reliability too.
  • I removed its usage for the musical elements. I hope it's fine to keep the interview-sourced details since its video is linked at the bottom of the article, and no replacements were found.
  • Is it the only source for the music video elements like director and filming period? If you want to keep her quote maybe I'd just cite a timestamp from the audio interview on YouTube, so we can be certain the quotes are correct. Also "Trainor described Robinson as "the best of the best" and credited her for making Trainor" doesn't really make sense; Trainor credited her for making Trainor?
  • For the filming period, yes. Retargeted this to the video itself.--NØ 06:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Stereogum is italicized in prose but not citations?
  • All italicized now.
  • fn 54/165 are not a Vogue article
  • They aren't but they confirm the claim they are used to cite, since the Vogue article itself seems to have been deleted.
  • I would suggest removing the New York Post ref given the sentiment surrounding it in general (WP:NYPOST).
  • Removed.
  • fn 80 url is dead
  • Archive added.
  • the music video really premiered on Idolator?!
  • I was shocked too, lol. The YouTube upload date is the following day.
  • Added.--NØ 06:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • What is the reliability of The Fader?
  • fn 177 is HuffPost Canada, not HuffPost
  • Fixed.
  • fn 190 Billboard Brasil should be italicized
  • Done.
  • fn 199 dead
  • Marked dead, archive already present.
  • suggest changing itunes links that redirect to apple music to apple music links
  • Amended.
  • fn 87 doesn't reflect the figure cited; looks like it's for "On The Floor".
  • Fixed.
  • should be clear in the certifications table that 10 million US figure is units not sales? (currently no symbol is listed)
  • Done.
  • for Spain, platinum streaming certification = 8 million units?
  • The template automatically generates 8 million streams for a Plat cert, while Promusicae states it is 10 million streams; for now I am trusting the former. Please feel free to suggest otherwise.
  • Template:Certification Table Entry cites the Wikipedia article as the source... maybe add refs that indicate the threshold amount/definition of all the certifications too? (I realize that's a lot, but Meghan Trainor required refs for the discography section, and that's for something with an article, bu this is via a template). For the sake of accuracy I would prefer to rely on a direct source rather than a template that apparently cites Wikipedia articles. It appears the Spain certification threshold is here, so the 8 million looks correct. Heartfox (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I just realized that the PDF that opens from the reference link includes the streams. There is only one asterisk in front of "All About That Bass" and if you scroll down they confirm it is just "Disco de oro" (Gold) = "4 million escuchas" (4M streams).--NØ 06:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • didn't do text–source spot checks
  • sources not noted above are suitable for their usage, Heartfox (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Italicize the second instance of "X Factor UK" in prose
  • Done.--NØ 06:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there a better source for South Africa certification than a Sony tweet (it should be template:cite tweet either way, not web)?
  • No, removed.--NØ 14:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 246 url-access=subscription. Maybe re-check the other Billboard ones as well.
  • Done.--NØ 06:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Recheck the non-English refs and add language= parameter to those without it.
  • Done. Please let me know about any specific one I may have still missed.--NØ 06:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 238, 243
  • It appears the Hungarian chart ref live links have changed. Heartfox (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed.--NØ 06:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I think fn 93 title would be 03.11.2014 - 09.11.2014
  • the trans-title parameter should be added for those with non-English language titles (e.g., fn 98, 109, 125, 192) (some have them already, but some don't)
  • Not sure where fn 87, 102, 112 publisher are coming from. What companies are "Top 40 Singles", "Top Digital Download", "Canciones Top 50"? These seem to be chart names but are used as the publisher?
  • fn 122 website title looks to be El Portal de Música Heartfox (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Heartfox, most of these are what is automatically transcluded through the singlechart templates. Their use is recommended, and can be seen on longstanding featured articles like Diamonds (Rihanna song) and Blank Space. With all due respect, it is not fair to task me to change them all manually for a song that charted in, like, 200 countries. If you want to change them on a large scale, start a discussion at Template talk:Single chart. I have fixed some of these out of courtesy.--NØ 05:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 104 is dead.
  • fn 196 missing trans-title.
  • fn 208 missing language
  • fn 202 "Adult Pop Songs" is not on the page.
  • Adult Top 40 is Adult Pop Songs.--NØ 08:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 224, 238 is not in English
  • weekly Hungary Radios Top 40: there are two consecutive parentheses. Heartfox (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Addressed, Heartfox.--NØ 08:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Heartfox, does the source review pass now? It will make the coords' work easier if this is stated explicitly.--NØ 11:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 128 does not seem to indicate filming occurred over a two day period. Also url-status=live. Heartfox (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Addressed. Note that Heartfox indicated this was the last of their concerns, on their talk page, so this concludes the source review.--NØ 04:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I noted issues to the people at the certifications template, and Template:Singlechart's code is fully protected, so major overhauls which I believe are necessary would unlikely be completed in a timely matter. I will say this source review passes as I would not oppose when certain things are out of the contributor's reasonable control. MaranoFan, I know you want to nominate other articles but telling the coords "this concludes the source review" yourself feels a bit over-the-top to me. It's not like I'm going on vacation tomorrow... I tried to be as thorough as possible and would hope proper citation formatting and taking advantage of appropriate parameters is in the best interest of an article, especially one to exemplify "Wikipedia's very best work ". Heartfox (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. After reading the article (twice) I could not find any grammar mistakes. It is a well-written, extensive, and well-detailed article about an essential commercially-succesful song. The sources seem to be reliable and images well-used as well. Congratulations! — Tom(T2ME) 11:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

2017 FA Cup Final[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The oldest association football cup in the world, and 2017 was a veritable Clash of the Titans. An enjoyable read hopefully, full of lovey descriptive prose. Fingers crossed you can make both heads and tails of it. As always, I'll be my ever-diligent self when it comes to addressing all reasonable comments. Thanks in advance for your time and energy. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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
  • London rivals Arsenal and Chelsea - do we need "London rivals" here? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    I don't see why not. It might not even be clear to some people that both clubs are based in London. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It's also a weird sea of blue, I think it wouldn't be too bad, but there are a lot of top end London rivals. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    I agree there other other rivalries, but given there's even an article specifically about this one, I don't see it's harmful in any way, indeed it gives context to the perhaps edginess of the match. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It was the 136th FA Cup final overall and was the showpiece match of English football's primary cup competition, the Football Association Challenge Cup (FA Cup), organised by the Football Association (FA) - I feel the bit about it being the final of the FA Cup is a little more relevant than it being the 136th edition of it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    I don't really follow. These are all relevant facts, it says it's the final, acknowledging that it's the 136th edition of it demonstrates the provenance of the competition. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • No, I mean the order. So, mention the match is the final of the competition, and then that it was the 136th edition. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • first final since 2003 in which both sides split the league games against each other during the course of the season, with a 3–0 victory by Arsenal in September 2016, and a 3–1 win by Chelsea in February 2017. - I think we could re-write this in such a way that would mean you don't need to know about the premier league. Maybe "The two sides had met twice in the Premier League in the season, with a 3–0 victory by Arsenal in September 2016, and a 3–1 win by Chelsea in February 2017, the first time since 2003 the sides had won once against each other coming into the final." or similar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    Minor reword. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The game was broadcast live in the United Kingdom by both BBC and BT Sport. BBC One provided the free-to-air coverage and BT Sport 2 was the pay-TV alternative - I don't think we should mention "free-to-air" or "pay-TV", as arguably you have to pay to watch either. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    No, I think "free to air" is common usage for broadcast on things like ITV and BBC, it means that no additional fees have to be paid to see it. In any case, we all know it's possible to watch the BBC without paying anything at all. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "chested it down", whilst I don't want to stifle regular wordings, this doesn't add much to "recieve the ball".Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    Okay, for the lead I've removed that detail. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The goal by Ramsey should really mention that he was an Arsenal player, as we've just talked about Chelsea scoring.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    Addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • champions for the 2017 FA Community Shield. - in the 2017.... I know technically it is for the Shield, but we are saying they qualified to play in a match.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    I don't follow, sorry, they earned the right to play for the Shield. That's what they did and that's what it says? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Prose
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 (talkcontribs) 19:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski thanks, I've taken a stab at your comments. Cheers for the review. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Happy to support, although I would say that I'm not the biggest fan of the links for the (H) and (A) in the table to the stadiums. Not enough to cause a fuss, but I'd say it probably is a question needing to be asked. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

R. A. B. Mynors[edit]

Nominator(s): Modussiccandi (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Those who have read the Aeneid or the poems of Catullus in Latin will probably have come across the name of Roger Mynors. He wrote the standard editions of these works and it is through them that I got interested in him as a person. Though he's mostly known for those books, he did interesting work on manuscripts and catalogued several library collections. What's more, he is unique for having been the senior chair of Latin at both Oxford and Cambridge.

I found this article as a start class last August and made it into my first Good Article with a very instructive GA review by Amitchell125. In the meantime, I left the article to work on similar topics but I returned to make Mynors my first FA candidate. The article has been improved via peer review comments from SandyGeorgia, Gerda Arendt and, again, Amitchell125. Any suggestions for improvement are welcome. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Therapyisgood (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments
  • on the way to his country residence in 1989. "country residence is a bit of an WP:EASTEREGG link
  • In 1922, Mynors won the Domus exhibition, just link to exhibition, not Domus exhibition
  • a scholarship to study Classics should "Classics" be capitalized?
  • I was under the impression that it should be capitalised here because it refers to the specify discipline of Classics as opposed to classics in the sense of classic books in general. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • In 1940, after a brief return to Balliol, British involvement in the Second World War led to his being employed at the Exchange Control Department perhaps a half-sentence on what the Exchange Control Department is or was would be good.
  • and daughter of his former teacher and Eton headmaster Cyril Alington Cyril Alington → Alington since he was already introduced.
  • Epistulae (1963) when I saw that link I assumed it went to Pliny's specific work, not a general page.
  • which appeared posthumously in 1990 was published?
  • He translated the correspondence of the humanist Desiderius Erasmus for the University of Toronto Press.[3] and maintained an interest in the nearby Hereford Cathedral, serving as the chairman of the Friends of the Cathedral from 1979 to 1984. comma instead of period
  • As he left the building he was heard to say that he had had a good day. a bit of trivia that could probably be removed.
  • The cathedral's Honorary Archivist later revealed that Mynors had on the same day expressed his delight about his own scholarly work on the death of the Anglo-Saxon saint and historian Bede sentence is confusing.
  • The cathedral's Honorary Archivist later revealed that Mynors had on the same day expressed his delight about his own scholarly work on the death of Bede unclear if the second his is referring to Mynors or the Honorary Archivist. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for pointing this out. I have added the Archivists name, Meryl Jancey, so that it's clear that both instances of "his" must refer to Mynors. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Compare ref 25 to ref 20 for page numbers. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Caption in infobox says the image is from a 1993 obituary but the image file page says 1991
  • I think I got confused between Winterbottom and Gotoff which both use the image. It's taken from Gotoff, so 1991 is the correct date. I've changed the infobox accordingly. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Why doesn't Gotoff, Harold C. in the bibliography use |url-access=registration? Therapyisgood (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I didn't realise registration was needed but that may be because I have institutional access via my university's vpn. It's fixed now. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Gen. Quon[edit]

  • “Mynors' academic career spanned most of the 20th century and straddled both of England's two oldest universities.” I think it would be best to explicitly state what these institutions are for folks not in the know. Right now it kind of feels WP:EASTEREGGy.
  • “Sharing the college with the literary critic…” ‘sharing’ seems like a weird word to use here; maybe something like “He attended college at the same time as…”
  • “Mynors became well placed to exhibit the virtues of both the British and the German tradition in his academic work” I feel like this could be said simpler. “exhibit the virtues” seems a little POVy to me.
  • “Though he cultivated leisurely pursuits, such as…” Maybe changed this to “In addition to more leisurely pursuits, such as…”
  • “Latinist Harold states that he was 'an extraordinary scholar’,” Is this a direct quote? If so, I think double-quotes should be used, unless I’m mistaken.
  • Can any of the other publications be linked in the “Publications” section?
  • I feel like the title case of “Publications” is a bit wonky. Some are in title case, others in sentences case

That's it for my first pass. Let me know if there are any question.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments so far, Gen. Quon. The only one I wasn't sure about was the links in the "Publications" section. The version that was passed for GA had links for all his publications. All but one of them were to subscription-only websites. I decided to remove them when this was criticised by another reviewer. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. My thought would be that including them would be better than not. Right now, folks would have to hunt around for links, but with the links, they could at least purchase access (WP:PAYWALL). Either way, it's not a big issue.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I'll take a peeky at some of the sources in a bit if that's OK.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Source checks[edit]

  • Article: "Among his four siblings was his identical twin brother Humphrey Mynors, who went on to become Deputy Governor of the Bank of England."
  • Source: "...his twin brother Humphrey. ... Sir Ernest Musgrave Harvey, Bt, who held, as Humphrey later did, the post of Deputy Governor of the Bank of England."
  • Article: "'He told me he was glad that he had translated for the Oxford Medieval Texts the account of Bede's death, and that Bede had not ceased in what he saw as his work for God until the very end.'"
  • Source: "'He told me he was glad that he had translated for the Oxford Medieval Texts the account of Bede's death, and that Bede had not ceased in what he saw as his work for God until the very end.'"
  • Article: "His mentorship contributed to Mynors' transformation from an amateur scholar to a professional critic of Latin texts. The two men maintained a close friendship..."
  • Source: "Although Mynors was already established as a personality and a scholar, he immediately saw that some- thing had been missing. And he himself dated the beginning of his scholarly life to his meeting with the man he called 'Uncle Ed.' ... It was by no means certain that the edgy foreigner and the impeccably mannered Englishman would hit it off. It is, I think, a tribute to both that they did."
  • Article: "Latinist Harold [Gotoff -- missing, I added] states that he was an 'extraordinary scholar'"
  • Source: "He was an extraordinary scholar"
  • Article: "In spite of its accomplishments, classicist Patricia Johnston has noted that the commentary fails to engage seriously with contemporary scholarship on the text..."
  • Source: "Mynors apparently did not have much use for recent scholarship, particularly that which had a literary orientation. The bibliography contains few works more recent than the early 70’s"

I did a random selection of five citations. All five of them match up, with no noticeable problems. As such, I have no problem voting Support for this nomination.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

Thank you for acting on most of my comments from the peer review, missing only two: Lead

  • read Classics or classics?
    • I believe it's 'Classics' because it refers to the discipline rather than 'classics' as in 'classic books'. I've seen both spellings on and off Wikipedia (Even the Classics article says 'classics') but 'Classics' seems to me preferable. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      I am not the one to tell, English not being my first language. To me, it's strange to see "classicist" but then "Classics", and I believe that in the context it is clear. He would not study Mathematics, but mathematics, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
This is an embarrassing topic. I work in the Classics and haven't yet figured out how to spell the very word. According to this, Southern Illinois University don't seem to be sure either. For what it's worth, 'classicist' is rarely capitalised but 'Classics' sometimes is. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Retirement

  • Do we have to know who Bede is, or does it not matter?
  • I didn't add a proper introduction for Bede because he is mentioned in the "Academic career" section as the author of the Ecclesiastical History. Do you think it should say something like 'the Ecclesiastical History by the Anglo-Saxon historian Bede'? Modussiccandi (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    I had forgotten that he was mentioned, sorry. I may be the only one ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

These are minor points, therefore I am ready to support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment[edit]

More than three weeks in and this nomination has attracted very little interest. If there is not quite a lot more activity on it in the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice, Gog the Mild. Is there anything that can be done to attract additional reviewers? I'm still new to the FAC process, so forgive me if this would be inappropriate. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Modussiccandi, no, it is entirely appropriate. There are a number of things you could do. Requesting a review of individuals or on projects where you believe there may be interest is one. (Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome? Who else has ever nominated an article in this general area?) Be careful of your phrasing, keep it neutral. "Could you review my nomination which you may find interesting" is fine. "I need some supports to avoid being archived" is not. If this has gone through PR you could appeal to anyone who contributed there. You could appeal for reviews on the FAC talk page - this goes down best if the editor appealing is known for have done reviews themselves. (Overt quid pro quo is frowned on as it can look like "my support in exchange for your support", but everyone likes an editor who does their hare of reviews and keeps the queue down.) You could call in any favours you are "owed".
Hopefully that is enough to give you the idea. [?] If this is archived, don't despair, use the two week wait doing some or all of the above so that next time you hopefully have a reviewer or two lined up straight from the off.
Did you go with this bit in the FAC instructions "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."?
Gog the Mild (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much indeed, regardless of whether this FAC succeeds or not. Yes, I have sought the assistance of a FAC mentor. I should probably raise this issue with them, too. I'll try some of the measures you proposed and see if they advance things a bit. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I participated in the Peer review, but don't feel qualified in this content area to opine beyond that. Perhaps Jenhawk777 would have a look? Please ping me again if content-area experts have looked in, and then I will be happy to opine; the article is in good shape. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@T8612, Caeciliusinhorto, and Cynwolfe: I wonder if you all had any thoughts on this article?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia Thank you for thinking of me, but I am going to decline the honor. I am not qualified to evaluate an FA as I have never had a successful one myself. I don't actually know anything about this individual, and I am currently swamped in both RL and here, on things others have requested that I am already behind on, as well as my own work. I'm sorry. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Gen. Quon - I haven't been around wikipedia very much recently, but I will try to have a quick look through the article over the weekend Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, but unfortunately I have very little knowledge of Latin poetry. That said, I haven't seen anything wrong in the article and I think it is of FA standard. T8612 (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Fort Concho[edit]

Nominator(s): ♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

This article, Fort Concho, is a former US Army installation located almost literally in the middle of Texas. It is in fact the best-preserved 19th century US Army installation anywhere in the country, let alone Texas. For that reason, it has the distinction of being a National Historic Landmark. Just as with my previous FA, this is the labor of two years, which I hope to just need one FAC for this time. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Fort Concho/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Was gonna comment this at the PR, but you closed. There's pretty heavy reliance on Matthews and the NPS. Have you drawn on sources like [6], ISBN 9781574414875 and ISBN 9780585464138, or a reason to avoid them? Eddie891 Talk Work 01:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
    • To be totally honest, I had no idea these existed. I've since looked at each, and confirmed their credibility. Though I am loathe to use Haley, having been exposed to plenty of antiquated, racist prose I've read thus far in the linked work of his. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I have read more of Mr. Haley's work, and find his racism and conservativism unacceptable. The other works shared by Eddie have been handy, however. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 12:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Note by nominator: I have looked at all three of the books Eddie891 linked, and worked two of them, as well as spent some time on JSTOR. I believe I am now (more) ready to proceed with FAC, and will make enquiries. Especially from Hog Farm, over in the Trans-Mississippi in almost the same time period. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Image licensing looks good to me. (t · c) buidhe 01:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Since this note, I have added this photo. It is PD by virtue of its being a work of the US government. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

HF[edit]

Looked at this during the peer review, so I may not find a whole bunch of new stuff. Will try to review this here over the next couple days. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 15:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good, and thank you. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Worth mentioning that there are plans, approval, and funding to reconstruct some more buildings?
    • It is, but no progress has been made on that work. It was in the article when it passed GAN, but I took it out because without that progress, the reader, like Eddie when he reviewed the article, would ask, "Well, what's happened since then?". –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
      • The source linked above does have an update as of mid-December 2020, so I guess you could give the most recent update. But there seems to have very little progress on that front, so it's not significant to leave it out. Will read through the article again tomorrow; anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 04:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Oh shoot. Alright, I've added that source, along with some content I cut out from the GAN. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The US Army operated the fort for twenty-two years, from November 1867 to June 1889, and in that time the fort housed elements of fifteen US Cavalry and Infantry regiments" - Not finding the sum of 15 in the body
  • "and then between 1875 and 1882, the "Buffalo Soldiers" of the 10th Cavalry" - Phrasing of the first part of the implies that it was the principal base of the 10th Cavalry. Not explicitly stated in the article body, although the presence of 5 companies there in 1880 would imply that it was, as that would have been a big chunk of the unit.
    • Mackenzie did move the unit's headquarters to the fort in 1871, so I've revised the sentence to say "headquarters". –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "At its greatest extent in the 1870s, Fort Concho consisted of forty buildings on 40 acres (16 ha) of land leased by the US Army. - 40 acres is stated to be the current size of the fort, but I'm not seeing where it's directly specified to have been the greatest extent.
    • I couldn't figure out how to phrase that; trimmed now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "and the federal government abandoned its Texas forts to the Confederate States of America" - Is abandoned or surrendered a better word? Because David E. Twiggs did technically surrender the forts, but it was not a standard surrender, as the US Army kinda just got to leave. So I can see that going either way.
    • Changed "abandoned" to "ceded" for a middle of the road approach. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Confederate Texas was unable to secure its territories and was defeated by the Comanche and Kiowa at the First Battle of Adobe Walls," - Wasn't First Adobe Walls a USA cavalry regiment under Kit Carson? Not aware of CSA participation there
    • First Adobe Walls was indeed a Union affair; I've axed mentions of both battles and combined . –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "In the first seven months of Fort Concho, its garrison – numbering 129 in the 1869 reports of the War Department, out of a force of 3,672 in Texas – occupied by its plodding construction" - I think you're missing a word in here
  • " Captain Napoleon B. McLaughlen set out with two companies of the 4th Cavalry and one of the 11th Infantry and confirmed Wilson's report" - Was the 11th Infantry company from Fort Richardson or Concho?
    • I honestly do not know. My source does not say, and Google searching turned up nothing. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Stationed at Forts Concho, Stockton, Fort Davis, Quitman, and Clark, the 4th Cavalry was tasked with patrolling the frontier, escorting wagons and settlers, and mounting expeditions" - You surely mean the 10th Cavalry, right?
    • Now, that is an embarrassing slip up. Corrected now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The fort's chaplains were some of the first preachers and educators in the town and its medical staff, chiefly surgeon William Notson also treated civilians" - Should there be a comma after Notson, as "chiefly surgeon William Notson" seems to be an appositive?
  • "Additional buildings, were built in around the fort,[62] including what is now Fort Concho Elementary," - Drop the first comma I think and should it be "in and around the fort"?
    • Done. Think those errors were edit scars. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "National Register of Historic Places October 15, 1966" - missing an "on" I think
  • Exact date of 1-1-1986 for TSAL listing in the infobox isn't fully cited, as only 1986 is cited in the body
  • the Forts of Texas see also link is not needed per MOS:SEEALSO, as it is linked in the article body

Looks like I caught some stuff this time I missed in the PR. Hog Farm Talk 16:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I have also added and moved things around since the PR. Good catches, I've addressed them all. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Support of WP:FACR 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4, and source reliability. Did not check others. Hog Farm Talk 23:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

Here are some of my initial comments.

