Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the criteria to become a featured article, see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.
For the similar process page for good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.
Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this 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 and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—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.

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

Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed.

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

Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere.

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

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC):

Featured article review (FAR):

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating

[edit]
How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived.
  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, etc

[edit]
Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

Shortcut
  • 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. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements.
  • 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.


Shortcut

Nominations

[edit]

Get Him Back!

[edit]
Nominator(s): NØ 16:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Olivia Rodrigo's song "Get Him Back!", closing out the rock segment of the Guts World Tour. When this article was first created, I damn near started World War 3. But I am my father's daughter, so maybe I could fix it? "Get Him Back!" incorporates a similar mood transition to the songs from my last two nominations, and it also features some impeccable rapping skills in the verses. It reminds me of "In the End", although that song is older than Rodrigo... Considered one of the best songs of 2023 by several publications and having a great music video and performances, this should make for a good read. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 16:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Black Slave's Cry to Heaven

[edit]
Nominator(s):  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a student stage performance that ran for all of two shows. Why is it important? Because one of the performers went on to become one of the PRC's leading drama theorists, and in part due to his influence the play was canonized as the country's first modern drama. The article provides a comprehensive review of the literature, including Ouyang Yuqian's essay that seems to have provided the main source of information for most subsequent studies. Through a friend at Waseda, I was also able to gain access to a contemporary review, which was nice. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tennena Cone

[edit]
Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 04:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a small subglacial volcano on the southwestern flank of Mount Edziza in British Columbia, Canada, and is a part of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex series of articles, three of which I have brought to FA class (Mount Edziza, Mount Edziza volcanic complex and Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex) so far. Unlike other volcano articles I have brought to FA, there appears to be no information about volcanic hazards for Tennena Cone. This may be because it's a minor volcanic feature or because the cone is monogenetic (the Wood & Kienle source describes the Mount Edziza volcanic complex as a "group of overlapping basaltic shields, felsic stratovolcanoes, domes, small calderas and monogenetic cones"). Monogenetic volcanoes are typically considered to erupt only once and to be short-lived. Pinging Generalissima since they claimed to have admired my dedication to the Mount Edziza volcanic complex in the last FAC. Volcanoguy 04:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (passed) and support from Crisco 1492

[edit]

I reviewed this at GA and was impressed already. Happy to support this for FAC on prose. As for media:

1929–30 Gillingham F.C. season

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One day I will tire of working on these Gillingham F.C. season articles. Today is not that day :-) In this particular season Gillingham did quite poorly once again, including losing a match to a team who had been beaten earlier in the season by Gillingham's reserve team. One of the few highlights was Fred Cheesmur scoring all six goals in a game late in the season, a new club record for a Football League game. Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and acted upon as swiftly as possible -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kitsuragi

[edit]
Nominator(s): Shooterwalker (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kitsuragi is the most well-developed character in Disco Elysium, a critically acclaimed game that is often included among List of video games considered the best. The player is left to imprint their own ideas onto the player-character, while Kim Kitsuragi acts as their tutorial, mentor, conscience, and comedic foil. Critics have noted how Kim Kitsuragi is one of the best video game companions, not just for being an interesting character, but for being an interesting game character. Critics have gushed about these many small yet memorable moments of reactivity, making the player feel that their actions and choices matter. By that interactive standard, I think Kim Kitsuragi might be one of the best examples of a video game character, period.

This article reached WP:GA a few weeks ago. Crisco 1492 reviewed it with comments at Talk:Kim Kitsuragi/GA1, suggesting that this would have an easy time at FAC. I have taken a few additional steps to make sure this is ready for FA. I feel that the prose is of high quality. I also believe the sources are also of high quality, though I'd draw attention to Valnet sources. While I agree that they offer minimal value for the sake of notability, this article is clearly notable, and briefly mentioning them does help illustrate why this character is so celebrated. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review and support from Crisco 1492

[edit]
  • Happy to see this here.

Images:

Rereading the article...

  • Any story beats worth including in the lede?
  • is designed for greater reactivity to the player's choices - Maybe "is designed to react to the player's choices"?
  • "his sexuality, who confirms that his is gay with a witty remark." - feels a bit awkward. Perhaps "his sexuality; he confirms that he is gay with a witty remark."
  • statistics - as in the character sheet? Is there a good target link for this?
  • human-computer interaction should be human–computer interaction per MOS:ENBETWEEN
  • The Mary Sue has noted his popularity in making Disco Elysium one of the best games ever written.[42] - perhaps "The Mary Sue has noted his popularity as a factor in making Disco Elysium one of the best games ever written.[42]"?