Lead:

  • It was established in November 1867 at the confluence of the Concho Rivers, situated on the Butterfield Overland Mail Route and Goodnight–Loving Trail. The US Army operated the fort for twenty-two years, from November 1867 to June 1889 - Is there any way to combine these, as I assume the Army operated the fort immediately from its establishment. How about something like "The US Army established the fort in November 1867 at the confluence of the Concho Rivers, situated on the Butterfield Overland Mail Route and Goodnight–Loving Trail, and operated it until June 1889"?
  • Initially, Fort Concho was the principal base of the 4th Cavalry and then between 1875 and 1882, the "Buffalo Soldiers" of the 10th Cavalry. - Did the fort serve as base of the 4th and 10th cavalries at the same time, or was it the 4th and then the 10th?
    • No; clarified now with another date range. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The fort was abandoned in June 1889 and passed into civilian hands. - In the first paragraph, it is already mentioned that the fort operated till June 1889.
    • Clipped from the first paragraph. I've also combined the first sentences of the second paragraph. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • on July 4, 1961 - add a comma after "1961"
  • 40 acres (16 ha) grounds - This should be "40-acre (16 ha) grounds". You can add |adj=on to {{convert}}.
    • Ahah, that's what I was I reaching for there. Fixed now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • As of August 2019, the fort was visited annually by around 55,000 people. - I would use active voice, e.g. "As of August 2019, around 55,000 people visited the fort annually".

Operation by the US military:

  • But in 1849, American colonists began crossing West Texas in large numbers to reach California, where gold had been discovered - It seems weird to begin a sentence with "But". Usually you can drop it or replace it with "However".
  • and among those avenues was the Butterfield Overland Mail route, established in 1858 to bring mail from St. Louis to San Francisco - I would move this to the next sentence, which is On its way through Texas, the route passed through Fort Chadbourne...
  • But after the end of the war in 1865 - Same as above.
  • But later that year, the US Army was ordered to reoccupy its pre-war Texas billets early in 1867 - Same, but "but later that year" may be a little redundant, and you can just say "shortly afterward".
  • identified the junction of the Concho Rivers as an ideal site because of the abundance of water - I also think this is better fit for the next sentence (The site was also desirable for its proximity to the routes it was to guard and for the abundance of nearby grazing land).
    • Done. Works really well now, thanks. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Construction:

  • Construction of Fort Concho was assigned on December 10, 1867, to Captain David W. Porter, assistant quartermaster of the Department of Texas. - I would suggest either recasting this in active voice, or rephrasing this so that the date is first (e.g. "On December 10, 1867, the construction contract was assigned to Captain David W. Porter...")
  • Progress was slow - How slow? Is it like "100-year construction project" slow, or just your standard delays?
    • I've moved things around in the paragraph for more immediate clarification. Can't recall, or fathom, why this order didn't occur to me before. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In March - In March 1868, I presume.
  • They were followed over the next year by two more officer's residences, another barracks were built, and a permanent guardhouse and stables - You can probably drop "was built".
  • a quartermaster's corral, and a wagon shed - The comma's also unnecessary here, as this is not an ordered list.
  • Construction was again slowed in February 1872 with the discharging of most of the civilian workforce following budget cuts to the US War Department - this phrasing is awkward. I would use active voice for at least part of the sentence, e.g. "Construction was again slowed in February 1872 when most of the civilian workforce was discharged following budget cuts to the US War Department"
  • By 1879, the fort was garrisoned by eight companies of regular soldiers billeted in entirely limestone-built structures,[26] of which there were 39 by April 1889 - 39 limestone structures or 39 soldiers per company? Epicgenius (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I've reworded the back end of that paragraph. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Base of the 4th Cavalry

  • numbering 129 in the 1869 reports of the War Department, out of a force of 3,672 in Texas - This is awkward; I would place the "1869 reports of the War Department" at either the beginning or the end of this fragment.
  • Comanche and Kiowa raids increased in number over the rest of 1871 - Became more frequent?
  • by August,[39] Sheridan, now commanding the Military Division of the Missouri,[11] ordered five expeditionary forces of more than 3,000 soldiers each into the South Plains. - I suggest this can be a new sentence.
  • Done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Base of the 10th Cavalry

  • In July 1877, Captain Nicholas M. Nolan led an ill-fated expedition out of Fort Concho that achieved nothing and killed four soldiers from the 10th Cavalry's Company A - The detail that the expedition "achieved nothing and killed four soldiers from the 10th Cavalry's Company A" is very interesting. In light of that, though, "ill-fated" may be redundant, but that's just my opinion.
  • Removed. –♠Vami_IV†♠
  • The disarmament was delayed until April 16 because of rains, and resulted in failure when the Mescalero Apache escaped with most of their arms. - As another editor once said, What helps is if you separate the sentences by removing ", and" in your head. (E.g. is "and resulted in failure when the Mescalero Apache escaped with most of their arm" a complete sentence? It's not, so either the comma should be removed, or you should reword the fragment after the comma to "and it resulted in failure".)
  • The 10th Cavalry transferred permanently to Fort Davis, farther to the west, in July 1882. - do we know why?

Post-Texas Indian Wars and deactivation

  • By the mid-1880s, the ranches that now enclosed the surrounding plains with barbed-wire fencing reduced the soldiers, barred by law from cutting the wire, to patrolling roads. - This sentence is also awkward, largely because "enclosed" is used as a passive verb instead of an active verb. Additionally, there are two thoughts here: the ranches were enclosed with barbed-wire fencing, and the soldiers were forced to patrol roads. I suggest something like this: "By the mid-1880s, ranches enclosed the surrounding plains with barbed-wire fencing; the soldiers, barred by law from cutting the wire, were reduced to patrolling roads."
    • I've dropped your suggested sentences into the article. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In early 1888, the 8th Cavalry gathered at Fort Concho from around Texas, and then left in June for Fort Meade, South Dakota. - Same issue as above, regarding the comma after "Texas".
    • Removed comma. –07:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • On June 20, 1889, the men of K Company lowered the flag over the fort for the final time, and left the next morning - Same issue with the comma after "time". Epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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

Lede
  • I had to look up "confluence", whilst I'm sure its a suitable word, I can't imagine its a super normal one... could we say it a bit simpler? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • about 55,000 people visited the fort annually. - present tense "visit".Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Prose
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 (talkcontribs) 19:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Hope you are well Vami, didn't realise you had something up, so I'll take a look now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Doing pretty well, thanks. And again, for the comments. Godspeed. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Ring ouzel[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

This, the fourth thrush article I've brought to FAC, is a bit shorter than its predecessors. As one of the earlier migrants, it's a sign that spring is on the way, but its wild mountain breeding habitat means that the ring ouzel has failed to acquire the cultural and literary associations of its lowland cousins. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

buidhe, an ip editor has kindly switched some of the images and added a sound file. There appear to be no significantly better images of the Alpine or Caucasian sunbspecies, so we are stuck with those Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good. (t · c) buidhe 14:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HumanxAnthro[edit]

Oppose. As someone who isn't an animal expert, I can't speak of how reliable the animal literature cited here is or how complete this article. However, what makes me lean oppose is the prose problems starting in the lead.

  • Animal jargon such as "breast band," "pale crescent," "northernmost part of its range" is either not linked or not explained for the casual reader to understand.
  • HumanxAnthro I'm not clear which of the six words above (excluding "of" and "its", and presumably "part") you consider not to be standard English. To me, linking common words like "pale" and "crescent" seems to be overlinking. Do I really need to say where the breast is, or what a crescent looks like? I've inserted "geographical" before "range" thoughJimfbleak - talk to me? 12:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with HA, I'm totally lost as to what does it mean for a bird to have a pale crescent? What is a breast band on a bird? This needs de-jargoning. (t · c) buidhe 13:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I've rejigged, including linking crescent and breast, although I suspect that someone who doesn't know where the breast of a bird is might find the link unhelpfulJimfbleak - talk to me? 11:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps add links to the bird glossary? FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Also, the sentence "Its habitat is open uplands with some trees or shrubs including heather, conifers, beech, Rhododendron hirsutum or juniper" sounds awkward. At least the types of places are linked, but is there more terminology I'm not understanding?
  • Again, I wouldn't think "habitat" was technical, but I've linked it and inserted an "often" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • That's not what I'm referring. I'm talking about how the structure of the sentence. What does it mean for a habitat to be open uplands? Are you trying to say they're located in the mountains? If, as someone who is not versed in animal terminology, is confused by the sentence, that means it is not comprehensible to other casual readers wanting to learn more about the subject. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • In the first lead's para, why are some continents not linked yet North Africa is? Also, we're hastily introduced into "The 3–6 eggs," are these the typical amount of eggs that hatch from these birds?
  • At FAC we don't link countries or continents, but we do link regions, since they are less obvious. I've inserted typical clutch and tweaked a bit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "strawberry,cherry hawthorn," needs a space between them
  • "The ring ouzel has an extensive range and a large population," Extensive range in what? Subspecies?
  • I just noticed most of the second paragraph spoils a majority of the "Diet section." The lead is meant to be a simple summary of most of the article's sections, not giving extremely unfair weight to one section or another.
  • The long description sentences in "Subspecies" are difficult to read comfortably, as they feel random in structure. I also see zero need to bullet-point list only three items.
  • Removed bullet points in the "Subspecies" section and made sentences shorter. I've done the same in the next section too, although you haven't suggested that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The "Voice" has more jargon not linked or explained.
  • I've linked contact call and perch, although I don't think that the latter is particularly obscure. All the other words are standard English Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "(5,900–7,200 ft)1800–2200|m}}" I think this is an imcompletely-programmed template.

The article needs a copyedit. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

  • "In the Alps, breeding densities can reach 60–80 pairs/km², but are generally much lower with 37 pairs/km² in Haute-Savoie, 22 pairs/km² in the Jura Mountains, and 8 pairs/km² in more open habitats in Britain" Use convert template, rather than a note (it may be necessary to rephrase, i.e. "the density of pairs can reach 60–80 per km2 ..." (t · c) buidhe 07:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • buidhe, thanks for your tweaks to the text. I've added the population estimate date and followed your suggestion for the the convert template the density of breeding pairs can reach... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi HumanxAnthro, have the changes to date been sufficient to effect your oppose? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Hello, there, and great work on the prose changes. I just noticed "genus" isn't linked or described, but otherwise it's going towards the right direction in regards of that. I reason I can't make a definitive Support or Oppose comment here is because I am no bird expert, plus I have some other things on my plate and can't determine how fully researched this article is since I'm not to researching sources about animals. I can notice when something is understandable or not, however, and the article is getting better on that regard. 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

  • spell out IUCN in lead

Taxonomy

  • About 65 species of medium to large thrushes are in the genus Turdus - there are now 85 species in the genus Turdus (see IOC)
The results of this study are complicated - and unsatisfactory. Some of the importatnt nodes in the phylogeny are poorly supported which makes the interpretation difficult. I've looked at the supplementary material but I don't understand enough to make any judgment. Clearly more DNA sequence data are required before a solid phylogeny can be calculated. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I've rewritten and simplified taxonomy in the light of Batista Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • A 2007 mitochondrial cytochrome b gene analysis - out of date?
  • Details of the study suggests that the ring ouzel ... - Batista et al confirm that the ring ouzel is sister to a clade containing the closely related dusky and Naumann's thrushes.

Breeding

  • Territories may be strung out along streams, 160–200 metres (520–660 ft) and ranges may overlap - words missing? "Territories may be strung out along streams, 160–200 metres (520–660 ft) apart and the ranges may overlap."
  • and built on the ground or in a small tree or scrub, at an average height of 3.5 metres (11 ft). - perhaps worth mentioning that the nest is very rarely in a tree in the west of the range (see Clement and Hathway p.349). Flegg and Glue, 1975 here of 297 sites in BTO study only 2% were in trees. Not the case elsewhere (not recommending that you use the ref but see here).
  • Mention that the nest is built by the female. See Clement and Hathway p.349 and BWP/Cramp (vol 5 published 1988) p. 947
  • Incubation is by both parents - as per BTO source - but probably better to state "mostly by the female". BWP p. 947 has either "mostly by female" or "by female only". p 943 has "Both sexes recorded brooding and caring for young but female usually performs most." p 944 has "When female off nest, male often sat on rim but did not incubate" Clement and Hathway p. 349 have "mostly by the female but also apparently sometimes by the male".
  • average lifespan is two years, although nine years has been recorded. - I cannot see this in the cited source - hbw/bow - but the numbers are on the BTO page.
  • Appears to be philopatric - birds return to very near the birth location to breed - but I cannot see this explicitly stated in the sources. (In one study by Sim et al used coloured rings and recorded breeding attempts in consecutive years - see here)

References

  • Ref 16: Bacht et al 2013 - needs doi-access=free
  • Ref 23: Sim et al 2013 - a subscription is needed for the url provided. (but pdf is available from researchgate)

More later - Aa77zz (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Aa77zz I think it's the other way around, the url goes to the pdf, and the doi, taken from the researchgate page, goes to the abstract. I don't know how to fix it, we are required to give the doi, and sooner or later someone will remove the url on the basis that we don't need both Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Never mind, Buidhe has removed the urls as a copyright violation, which makes sense Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Aa77zz, thanks for comments. Some unexpected RL means it's going to be a bit stop-start over the next fe days, but I'll respond when I can Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Aa77zz, all above done, I think Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead

  • and weighing 90–138 grams (3.2–4.9 oz) - perhaps "and weighs ..."
  • They are incubated by both parents... - usually by the female

Description

  • Adult ring ouzels undergo complete moult... missing article - "undergo a complete moult."

Distribution and habitat

  • In the n the west of the range ... - this whole sentence is garbled
  • , actually under Breeding, but still a mess. I promise I hadn't been drinking }: Fixed now, I hope Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • An observation: Drawing the distribution map must have been a challenge - I've looked at 5 maps and no two agree. Svensson (Collins) doesn't indicate any areas in France where the birds are resident.

- Aa77zz (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Absolutely, I think the key words is "approximate"! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Support - the changes all look good. Well done. -Aa77zz (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review[edit]

FunkMonk[edit]

  • Marking my spot until I get more time for a proper review. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • To solve some of the issues mentioned above, perhaps link to the bird glossary instead of unrelated articles?
  • Most have been resolved, but added a couple of glossary links. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The right side of the article is a bit of a wall of images now. Perhaps group some of the related ones in double images, such as the male and female of one subspecies?
  • The only female we have is of T. t. torquatus, which would have to join the male of the nominate ssp in the infobox. However, I can't work out how to do that without losing the sound file there, making that image3 doesn't seem to work. In the meantime, I've shrunk the female image with the upright parameter Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I've added the female to the speciesbox and cropped both images to make them more similar. Please revert if you think this is a mistake. - Aa77zz (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Looks good! FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks to Aa77zz Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The ring ouzel was first described by Carl Linnaeus in his 1758 10th edition of Systema Naturae under its current scientific name." Shouldn't this be first in the taxonomy section then?
  • There are some geographical duplinks.
  • Link Francis Willughby somewhere? I think you could spell out his name under taxonomy, even if it's mentioned earlier in a book title.
  • I don't know how I missed that considering I wrote his FA! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Link thrush in the article body.
  • I'm not sure how to solve this, but it seems there's duplication between the subspecies and habitat sections.
  • I think that the subspecies section has to spell out where they occur, the distribution just summaries the overall picture Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • There are many very short paragraphs under description (and other places), I think there's a MOS guideline against this...
  • I thought it made sense to give each ssp a separate para, but I've rolled them together, plus a couple of other places where there may not be a clear change of topic Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "form a distinctive formed whitish panel" Double form?
  • "through Scandinavia to northwest Russia, and in mountains across and central southern Europe from the Pyrenees through the Alps" Comma after across? A bit difficult to follow now.
  • A stray "and" seemed to have crept in on last revision to that para, removed now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "with unimproved short grass" What does unimproved mean?
  • Anything on how the subspecies are interrelated? Has there been any attempts to merge them into a single species, or split them into distinct species?
  • I guess you mean merge them into a single subspecies. They differ significantly in appearance, and it's hard to see any basis for making them a single subspecies. Similarly, they are all obviously variants of ring ouzel, even Willughby accepted that alpestris and torquatus were different forms of the same species Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, usually there are a lot of strange historical revisions, but might just not be the case here. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "There may be two broods, especially in the south of the range." Is stated twice in the breeding section.
  • "is 3–6 pale blue or greenish-blue eggs" What determines whether they're pale blue or greenish? Area? Subspecies? Or is this just different ways of describing the same colour?
  • As far as I can ascertain, it's just natural variation. There may be environmental or genetic factors, but I can't find anything on these. The eggs in the image are so alike, however, I'd guess that they come from the same clutch Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Are some subspecies more threatened than others?
  • Again, we are largely dependent on where recent studies have been done, but there doesn't appear to be any thing obvious Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The images used are a bit samey. How about this[7] image that shows alpestris with bugs instead of the one used (could be cropped)?
  • Support - looking very nice to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help with this and the support. I actually saw two male ring ouzels this morning, a good bird for Leicestershire since they are just passing through on their way to the uplands further north Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever seen one, appears they mainly visit Jutland, whereas I live on Zealand... FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Placeholder for later. Looking a bit later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

....an extensive geographical range and a large population... - in lead, is "geographical" redundant here?
The survival rate for juveniles in their first year is 36%, and the annual survival rate for adults is 47% for males and 37% for females. - bit repetitive, why not "Around 36% of juveniles survive their first year, while the annual survival rate for adults is 47% for males and 37% for females." or somesuch
Sorry -was AFK for most of weekend. Will look properly in a few hours Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Bleh, was gonna list some quibbles but ended up just doing them meself...looks fine comprehensiveness and prosewise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Hi, Cas, many thanks, beyond the call of duty to do the ce as well! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Taylor Swift (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Flash back to 15 years ago, Taylor Swift was a nobody until she released her self-titled debut album, a somewhat starry-eyed yet ambitious country music hopeful. Although sonically burdened by fillers, the album showcases the early talents of Ms. Swift as a confessional songwriter with a knack of crafting the biggest pop hooks. Listen to "Our Song", and you will understand.

The article had passed GAN in March 2010, but I noticed it has since been filled with a considerable amount of original research and unreliable sources. I rewrote the whole article, and had it peer-reviewed. Fresh off the peer review, I now believe this article satisfies the criteria for a featured article. Any comment on how to improve the article would be very much appreciated. Best, (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Taylor Swift (album)/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HumanxAnthro[edit]

  • Ref 16 is missing a date. I know that's because it's another one of those sources that decided "[insert number] years ago" is a valid enough credit of the date, but there is the "view-source" feature on your browser for you to find the publishing date. In this citation, it's June 3, 2010. HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Added date. Thanks for pointing that out! (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I will say that the prose is interesting, engaging, and understandable, but I do have a comment about its organization.
  • There are sentences throughout that discuss Swift's role in the country scene as a teenager, some of which seem to be equivalent and should be merged in some way. For example:
    • "Swift recalled that the record labels did not take her seriously because of her young age: "Basically [they] all went, 'Ah, how cute ... Go home and come back when you're 18.' "[6]" and "According to Borchetta, industry peers initially disapproved of his signing a sixteen-year-old singer-songwriter.[9] The Associated Press reported that a Nashville senior talent manager said: "Tell her to get back in school and come back and see me when she's 18, and bring her parents," which received local press coverage.[33]"
    • "She was rejected because record labels believed the country music's middle-aged demographic would not listen music by a teenage girl, which Swift firmly disbelieved.[5][6]" and "Taylor Swift was released in a time when female country artists were gaining momentum in popularity.[33][45] However, industry experts did not expect a teenage artist to replicate the success of LeAnn Rimes in the 1990s, and country radio focused on female artists over 30 for advertising reasons.[34]"
      • I trimmed down the "Legacy" section so that it would not repeat what has been said in the previous sections. Let me know what you think. (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Hmmm... I see where you're going, but I don't think removing the AP quote entirely from the article is the solution. Like I said, I think merging it with a similar quote in the background section about Swift being instructed to wait until she was 18 would be better while at the same time not leaving out a part of the literature on the album
        • However, I'm noticing a bigger issue with the Legacy section. It doesn't feel so much like a Legacy section but rather an analysis of parts in the music industry at the time. While interesting, it doesn't scream "later years" to me as "Legacy" would suggest. Only the last sentences suggest anything of a legacy on Swift's career: "The autobiographical narratives on Taylor Swift defined Swift's songwriting over the next decade,[28][29] which Billboard noted to inspire a new generation of aspiring singer-songwriters who compose their own songs.[102] The album's pop crossover sound laid the groundwork to Swift's country-pop discography, whose chart success straddled the perceived boundary between the two genres.[103][106][107]" 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
          • I wrote the "Legacy" section to assess public reception of the album that could not fit in other sections (per WP:MOSALBUM#Controversy or legacy sections). I renamed this section to "Impact and legacy", however, for readers to have a clearer image of what this section intends to do. (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Additionally, "A retrospective review by Maura Johnston from Pitchfork described the album as an honest record about teenage perspectives, as opposed to the manufactured albums that "weighed down former teen sensations"."" This seems to make showcase another differentiation in Swift's role in the industry, in addition to being a teen in the country scene, and sounds like it should be in the legacy section instead of a reception section that shows opinions of the album quality itself.
    • In that sense, should all retrospective reviews be moved to the "Impact and legacy" section, given that they all regarded this album in the context of the industry at the time? Alas, I think relating this album's success to Swift's difference in the industry is somewhat fine for critical reviews, given that contemporaneous reviews from Country Weekly or PopMatters commented on Swift's pop crossover and how it made Swift stand out from previous country singers. (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • ""Our Song" and "Should've Said No" reached number one on the Hot Country Songs.[65] With "Our Song", Swift became the youngest person to single-handedly write and singe a number-one country single.[68]" Since the previous sentences already use the format of "This song went to number this, this song peaked at number that," I would get varied with the prose and write the two songs" "topped the Hot Country Songs chart, making Swift the youngest artist to single-handedly write and sing a number-one country single."
  • Wouldn't it confuse readers with which single Swift achieved the feat though? (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Ehhh.. OK, point taken. I keep my commenting about making sure prose isn't too repetitive, though. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Also, what's up with that "e" at the end of sing?
  • Removed. (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Although "Music" is interesting and well-organized and easy to navigate, are we sure there's more than just one academic to represent here? I know Taylor Swift is one of the most notable artists of all of history, so I would imagine even her first album, while maybe not as-reviewed as her later works contemporaneously, has a ton of retrospective analysis that goes beyond what's currently cited here. I'll reserve judgement since I haven't done in-depth research on the topic, plus, since the album is self-titled after the artist, it would be a major nightmare to try to look for sources given that just searching up "Taylor Swift" brings up mostly results about the artist instead of the self-titled album.
  • There are retrospective reviews, but they mostly focus on the lyrics. It's hard to find one that focuses on the music. (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Additionally, in Reception, are we sure those were the only contemporaneous reviews for the album? Are we especially sure those are the only retrospective opinions on the album?
  • Thus far, they are the retrospective opinions I could find. I wouldn't say they are the only reviews, but they come from reputable music sources and are representative enough of the overall critical consensus of this album. (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Reception section could be a little less quotefarm-ish too
  • I reorganized the section a bit. (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • A bit of a cite formatting inconsistency? The CMT source in ref 3 has its publisher name as just "CMT," with "News," in the title field, yet in all other CMT cites the publisher is presented as "CMT News" with no "News" in the title.

HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

    • Changed all to "CMT News" for consistency. (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Overall, prose quality appears to be good if requiring some fixes, and the sources appear to be all reliable, but I am a bit skeptical about its completeness given my comments above. I could be wrong, though. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I understand your concern over the limited number of critical reviews, but it appears that this album did not receive much professional rating--it does attract retrospective mentions, but they are often mentioned to relate to the relevance of Swift's following albums, rather than this album per-se (like how the NYTimes briefly mentioned this album, but I don't think it counts as a full review). After another round of source review, I am pretty confident that all appropriate sources for "Critical reception" have been included. (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi HumanxAnthro just checking to see if you feel able to support or oppose. Obviously there is no obligation to do either. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh crap! I was in the midst of reviewing this? My apologies, the writing and editing other film articles and reviewing of other articles got me carried me away, and I memory just... forgets things, you know. Well, now you know why there are to-do lists. Just trying to keep myself active, that's all. Anyway, here's a second read-through

Lead
  • "She signed with Sony/ATV Tree publishing house, and signed with" "Signed" is used twice in the same sentence
  • "The album was produced by Orall and Nathan Chapman, the latter of whom has sole production credits on all but one track, "The Outside"." While I understood this easily, how this is formatted feels weird. I would write it like this: "Most of the album was soley produced by Orall, the only other producer being Nathan Chapman on "The Outside""
    • Eh... it was Chapman who produced most of the album. But I see that it could be seen as convoluted, so I trimmed it down.

Otherwise, lead gets the job done very well

Background
  • Watch out for instances repeated words in the same clause or sentence throughout the body. For example, "record labels for a record deal."
  • "would not listen music" I thinking a "to" is missing here
  • A couple details don't seem to be needed: "who had fixed her family's computer on one occasion," "Swift's love for country music alienated her from her peers." I don't know how these details impacted the journey to get a record deal to make the album. It seems the only important details here was that she returned home to learn to play guitar, that her US Open performance got her noticed to get a deal, and that her family had to relocate to write and record the album.
    • "who had fixed her family's computer on one occasion"--I think this highlighted how unusual for a musician to take lessons from non-professionals; "love for country music alienated her from her peers"--this is later discussed in the following section where one of the album's songs, "The Outside", was inspired by the event. I think these details, while miniscule on surface, do add something to understand Ms. Swift's burgeoning career from such a young age. (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

👨x🐱 (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the followup comments. Please let me know if the article needs more work. Best, (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

I am primarily leaving this up as a placeholder. I am having some computer difficulties at the moment so I would likely be able to do a full review sometime next week at the earliest. Apologies for that. I had participated in the peer review. I have noticed the above conversation on coverage and I was curious if you looked through Newspapers.com for contemporary reviews? Here are some clippings of 2006 reviews that I found on Newspapers.com that I believe would be helpful (1, 2, 3) as it would address the above concerns. Aoba47 (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Aoba47 for the information. I had not been aware of the website Newspapers.com, so it is indeed helpful to learn more about contemporaneous reviews of this album. Will add them into the article shortly. (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Just realized, does this website require paid subscription? I tried another round of search but it said something about the premium site... (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Newspapers.com does require a paid subscription, but you can get free access to the site through the Wikipedia Library Card Platform. The application process is super simple and I was able to get approved and have an account within a few days. I know that it is a little annoying to do this since I know you are planning on retiring in the near future, but I think it would be helpful for the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I submitted my application via the Library Card Platform. Hoping to gain access within the next few days-- (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Best of luck with it and let me know if you have any questions about Newspapers.com. Aoba47 (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • There's also a feature where below each image, you can see the text transfer of the newspaper for free. 👨x🐱 (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@: I believe that you have added more contemporary sources to the article, but I just wanted to double-check with you about the progress of this. If you are done with this part, then I will continue my review sometimes in the near future. Aoba47 (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I have received my subscription to Newspaper.com, and am trying to retrieve more reviews to make it 10 (which is the maximum number allowed for critical reviews). Although I could retrieve some results, it says "You need a Publisher Extra Subscription to view this page". Does this happen to your Wikipedia Library Subscription as well? (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the update. I have never received that message so I cannot be much help with that. Apologies for that. I am sure you can reach out to an editor who is more familiar with this or send an email to the Newspapers.com support team. Best of luck with it. I will complete my review sometime later this week. Thank you for your patience. Aoba47 (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I support the article for promotion. All of my comments were addressed in the peer review stage and I believe that the article is ready for promotion, especially after SNUGGUMS' thorough review below. Great work with the article, which is a major nostalgia trip. I was just starting high school when this album came out and it gives me a minor headache to think about how much time has passed since that lol. Aoba47 (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Media review from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Since getting this page up to FA will most likely be your last major contribution to Wikipedia before retiring, I'll give you a parting gift by assessing it. I'm kicking things off with a media review:

That portion of the article passes, and I'll be back with more later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Other comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Resolved
  • The "one song" from "Orrall produced one song, and Nathan Chapman produced the remaining" in the lead should be mentioned by name ("The Outside"). Also, this setence structure gives a misleading impression that it was the only track Chapman didn't do any production for.
    • An "additional producer" is fundamentally different from a record producer. It's hard to explain, but they are different in nature. (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
      • How in the world are those not the same? The word "additional" indicates there were multiple producers involved. On another note, one thing I forgot to mention earlier is that all single release dates should be cited, whether in infobox or article prose. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Not sure, but at Template:Infobox album#producer this distinction does exist--I'm guessing "additional producer" signifies one that does not produce the track as a whole, but only contributes to a small portion. The album booklet also says that Orrell is the producer of "The Outside", and notes Chapman as "additional". (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Is it known what Faith Hill documentary made Taylor decide to move to Nashville? I couldn't find its title here.
    • This source mentions that it is a VH1 documentary, no exact title was given however. (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "the sole writer of three and co-writer of eight" sounds like it's missing "a" before "co-writer", or perhaps you could say "co-wrote eight"
    • Added. (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • If you can find out which specific months in 2005 this album was recorded, then I'd add them
    • Nothing thus far. (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Not only is "He produced all songs but one, 'The Outside', which was produced by Orrall" unsupported by the attributed ref, but the tracklisting credits contradict that "all songs but one" bit. In reality, that's just the sole track Chapman didn't produce on his own.
    • C/e'd. (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "every time he hears their mutual favorite Tim McGraw song"..... a name would be nice
  • Rolling Stone doesn't specify what "I'll tell mine you're gay" got changed into. Also, you're missing "like" within the "I love a line in a song where afterward you're just ... burn" quote it mentions, and the "burn" shouldn't be italicized.
    • The changed lyric is mentioned in the latter source, I believe. (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Just found the revised lyrics here. Thanks for pointing that out. My comments on the "burn" quote still stand, though. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
        • The burn is italicized in the quote.. do you think it is appropriate to de-italicize it? (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "hit" from "a crossover hit at pop radio" is subpar tone for (what's supposed to be) a professional encyclopedia
    • Done. (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "a number-one country single" makes it sound like "Our Song" was the first song in country music to top the Billboard Hot 100 or another nation's primary chart (it peaked at 16 in the US, which I feel is worth a precise mention). You should be more precise and say this actually was the first to reach the summit of the Hot Country Songs.
    • Done. (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The attribution for generally favorable reviews and "keen observations and perspectives" seems like WP:SYNTH. Pitchfork actually writes "Taylor Swift was beloved as much by Southern teens as by critics, for its ear for detail and prickliness". To my shock, I couldn't find any Metacritic listing for the album, or I'd say use that. I still recommend looking for another piece.
    • "keen observations and perspectives" may be undue, but do you think another way of paraphrasing should be acceptable? I'm thinking of "capturing emotions with vivid details in her songwriting". (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Taylor Swift actually stayed on the Billboard 200 for 277 weeks, not just 275.
    • That's probably a glitch. Chart history says 275. (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
      • In that case, I'd replace the used link with this chart history URL you've provided here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
        • I kept it to add info about the date as of when it logged such weeks. (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd keep Australian certification details with the country's chart numbers instead of placing New Zealand charts in between them.
    • Done. (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Are any opening sales figures outside of the US known?
    • Thus far, not really... especially with such low positions. (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Not sure whether you can access it (requires a subscription), but apparently the album has sold 167,000 copies in the UK.
  • "over 5.534 million copies worldwide" is quite outdated, and that's especially obvious by how the American numbers alone have already surpassed this amount
    • Removed. (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Impact and legacy" sounds repetitive. Just use one term or the other in its section title.
    • "Impact" is for the album's reception that is outside critical and commercial data/numbers, and "legacy" is for the album's reception years after its initial release. While these are not mutually exclusive, as I explained to another editor above, I think this title is appropriate. (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Music journalists attributed the album's success to Swift's songwriting and online marketing strategy" sounds like it's more relevant for "Commercial performance".
    • I feel like placing it here would be more appropriate, as it includes critical commentary on why the album was particularly successful and not the chart/sales data numerically. (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • It's already obvious that Chapman was a producer for "The Outside", so it's needlessly redundant to single him out in "Track listing" with a "additional producer" note.
    • Per my previous comment. (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure "Notes" should be placed as a subheading under "References"
    • Done. (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Bibliography" is discouraged as an ambiguous section title when that can also potentially refer to works written by a subject. I recommend renaming it.
    • Should "Literature" be appropriate? It's kinda funny as when I FAC'ed 1989, the section had been named "Cited literature" before some editor told me to rename it. I'm open to discussion however. (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • You forgot to add the author name (Hoda Kotb) to Ref#19
    • Added. (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

That's all from me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments, SNUGGUMS. I have responded above. Let me know if you have any follow-ups! (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
My pleasure. Just a few things left to do other than removing italics from "burn" (where those were used for emphasis when those should be saved for identifying titles of works within Wikipedia entries). You still need to add sources for single release dates ("Tim McGraw" is the only one to currently cite such detail), UK sales should be added to "Commercial performance" (not just talking about certifications), the "favorite Tim McGraw son" is fine to identify by name here when that wouldn't take up much space (you can fill in a..... Blank Space there :P), and using something like "Print sources" or "Book sources" when renaming "Bibliography" will suffice (I've never seen "Cited literature" before and that feels a bit repetitive when you already have a "citations" subheading). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Done all, I believe :) (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

You now have my support following article improvements. Another job very well done! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review[edit]

  • "Tim McGraw" excerpt is missing timed text.
    • I used to favor TimedText for music samples, but after coming across this discussion I am uncertain if adding timed text would be construed as NFCC violation. (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Notes "section" at end of track listing shouldn't use semi-colon for bold (MOS:PSEUDOHEAD). Why not move it to the notes section in references? Heartfox (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Done. (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from MaranoFan[edit]

I will add some comments soon. Admittedly, "Style" is my favorite Taylor Swift song. It will be fun to learn about this album as I am not that familiar with it :)--NØ 04:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Not seeing the relevance of her birth year. Mentioning the age at which she wrote her first song might be better, knowing Swift I'm sure this information is available somewhere.
    • The article later mentioned that Swift first wrote songs at 14 with "The Outside"--which is included in the album. But given that this paragraph introduced a young Swift, even before she wanted to write songs, I wouldn't include that. Removed birth year however. (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "the country music's middle-aged demographic would not listen music by a teenage girl" -- Not sure but removing "the" might read better
    • Done. (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Swift recalled that the record labels did not take her seriously" -- I am unsure about "the" here too
    • I keep "the" because I think "record labels" had been indicated in the previous sentence. (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "a city close to Nashville, when she was fourteen years old, in 2004" -- Opt for the year or the age, but I think mentioning both is a bit redundant. "a city close to Nashville, the following year" would work too as the 2003 US open is mentioned in the preceding sentence. Also, MOS:NUMERAL does allow spelling integers greater than nine, but I usually go for numerals. This is optional, of course.
    • I think "the following year" may rather be nuanced, so I like to keep it explicit as "2004". I think "a city close to Nashville" alone may be kind of vague? so it's fair to keep it as Hendersonville imo. (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I wasn't asking to remove Hendersonville. I meant to frame the sentence like this: "To assist Swift's artistic endeavors, her father transferred to a job position in Nashville, and her family relocated to Hendersonville, a city close to Nashville, when she was fourteen years old, in 2004" (the stricken part being removed).--NØ 11:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "She signed with the Sony/ATV Tree publishing house at age fourteen to become a professional songwriter; she was the youngest signee in its history" -- I think this would be fine if simplified to "She signed with the Sony/ATV Tree publishing house at age fourteen to become a professional songwriter, the youngest signee in its history"
    • Done. (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Omit "Sony/ATV" from the following sentence as it is obvious. "After being signed, Swift commuted from Hendersonville to Nashville every afternoon. "Established" sounds like an opinion so that word shouldn't be used in Wikipedia's voice.
    • Changed to "experienced". (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "She recalled:" -- In what year? Should be mentioned."
    • Done. (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "He has sole production credits all songs but one" -- I am sure the word "on" should be there before "all"
    • Done. (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Teardrops on My Guitar" was about her experience with a classmate whom she had feelings for, but in turn was in love with someone else." -- Was she in love with someone else, or the classmate?
    • Clarified. (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • A source should be included directly after every sentence that includes a direct quote
    • Done. (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Still no source after "tractors and hay bales because that's not really the way I grew up"--NØ 11:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Rick Bell from Country Standard Time described the album's sound ... Jon Caramanica from The New York Times described the album's sound" -- Try a wording variation here.
    • Done. (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Another profile on Rolling Stone" -- Not sure that is the right word to use. Maybe "another author", "another article", etc.
    • Done. (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Billboard is not a part of the Hot Country Songs chart's name. I would word this sentence as "the single peaked at number 40 on the Billboard Hot 100 and number six on the magazine's Hot Country Songs chart". Also, I think "the" should only be used if you are including "chart" after its name. Correct: "on the Hot Country Songs chart", "on Hot Country Songs", Incorrect: "on the Hot Country Songs"
    • Done. (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • There's still one instance of "of the Hot Country Songs".--NØ 11:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if including "Pop Songs" in the bracket after Mainstream Top 40 adds much to the reader's understanding. You could pick one of the two titles, whatever it was called at the time.
    • I think it's fair to keep the two, as "Mainstream Top 40" is the chart's official name in press briefings, but "Pop Songs" is a common name as published for public viewing. (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree, thanks for the explanation.--NØ 11:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Critics commented on the album's pop sensibility—Country Weekly and Rolling Stone" -- Shouldn't this be "Neal and Rolling Stone"?
    • Done. (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "A retrospective review by Maura Johnston" -- "Retrospective review" does not need a mention two sentences in a row.
    • Done. (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I think readers would be curious at what position it appeared on the Billboard 200 during its highest sales week.
    • Done. (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't "Gold", "Platinum", etc have their first letters in capital? Funnily, I only started doing this after reading "Blank Space" lol.
    • You're right. Done. (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Platinum is still lowercased in the lead.--NØ 11:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The links to RIAA certifications exclude the word "certified", but it is included in the link to List of music recording certifications. Any particular reason?
    • Can't think of any particular reason... but I don't think this would impact readers' understanding lol. (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Taylor Swift was released in a time when female country artists were gaining momentum in popularity" -- Does the source mention any by name?
  • Probably fine without.--NØ 11:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "established Swift as one of the few teenage female artists to be equally successful with male counterparts in a format dominated by men" -- Since there is just one source after this, shouldn't it be attributed? Looks like a subjective opinion.
    • Added. (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Do you think Jim Malec should be named here?--NØ 11:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "she also relied on social media to promote her subsequent releases, which brought her a loyal fan base" -- While true, I fail to see how this has much to do with the impact and legacy of Taylor Swift as an album.
    • I think it is fair to mention that here, given that this album was the stepping stone for Swift's future releases up until 2020. (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Those are all the comments from me.--NØ 07:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the comments. I have responded to them above. Let me know if anything needs further work. Cheers, (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Done all, I believe :) Thank you for the quick response! (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
No problem. I now support.--NØ 02:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • I don't necessarily doubt its reliability, but is there a better source than a gallery from the New York Daily News? I'm unsure if that format is the best for BLP statements. If you think The Guardian ref suffices then I'd just stick with that
    • The Guardian does not specifically mentioned "performing arts", so I'd keep the NY Daily News. (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • What is the reliability of Country Standard Time, MusicBrainz?
    • Country Standard Time seems fishy as it is (I think) a self-published source ([8]). I was pretty confident about MusicBrainz, but since it is user-contributed, I have removed the source. (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 77 author-link=Jeff Tamarkin
    • Done. (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • no other immediate issues with other sources' reliability; appropriate for a country album.
  • failed verification for fn 46. If you're getting it from The Tennessean then I would just put The Palm Beach Post in italics in the agency parameter, and link to the Newspapers.com clipping, or cite the original review here.
    • Linked the Newspaper.com clip. (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I guess it's not required but if you access Newspapers.com then you should probably link to a clipping of the article so anyone can easily access it. For example, fn 80
    • Done. (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I did not immediately find any additional reviews on Newspapers.com not already included in the article
  • not seeing fn 58 reflect the info cited from it
    • C/e'd. (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • you can replace fn 59 with fn 1
  • didn't really do spotchecks
  • fn 134 doesn't work; I suggest archiving the other links as well to prevent future link rot.
  • I am seeing additional Japanese releases here and here. Heartfox (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I see they are additional/re-stocked releases (the original release dates are from 2008/2009), so I wouldn't add that as a new release in the Release history table. Other than that, I have responded to your comments above. Thank you so much for the ref review! (talk) 02:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi Heartfox, I'm just checking on what the current status of this review is. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I suggested replacing AllMusic ref for "Tim McGraw" release date with fn 1 as I would consider Billboard more reliable than AllMusic; that comment was not replied to let alone addressed, nor was the issue with fn 134, which is now fn 131. I would also suggest adding via=Newspapers.com in citations with links to those clippings to be clear it's not the newspapers' websites being linked to. I do not see any track listings/correct dates in the Barnes & Noble fn 57 link. Maybe it changed, but again there's no archived link. Heartfox (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
      • That's weird for Barnes and Nobles... I changed the link regardless. I think AllMusic is appropriate for music release dates, and I am quite hesitant to recycle one source for multiple accounts. I tried to run the IABot but it is not working... or is it because I don't have the correct link to the tool? If you happen to have access to IABot, could you give me the link here? Best, (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I believe IABot is down so you may have to do it manually.
          • Done. (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
        • What's wrong with using the existing Billboard ref though? You recycled it for two different singles. The AllMusic ref was retrieved in 2010 when the Billboard article hadn't been written yet. If we're going by the "high quality" criteria, are you saying AllMusic is as high quality as Billboard?
          • I think AllMusic is usable for release dates information--I have not seen any complaints regarding its notability or reliability significantly.. (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Regarding Barnes & Noble, the length of the tracks are not given, and are these two separate releases or one with both bonus tracks and videos? The source looks like it's one release. It is also not apparent that the last two tracks are videos. Heartfox (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
          • It is one release. I changed the ref to the album liner notes. (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Ok I will say this passes the source review unless others have comments/issues/disagreements. I would not oppose based on the sources. I think IABot is back now so I would suggest using it for the article. Heartfox (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding the accessibility review above, HĐ didn't wanted to add TimedText to the "TimMcGraw" sample because it might be considered a NFCC violation (even though the article passed a media review by SNUGGUMS and Nikkimaria didn't have any outright objections and just linked to a discussion saying it looks be okay), but "Picture to Burn" does have TimedText, so I am confused how it would be okay for one sample but not the other. Heartfox (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I noticed Nikkimaria's response--and while I don't have anything against adding TimedText, I just think that given the two samples' purposes--one to demonstrate the lyrics, and one to demonstrate the melodic qualities--I don't think a TimedText to "Tim McGraw" sample would enhance readers' understanding per NFCC. I hope it makes sense... (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
      • That's fine, but I don't understand how the "Picture to Burn" sample is "to demonstrate the lyrics"? The caption "instrumented by plucking banjos, "Picture to Burn" was described by Rolling Stone as a song that "perfectly captures the mindset of a teenage breakup" doesn't have to do with the lyrics, and the prose about the lyrics are not the lyrics included in the sample. Heartfox (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
          • Isn't "the mindset of a teenage breakup" related to the lyrics one way or another? On another note--I was not the one who added TimedText to "Picture to Burn" sample. It was there from the beginning. So it's not like I added the TimedText to one sample to make it look good, and ignored the other. (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
            • @: Apologies for interrupting this discussion, but wouldn't it be easier to just delete the "Picture to Burn" TimedText so that both samples are consistent. From my understanding of this discussion (and feel free to correct if I am wrong), that seems to be the issue so the easiest solution to me would seem to be just deleting the TimedText from one of the samples so both do not have any. Aoba47 (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Can't Get You Out of My Head[edit]