Overall, excellent piece. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went through all the fixes. It's possible they might get another revision, depending on what other editors say. A note: I couldn't figure out how to fix the nitpick around File:Robert Kurvitz in 2020.jpg, and often have challenges dealing with images. I'm normally pretty good with everything else, but is this something you can help with? Shooterwalker (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PMC

[edit]

Ah, how can I not jump in to review the best character of all time, the unrepentant spoilsport Kim Kitsuragi? Comments within the week, ping if I let it slide. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and citation formats by BP!

[edit]
  • Most of the publishers/websites aren't linked yet
  • ref 21, Destructoid wasn't italicized yet
  • What makes Phenixx Gaming, Comic Book Resources (this is probably a low quality source as a valnet only in video games that should be removed), Vooks, Sirus Gaming reliable? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for doing the source review. Let me see if I can address these concerns:
    • Comic Book Resources: Valnet is listed as "Situational" at WP:VG/RS. I wouldn't want to set a bad precedent where CBR is given more than its due weight. But I think the declaration of "gaming's best companion" is worth mentioning and preserving.
    • Vooks: This one has an editor-in-chief[1], and has been operating for 25 years.
    • Sirus Gaming: This one has an editor-in-chief and process for reporting issues with their reviews.[2]
    • Phenixx Gaming: This one has an editor-in-chief[3], and talks about transparency and credibility in their "About Us".
    If I had to stick up for one, it would be Phenixx Gaming. There is also some nuance around the use of Valnet, and how to use it situationally. I would normally let these shorter mentions go, but with a lot of reliable news sites being decimated by layoffs, I think it's important to support the less famous sites that still show a commitment to fact-checking and accuracy. Let's keep discussing. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. I guess I don't have other issues with this article so far. However, you would also make sure to italicize game and film titles in the citation titles per MOS:CONFORMTITLE. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Indiana Jones: The Original Adventures

[edit]
Nominator(s): Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a 2008 video game developed by Traveller's Tales that covers the first three Indiana Jones films. While the Smash Hit FAC was still going on, I was working on getting this article to GA status. After it was promoted to GA in October, I submitted it for a PR and worked on improving the prose and sources. I believe that most issues have been resolved, therefore I'm submitting this for FAC! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042 comments

[edit]

Battle of Köse Dağ

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Köse Dağ was a decisive event for the Middle East, marking the end of real Seljuk power and another feather in the cap of the Mongol war machine. One of the great powers of the Mediterranean was overpowered on its own territory by an army half its size operating 4,500km away from its homeland. Quite an achievement, by any measure.

This article has passed a GA review from Premeditated Chaos and a MILHIST A-class review from which the above introduction was taken. If successful, it will be used in the WikiCup. All comments welcome. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PMC

[edit]

I'll have a look and see if I missed anything at the GAN, although I recall it being pretty tight to begin with. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Don't use fixed px size

Comments from Cplakidas

[edit]

Reserving a spot here for this important article. Constantine ✍ 10:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • Is there a reason why Rum became a client kingdom while Georgia a vassal state? I am not sure what the difference is, if any (and whether we should have two different articles, but that is another story)
  • Include the Georgians and Armenians in the infobox (a la 'various mercenaries' for the Sejuks?
  • Use 'Seljuk' in the infobox per article text
Background
  • gained control of Anatolia 'gained control of large parts of Anatolia' or 'gained control of central and eastern Anatolia' or similar, as the west and parts of the north was still Byzantine, the south Armenian, there were other Turkoman principalities, etc.
Prelude
  • Christian Georgian and Armenian auxiliaries the Georgians are already covered, but were these Armenians from the Caucasus (I assume so) or from Cilicia?
  • which the Christians distributed I assume the Christian auxiliary troops in Mongol service are meant here?
Battle
  • Arab tribes of Iraq is this Iraq in the modern sense or Iraq (region)?
  • possessed a solidarity 'cohesion' might be a better word here
  • They were accompanied by Georgian and Armenian cavalry, including Hasan-Jalal I, the ruler of the Principality of Khachen is repeated verbatim
Aftermath
  • Mongol dominance in Asia Minor stick to 'Anatolia' as already used before and after
  • Is there a link (e.g. in the Turkish wiki) for the vizier Muhezzibeddin?