Nominator(s): — Tom(T2ME) 10:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is about... a major hit by Kylie Minogue. They say third time is the charm, so let's see how this goes. Huge thanks to Baffle gab1978 for giving the prose an amazing and fresh look! — Tom(T2ME) 10:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility: Add captions to the tables per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Heartfox, thanks for the review. i added captions. Cheers! — Tom(T2ME) 21:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47[edit]

I am leaving this up as a placeholder. I will try to get this within the week. Unfortunately, computer issues have been making editing rather difficult lately, but since I had participated in the first FAC and completely missed the second one, I want to try my best to help. That and I love this song. Please ping me if I have not posted any comments in the next week. Aoba47 (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Aoba47, thank you! Your feedback is always welcome! :) — Tom(T2ME) 07:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I have a quick question. I have done some minor edits to the article while reading through it. Feel free to revert anything that you disagree with. Were there any negative reviews for the song? The article only has positive reviews, and while I believe that most critics responded positively to the song, I would be curious if you saw any negative reviews? Aoba47 (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Aoba47, actually I could not find any negative reviews haha :) except the one by Jude Rogers of The Quietus, who apparently did not like the orchestral reboot of the song. =) Also, thanks for the c/e, I really appreciate it! — Tom(T2ME) 09:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • That makes sense to me. It seems like even critics who gave mixed or negative reviews of the album still enjoyed this song. I was just curious about this when reading the article. Apologies for the delay with my review. Computer issues are quite annoying lol. Aoba47 (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I cannot remember if I had asked you this or not so apologies if this is repetitive. In this interview, Minogue briefly talks about the white jumpsuit being inspired by Grace Jones (it is around the 1:30 mark of the video). It is a rather minor detail, but I wanted to raise it to your attention, especially since the jumpsuit is one aspect of the music video that received the most attention (and rightfully so).

I think the article is in incredibly shape. As I had said in an above comment, I had participated in the first FAC and I supported it for promotion at the time. I still support for promotion now as my minor comment/question is not enough to hold me back from doing so. I hope to see more Kylie Minogue songs in the FAC space. I remember being instantly hooked by this song and being so impressed by the music video when I first heard and saw them (but as an American, I think I heard and saw both of them at least five years after their releases lol). Aoba47 (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Aoba47! I really appreciate your comments and feedback! Hopefully this time we manage to bring the bronze star at the top of the article! PS. I added the information about Grace Jones ;) ! — Tom(T2ME) 17:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I hope that this time is successful as well. You have put a lot of work into the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment[edit]

  • This is three weeks in and the nomination shows little sign of a gathering consensus to support. Unless activity here picks up considerably over the next two or three days I am afraid that this is liable to be archived.
Have you contacted all of the editors who have commented on previous FAC nominations of this? Do you have any favours you can call in?
Gog the Mild (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Gog the Mild I have asked a couple of users to give their feedback on the FAC. Can you please do me a favor and try to hold this open for some time? Thanks in advance! — Tom(T2ME) 08:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I note that there are a couple of general reviews ongoing. So long as they move along in a reasonably timely fashion the nomination is unlikely to be archived for lack of comment. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from MaranoFan[edit]

  • The first sentence would be more effective if "that was" was removed: "'Can't Get You Out of My Head' is a song recorded by Australian singer Kylie Minogue for her eighth studio album Fever (2001)". I don't think that arrangement would be grammatically incorrect since I have seen it on many articles.
  • I would change "Record label Parlophone" to "Parlophone Records" as natural disambiguation is usually preferable
  • I am not sure a link to Record chart in the lead is necessary. Just "The song peaked at number one on charts in 40 countries" works too in my opinion.
  • Capitalizing the first letter in certification names, "Gold", "Platinum", etc. is optimal.
  • I don't think I understand your query here?
  • "Gold", not "gold", and "Platinum", not "platinum", etc.--NØ 15:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "the song peaked at number seven on the Billboard Hot 100 chart and was Minogue's breakthrough US commercial success" -- While I personally agree, these two sentences being merged gives the impression this was the first time she reached the US top 10. Maybe try "the song peaked at number seven on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, Minogue's first top 10 in 13 years".
  • "Minogue has included it on the set lists of most of her concert tours" -- Most of is a specific claim that would require a source. "Various" or "many of" would be a safer word choice.
  • Were the decade-end lists it appeared on commercial or critical?
  • It is obvious from the name of the lists that is critical inclusion, not commercial. — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I would include the nationalities of Dennis and Davis while introducing them
  • Link: Loop (music)
  • "Three and a half hours" should have a nbsp. Same with "three minutes and fifty seconds"
  • Actually, that's optional. "All About that Bass" does not have that either. — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The guideline is at MOS:NBSP if you are interested in reading about it. Sure it is optional but it is recommended.--NØ 15:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Dennis later said" -- Mention when this was
  • "a "la la la" hook that is often noted as the song's most appealing part" -- by whom?
  • The source reviewer can decide whether this is appropriate to use for the song's composition, but it is odd it doesn't mention the critic's name
  • I mean it would be great to have a name too, but it is a BBC review, so I am pretty sure it is reliable. — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • See if it might be possible to paraphrase some of the more lengthy quotes in the Composition and lyrical interpretation section.
  • This has been done a lot since the beginning. Did our best. — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Unsure why the other songs' composition is relevant here: "On the album, 16 of Minogue's earlier songs were re-worked and backed by an orchestra"
  • Relevant to distinguish between her regular disco style and something different she did with The Abbey Road Sessions'.
  • That makes sense. But I still don't see the relevance of mentioning there are 16 tracks on it. This isn't the album's article.--NØ 15:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Some sentences appear to be in passive voice.
  • Can you please specify which ones? — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • If I remember correctly, it was the ARIA Charts one which has been removed now. I will try to read the article again at a later date to catch more.--NØ 15:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Also finding the use of ARIA Charts as a source for composition details a bit iffy
  • The Herald Sun list being compiled in celebration of Minogue's 50th birthday isn't something worth noting in my opinion.
  • Thanks for fixing this but there is a Grammar issue now, since a sentence abruptly begins with "Calling".--NØ 15:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Minogue's own website should definitely not be used to source it reaching number one in every European country except Finland
  • I would remove the Victoria Beckham song's mention. Not relevant since CGYOOMH was not blocked by it.
  • It received enormous media coverage in the UK back then. So I think it would not hurt anyone if that information stayed. — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Adding two more sources after this sentence will help justify its inclusion, to prove it is not undue.--NØ 15:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't use Minogue's website as a source for it becoming her best-selling US single since "The Loco-Motion" either.
  • "British fashion designer and Minogue's stylist William Baker" -- "Minogue's stylist" gives enough context so remove "British fashion designer"
  • Were there no regular critical reviews for the music video upon its initial release? The "Impact" section seems comprised entirely of retrospective events.
  • Again, 2001, a long time ago. Most of the sources are had to be found on the Internet nowadays. — Tom(T2ME) 14:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The mash-up performance was ranked at number 40" -- Remove "mash-up" from this sentence as this is already clear in the preceding one.
  • I am pretty sure the Australian charts website can be edited by random people, it shouldn't be used to source Love at First Sight's inclusion as the B-side.
  • Is there no secondary source for her SNL performance? That is quite unlikely.
  • No, there is not. She performed this in 2002, and most of the sources from that time are dead. Same with the GMA performance. That's why I am citing the video. — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "the second single from Fever", "the fourth single from Fever" -- These do not really contribute to the reader's understanding of the Live performances section.
  • "ninth studio album Body Language, ." -- Punctuation error.
  • The Live performances section relies a lot on primary sources. If these performances really didn't receive coverage in reliable secondary sources then they are being given undue weightage here. Just cover the notable ones.
  • Lee Barron is linked in the prose but not in the ref.
  • A MetroLyrics link would be beneficial in External links, since there is discussion of the song's lyrical content in the article.
  • Actually, I was told to remove that link since MetroLyrics is not really a reliable source. — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
A lot of efforts have clearly gone into the article. But I do take concern with the prose and there are some questionable sources used. A good source review will do wonders. Good luck.--NØ 13:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
MaranoFan. Thanks for your comments. I did most of them and also left some replies where I thought it was necessary to clarify things. — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
You are welcome. I will have to give it another read after the source review to see if I have any more comments. Good to see other reviewers will be posting feedback in the meantime.--NØ 15:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I figure there is no need for me to be nitpicky about the sourcing when someone who specializes in source reviews will take care of that anyway. Here are the final batch of comments before I support!
  • Link Demo (music) and Single (music) in the Writing and Release section.
  • Stick with either Parlophone Records or just Parlophone, I slightly prefer the former.
  • The New Rolling Stone Album Guide could be wikilinked, also shouldn't this be in italics rather than quotes (it is in the reference)?
  • "hook that is often noted as the song's most appealing part by the music critics" -- "The" could be removed.
  • I would link One night stand as it might help some readers.
  • Are you sure Electronic music shouldn't be linked?
  • I see that the bit about the Orchestra album having 16 tracks is still here. Why?
  • I know neo-disco is linked before, but the first mention of disco should be linked separately. A link to Orchestra probably wouldn't hurt either, for those unfamiliar with the concept.
  • Optionally, the la la la hook could be introduced with a link to Non-lexical vocables in music.
  • PopMatters is italicized on most FAs I have seen.
  • The bit about the Pitchfork writer thinking that it "launched Minogue back into commercial relevance in the US" does not flow with the rest of the paragraph and doesn't sound like a very critical opinion either, could be omitted entirely or maybe incorporated in the Commercial performance section.
  • "The Guardian included the song on their list of The Best Number One Records" -- Assumably referring to UK number-ones? Should be mentioned.
  • Why is Top 40 being capitalized in "UK's Top 40"? It's not the name of the chart, so isn't it referring to just the #1-40 positions on the chart?
  • Introduce Michael Rooney as an American choreographer.
  • "At the 2002 MTV Video Music Awards ceremony, the music video for "Can't Get You Out of My Head"" -- At this point in the article it is already established which song's video is being talked about, so honestly even just "At the 2002 MTV Video Music Awards ceremony, the video" would work.
  • "In 2009, Minogue performed "a dancetastic rendition" of the song on the "For You, for Me" tour" -- Reframe this to explicitly convey Caulfield was the one who described it as "a dancetastic rendition", or alternatively paraphrase.

--NØ 20:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I now support. My final query, which does not hinder my support, is, why are the tour names being put in quotation marks? This seems to be discouraged by WP:TOURDAB. Everything else looks great!--NØ 07:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for supporting! Also, I removed the quotation marks. — Tom(T2ME) 07:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Media review from SNUGGUMS[edit]

More to come later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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
  • song that is notable for its "la la la" - I don't think we should specifically say "notable for", we should comment on what critics said. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • is narrator really the right word in asong? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Some music critics praised the song's production and Minogue's vocals and labelled it a highlight of Fever. - and others? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • he song peaked at number one on charts in 40 countries including every European country except Finland - There are 50 countries (44 sovreign states) in Europe, so this doesn't ring right. I'd assume you mean it peaked at #1 on all European charts, except the one in Finland? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The Austrian charts is the ARIA charts.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • link platinum in lede.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • link music video?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Done all of the queries. — Tom(T2ME) 17:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Prose
  • bpm pipes to a redirect. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Cubase is at a different title, is this right?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • verse-chorus needs an en-dash. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 'la's' " - is the space intentional?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The song was also certified gold in Belgium,[43] and New Zealand,[44] platinum in Austria,[45] France,[46] Germany,[47] Greece,[48] the Netherlands,[49] Norway,[50] South Africa,[51] Sweden[52] and Switzerland;[53] and double-platinum in Italy.[54] As of February 2018, it is Minogue's highest-selling single with worldwide sales of over five million copies.[55] - I feel like we could Bundle the citations rather than have them after each country Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Lee Vilenski Could you help me with this (technically)? Honestly, I am not sure how to do it properly (oops!). — Tom(T2ME) 17:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I went to do this, but because you don't actually have citations, (it's a template), it won't work. I would suggest a ref confirming that this is all sourced to the Certification section where there is suitable references, or use {{cite web}} for each of the individual citations. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 2002 Brit Awards - pipes to a redirect back to itself. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • MTV Europe Music Awards - pipes to a redirect Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Glastonbury Festival set - pipes to a redirect. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The track listing seems a little crufty to me, is this normal? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Back in the day there were a lot of single releases, and the label heavily promoted the song, so that is why there are a lot of track listings. Btw, resolved the other queries. — Tom(T2ME) 17:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Additional comments
  • What do you mean? — Tom(T2ME) 17:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Can we not just cite the release rather than have a link to the product page on Amazon? It's not an RS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It's only used for a release format (namely downloads for some alternate mixes and a live performance). Amazon actually is fine for non-contentious details like that, distribution dates, and duration. Its customer reviews on the other hand should be avoided. While one is free to replace it with things like iTunes or Spotify, this is some food for thought. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • As Snuggums pointed out, Amazon is fine for formats and release dates. I don't think there is no need to be replaced with a link from Spotify or iTunes/Apple Music, since they are similar platforms as well. — Tom(T2ME) 16:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list.

  • Will check them out soon! — Tom(T2ME) 17:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I've looked at this before, so hopefully get something up soon.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks a lot for the review! — Tom(T2ME) 17:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Other comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Resolved
  • From the lead, "notable" from "is notable for its 'la la la' hook" is inappropriate POV and WP:EDITORIALIZING
  • Unlink "obsession" per WP:OVERLINK
  • The term "iconic" from "became an iconic fashion statement" is puffery
  • I don't feel "set lists of various of her concert tours" reads very well. Try "set lists of various concert tours" instead.
  • "has a more-noticeable musical arrangement"..... changed or altered would work better here
  • Much of the first paragraph from "Legacy" (except for the Rolling Stone bit) seems like it's better for critical reception when that seems to focus more on rankings and how much critics liked the song than it does impact, and same goes for awards.
  • Ref#9 and Ref#80 are missing thier release/publication dates (respectively 1 October 2001 and 8 January 2007)
  • Move the 28 December 2002 date from the title in Ref#171 to the "date" parameter
  • Don't italicize "Kylie.com" or News.com.au (which should have an uppercase "N" instead of a lowercase one)
  • While not the worst publication I've come across, I recommend using something stronger than Gigwise for the bit on "A Kylie Christmas".