That's it for a quick first review. The article is fairly well written and easy to read, but quite short for such an important event. Will have a look in my own sources for a comprehensiveness check. Constantine ✍ 17:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Lead: "with an army of 30,000 Mongol troops accompanied by Georgian and Armenian auxiliaries"; Article: "The core of the Mongol army was about 30,000 experienced and disciplined troops, ... accompanied by Georgian and Armenian cavalry": Infobox: "Around 30,000". The last does not correspond unless the total of Georgian and Armenian auxiliaries/cavalry was in the low hundreds. And if they were, why are they significant enough to be mentioned - at least in the lead?
    • I am not aware of any RS estimations of the size of the auxiliary forces, but without exception RS place heavy stress in their participation in the campaign and especially the battle, where they played a critical role. I cannot say "more than 30,000" in the infobox because that could imply there were 200,000, but neither can I provide an upper bound because that would be OR. I hope you can see the quandary. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no I can't. Why does '"more than 30,000' imply 200,000 any more or less than "30,000 Mongol troops accompanied by Georgian and Armenian auxiliaries"?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hammersfan (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the use of the McDonnell-Douglas F-4 Phantom by both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. This is a second attempt at lifting this article to FA, with the first in 2020. Since then, the article has undergone extensive revision, including a major collaboration between the nominator and another editor ([4]). Hammersfan (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Dealt with full stop issue
  • Don't use fixed px size
Removed fixed px size from thumb images. This is required on 3-way diagram to ensure the image isn't full-size on the page.
  • File:First_F-4K_Phantom_FG.1_landing_at_McDonnell_plant_1966.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Hawker_P1154_RAF_and_FAA.png, File:Phantom_FG1_of_892_NAS_is_launched_from_USS_Independence_(CV-62),_November_1975.jpg, File:F-4J(UK)_Phantom_of_74_Squadron_in_flight_1984.jpg, File:Variable-geometry_Phantom.png
Located archive links to dead URLs - these have been replaced on Wikmedia Commons. National Naval Aviation Museum no longer has searchable database, the two images from this source have been replaced with alternatives
No licence apparent on source 3-way diagram obtained from, so most appropriate one used for this. Diagram replaced with alternative to avoid issues.

Dan Fouts

[edit]
Nominator(s): Harper J. Cole (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about former NFL quarterback Dan Fouts, a member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

It's my second attempt to promote this article, having failed in 2022.[5] Criticisms of that version of the article included the structure, a narrative that drifted away from Fouts, a lack of proofreading and an over-reliance on statistical databases as sources.

This version is substantially changed, and has received a copyedit. Statistical databases are only used in the stats section of the article and not in the main body. I've also removed some material and added events that I missed the first time around. It should now be closer to a pass than last time.

Harper J. Cole (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Now corrected. Harper J. Cole (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Step by Step (Braxe + Falcon song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): BarntToust 01:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2022 debut single by the French touch duo Braxe + Falcon. BarntToust 01:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise, Alan Braxe and DJ Falcon are two French music producers that saw success with separate collaborations with Daft Punk's taller member, Thomas Bangalter. Braxe was one third of Stardust with Bangalter, which released "Music Sounds Better with You", a song that has mastered the generational gap by being an absolute banger, and also featuring on a radio station in GTA V. Falcon did "So Much Love to Give" with Bangalter, a ten-minute-plus club track that compares to a big hit of LSD. Keeping this collective repertoire in mind, they are cousins and did not know this for the longest time. Once they figured this out, these two did a song that is a downtempo subversion of the old pop-dance bangers they did in '98 and '02, respectively. And they did an extended play that this song headlines, but that's still a draft and not concerning this song article.

This song is just cool as all hell to me, and I banged out essentially the entire Wikipedia article because no one else did for like two and a half years after it released. Currently it's a GA, but after further explicating info found in sources and finding a French music magazine that covered the work, I decided to nom this. Well, that's a lie. I nom'd this first and then really quickly did the further work. Anywho, hope it's an enjoyable read! BarntToust 01:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]

Apologies in advance as I do not have the time right now to do a full review, but I still wanted to help at least a little bit. Here are some comments below:

  • Make sure to include WP:ALT text for both images in the article. done
  • I would incorporate the genres and the appropriate citations in the article rather than just having them in the infobox. done
  • When the genres are put into the article, the citations are no longer needed in the infobox. That being said, the genres should be in the article, and I believe that both "disco" and "soft rock" have only been moved to the audio sample caption. Aoba47 (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The audio sample would need a clear and explicit rationale in the article to justify its inclusion, as it is encouraged to keep non-free media usage to a minimal. Having it just in the infobox does not provide this kind of justification, and it should instead be incorporated into the article with a caption that says how it is being used. done - added descriptive stuff to body
  • Terms such as double A-side and extended play should be linked for readers who are unfamiliar with this type of music jargon. done
  • The lead provides an overview statement about the song's critical reception, but I do not see these specific topics explicitly brought up in the "Reception" section. WP:RECEPTION is a great resources to help write this kind of section as it can be difficult. -- done As I saw per WP:Reception, I added one sentence that pretty much summed up what the writers had to say about the song at the first of the two paragraphs, caring that it was not WP:OR as noted.
Know what? I decided to re-write both paragraphs in "Reception" on a whim. One focuses on the production, the other stays more about Lennox being awesome. BarntToust 19:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks a lot better to me. Great job with that. Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why have the section about the music video before the one on the song's release? It is chronological out of order so I was curious on the rationale behind that choice. -- @User:Aoba47, as the "release" section also covers prominent performances. Both performances (debut live and Paris Paralympics) listed in that section happened after the video released.
Yeah, but the music video (25 August 2022) still came out before the song's release (29 March 2022) so it is a bit odd to read about the music video and then read about the song's release right after. Why not combine both of these sections together to make something like a "Release and promotion" section? That way, it can be organized going from the song's release, the music video, and then the live performances. Aoba47 (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know, that sounds like a cool idea! I'll look at how that'll work. BarntToust 19:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Spliced the text into a "release and publicity" unified section, @Aoba47. Also had to work in the official remix release, and that worked well. BarntToust 19:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing this for me. Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Individuals discussed in the "Personnel" section should also be discussed in the prose. Chris Athens is currently only listed in the separate section, but not discussed in the actual prose of the article. done
  • Sources in a foreign language would need to have the English translations for the titles included in their citations. I am specifically referencing the French citation. done
  • Step by Step should be presented in italics in the citation titles. done

I hope that these comments are helpful. Apologies again for not being able to do a full review, but best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments you did. Marked the stuff as done so the next fellows who come through know that those subjects are (hopefully) taken care of. BarntToust 04:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Used graphics without thinking, finally understood & got rid of them
Please do not use graphics, like the ones for done. The FAC instructions ask for editors to not use them as they can cause loading issues in the main FAC listings. I would kindly ask you to remove the graphics from this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 04:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ah, darn. sorry. will do that. BarntToust 04:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Just wanted to let you know. Aoba47 (talk) 05:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
done BarntToust 05:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the "done" graphics should also not be used in the FAC process so those should be changed as well. Aoba47 (talk) 05:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I only removed the <code></code> stuff. Sorry 'bout that, was just the turn of the new year at my get-together at my house and I had to rush off to watch the ball drop with guests without giving much thought. BarntToust 05:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
as you can tell since I am preoccupied with Wikipedia, it's not the most engaging of events. all the graphics are gone now. BarntToust 05:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CSS General Earl Van Dorn

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 23:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken an ironclad (CSS Baltic and a tinclad (USS Marmora to FAC successfully, so here goes another type of American Civil War ship: the cottonclad (the timberclads will have to wait). The cottonclads were a Confederate invention out of desparation - while the Union was churning out City-class ironclads in late 1861 and early 1862, the almost pre-industrial Confederacy had difficulty keeping up. Instead, the Confederates decided to harken back to the ancient tactic of naval rams - they modified civilian river steamers for ramming, and protected the most important machinery with compressed cotton, which the blockaded South had out the wazoo. The idea worked once, at the Battle of Plum Point Bend (which I brought to FAC) but failed spectacularly at the First Battle of Memphis where Van Dorn was the only one of eight cottonclads to escape destruction or capture. Taken up the Yazoo River, General Earl Van Dorn was burned under orders of a panicked Confederate officer later in the year. Hog Farm Talk 23:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text

History6042 comments

[edit]