Get through these (along with changing the caption for one image and using something else for the music video's jumpsuit), and it should be ready to become an FA. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, Thanks for your comments! I resolved all of them with the exceptions of the last one. I really could not find a more reliable source than Gigwise to reference her performance of the song at the 'A Kylie Christmas' concert. It seemed to be under-reported honestly. PS. do you like the new MV screenshot? — Tom(T2ME) 17:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Well done! File:Can't Get You Out of My Head MV screenshot.png has much better lighting, so media review passes and I also support this nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Thank you Snuggums! — Tom(T2ME) 07:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

National Union of Freedom Fighters[edit]

Nominator(s): Guettarda (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a revolutionary group in Trinidad and Tobago in the 1970s. Because most of their leadership was killed, their story was largely untold until after 2000. When I created this article in 2005 the two sentence summary was all I knew, and almost all the attention they received in most sources. Times have changed, and I think this is an episode in our history that's worth documenting. It's been a long time since I've nominated a FAC, but I think it's a viable, and interesting candidate. Guettarda (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 07:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Moisejp[edit]

I'm going to review this. The article's short length is manageable for my current schedule. Moisejp (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

First read-through:

  • The prose is engaging.
  • Inconsistency throughout the article about whether to have a comma after phrases such as "In 1969" and "In February 1970" at the beginning of the sentence.
    I think I got them all. Guettarda (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead:

  • When I'm doing leads I try to (more or less) give a proportional amount of the text to the amount of text in each section. There doesn't currently seem to be anything in the lead from Background and formation, even through it's a full five paragraphs of text. I haven't specifically checked the other sections, and am not sure how proportional the lead is for them. What would you think about considering going through and making the lead somewhat more proportional?
    Good point. I've rounded off the lead a little more. Guettarda (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I wasn't sure what precisely "improved intelligence capabilities" in the lead is referring to in the main text.
    That way my (obviously imperfect) attempt to summarise The possibility of rewards, coupled with the use of harsh interrogation techniques, allowed the police to ambush the northern group at their camp in Valencia on 28 August. Guettarda (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Background and formation:

  • I suggest putting "(PNM)" and "(NJAC)" directly after the first mention of the full name of each, like you have done for "(NUFF)" and "(WOLF)". Moisejp (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
    Done. Guettarda (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Great, I'll try to look at your changes and continue with the review soon, hopefully this weekend. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Aftermath:

  • "According to historian and former Black Power activist Brinsley Samaroo, Eric Williams, who remained Prime Minister until his death in 1981, was "decidedly harsh"... " It's a bit awkward to have "[name], [name], who..." Also, it's probably relatively clear that the quotation is Williams' words, but could anybody think (even temporarily) that the "According to [name] ...:" structure would suggest the words are Samaroo's? I don't have any easy solutions off the top of my head, but would you have ideas for fixing at least my first issue, and possibly also my second issue (if you think it's valid)? Moisejp (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks so much for these, Moisejp. I believe I have solved the problem. Guettarda (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there more explanation available about why Samaroo thought Williams' statement was harsh? I understand that the societal issues the rebels were protesting were no doubt valid things to protest, but does the article need more clearly-stated evidence that the police were in fact extremely brutal, and that the rebels' violent measures were the only means they had to bring about change? In itself without extra context, Williams' statement seems a valid point of view. But maybe I'm thinking too much, and the article is not saying Williams was the bad guy, it's simply stating the facts of "Williams said this; Samaroo said that". If so, maybe it would sound more neutral to not frame Williams words around Samaroo's rejection of them. Again, maybe I'm thinking too much here, but I wonder whether even if no bias is intentionally implied, the reader may infer a bias here. Moisejp (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
    The solution is actually quite simple: all Samaroo was saying was that unlike his milder criticism of the Black Power movement, Williams was harsh in his criticism of NUFF. But there's a larger problem here - because so little of this exist on Wikipedia, readers can't just click over to other articles to gather more context. I need to think more about how to solve this problem without making the article too broad and diffuse. Guettarda (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Ideology:

  • A few direct quotations in this section seem probably unnecessary to me and could be easily paraphrased, namely: "seemingly anti-sexist"; "had inherited and which, even though the party condemned it, appeared to serve its purposes"; "grew up around members of NUFF"; "traditional roles of cooking and caring". Moisejp (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
    Trimmed these quotes. Guettarda (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Second read-through:

  • The Black Power movement is mentioned part way through the Background section, but I believe it's not until the middle of the Guerrilla campaign section that it's explicitly hinted that most or all of the activity between 1970 and 1972 was by "Black radicals" ("Burroughs was seen as a heroic crime-fighter by the middle class and "public enemy number one" by Black radicals"). OK, now I see "Afro-Trinidadians and Tobagonians" is also mentioned early on, but I guess I missed this. I leave it up to you about whether you think it is clear enough or whether it be good to mention a little more explicitly that NJAC and WOLF members were predominantly Black. Moisejp (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Serial comma used in "They captured 13 shotguns, a pistol, and ammunition" but not in the next sentence "for Jeffers, Harewood and Jacob". I have a feeling you mostly don't use serial commas but it would be good to have a once-through to make sure it's consistent everywhere. Moisejp (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The possibility of rewards, coupled with the use of harsh interrogation techniques, allowed the police to ambush the northern group at their camp in Valencia on 28 August." Don't know if it's explicitly stated in the source, but I imagine this means the police got information about the group's whereabouts through people coming forward for rewards, and through interrogation, and thus they knew where to ambush the group. If this information is available in the source, it would be better fill in this extra logical step in the text. Moisejp (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Be consistent in how publication locations are formatted
    Thanks, I need to pay more attention to that. Fixed. Guettarda (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • FN11 is not working
    Added an archive link. Guettarda (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • FN12: is this an authorized republication?
    Cecil Paul was Deputy President of the NWU forever, so yes, I think this is. Also since it says "sent to" rather than "published in", I'm inclined to consider it a pre-publication. Guettarda (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • What makes FN14 a high-quality reliable source?
    At the time he published the book, Owen Baptiste was a journalist with almost 20 years experience and had been editor of the Express for 9 years. He went on to be CEO of the Caribbean News Agency. While Inprint Caribbean went on to publish a number of important works, this was at the beginning of its run, and Baptiste and his wife were the publishers, so I made sure to attribute opinions. Guettarda (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • FNs 20 and 21 should both use |publisher= instead of |website=.Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks, fixed. Guettarda (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment[edit]

Approaching three weeks in and this nomination has picked up no general supports. Unless there are signs of a consensus to support developing over the next two or three days I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild. So far I'm expecting to support on prose, but I can't promise really until I've done a second thorough read-through to see if any big issues I might have missed the first time around jump out at me. I'm currently 3/4 the way through my first read-through. It hasn't been going speedily, but I can try to pick up the pace as much as I can if it makes any difference for you keeping the nomination open. If I make it through the first read-through finding no big issues, chances are fairly high I won't find any the second read-through. Anyway, I'm not sure if that's enough for you to keep the nomination open a little bit longer, but that's where I'm at with my review. Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Update: Have now finished my first read-through. I can try to work more quickly through my second read-through if it makes a difference for keeping the nomination open longer. Moisejp (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to review this soonish too, but not being familiar with the topic, I was hoping to wait until another review was completed first. FunkMonk (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd ask for this to be kept open longer, I'd like to take a swing at reviewing it. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Given the experienced reviewers queuing up to have a look at this, consider Damocles' sword to have been removed. Reviewers, feel free to take your time - within reason - and come to a considered opinion. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Indy beetle[edit]

  • Just my opinion, but I think it helps to relink things on a first appearance basis in the body text outside of the lede, eg. Eric Williams could be linked again. Same with repeating names in full before reverting to their acronym eg NJAC should be "National Joint Action Committee (NJAC)" on first instance in the background section.
  • In the infobox, one of the predecessors to NUFF is listed as "Block Five", but this isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article.
  • Trinidad and Tobago became independent in 1962 From the UK?
    • UK, British Empire, West Indies Federation...good question :) But the British Parliament did pass the independence act, so United Kingdom is probably the best choice. Added. Guettarda (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I presume WOLF wanted to overthrow the government because it had some ideology for replacing it and provided its unemployed members with jobs. If it had some defining political characteristics (socialism, Black Power, etc.) that would be nice to mention.
    • I've expanded a bit about WOLF. Guettarda (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In 1971 the as-yet unnamed revolutionary organisation So WOLF collapsed after the Black Power Revolution and its remnants formed this new unnamed group before it was to become NUFF?
    • Not exactly. I think it was one of the constituent parts of the uprising. NUFF grew out of it as Jeffers and others transformed it into something more militant. Guettarda (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • attacked an Estate Police Station belonging to the American oil company Texaco The capitalization of estate police station makes it sound like something special and unique. Was this Texaco's private security?
    • Yes it was their private security. The Supplemental Police Act of 1906 created the legal framework for "estate police", which were private police forces for sugar estates. Security companies function within this framework. I followed the source in capitalising it, and I seem to remember Texaco Trinidad's security being called that. But as I'm looking into it now, I can't find evidence for this, so I'm going to de-capitalise it. Guettarda (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Clarifying that C. L. R. James was a historian/political activist would be helpful.
    • Great point. I got stuck trying to think how to succinctly describe James, put it off for later, and forgot about it entirely. Done. Guettarda (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • For the references to journal articles with siginificant page ranges, I think it would helpful to mention the specific page from which info was taken, as has been done with the books.
    • I believe I got all of them. Guettarda (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

-Indy beetle (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Serail Number 54129[edit]

Parking my tank on the lawn, as it were. ——Serial 18:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

FunkMonk[edit]

  • Link Trinidad and Tobago and other terms now only linked in the intro at first mention in the article body too?
    • Done, other than Black Power Revolution which is linked in the {{Main}}, which I think should be sufficient.Guettarda (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Afro-Trinidadians and Tobagonians" Anything to link?
  • "was "a postponement of social, political and economic equality" It is often good to attribute direct quotes in-text.
  • Link Port of Spain? Montreal?
    • Montreal done. POS already linked in para 3 of the second section. Guettarda (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • You mention it was rooted in the black power movement, then a mutiny and shooting of some figures. Was the army and other government organs dominated by white people? If there was such an aspect, could maybe be mentioned for context.
  • This may answer the question above, but comes very far down " and said that they differed from NJAC in seeing class, not race, as the dominant problem in society." So I wonder if it could help with more historical context/background at the beginning of the article, not sure. Perhaps go more into demographics of the country? As you mention Black Power grew among one segment of the population, what other segments were there, and were they ethnic or just class based? FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Theodore Guerrra" One r too many, surely?
  • "In late 1971 Jai Kernahan" After first mention of full names, you'd only need to list last names?
    • Removed that "Jai", left the one in the "Legacy" section; given the context (while her husband Jai Kernahan...) I think it's clearer to include it. Guettarda (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Link Eric Williams in the image caption.
  • I really like the inclusion of the forest image, helps with immersion when reading.
  • "the sons and daughters of the of the very population" Double "of the".
  • Western United Liberation Front could redirect here?
  • "unemployed me in the western" Men.
  • "They were the only group to sustain a guerrilla insurgency in the modern English-speaking Caribbean over an extended period of time." This seems to be only mentioned in the intro, which should not have unique info.

Sutton United 2–1 Coventry City (1989)[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!), Amakuru (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Some have described this as one of, if not the, biggest upset in English "soccer". Top-division Coventry "Sky Blues" City, riding high in the First Division and winners of the oldest soccer football cup in the world just two years before were quite literally humbled by a bunch of "bricklayers, assistant bank managers and insurance clerks" playing for non-League club Sutton "Amber and Chocolates" United. A hard one for my co-nom (a Cov fan) to swallow but a pleasure for the footballing world who love this kind of "David beats Goliath" story. And it's true too! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Image is freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 21:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Comments
  • You need to state specifically that the Conference is/was the fifth tier of English football, to give context to the "gulf" between the teams. I didn't spot this mentioned anywhere, meaning that a reader not familiar with English football would not know whether there were 1,2,4 or 12 divisions between them........
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Billed as a potential cup upset by the media, the visitors went into the match as strong favourites" - these two statements seem at odds with each other. Cov were strong favourites, yet the media predicted a potential upset? There's also no mention in the body of the article (as opposed to the lead) that the media saw it as a possible upset.
    I'll come back to this... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    You're absolutely right here, I think I'll tone it down in the lead and add some more about the prelude in the main body. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    I've removed the "upset" thing because I can't actually (believe it or not) find anything in advance of the match where anyone really gave them a cat's chance. But I did find the odds before the match of both sides winning the cup, so that's in there as a clear indicator of Cov being clear favourites... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Phil Dawson who struck an oustwinging cross" - spot the typo :-)
    Done in both places. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "had knocked out Football League teams in the previous year's FA Cup, defeating both Aldershot Town and Peterborough United" - might be worth stating which divisions these teams played in
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    One other thing I just thought of - they can't have defeated Aldershot Town, as that team didn't exist at the time. They actually defeated Aldershot -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    That's me being far too young... Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "went into the FA Cup tie having lost away to bottom club Aylesbury United and drawing at home against Maidstone United." - firstly, this isn't grammatically correct, and secondly does this refer to their two most recent matches prior to the cup tie? It's a bit unclear.......
    Cleared up, hopefully. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Coventry City had finished the previous season in tenth place in the Football League First Division." - clarify at this point that at the time this was the highest division in English football
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "But his header was poor" - don't start a sentence with "but"
    Rejigged. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "In the 70th minute, Coventry replaced Cyrille Regis for Keith Houchen" => "In the 70th minute, Coventry replaced Cyrille Regis with Keith Houchen", also needs a comma after Houchen
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Pedantically, Coventry's shirts were really sky blue and white halves, not all sky blue (fond memories of the Hummel kits of that era) - see here
    I'm not convinced they were white/blue, look at the video where it looks more like blue/sky blue?? It's a poor quality video mind you... I'm at a bit of a loss how to "create" the necessary shirt pattern. The football kit template is a bit nightmarish. I'll see if I can ask someone! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Is the identity of the Sutton substitute not known? If not, it might be worth putting "sub: not known", or something, so that readers aren't potentially left wondering why Cov had a sub but Sutton didn't......
    None of the sources indicate that Sutton had a named substitute. I'm not even sure we can assume there was one, can we? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    Fair point about the lack of sources, although as someone old enough to have been a regular match attendee in the season in question, I can't really think of any plausible reason why any team would *not* have had a named substitute..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    I guess it's akin to trying to prove a negative. Unless I can find a source with a named sub (which will fix the issue!) we really don't know... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    Amakuru any thoughts on this? Got a programme?! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    I don't have the programme myself, I didn't go to that game thankfully! Although it appears to be reproduced here: [9]. As with most programmes it includes the squads but the actual team sheet would not be known until the day. I assume both teams had two substitutes on the bench, of which Cov used one and Sutton none. My book has the two team sheets and shows the Cov sub that came on too, but doesn't mention any unused subs unfortunately.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    Even the MOTD video clip with Motty mentions Houchen as "one of the subs" but neither lists on the graphic nor mentions the others. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    Aha, I have found more info - the unused Sutton sub was Bangs: [10] and seemingly there really was only one sub on the bench for each side, even though there were clearly two subs in the FA Cup matches the previous season. And here he is again, Steve Bangs: [11]. Whether either of those are reliable sources is anyone's guess. Oh, and check this out - everyone's favourite railway nerd Geoff Marshall has something to say on the matter too... Mr Bangs was his PE teacher.[12]  — Amakuru (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    Good research. I wouldn't consider either of those to be RS unfortunately... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    It was definitely two subs per team in the FA Cup that season. But if the information isn't available re: the unused subs, I'm not sure there's any more you guys can do. I just thought it might confuse people who looked at the article and thought "why did Coventry have a sub available but Sutton didn't?"....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
    It may do. I don't know what we can do without reliable sources. Of course I have seen some matches where different numbers of substitutes were available for each side, and it seems in this case there may even be two other "missing" subs. But we can't pin that down. If you can find the rules for the 1988-89 FA Cup which says how many subs each side were allowed, we could add a footnote to that effect I suppose? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
    Maybe just change where it currently says "Substitute:" to "Substitute used:"? At the end of the day, I don't think listing people who didn't play in the match is actually that important, but the above-mentioned change would at least remove the possibility of confusion......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Williams suggested" - presumably this refers to the Sutton manager? As this is the first time he's been mentioned other than being listed in the match details section, which could easily be overlooked, I would suggest making it clear who he is/was
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "David Lacey of The Guardian concurred and suggested Sutton" => "David Lacey of The Guardian concurred and suggested that Sutton"
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "made an appearance on Terry Wogan's chatshow" - I would suggest that chat show is two words, but I'm prepared to be over-ruled......
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Given that the article is about *this* match, I think detailing all of Norwich's scorers in the next round is an unnecessary level of detail
    I don't know, it's two sentences and I've only really mentioned them by name and number of goals. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Are the two entries under "sources" actually sourcing anything in the article? If not I would say get rid of them. If they are, then cite them at the appropriate point(s).
    Nothing in either, so gone. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • That's what I got on an initial read -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude thanks for your comments and for helping out with the kit! I've tried to address your comments, but of course, please do let me know if anything is unsatisfactory or you spot anything else you'd like to see fixed! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment[edit]

Four weeks in and this nomination shows little sign of gathering a consensus to promote. Unless there is more activity here over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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
  • The visitors went into the match as strong favourites, a reflection of the gulf in divisions that separated the two teams. - maybe it's wise to put the gulf before this IE they were in Conference/First Division before this sentence. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • dropped to seventh place by the conclusion of the First Division season. - I don't think the lede actually says where they were prior to this match, so it's difficult to say how much worse they played after the match. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The only issue I really have with this lede, is that it doesn't really get across why we have an article on this match. Sure, it's a giant killing, or at least a match where the lower ranked team won, but I would like to at least hear that the press/other teams/legacy of the match is well defined. I do think an extra quote from the reception would help with this. Specifically the ones from Talksport and the Independent, which really do get across the magnitude of the win. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Prose
  • I think I mention this every time, but I'd still like a little sentence explaining what the FA Cup is. A short sentence, saying "The FA Cup, formerly the Football Association Challenge Cup is a knockout association football tournament held annually in the United Kingdom (or England I suppose)." or similar. I think this gives everyone a heads up as to what the article is about, and also isn't overly detailed explaining the nuances of the game, jargon etc. I realise we can click on the FA Cup article, but personally I wouldn't expect someone to have to do this to understand Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In MOS:CUE, we do losing scores like 0–6. I noticed here it is 6–0 loss. I have also seen it done by home/away. The MOS for football (at WP:FOOTY) is more of a template for creating articles than a MOS for things like this. I'm sure you are right, but any ideas if this has been discussed before? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 5,000–1 against - I know this was a while ago, any ideas if this was a particular bookmaker? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "clowned their way through the pre-match warm-up" - I feel this could be broken up to just "clowned", or just outright saying that the players didn't warm up seriously for the game. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Alf Buksh.[26][27][28][29] - do we need four citations? I realise that you want to use all of the coverage the match has, but the 11v11 source doesn't even have the Sutton players listed, so might not be the highest quality (even if they are generally very good). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • capitulated - I don't really like this sort of expression. The definition means to surrender or to cease resisting, which isn't exactly true, as they were still trying, but were clearly outplayed. "heavily beaten" would be better in my eyes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Code of Hammurabi[edit]

Nominator(s): Emqu (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The Code of Hammurabi is an enigmatic legal text with powerful literary passages. It’s also one of exceptionally few bits of Assyriology known to non-Assyriologists. Politicians and curators pay it lip service and buy expensive replicas, and the page gets 1.5k–2k views in a day. All in all it deserves an article above C-class. I've rewritten it, and have had some very generous FAC mentoring from A. Parrot (talk · contribs). Feedback much appreciated! Emqu (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

That is for the coordinators to decide. As a first time nominator I would prefer to see more than the bare minimum of three supports, comprehensive as they have been. The nomination also needs a source review. (I have had it Source review requests for a while.) Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Spot checks from Ovinus[edit]

  • [5]: Footnote, not a source
Done. Wretchskull (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • [11]: I'm getting a 404
That could be a localised issue; at least it is not happening to me, not sure. Wretchskull (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • [16]: "This remains the consensus." Doesn't seem to be found in the source? Roth says "for it was taken to Susa, perhaps by Shutruk-Nahhunte I, a Middle Elamite ruler, or by" (emphasis mine)
  • [25]: good
  • [31]: good
  • [40]: good
  • [41]: good
  • [44]: good
  • [53]: good
  • [57]: good
  • [62], [65], [68], [69], [73], [75], [76], [78], [79], [106], [130]: @Emqu: I have the 1997 edition of Roth 1995a, which looks to line up, but I don't understand the conversion between line numbers. Perhaps you could explain, then I can check these ones?
  • [88], [102], [107], [113], [127], [149], [155], [158], [160]: unobtainable print sources
  • [144]: Not seeing it in Roth, but maybe it's in the others
  • [150]: Roth seems to support the last half, can't check the first
  • [169]: good
  • [176]: good
  • [177]: good

I programmatically chose 35 random numbers, so coordinators let me know if more would be appropriate. Ovinus (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Ovinus, that looks more than good enough to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The citation issues that persist are the ones Ovinus pointed out but also that some citations do not have page numbers. I fixed some since Emqu has not been online for a while now, unfortunately. Wretchskull (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ovinus: @Wretchskull: So sorry, for some reason I missed your last ping Wretchskull! I will get on these tomorrow. Emqu (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ovinus: Thanks for these, and for the article edits.

  • [11, now 10]: The Louvre had a page on the stele, which was of course a useful source, but it appears to have removed it since I submitted the article for FAC. Infuriating. Should I assume that the removal is temporary and leave the article, or assume it is permanent and remove all references to it in the article?
  • [16, now 15]: Removed the "consensus" sentence.
  • Re line numbers: Roth's edition doesn't give precise line numbers (at least, the 1995 edition doesn't). The article needs to cite an edition which does. I chose CDLI's edition for these since it is open-source and very thorough. (I initially pointed the reader to CDLI instead of Roth, but my FAC mentor commented that CDLI was less useful without knowledge of Akkadian.) However, CDLI uses a different line numbering scheme.
  • Is "unobtainable print sources" an obstacle to FA status?
  • [144, now 143]: Reworked.
  • [150, now 149]: Rephrased.

@Wretchskull: Re page numbers.

  • Louvre is (/was) a web page.
  • Winckler, Bonfante, and Johns in the context refer to their editions as a whole.
  • Have clarified that the Harper and Equitable Trust Company citations referred to their titles.
  • Souvay and Horne are web pages containing the raw text of early print editions.
  • Citation 40 refers to sources which have this as their topic.
  • Added for Elsen-Novák & Novák.
  • Added for 71.
  • 82 cites editions endorsing this view, for which citations are given later. I would have thought this didn't need a citation?
  • Would 84, 85, and 97 be improved by "passim"?
  • 111: I couldn't find a specific citation for Listenwissenschaft in my notes on that paper, and no longer have access to the paper. Worth retaining?
  • Johns 1910 is another web page of raw text.
  • Most citations from 163 to the end are web pages. I assume it was not these that you were flagging up. Emqu (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@Emqu: If you want to return a link to its original form you can archive it via, for example, archive.org. I have archived the louvre sources so do not worry about that. Wretchskull (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I took a look at Roth 1995a (1997 for me) for some of those ones and it looked to match up, though I of course couldn't check the exact line numbers. So based on that I support on the spot checks, and it looks like y'all will figure out the page numbers. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Commensts from Fowler&fowler[edit]

  • I'm making a placeholder here. Delighted to see a traditionally encyclopedic article here for a change. Will begin soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from The Land[edit]

I randomly browsed onto this article, started reading it, thought "Why isn't this a Featured Article?" Then saw the candidacy on the talk page. So here I am!

I don't have a detailed knowledge of the subject, but I can find very little scope for improvement. I have made one small edit to "Reception outside Assyriology" and I would be interested to know in this section if the Code has any impact in modern legal discussion, or if it is simply treated as a curiosity to add weight.

This said, based on my initial reaction and subsequent more detailed read of the article, I am delighted to support it. Great job! The Land (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Morningside Park (Manhattan)[edit]

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a park in Upper Manhattan, New York City. It is built on a cliff that was deemed too steep to develop upon when Manhattan's grid system was executed. It was first proposed in 1867 but, due to various delays, took three decades to complete. Morningside Park then went through various ups and downs over the years. Besides its topography, the park has some nice art, a waterfall, some paths and plantings, and several fields and playgrounds used by residents of Harlem and Morningside Heights. Morningside Park was designated as a scenic landmark in 2008. If this passes FAC, this will be the second FA about a scenic landmark in NYC, after Riegelmann Boardwalk.

This was promoted as a Good Article a year ago thanks to an excellent GA review from Lee Vilenski. After a much-appreciated copy edit by Twofingered Typist, I think it's up to FA quality now. Epicgenius (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment - a bit trivial, but the image in the "Columbia athletic complex" section is almost precisely the same shot as the one in the "Bordering streets" section, just taken in a different season and a lot less sharp. It just feels like a lower-quality duplicate. Guettarda (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Morningside_retainer_116_jeh.JPG is missing a caption, and why include two very similar pictures of the retaining wall?
    • @Guettarda and Nikkimaria: Thanks for pointing this out (both of you pointed this out similarly). I swapped the image in the athletic complex section with one of brick arches. Epicgenius (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Suggest scaling up File:Morningside_Park,_New_York,_N._Y_(NYPL_b12647398-69897).tiff
    • Done. I also cropped the image to a 16:9 ratio.
  • File:Morningside_Park_Aug_2019_57.jpg: what is the copyright status of the monument? Ditto File:Carl_Schurz_Morningside_116_jeh.JPG. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Lafayette and Washington (1900) and Carl Schurz Monument (1913) are public domain in the United States. I will tag them accordingly. Epicgenius (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Guettarda[edit]

Lead
  • The lead seems short to me, given the length of the article
    • I've added a little more detail to this. Epicgenius (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • sentence 4: "several rock outcroppings" - isn't the cliff a rock outcropping, and if so, shouldn't this be other rock outcroppings?
  • The mention of protests in response to the construction of the gym seems to be missing a "why".
    • I've added some explanation as to the protests. Epicgenius (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
History
  • Site: sentence 2: "smoothed during glacial periods" seeks overly vague, given that there have several over the last 3 billion or so years
    • I've specified these glacial periods specifically applied to the last million years. Epicgenius (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • para 2, sentence 4: "Johannes de la Montagne, who was among the first settlers". Given that you refer to the Lenape as the initial settlers, should this be "Dutch settlers" (or whatever ethnicity he was)
    • I think he was of Huguenot descent, per this link, or a Protestant from France per this link. However, neither are although it's not exactly an FA quality source. I instead clarified that he was among the first European settlers, as his ancestry is not too important to the narrative of the park. Epicgenius (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • para 3, sentence 6: the juxtaposition of "owned by several families...several of whom also owned slaves" feels a little weird to me. The idea ownership of land and of people put so matter-of-factly alongside each other. Something like "occupied by several families and their slaves" or "occupied by several families...several of whom were slaveholders" or better yet, "enslaved Africans" or African Americans (assuming that's verifiable)
    • Done.
Design and construction
  • At the least first time that $ is mentioned, I think you should specify US$
    • Done.
Beginning of construction
  • These three paragraphs are too long, wordy, and blow by blow. The writing could be tighter - some of the language in there is just filler. (TBH, the language could be tightened up throughout)
    • Apparently, the paragraphs were supposed to be four paragraphs. Nonetheless, I've reworded unnecessary wording throughout. Epicgenius (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Early and mid-20th centuries & 1950s and 1960s controversies
  • I think there's an undertone of race here that leaves me wondering whether this attitude to the park and its proximity to Harlem is reasonable, racist, or some combination of both. I'm not saying that we need to delve into that in the article itself, but I do think that we need to at least include a link, a reference or a note acknowledging this.
  • This is even more true when you get to the discussion of segregation and sit-ins.
Recreational features
  • Plant family names (Magnoliaceae, Ranunculaeae, Berberidaceae) are not italicised
    • Removed.
Art
  • Carl Schurz Monument and Seligman fountain are italicised in the text, but not in the photo caption. It should be consistent
    • Done.
Bordering streets
  • "All of the sidewalks were asphalt until 1911, but today they consist of Belgian blocks and concrete" - "now" isn't time-bounded, and should be, especially when it's supported by a 2008-vintage source
    • Fixed.

Guettarda (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Guettarda: Thanks for the comments. I've addressed these now. Epicgenius (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. It looks good enough for me to support. Nice work! Guettarda (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment[edit]

More than two weeks in and no non-image comments on the article. If this has not changed significantly by the time it hits three weeks the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

At the risk of doing a broken record imitation, a lack of significant further indication of a consensus to promote forming by the four week mark may have unfortunate results. If you can call in a favour or two, now is the time to do so. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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
  • A cliff of Manhattan schist - There's something missing here, or I'm reading this wrong. Maybe it's "off"? Still doesn't read right. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • "A cliff made of Manhattan schist" is what I was going for. I have
  • although a nonprofit group, Friends of Morningside Park, helps maintain it. - I'm not sure how it being nonprofit makes any difference? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Removed.
  • facilities such as softball diamonds, - maybe we could just say "softball facilities" or similar? Diamonds is pretty indepth if someone's never heard of softball; and we aren't linking to softball the game Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I would ordinarily agree with your assessment. However, it is part of a longer quote ("recreational facilities such as softball diamonds, basketball courts, and playgrounds"). In this case, these are three examples of sporting fields or play areas that were installed in the park. I have rephrased it to "sporting fields and playgrounds". Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that's fine. I was just attempting to avoid the "diamond" aspect. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Cathedral Parkway–110th Street in infobox has a slighly different wording in the linked article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Fixed. I used the {{stn}} template to fix the redirect. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The infobox links to "Bus", but it's a redirect. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Fixed.
Prose
  • (Part of this creek in modern Central Park, dubbed Montayne's Rivulet, was also named after de la Montagne.[8][10]) - should this be a note instead, rather than brackets?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The first such fort - the link here has an unnecessary disambig. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Fixed.
  • "Path in Morningside Park", could we maybe get a slightly better caption? It's not very descriptive,and doesn't show why the picture is in the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Same with "the south end of the park", and "park entrance". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I rephrased the captions. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • On that note, unless I'm reading it wrong (understandably, it's quite long), isn't there quite a few different entrances? 11 in total were suggested and approved, but later it is mentioned there is another one - I lost count. How many in total? Might be worth mentioning the total when you discuss this later in the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • There are at least 17 entrances: seven each on the western and eastern borders, as well as one each at the northwestern, southwestern, and southeastern corners. This calculation was made per WP:CALC, since the source did not say directly. This map may imply there are more, but the source counted each intersection as a single entrance, regardless of whether it contained one or two paths. If each ramp and stair is counted separately, there may be as many as 22. Unlike Central Park, Morningside Park doesn't name its entrances, so it's very hard to tell for sure. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I think it would be nice to add the amount somewhere, as we do mention the amount planned at several places, so CALC is fine, but I do think it needs to be in the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list..

Favour called in. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

    • Happy to support. I just have one question, but it's not enough to oppose a great article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Willbb234[edit]

  • several athletic fields to 'several atheltics fields' (see below for some more comments on this).
    • I believe this may be a case of WP:ENGVAR. As far as I know, "athletic field" (singular) appears to be the common American usage. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In the introduction, you wikilink the second mention of 'playgrounds', but not the first.
    • Fixed.
  • Who or what is 'Columbia'? If it refers to Columbia University, then you should use this name and wikilink as it is the first time it is mentioned.
    • Added - thanks for pointing it out. This refers to Columbia University, but I had thought this was mentioned earlier. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Manhattan was settled initially by the Lenape Native Americans do we have an approximate time period for this? The paragraph previously talks about glacial movements that happened millions of years ago so this could be confusing to a reader.
    • I'm not sure when exactly the Lenape arrived, though it is likely they would have arrived no earlier than 9,000 years ago. I just clarified that it was several thousand years ago. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • between 109th and 124th Street. did these streets exist in 1658? If not, then you could say 'between what is now 109th and 124th Street' for clarification.
  • Colonial forces used... wikilink to the appropriate article, I suggest British Army.
    • Done.
  • You should wikilink to the first mention of Central Park instead of the mention under 'Initial plans'.
    • Fixed.
  • under which 31.238 acres (12.642 ha) was acquired for Morningside Park and 0.018 acres (73 m2) were condemned at a cost of US$1.33 million not sure what is being said here, maybe I'm just not reading it right. I'm confused by the use of the word 'condemned' here as I can't see how it fits.
    • This refers to eminent domain, which uses a process called condemnation to seize land. I have linked there. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The Times should the 'The' be in italics as well?

More to come. I need a break first. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Morningside Park would be designed to emphasize scenery and its proximity to Central Park not sure how it can be designed "to emphasize... its proximity to Central Park"? This might need explaining.
    • The southern part of Morningside Park is one block from the northern side of Central Park. I have clarified this. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • overlook bays what is this? Do you mean 'overlooking bays' or something along the lines of Scenic viewpoint?
    • The latter, as the current design contains terraces that overlook Harlem. I've added a link. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In July, a group of Civil War veterans stayed in the park during the Independence Day weekend, firing cannons and pretending to storm the blockhouse walls you could include that this was a reenactment (Historical reenactment) if the sources imply or say this.
    • Done.
  • though this did not come to pass this wording strikes me as overly formal or somewhat dated.
    • Fixed.
  • In 1913, Carl Schurz Memorial to "In 1913, the Carl Schurz Memorial".
    • Done.
  • Other issues were caused by a large Independence Day celebration in 1912, this is quite vague. You should try to say what issues and how, if that information is available.
    • Done. The celebration was not the only cause of the erosion and decay, but I've added this. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In its annual report of 1929, NYC Parks you haven't already introduced NYC Parks. It looks as if it is the same thing as New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, in which case NYC Parks should be placed in parentheses the first time the organisation is mentioned.
    • Done. This is indeed the NYC Parks Department's abbreviation. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • as signs of a racial problem. quite vague here.
    • Clarified.
  • reported that Teachers College of Columbia University should this read "reported that the Teachers College of Columbia University"?
    • Done.
  • You say 113th and 114th Streets where 'Streets' is plural, but earlier you say 109th and 124th Street where 'Street' is singular. Some consistency is needed.
    • Fixed.
  • Wikilink to softball.
    • Done.

More to come. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  • "the park was virtually off-bounds to [Columbia University] students and faculty as "too dangerous'.” not sure what's going on with the speech marks here. One is curly and the others don't add up (single and double mixed).
    • Fixed. I'm not sure why there was a curly quote. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Further on from my mention of 'athletic' to 'athletics' in the lede, in the section 'Columbia athletic complex', my understanding is that 'athletics' is a noun that refers to sports as a whole (in some cases to track and field), while 'athletic' is an adjective. See Sport of athletics and [13]. At this point, I think both make perfect sense in the context, but it's just a question of what you think would be best. I also could be completely wrong and be talking about British-English instead of American-English.
    • Yeah. I think this may be an American-specific usage, like I mentioned earlier. However, in regard to this specific issue, "athletic" is indeed being used as an adjective. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Willbb234: Thanks for the comments. I really appreciate these, and I have addressed or replied to all of them. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  • of which alumnus Francis S. Levien donated $1 million in May 1962. I suggest changing this to $1 million of which was donated by alumnus Francis S. Levien in May 1962.
    • Done.
  • that it was given the nickname "Muggingside Park" by whom?
    • Added.
  • The abbreviation 'LPC' needs to be placed in parentheses next to New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission.
    • Done.
  • drew up plans for a $12-million why does '12' and 'million' have a dash between?
    • Removed.
  • who died in 1996 to "who had died in 1996".
    • Done.
  • Going back to the 'Final plans and completion' section, you should add a wikilink to Riverside Park (Manhattan).
    • Done.
  • Since then, additional improvements have taken place within the park. Additional trees were planted in the park in 2009, including a sequoia tree these two sentences can likely be combined into one. The phrase "within the park" can be removed as this is implied given the previous sentences. A semi-colon can be placed between the two statements.
    • Done.
  • Two years later, NYC Parks presented a plan to restore the northern section and add a playground there. do we have any details on whether this went ahead. I can't tell if you are implying this in the next sentence.
    • Done. I have added a few sources about when it was completed. Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Morningside Dog Run is an enclosed space for dog owners to bring their dogs to play. happy doggies!
    • Yep. A lot of parks have these, and they're generally nice to play around in. Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • You should wikilink the first mention of arboretum.
    • Done.
  • was built in 1903–1904 and destroyed in 1952. why was it 'destroyed'. This implies some kind of vandalism/incident. If this isn't the case, how about 'removed' or 'dismantled'?
    • Done. I sometimes use "destroyed" and "demolished" interchangeably, but it may be just me. Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wikilink to Marcus Garvey Park.
    • Added.
  • A tablet was placed on the site by the Women's Auxiliary of the American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society in 1904; part of the cliff was destroyed in 1915 I can't tell if these two statements are supposed to be linked.
    • They should not be. I've split these. Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Residents and visitors to the pond these two terms I would associate with humans. Are there more appropriate terms you can think of?
    • I have rephrased the sentence.
  • both in uniform and holding hands 'holding hands' struck me as an odd phrase here. The source [14] says "clasping hands", perhaps implying they're shaking hands, also implied by the image [15]. I don't know what phrasing you want to use, but 'holding hands' doesn't seem quite right.
    • I reworded it to shaking hands. This is largely synonymous with "clasping", based on the context, but doesn't copy directly. Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The group is atop there are only two of them, so how about 'the pair'?
    • Done.
  • The Marcus Garvey Park is wikilinked in the 'Management' section. This should be removed per my above comment about wikilinking earlier on.
    • Removed.
  • Alright, so I'm confused about some of the organisations here. The MAA was set up and attempted to reorganize the Friends group (A portion was used to assess what the park needed done most urgently, while a second portion went to reorganize the largely dismantled Friends volunteer group.). In the management section you say that the park is maintained by the Friends group, implying that the group didn't really dismantle (or if it did, it was able to reorganize successfully). However, there is no mention of the MAA in the management section. So I'm confused about the role of the MAA. Were they simply a temporary organisation to help the failing Friends group, were they a separate organisation which at some point ceased to exist, or are they still about but are not mentioned in the management section?
    • Basically, the Morningside Area Alliance still exists, but it is a neighborhood group, not a park-specific group. This is why it's not mentioned in "Management", as its focus is largely on the neighborhood rather than the park. As for the Friends group, it was "largely" dismantled, but a better wording would probably be "disorganized" or something similar. It didn't cease to exist at the time, but had shrunken from its largest extent. I have made that change. Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding the New York Post, I see it is considered unreliable at WP:RSP although I did see your comment at the RFC ([16]) saying that it is good for real estate articles. I will presume it is fine here, especially as there is very little, if anything, relating to politics

That's all I have to say. I'm happy to support once said comments are addressed. If an in depth source review is conducted and issues are found, I may change this decision, but I doubt that will happen. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Willbb234: Thanks again for the comments. I have addressed all the comments you've left above. Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

2000 Football League Second Division play-off Final[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Gosh, it's been a long long time since I nominated an article for FAC (FLC has been my main hang-out for many years), but after seeing the excellent work done by The Rambling Man with 1987 FA Cup Final, I decided to finally expand this article (which I got to GA in 2008 - heavens, was it really that long ago?) to a (hopefully) FA-worthy state. I have tried to write in a way which non-experts will be able to understand/follow (the use of some footballing terms is by definition unavoidable but hopefully I have kept it simple and avoided real jargon, but the odd bit might have slipped through, so feel free to pull me up on that). All comments will be most welcome and promptly acted upon. Disclaimer: I am a Gillingham fan and was at this game cheering them to victory, but I am confident that everything in the article is handled in a NPOV manner...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Image review—pass
  • Per WP:NFCC, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I do not see how omitting the promotional poster would be detrimental to the understanding of the article.
  • Other image licensing is OK. (t · c) buidhe 02:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
@Buidhe: - replaced with a free image -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kosack[edit]

  • "was a football match", I think it's generally preferred to got for "an association football match" to avoid ambiguity for our readers over the pond.
  • "1999–2000 season", I'd probably extend the link to season as well to make it crystal clear.
  • Should "the" be capitalised in "The Football League" when used mid-sentence like this?
  • Might be worth noting how the team's fared in the following season at the end of the lead, similar in fashion to TRM's articles
  • "them thanks to their 2–1 win", thanks sounds a little informal, perhaps replace with following or something similar?
  • "scored a goal for Gillingham", a goal is probably redundant here.
  • "previous season's Second Division play-off Final", worth linking to the article?
  • "with Darren Sheridan dominating", Sheridan has already been mentioned by this point so no need to use his first name again. Same with Iffy Onoura slightly further on.
  • Link crossed to Cross (association football).
  • "Simon Haworth flicked it up", no need for the first name again. Sheridan, Barlow and Ashby also have the same issue in the extra time section. Ty Gooden is also linked for a second time here too.
  • Defender is linked in the extra time section, by is used a few times before this. Move the link to the first usage.
  • What order are the substitutes listed in the details section? There doesn't seem any obvious ordering (number, position, alphabetical, etc?)
  • A few first name repeats in the post-mact section, Benson, Taylor, Hessenthaler.
  • "2002–03 season" include season in the link to match the rest of the article.
  • "penultimate game to take place" > to be played perhaps. The following sentence uses the take place wording again which is a little repetitive.

Hi Chris, nice to see you at FAC. This is a few points I picked out from an initial run through. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kosack: - all done (I think) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi @Kosack:, I was wondering if you were feeling able to support or oppose this nomination yet? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi, sorry I've been a bit limited for time recently and this slipped off my radar. Yes I'm happy to support. Kosack (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Edwininlondon[edit]

Hi Chris, quite impressive to see you have been contributing to WP since at least 2008. I am happy to review, but I'm afraid it will be in stages and not all at once. From a quick first reading I expect very little to be able to contribute, as I find the text well-written and a pleasure to read.

  • previous(ly) is used 3 times in short succession in opening paragraph
  • at the higher level; after losing --> I'm not a fan of semicolons, and it's your call of course, but using the semicolon here made me think the 2nd bit was also going to be about Gillingham.
  • Even He can’t put consistency into the referees". --> full sentence so I think it is ."
  • BBC --> link. I just realised I tend to use BBC Sport but for no conscious reason. Must have copied from someone else.
  • The odds on both teams were considered to be equal, at 5–6 --> as given by whom?
  • was Andy Hessenthaler's six-year-old son --> is the use of Andy here deliberate or just an oversight? And same question for Derek Stillie in next paragraph

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: all done. Oh, and BTW I have actually been contributing to WP since 2005. I feel old now :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
As a WP reader I say thank you for 16 years of contributions!

But enough with the niceties, on with the show :)

  • Shortly afterwards, Wigan were awarded --> awarded used twice on same line
  • with the commentary team stating that --> perhaps add Sky: the Sky commentary team
  • first corner kick of the game, but Wigan goalkeeper Stillie was able to catch --> not so sure about that "but". There is quite a bit implied here. Perhaps something along the lines of "but nothing came to it as Wigan goalkeeper..."
  • Four minutes before the end of the game --> the end of regular time you mean
  • "You feel cheated, but decisions like that are part of the game". --> ."
  • in a celebratory open-top bus parade. --> would it be nice to add perhaps where this took place?
    • From non-reliable sources I know that it was definitely in Gillingham (as one might expect), but the only reliable source I could find which mentions it (the one in the article) just refers to "the town". Do you think it's too much of a stretch to specifically state Gillingham in the article with that as the ref........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
The context in the source is clear. Fine to say Gillingham in article. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • before it was mostly demolished and a new stadium of the same name built in its place --> shouldn't there be a "was" before built?
    • No, I think it's OK as it is. It's like saying "The man was chucked out of the pub and told not to come back" - that reads more naturally than "The man was chucked out of the pub and was told not to come back" (IMO at least) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
      • No idea what made that the first example to come to mind, BTW :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Amusing example. Thanks for explaining to me. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • never written those players off, never". --> ."
  • is there anything to be said about the financial aspects of winning or losing this match? These days it has a big impact, going up or not, but was it like that 20 years ago?
    • I can't find any sources that talk about that. There's a lot of talk about the financial impact of going up from what is now the Championship to the Premier League, but I don't recall ever seeing much talk about the impact of going up from League One to the Championship...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
OK, it was just an idea. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

As I suspected, I could not make any significant contributions, just nitpicking. Nice work. Once I have time I will look at the sources. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Mostly amended - a few comments for you above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
OK, all fine. This weekend I will do a source review. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review:

  • Linking inconsistencies: the Independent is linked 2 out of 3 times. The Times and BBC Sport seem never linked. I believe there is no rule other than being consistent. I prefer to link every instance, but that's just me.
  • The locations of the publisher of the books are missing.

Spot check:

  • #1 all fine
  • #2 doesn't seem to cover this bit "one position ahead of Wigan Athletic" (I guess you can just add #1)
    • Done
  • #4 all fine except for the generic rules bit "with one game at each team's home stadium and the result determined based on the aggregate score of the two games". I assume that is covered by #5, which I can't access
    • Another ref added for good measure
  • #6 doesn't seem to cover these bits "Four days after the first leg matches took place, Wigan defeated Millwall 1–0" and " midfielder Darren Sheridan scored the only goal of the game in the second half" but #7 does, so I guess it's just a matter of moving #6 to the end of the sentence.
    • Done
  • #7 Fine. Oddly enough the BBC does not mention that the game went to extra time. So I guess you had to add #8, which I can't access
    • Yes, that ref does mention it, but I added another one for good measure
  • #9 ok
  • #65 ok
  • #40 I couldn't see the following bit exactly word for word: "These players, especially the ones that were here last year, deserved it. All season they've shown unbelievable character, and that's what they have done today. They never know when they are beaten"
    • Fixed - I forgot to copy a ref from elsewhere in the article
  • #47 ok
  • #66 ok
  • #67 ok
  • #68 ok
  • #21 ok
  • #69 ok
  • #70 is a dead link
Yes that is the one. It works fine for me now too. Odd. Just noticed though that the dates are not right.
  • #39 ok
  • #72 ok
  • #73 ok
  • #74 ok
  • #54 ok
  • #55 the timing is off here. I would say around 02:34:40
    • Done
  • #56 ok
  • #58 ok
  • #59 ok
  • #60 ok

That's it. I'll watch some more of that game on YouTube now. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Responses above to the second section. My tea is ready now so I will look at the first section later or tomorrow :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Book locations added, all publishers/works linked, fixed my own dumb typo in the dates of that ref -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Nice work. To the best of my knowledge this article now meets all criteria for FA, so Support from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
@Edwininlondon: - thanks for your support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi Edwininlondon, just checking for clarity: That is a pass for a source review, a spot check and a general review, yes? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Gog the Mild, sorry for not being clear. Yes, it is pass for source review, spot check and prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support this is a great article and is thorough, detailed, easy to read (and easy to understand). I made a few superficial alterations (such as adding some more wikilinks, a few MOS issues, some source format consistencies etc) but nothing substantial. Glad to support this as one of Wikipedia's finest articles. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Ambulocetus[edit]

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is about an amphibious whale from Pakistan about 50 million years ago which swam like an otter and behaved like a crocodile. It's one of the best known and iconic ancient whales.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Image licensing appears OK. (t · c) buidhe 20:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • "novel by James Rollins featuring Ambulocetus" - source?
should I cite the novel?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Does the novel name the subject? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
yes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • DOI in FN1 is returning an error. What kind of source is this?
it's a jstor id not a doi   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • FN6: "Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg" appears to be a series name rather than a journal name. What is the publisher? Is this an authorized republication?
it says it was uploaded to researchgate by Thewissen   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Who is the publisher, and is Thewissen legally able to upload this to Researchgate? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
on researchgate it lists the publisher as E. Schweizerbar, but on worldcat it gives Frankfurt am Main: Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft. I always just assume if one of the authors uploads it to researchgate it must be legal, otherwise they'd be breaching some kind of contract with the publisher   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I would be inclined to trust Worldcat over Researchgate. And yes, people breach contracts. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
added publisher   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

I'll add as I go along Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed you commented right now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • modern river otter— You put "river", but link to otter, which includes the sea otter. Either the "river" or the link is wrong
there is no river otter article, it's just a disamb page   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • sea lion, palaeontology — link?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Eocene cetaceans did not preserve limbs very well.—I assume you mean that the limbs did not preserve well, slightly odd sentence structure as is suggesting their active involvement. Also, some indication of why cetacean bones didn't fossilise well would be good
fixed wording. As for the fossil gap, no real explanation put forward for specifically cetaceans, but I'd assume it's because they evolved in a tropical region and tropics aren't exactly conducive for fossilization considering how efficient they are at recycling nutrients   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Should I also change "The holotype preserved seven neck vertebrae" and similar prose?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • They also estimated a length of roughly 300 cm (10 ft) long—"long" is redundant
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Alternatively, they also —"also" is redundant
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I've read the rest of the text, and I couldn't see any other issues. As for the holotype preserved..., I can see that you are avoiding the passive construction, but I'm not so bothered with the more abstract subject. With the one I commented on, I just had this image of these whales getting out their preserving pans... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support An excellent article, thorough and comprehensive. Well worthy of FA. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
While I still support the nomination, I have a concern that the license for the Eocene map in the last section of the article is not valid. Blakey's maps have been previously deleted from commons because they are under an incompatible license, and I don't think the word of the guy who runs "thearmchairexplorer.com" is an authoritative source to say otherwise. I don't think that removing the image would detract much from the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed the ResearchGate link as it is probably copyvio. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
It says "Maps © Ron Blakey, NAU Geology, Colorado Plateau Geosystems" but specifically makes the exception "Bottom map courtesy of Ron Blakey, NAU Geology, CCA-by-SA 4.0 License"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment[edit]

Three weeks in and only one support; this does not indicate a gathering consensus for promotion. Unless further general reviews are forthcoming in the next few days I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Slate Weasel[edit]

  • "from the Early Eocene (Lutetian) Kuldana Formation in Pakistan roughly 48 or 47 million years ago" - This feels a little confusing - perhaps change to "from roughly 48 or 47 million years ago, in the Early Eocene (Lutetian) Kuldana Formation in Pakistan".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "It contains one species" -> "It contains of one species"?
what?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Oops, I misread "contains" as "consist". Sorry about that, the wording in the article is indeed correct. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 14:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "and was the first cetacean postulated to have preserved a suite of adaptations consistent with an amphibious lifestyle" - "postulated to have preserved" feels a little odd here, perhaps change to "postulated to have had"?
"...was the first cetacean discovered preserving a suite of adaptations consistent..."
Excellent! --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 14:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Ambulocetus is classified in the group Archaeoceti" - Is Archaeoceti still in common usage despite its paraphyly?
it's common convention to split cetaceans into Neoceti (Mysticeti+Odontoceti) and Archaeoceti (all other more basal cetaceans)  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Optional: "the family Ambulocetidae, which includes" -> "the family Ambulocetidae, which also includes"
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Because of these" Perhaps it would be better to change this to something like "Because of these features" to clarify that this is not just about the eyes.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Might be worth it to gloss pachyostoic in the lead.
that's the point of the word "heavy"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
My one concern about that is its placement, as "heavy, pachyostoic" doesn't necessarily indicate that they're referring to the same thing (like "narrow, streamlined" immediately before this). However, my perspective may be somewhat skewed as I'm relatively familiar with the jargon (and perhaps overly worried about explanations), so I'm fine with just letting this be unless anyone else raises an objection. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 14:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The above comments all are about the article's lead. I look forward to continuing to read this article (also, it's cool to see a taxon as iconic as Ambulocetus at FAC)! I hope to go through the discovery section later in the day or sometime tomorrow. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 21:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  • "proximal tibia" Perhaps change to "proximal portion of a tibia"
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "An hour later, Arif discovered the limbs" I don't entirely understand this, as the femur and tibia are part of the limbs, as far as I know. Perhaps "discovered more of the limbs"?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • What does "HGSP" stand for?
Howard–Geological Survey of Pakistan (i.e., the funders)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "thoracolumbar series" - Might be good to explain what this is
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Optional: "Modern cetaceans (Neoceti) are grouped into either the parvorders Mysticeti (baleen whales) or Odontoceti (toothed whales), and Neoceti descended from the ancient Archaeoceti, whose members span the transition from terrestrial to fully aquatic." -> "Modern cetaceans (Neoceti) are grouped into either the parvorders Mysticeti (baleen whales) or Odontoceti (toothed whales). Neoceti is descended from the ancient Archaeoceti, whose members span the transition from terrestrial to fully aquatic."
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "After discovery," - What does this refer to? The discovery of archaeocetes, the discovery of Ambulocetus, or something else?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "They are also closely allied with the hoofed even-toed ungulates (Cetartiodactyla)." - The way this is said makes it sound like cetaceans and hippos don't belong in this group. Perhaps this could be changed to "Both lineages are members of the hoofed even-toed ungulates (Cetartiodactyla)."?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't have access to the publication cited for the cladogram, but if the relationships of the three ambulocetid genera are shown in the source cladogram (and assuming they're not just in a polytomy), it could be interesting to show this on the cladogram.
they're only known from jaw fragments and date to about the same time, so I don't think there're any cladogram relating the members of Ambulocetidae with each other   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

That's all that I have for the Taxonomy section! The Description section will be next (I may also review part of it later today). (I've also also clarified some of my points regarding the lead.) --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 14:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Define falcate, postglenoid foramen, paranasal sinuses, trigonid and talonid cusps, protocone, paracone, metacone
falcate is already described by where it is, added postglenoid, and paranasal sinus literally glosses itself in its own name. As for the cusps, it's better if they click on the hyperlink and go to the article and see this picture rather than me explaining it all in words   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't falcate mean sickle-shaped, though? Or is "falcate process" here the actual name of the structure (as opposed to it just being a process that is falcate)? The rationale for the tooth cusps makes sense, and the added definition (for the postglenoid foramen) looks good. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 21:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
"...have a falcate (sickle-shaped) process..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Unlike Pakicetus but like later archaeocetes," - Not sure if another comma's needed after "Pakicetus" there
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The snouts for Basilosaurus" -> "The snouts of Basilosaurus"?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The mandibular symphysis of most mammals is at the midline of the jaw, but it extends much farther in archaeocetes;" - I think that I understand what this is getting at, but the two phrases don't seem to be talking about the same thing (presumably the mandibular symphysis is still located along the jaw's midline in archaeocetes unless they've got asymmetrical mandibles). Perhaps rephrase as "The mandibular symphysis of archaeocetes extends farther back in the the jaw than in other mammals"? Might also be worth it to gloss mandibular symphysis
that is the gloss   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Isn't the mandibular symphysis where the mandibles fuse, though? I can't find mention of this in the paragraph. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 21:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
yes, that's why it encompasses the midline of the jaw   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The coronoid process of the mandible (where the lower jaw connects with the skull)" - Does the coronoid process actually connect to the cranium? This kind of makes it sound like the coronoid process is the jaw joint (although I might just be incorrectly applying reptilian anatomy to mammals here...)
well it forms part of it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Here's the review of the first two parts of the description section, sorry that it's a little later than I planned on doing it. I should be able to go through the rest of the description tomorrow. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 00:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  • "spinous and transverse processes (which jut upwards and obliquely from the centrum)" - I'd replace "centrum" with "vertebral body" in this instance, as that's more understandable to the average reader. Centrum should probably be glossed on the next mention
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Gloss "capitular facets"
that's the point of "on the top margin of both the frontward and tailward side to join with the ribs"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The holotype preserves 26 ribs, though it is thought to have had 32 in life" On each side, or in total?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "For the four preserved sacral vertebrae, the transverse processes of S1 are smaller than those of L8, and form a robust sacroiliac joint with the hip." I think that this should be split into two sentences in some way, as the second part doesn't seem to have much relevance to the other three sacrals.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "longer-than-broad" Are hyphens used in this phrase?
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Are there measurements for the radius and ulna, if they're complete?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "dorsolaterally (from left to right, and leaning towards the head)" Doesn't dorsolaterally refer to left to right and upwards (as opposed to forwards)?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The widening of the ischial width" This feels a little redundant, perhaps "The widening of the ischium"
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The femur measures 29 cm (11 in), which is similar to the presumably cursorial mesonychid Pachyaena." In shape or size?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

That's all I've got for the Description section. I'll go over Paleobiology tomorrow, and, with any luck, Paleoecology on Thursday. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 21:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  • "though probably did not have the agility to commonly consume them." Might be better to use "catch" instead of "consume", as that seems to be what agility would be needed for.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Optional: "much like modern river otters including the Pteronura, Lontra, and Lutra." -> "much like modern river otters including the giant otter, Lontra, and Lutra." This is more consistent, though perhaps less readable, so feel free not to do this.
  • Optional: "So, using river otters as a model" - Remove "so"
  • "So, using river otters as a model, Ambulocetus was possibly a pelvic paddler—swimming with alternating beats of the hindlimbs (without engaging the forelimbs)—and also undulated (move up and down) its tail while swimming.[9] Like otters, swimming was probably powered by undulation of both the tail and the torso." I find this a bit confusing. This paragraph seems to be noting that the hindlimbs were a major force of propulsion, coupled with movement of the axial column, but the last sentence seems to imply that movement of the axial column was the only means of propulsion used.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The pelvis and robust forelimbs could indicate Ambulocetus was capable of weight transfer (walking) on land" Why not just use the simpler term ("walking") here?
does a sea lion walk persay?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, I see what you mean (they sort of can, but definitely not very expertly). Perhaps something like "movement" or "locomotion" might work better for glossing weight transfer then. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 19:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "use their heavy, osteosclerotic ribs as ballasts." I'm pretty sure that "ballast" is uncountable (not needing the "s", though I might be wrong about this)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Nonetheless, a lot of the change to the external auditory apparatus occurred between Pakicetus and Ambulocetus." Not sure if "Nonetheless" is needed here, as nothing that would seem to contradict this was stated before.
contrasted with "but is smaller than later archaeocetes and toothed whales"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I just realized that I somewhat misunderstood this (I misread it as just being about the changes between Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, not the overall change in whale evolution as a whole). On account of that, "nonetheless" does indeed make sense. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 19:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I've added some comments on the Paleobiology section above. One other thing I've thought of: the "Torso" section of the Description also discusses the neck and tail, which are not part of the torso. Perhaps it should be renamed? I'm struggling to think of what it could be changed to and still reference ribs, though. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 16:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  • "as opposed to the icehouse climate of today, so, in general, areas were much warmer than today" Not sure if the "than today" is needed at the end
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Middle Eocene Climatic Optimum" It should be explained what this is
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The waters off the western coast seem to have featured upwelling and low-oxygen." Not sure if "low oxygen" needs to be hyphenated
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "These beds alternate with showing marine deposits." As opposed to terrestrial deposits? It might be clearer to phrase it as "These beds alternate between showing marine deposits and" the other type of deposits.
it is as opposed to terrestrial deposits   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "A redbed underlies this layer, followed by grey, green, and purple freshwater mud, silts, sandstones, and limestone. These beds alternate with showing marine deposits. The formation begins with 10 m (33 ft) of grey and green mud, silt, and sandstone, containing two bivalve beds near this locality." I find this a little confusing - is the lowest part of the formation part of the series of beds described by the previous sentence, or is it located above/below them?
the key words are "near the locality"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The first often stretches only one shell" What exactly does this mean?
the first shell bed is usually 1 shell deep   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, as in there's only room for one shell between the top and bottom boundaries? I was wondering if this had something to do with index fossils. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 21:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The upper Kuldana Formation may be contemporaneous with the Subathu Formation." Are Ambulocetus or other archaeocetes also found in the Subathu Formation? This feels a little random.
Subathu is terrestrial so it has a lot of rodents   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm failing to grasp how it's connected to Ambulocetus, though. Is it directly connected to the Kuldana Formation, or just laid down at the same time? --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 21:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
it was laid down at the same time   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Aren't there multiple formations with Lutetian deposits, though? Why mention this one in particular? --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 20:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "the fish Stephanodus," Might be nice to add a more specific group in front of "fish"
"pycnodontid fish" isn't that elucidating   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Link crocodiles. Turtle should be linked on first mention as well (which is under Hearing)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Perhaps clarify that Anthracobune is an anthracobunid?
not the most helpful descriptor   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
It's already been explained what anthracobunids are further up in the article though, though not Anthracobune itself. Currently there's no descriptor in front of it, and while the reader could draw the connection between the two terms, I think that it's probably safest to clarify it here (as taxonomic names can be misleading). --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 21:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Other archaeocetes are:" Might be nice to specify that these archaeocetes are from the same geological unit. I'd also use "include" instead of "are:" but this latter part is just preference and therefore totally optional.
include implies it's an incomplete list   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Good point, I should probably remember that for the future in my own writing. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 21:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Not sure if the novel listed under See Also really needs to be there, as it doesn't have an article and the single paragraph devoted to it on the author's page doesn't mention Ambulocetus.
Ambulocetus is central to the plot, and there's not enough other material for a pop culture section, so See also seems perfect   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Has it had a major impact on the perception of Ambulocetus in popular culture though? Unless its impact has been mentioned in a reliable source, I'd be inclined to remove it. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 21:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
if it had a significant impact then there'd be a pop culture section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
But if the novel doesn't have a significant impact, then why add it at all? While Ambulocetus may not have a huge presence in fiction, there definitely are other works of fiction that feature other taxa in just as great prominence, and with some (such as house mice or Tyrannosaurus) listing these would effectively flood their articles with single line mentions of books. Since we wouldn't do that there, I don't see why we would do it differently here. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 20:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
You have to take into account scope, like you wouldn't talk about the molar cusps of Smilodon but you would for a taxon only known by teeth   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I still would disagree here. I won't deny that dental anatomy carries much more weight for, say Pectinodon than Gobivenator, as that is the sole basis for the former's existence as a distinct genus, but I'm unconvinced that such reasoning applies to pop culture stuff (instead, I see it more as why we wouldn't go into specific details of troodontid postcranial anatomy in Pectinodon). Elasmosaurus and Allosaurus, for instance, have been featured multiple times in popular culture but do not have popular culture sections or any appearances in fiction listed, simply because, presumably, there just isn't enough on this topic in published sources to warrant this. However, I think that this may be more of an issue of editing philosophy, and am willing to let it drop unless other editors bring it up (though this general topic of pop culture stuff could, perhaps, warrant discussion at the project page sometime). --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 22:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

And that's all from me! This has been an interesting read. Hopefully these comments have been helpful! --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 22:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I've responded to some of the above comments. Additionally, I found one more minor thing: Mangroves should be linked in the article body. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 21:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

FunkMonk[edit]

  • Marking my spot until I get more time to review. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It's a bit odd that there's a section called "head", when it is only about the skull, and all other palaeontology articles call it skull.
  • Perhaps a photo of just the skull would be better in the section about it:[17]
added
  • A bunch of terms (excluding the cladogram) are duplinked.
I found 2   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Tibia and femur is still duplinked. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Other specimens initially found" Have others been found since?
none that I can see   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Is this[18] another specimen or a cast of the holotype? It shows the bones in the position they were found, which may be interesting to show.
there's copyrighted artwork behind it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I've removed it:[19] FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what it's actually showing because that's not the complete holotype (maybe all that was known by the time it was described?)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The German text on the window says the bottom is the skeleton as it was found and the hanging is in swimming posture. It is interesting to show how the bones were found. FunkMonk (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Mohammad Arif and Hans Thewissen" Occupations andn nationalities? You give it for people mentioned further down.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "to recover land mammal fossils in the Kala Chitta Hills" Any background to this? Why there, and why specifically land mammals?
  • Explain femur at first mention (thigh bone).
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "tibia (at the knee joint)" I think you also need to specify this is a lower leg bone.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "found the teeth near the end of the field season, which are characteristically" since the story is told in past tense, you would say "which were". I know they still exist, but it doesn't flow as well.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "for the rest skeleton" missing "of the".
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "and the species name natans "swimming" The way this is written, you need "means" in there.
no it doesn't "The genus name comes from Latin... and the species name..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The formation is constrained" Name the formation again, this is long after your first mention.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "during the Lutetian stage" State it is Eocene too.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Other specimens initially found were HGSP 18473 (a second premolar), HGSP 18497 (a third premolar), HGSP 18472 (a tail vertebra), and HGSP 18476 (lower portion of a femur)." This is written as if they belonged to different individuals, are they from the holotype specimen, just with different numbers?
those were listed under "referred materials", separate from holotype   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Ok, so there are more than one individual involved after all. But the intro still says "It is known primarily from a single skeleton which is about 80% complete". FunkMonk (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
this is still a true statement, it is primarily known from the 80% complete skeleton and not these 4 other isolated elements   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "In 2009, some more elements of the holotype's jawbone were identified." Discovered in the field, or among the already collected fossils?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "is a partial skeleton initially discovered preserving a partial skull" One "partial" could be replaced by "incomplete" to avoid repetition.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "the only evidence of this in the fossil record was the 52-million-year-old (fully terrestrial) Pakicetus" Add "prior to the discovery of Ambulocetus" for clarity.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "and a hypothesised link between cetaceans and the Paleocene mesonychids" This is not evidence, so you should state it on its own like "and a link between x and y had been hypothesised".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ""Modern cetaceans (Neoceti) are grouped into either" What is the first citation mark for?
typo   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This image[20] that shows Ambulocetus from a new angle (front) along with another primitive whale could nicely fill the white space next to the cladogram.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph under Discovery is entirely about evolution. I think it could either be moved under classification, or there could be a subsection called evolution.
it's more about significance than evolution   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "(Neoceti) are grouped into either the parvorders Mysticeti (baleen whales) or Odontoceti (toothed whales). Neoceti is descended from the ancient Archaeoceti" Link these clade names.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "paraphyletic" Add it is an unnatural group.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Upon species description, Ambulocetus was" You could say original description instead to make it clearer.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "and their somewhat similar physiology" I think what you mean is morphology.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The oldest identified cetacean is the ambulocetid Himalayacetus" You should make it clear this was named after Ambulocetus.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there no available cladogram that shows the genera within its family? What is its closest relative?
no since the other 2 are only known from fragments   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "the holotype of Pakicetus attocki" Why full binomial once?
there are multiple species of Pakicetus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "or comparison, the holotype of Pakicetus attocki may have been 140 cm (4 ft 7 in) long.[4] In 1996, they estimated weight" Since the last genus you mention is Pakicetus, it is unclear whose weight you mention afterwards.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "In 2013, Gingerich estimated a weight of 720 kg (1,590 lb), similar to modern cetaceans, based on vertebral size." Not sure what this means. By comparing with modern cetaceans?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It seems extremely WP:trivial to have a book without an article under see also, whose summary doesn't even mention this genus.
Ambulocetus is important to the book   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Like other archaeocetes which preserve this aspect" Aspect is a bit odd to use, element or part would be clearer.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "the base of the skull undulates both towards the front and the back of the head" It's a bit difficult to envision what this means. How does the source phrase it?
better?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Remingtonocetid snouts are quite narrow, which was clearly not the case for Ambulocetus." How is this known?
I don't understand the question, that's like asking how do we know 'Smilodon had saber teeth   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • " by wider gaps (diastema)" Since gaps is plural, you should use the plural of diastema, which would be diastemata.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Ambulocetus skeleton reconstructed with incisors" Why is it necessary to point this out in particular, when the whole snout is reconstructed? Is there any reason to believe it didn't have incisors?
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In one caption of artwork you say reconstruction, in another you say restoration. Both can be used, but it looks better to be consistent. You can also pipelink paleoaert, as some reviewers have trouble understanding those terms sometimes.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • There are some more answers left to earlier comments above I'd like responses to before continuing.
  • "Giant otter swimming at Tierpark Hagenbeck" Captions should establish their relevance to the text if it isn't apparent.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Map of the Earth 50 million years ago" Likewise, you could add something like "around the time Ambulocetus lived".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The Thankful Poor[edit]

Nominator(s): GeneralPoxter (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the 1894 painting The Thankful Poor by Henry Ossawa Tanner. GeneralPoxter (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Image review—pass, see talk for details (t · c) buidhe 09:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Support[edit]

On 1a-e and 3. (t · c) buidhe 20:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

Thank you for the proposal of an unusual topic! I'll look at the lead last.

Background

  • "photographed models which Tanner shot" sounds a bit violent ;)
I didn't realize that until now! The wording has been changed. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Analysis

  • We talked (in the peer review) about the average reader perhaps not being familiar with Annunciation, - what do you think of creating short articles on those two paintings? It would help understanding without blowing up this article.
I feel like that writing up articles for the two shouldn't be that hard, especially since there are images of both paintings on WikiMedia Commons. I'll see what I can do. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I see a certain contradiction in "ritual experience" here and "ordinary moment" there, for the same scene. Perhaps I misunderstand "ordinary" - English is not my first language.
Ritual means that it is a religious ceremony done in a "prescribed order" according to Google. I believe praying a table would satisfy being both "ritual" for its religiosity and rigidity as well as "ordinary" for its frequency. However, I do agree that using "ordinary" does undermine the specialness of the moment (I even use a quote in the next sentence describing the scene as "extraordinary", so definitely a contradiction!). I replaced "ordinary moment" with "African-American religious custom" since I feel its more descriptive that way. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Consider to move the Banjo lesson from the gallery to above, where it's mentioned, - it gets a bit lost next to the large lighter one.
I think that's a good idea. Done GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I could imagine his parents' beliefs and school founding in the background section, - and if in Analysis, then perhaps sooner?
Reading it over again, I have to agree with the rather awkward structuring of the article there. I rearranged some of the content concerning Tanner's upbringing. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

That's it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Next round: Thank you for moving passages, and creating a new article! I shuffled the images a bit, to context, and we should not "sandwich" text between images. One thing wanted for featured articles - and actually all articles - is that we provide an "alt" parameter for each image, describing what's to be seen for someone who can't see it, - imagine someone blind. Not too detailed! Perhaps compare FAs about images. Otherwise, I'm pleased, but will wait with a support because when others will comment, things may change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

All right, I finished adding alt texts. How do they look? I hope I got them right the first time. GeneralPoxter (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, they look good, but I'd expand the very first one because it's the subject, - "opposite", "African American" and the modesty of the food should be mentioned, I think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
All right, done. GeneralPoxter (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Gerda Arendt are you ready to support now? Coords say the nom may be archived soon without support. (t · c) buidhe 13:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for the ping. I looked again. While I am happy with the second half, I'd prefer to see Background more in chronological order: first his parents, upbringing, and beliefs, then the rather specific Banjo. If I am the only one with such a concern I can support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
    I prefer the current organization of background, except that I think the last paragraph should be moved up. Also, I still think that the background length is too long compared to the article and I would be looking for ways to trim nonessential info. (t · c) buidhe 19:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
    Gerda Arendt and Buidhe, I made changes to the Background section as best I could. Please let me know what you think. GeneralPoxter (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
    I like the new order much better. I'll look again tomorrow, please check the section once more. First we hear religious - which could be any religion, later specifically which Methodist. Not every sentence there needs to connect to the painting ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
    The current first sentence (!) reads: "The Christian religious education observed in the The Thankful Poor's depiction of a young boy imitating his elder praying can be traced to the educational values of Tanner's parents, who both graduated from Avery College and went on to found schools."
    1. I think it's too complicated, whatever the content.
    2. "Christian" is still very broad, and a link distracting.
    3. The "the The" is to be avoided.
    4. I am not sure "educational values" is a good expression, - it could have too many meanings.
    5. "can be traced" sounds like something hardly visible (traces) while I think it's the core thing.
    How about trying to not even mention the painting in the first (!) sentence. We know already that the artivcle is about that painting. This section is Background: parents, education, values, when and where painted, how old was he, in which situation, - that's what I'd like to know in the section. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
    Hello Gerda Arendt, thank you for the detailed comments! I made changes as best I could; let me know what you think. GeneralPoxter (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
    I like it much better. Two little things: In "the denomination encouraged education among African Americans and founded colleges." I think it needs at least a comma after Americans, ot that would still be "among", no? Also, in the sentence about Tanner and the bishop, can we avoid the repetition of Tanner in that they agree? I trust that you will find solutions and support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for the support and suggestions. I'm not sure which sentence you refer to "about Tanner and the bishop", but I assumed it was referring to the one in Background about race and Bishop Tanner's lectures and sermons? GeneralPoxter (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry, my memory ... - no, "Tanner was also influenced by family friend and educator Booker T. Washington, with whom Tanner shared the belief that skills should be communicated from one generation to another". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
    All right, done. GeneralPoxter (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Buidhe[edit]

  • Background section has grown quite long, it seems some of this info is not directly related to the painting. For instance, I think much of the material in the paragraph starting "Tanner's first major work of this sort was the The Banjo Lesson" belongs in The Banjo Lesson article but not this one. (t · c) buidhe 22:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Hello buidhe, yes I would have to say the Background section is getting quite bloated. I cut one irrelevant detail and moved another to a footnote, but I'm not sure if I should go any further. I want to keep the stereotyped criticism there because it sets the social context for The Thankful Poor. Scholars like Professor Woods argue that such comments may have contributed to Tanner's departure from African American subjects following The Thankful Poor, and this idea is alluded to in the History section. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I would still say that the background section is longer than ideal, but I'll defer to you as to what is essential information. Whenever writing (esp. background sections), consider "Does this help the reader understand the topic (The Thankful Poor in this case)? If it does not, axe it. With Wikipedia articles, sometimes "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." (t · c) buidhe 22:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Naurice Frank Woods believes..." Whenever you introduce an attributed statement like this, always explain (very briefly) what the credentials are and why the reader should care. For example, "Art historian Naurice Frank Woods..." (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • All right I added Woods' credentials. I believe Woods is the only source I mentioned by name without including credentials—unless I'm mistaken. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Buidhe, thanks for the *partial* support! However, I'm having trouble trimming and restructuring the Background section down any further. I was wondering whether you could offer any suggestions on which particular sentences could be considered for deletion or rearrangement? GeneralPoxter (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Source for dimensions?
  • Etinde-Crompton appears to be a children's book - what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • Missing publisher for Wilson
  • White House Historical Association is a publisher, not a work. Ditto Smithsonian American Art Museum, check others
  • The Princeton University 'Commons' site appears to host student work - who is the author of the specific source cited?
  • How does Baker meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Hello! I added a ref for the dimensions; cut Etinde-Crompton, Princeton, and Baker from the sources and replaced them with pre-existing sources along with a biography on Tanner for one quote; and I had the website parameters changed to publisher whenever applicable (i.e. every time I used it). Let me know if there's more I can do. GeneralPoxter (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
ARTNews and International Review are both work titles so should still use website (the latter can split out Hampton as publisher). The detail added for Wilson is a website, not a publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I made the appropriate changes for ArtNews and International Review, but on the pdf for Wilson, it says "Published by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst, 1992" in the lower left. GeneralPoxter (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
You already cut it by a good amount. If that's all that can give it's ok. (t · c) buidhe 21:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Placeholder

  • Have been following the expansion over the last several weeks. Comments to follow. Ceoil (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Ceoil following up... (t · c) buidhe 15:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Also wondering whether Johnbod could take a look if they have time (Theramin referred me to them)? The review process sort of slowed down this last week. GeneralPoxter (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment[edit]

This is nearly three weeks in with no indications of support for promotion. Unless this changes in the next two or three days, the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado[edit]

I have started looking at this. Apart from a copyedit, it is looking good so far. --15:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This is the first time I have been able to review an article at FAC without any substantial comments. This is how FAC is supposed to be. I review in particular for quality of prose and flow, lack of inconsistencies and lack of sentences that raise more questions than they answer. If only to prove I did in fact read through the article I have a couple of minor comments:

  • As a purely stylistic matter, I think lower-case alpha notes are clearer in the callout superscripts than upper-case alpha: that is the author's choice though.
  • In note D, British idiom would say that a price established in the past "was" rather than "is". Not sure about American idiom which would clearly be more appropriate in this case.

--Mirokado (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions Mirokado! I'm not sure if American idiom has rules on this, but it makes logical sense for the verb to be in the past tense. However, I didn't change the notelist letter casing since it seems many of the featured art articles also use upper case (then again, those articles all seem to have been nominated and/or written by the same editor). GeneralPoxter (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)h
Thank you for the response. Support. --Mirokado (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Tecumseh[edit]

Nominator(s): Kevin1776 (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

It's been 14 years since I've submitted a Featured Article candidate, but winter and COVID conspired to bring me back. This article is, I believe, an important one. Two centuries after Tecumseh's death, he is still widely admired and studied, and places continue to honor him with new memorials. The internet is filled with old myths about Tecumseh, long since corrected in scholarly sources. This article can now serve as a source of reliable information that's hard to find online. Thank you for your time and attention. Kevin1776 (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment, watchlisting with an eye towards eventually supporting, you can install user:Evad37/duplinks-alt to check for duplicate links, which are a judgment call, as some can be justified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
    • That's a neat tool, thanks. Kevin1776 (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
      Please ping me to review after source check is done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Image review pass per ACR. (t · c) buidhe 02:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment[edit]

  • Citations: Several page ranges have "p." when they should have 'pp.'.
  • Sources: Not all books have publisher locations.
  • Infobox: All entries should start with an uppercase letter.
  • There are a lot of duplicate Wikilinks.

Gog the Mild (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Very helpful, these have been fixed, thanks! Kevin1776 (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

HF[edit]

I'll take a look at this in the coming days. Might claim for WikiCup points. Hog Farm Talk 06:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Because we've been having issues with a lot of stuff being transcluded onto individual FAC pages and then causing issues where not all of the FAC page will show, I'll be leaving my comments on the talk page of this FAC. Hog Farm Talk 04:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments have been posted. Hog Farm Talk 05:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Support on WP:FACR 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4, did not check the others. Hog Farm Talk 06:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dumelow See talk page

  • Done! Thank you so much for this review. I've made adjustments to address these issues. I've added the IPA pronunciation for "Tecumtha" in the body of the article; this pronunciation may be far too uncommon now for the lede, perhaps. Kevin1776 (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Your changes look good, Support on prose. I've moved my comments to the talk page as there is an issue with the length of the FAC listings page - Dumelow (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Phonology of Shawnee name

  • /tɪˈkʌmθə/ looks suspiciously like English phonology, according to Shawnee language#Sounds the language does not have any of these vowel phonemes. (This academic paper agrees). In order to keep this a better source is needed. The Wikipedia article on Shawnee also states that stress in Shawnee is ultimate rather than penultimate as claimed here. (t · c) buidhe 04:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I think you're right. We'll have to stick to the earlier version without the IPA. Kevin1776 (talk) 05:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment[edit]

This has been open for over a month and has only picked up one general support. Unless there is considerably more indication that a consensus to promote is starting to form over the next two or three days, I am afraid that the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, I will look in, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I thought and hoped that you might. Thanks Sandy. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Leaning support, beautifully written, minor queries on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Support a fine piece of work that fills a previous hole in the internet! I suspect Victoriaearle may want to read it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Reiterate support after reading through new reviews below mine; it is important to stick with high quality sources, and avoid the myths and lesser quality sources, as Kevin1776 has done. Wikipedia does not lead; it follows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Kevin1776, I'm sorry that I didn't know earlier that this was at FAC. Not sure I can get to it in the time remaining but suggest leaving a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America and more specifically asking Montanabw, who might be active. Also re the pronunciation of the names it might be useful to ask Maunus (if he's active) as he's a specialist. I've pinged both but it's okay to ask on their pages. Tell them I sent you. If I get some time, I'll try to get back here, but can't promise. Victoria (tk) 00:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • There is no "s" sound in Shawnee, and the earliest recordings of his name give either tecumtha[21] or tecumthé. If our own page on Shawnee language is correct the pronunciation had to be [tekom'θe]. 09:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)·maunus · snunɐɯ·
This corroborates tekomthé as the best approximation.[22] Also it seems a source that could be incorporated.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm not sure if a newspaper column is the type of source we want to cite, but fortunately the pronunciation it gives (Tecumthé) is already cited in our article. Kevin1776 (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
"Tecumthé" is a problematic spelling, I think it should be complemented with a phonetic representation as [tekom'θe]. C is a ambiguous consonant with no geneally agreed upon pronunciation, and the vowel u is wrong since there is no u sound in Shawnee either. So in phonetic rendering it must be tekomthé (In english the u is often used to represent short o). I also think the Shawnee name should appear in the definition sentence - since this must be considered his real name. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I trust your knowledge on the ipa rendering, I just don't know how to cite it without straying into original research. Kevin1776 (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Can we use this source (already cited in the article) and have Maunus render the IPA, or does the IPA need a source? Victoria (tk) 20:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments by Maunus[edit]

  • I would encourage that in articles about topics related to indigenous peoples, one make an effort to include the voices and perspectives of the relevant communities, even if that sometimes means citing sources that are not academically published. Sticking strictly to established ideas of "reliable sources" unfortunately sometimes means, excluding those who have the most intiomate knowledge because they don't have access to academic venus of publication. I would certainly try to find ways to include contemporary Shawnee views of Tecumseh in the article. The legacy section for example does not say anything about how Shawnee people today see him, or how theyv have been affected by his actions. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
    • An article by the current chief of the Shawnee Tribe, Ben Barnes, is cited in the article, but I agree more on his legacy among Shawnees today would be good. Your suggestion about altering the definition of "reliable sources" is a Wikipedia policy decision beyond the scope of what we can do here, I believe. Kevin1776 (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I am not talking about altering the definition in policy, but about how that definition can be applied in articles about different topics. There is nothing in policy that says a testimony in Indian Country Today is not a reliable source per definition.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • One source of Shawnee views of Tecumseh, might be this book. Especially the first chapter after the introduction deals with the conflict internally in the Shawnee tribe around time of Tecumseh's war- focusing on two Shawnee leaders who fought on the American side against Tecumseh - Captain Lewis and Black Hoof.
    • That book is cited in the article. There's not a lot about Tecumseh in that book, since it focuses on Shawnees who did not follow his path. BTW I've cited that chapter you mention extensively in my draft article on Captain Lewis here. Kevin1776 (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Great.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • And here is an eye witness account of Tecumseh's death[23].
    • There are many such accounts, of varying reliability. Scholars have examined them all in depth. Is there something about this primary source that caught your eye? Kevin1776 (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Only that it was recently made available on that website. If there is a lot of discussion about the sources and circumstances regarding his death, then I think the article should reflect that.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • And an article about the debastes about who killed him: Simmons, D. A. (2012). " Thus Fell Tecumseh": The 1813 Struggle for the Northwest Territory, and the Mystery Surrounding Who Killed Tecumseh, Revealed through the Personal Accounts of the Participants by Frank E. Kuron. Michigan Historical Review, 38(1), 161-162.
  • And here is a book that can be used to flesh out the account of the events at Vincennes[24].
  • And here is an article that tells of how Tecumseh has been used differently by Indigenous and non-indigenous canadians in telling their relations with the British Empire.Brownlie, J. (2017). " Our fathers fought for the British": Racial Discourses and Indigenous Allies in Upper Canada. Histoire sociale/Social history, 50(102), 259-284.
  • Here is another by Brownlie on Tecumseh's legacy and commemorations:Brownlie, Robin Jarvis. "COMMEMORATING TECUMSEH." Canadian Issues/Thèmes Canadiens (2012)
  • And Gordon Sayre has a chapter on Tecumseh in his "The Indian Chief as Tragic Hero: Native Resistance and the Literatures of America, from Moctezuma to Tecumseh. Sayre mentions that in the biography of Benjamin Drake there are some materials from an account by Stephen Ruddell, who lived as a prisoner with the Shawnee and knew Tecumseh as he was growing up - he mentions that he disliked the practice of torturing prisoners. This might be something to include. ·maunus · .snunɐɯ· 18:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The modern biographies of Tecumseh draw extensively on Drake's materials and Ruddell's testimony. Kevin1776 (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Good. I think the article might want to mention Ruddell as a source of information about Tecumseh then.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • There is an article on the New Madrid earthquake's that discusses how they aided him n securing support in Alabama - apparently suggesting he might have known about the area's history of earthquake (judging from the abstract). Hough, Susan Elizabeth, and Roger G. Bilham. "Tecumseh’s Legacy: The Enduring Enigma of the New Madrid Earthquakes." In After the Earth Quakes. Oxford University Press.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I concur with Montanabw that it would be beneficial to try to give a better idea of what SHawnee politics was like, than one gets by just saying he was a "chief" - I think footnote 4 should be in the actual text, perhaps with some citations. Also the fact that a "chief" had no coecive power and dependened entirely on whether people chose to follow their lead, would perhaps be relevant to emphasize a bit more even. Lakomäki describes this for war leaders (he does not say war "chief" does he?), and how you can demand being recognized as war leader but that doesn't mean anyone will actually consider you that. The Shawnee terms for peace/clan leader and war leader are Hokima and 'Neenawtooma respectively, which should probably also be in the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, btw, Lakomäki uses the term "war chief" often. Kevin1776 (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

comments by Montanabw[edit]

  • I’ll leave a notice at WP Indigenous people of NA.
  • But as it sits, the first thing that leapt out at me was overuse of the word “chief.” It pops up 21times. That’s the white man’s word and should be minimized in its use (i.e. mostly if used direct quotes from historic documents, etc.). The exception is if the nation themselves has officially adopted the term “chief” as a formal title or honorific. This needs to be examined. Usually the word “leader” is a better word, and particularly watch out for overuse of “chief” with other people mentioned in passing.
  • I wouldn’t fret too much on the pronunciation issue, I’d use both the standard way the name is spelled and pronounced by mainstream historians with IPA and ALSO put in the traditional transliteration with as close as possible sourced actual pronunciation of how he may have said his own name, i.e. “Tecumseh (IPA), in Shawnee Tekomthé (pronunciation) [citation]...”
  • I share the perspective of Maunus that relying too much on academic sources, particularly older ones, is fraught. Absent tribal views, too much academic content is prone to inaccurately portray native perspective and promote colonialism. Seeking content from present-day official sources from the Shawnee tribes, tribal colleges, and so on is wise.

Ping me at my talkpage if you want me to take another run. I’m not on WP a ton, but I’ve got my settings so TP messages shoot me an email Montanabw(talk) 02:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

My guess is that Ben "that's Chief to you" Barnes, current chief of the Shawnee Tribe (who's cited in the article), and Glenna Wallace, current chief of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe (author of "Chiefs of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe") might be surprised to learn from Wikipedia that they have "white man's" titles. Kevin1776 (talk) 08:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

SMS Nymphe (1863)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This was the first screw corvette built for the small Prussian Navy in the early 1860s; the