I've got more now. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Given that cottonclad redirects to cottonclad warship, perhaps "cottonclad warship" should be Wikilinked in the first place?
  • "by installing an iron-covered framework of timbers to her bow". In BrEng one can't (grammatically) install something to something. 'attaching'? Or maybe "to" → 'at'.
  • "a single 32-pounder cannon on the bow." "on" rather than 'at'?
  • "the upper Confederate-held portion of the Mississippi River". "upper" doesn't really make sense at this point in the sentence. Is it needed at all? You manage without it in the main article.
    • I've tried to rephrase this a bit. In the body, it's a bit different. The cottonclads were designed for defense of the various parts of the Mississippi River, but General Earl Van Dorn was assigned to defend only a part of this. The body gets into this, but in a different manner - it's the distinction between the ship being in the Kentucky/Tennessee/Missouri area vs. New Orleans. I think this is necessary because the Confederates were fighting what amounted to a two-front war on the Mississippi at this time. Hog Farm Talk 22:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: break the lead paragraph between "bow." and "Having"?
  • "General Earl Van Dorn was armed with a single 32-pounder cannon on her bow,[15] which was a common naval gun that was smoothbore and muzzleloading." This would seem to fit more naturally into the previous paragraph onj the conversion to military use. And any further information on the gun? Rate of fire, range, solid shot or explosive, could it fire any anti-personal ordinance, etc?
    • I've moved this to the end of the material discussing the alterations made to the cottonclads, as adding this cannon would be one of those installations. Unfortunately, there's not any real information on the specifics of the gun assigned to this vessel. The 32-pounders of this time were a very generic naval cannon; this is more of a class of gun than a specific model of one. Hog Farm Talk 00:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The purchases occurred at New Orleans, Louisiana." looks like an afterthought. Is it possible to include it more naturally?
  • "Montgomery decided to attack with the eight ships he had at Fort Pillow.[18] On May 10, 1862, the Confederates attacked". "... attack ... attacked ...". Synonym time?
  • "The Union ship was struck on her starboard side near the bow and was badly damaged." Delete the second "was"?
  • "Mound City and the ironclad USS Cincinnati had been sunk but were later salvaged." is it known if either returned to service?
  • "a log barrier designed to protect the location". It seems a bit convoluted to use "the location" and then state the location later in the same sentence.

Another grand article. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beebo the God of War

[edit]
Nominator(s): Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Beebo the God of War" is the ninth episode of the third season of the science-fiction series Legends of Tomorrow. The episode is considered a turning point for the series from the self serious drama to a wacky nonsense comedy. Prior to the nomination I consulted with who was listed as a mentor User:Gen. Quon.

This is my first FAC so I'm fully expecting this to fail. It recently underwent a GOCE copy edit and a PR If anything I'm shooting for this to pass on renomination. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

Welcome to FAC, and good luck with the process. I'll pop in when I can, but two early-bird questions in response to This is my first FAC so I'm fully expecting this to fail: has the article been to Peer Review, and have you found a more experienced FA writer who might be willing to act as a mentor? Both come highly recommended to help with a first nomination and to help things go smoothly. Just looking through briefly, there are a couple of small typographical, tone and MoS errors which would probably be caught and fixed quickly on a pre-FAC PR. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did take it to PR (though there was limited engagement) and have the article copy edited. I also consulted a mentor. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent: who's mentoring it? Normally they are tagged in the nomination. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: it was User:Gen. Quon Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm! I'll take a look at it here in a bit.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 02:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Initial thoughts/comments

One thing that stands out to me at the moment: FAs need to be written for a general audience, which means that readers who don't know anything about the show or its setting should be able to find everything they need here. You can see this, for example, in FAs like Pilot (Supernatural) or The Stolen Earth, where they manage to introduce most of the important characters and ideas without unduly bogging the article down. Some examples of unanswered questions as I read:

  • In this episode, Martin Stein (Graeme McComb) and a Beebo doll (Ben Diskin) are sent to Vinland,: I can look this up and find out that it means that the episode is set circa 1000 CE, but could the article tell me that instead?
  • We talk about a Beebo doll several times, but I am fairly clueless as to what one of these things is, or if it has broader significance in the series.
  • After the death of Martin Stein in the previous episode: I get the sense that this was important. Was it? Why?
  • The Legends bring Stein onto the Waverider: is that a ship? Is there anything special about it?
  • The episode's title is a reference to its basis in Norse mythology: how exactly does the title relate to Norse mythology?

On a very simplistic level, if you look at other FAs on TV show episodes, you'll notice there's simply a lot more there: we have very little in this one about the writing, for example, and most are able to get more substance and pull out more coherent themes in the Reception section (see The Riddle of the Sphinx (Inside No. 9), for example, or Home (The X-Files)). Of course, this may partly reflect the fact that not everything on television makes the same sort of splash, either in critical writing or in the public consciousness, but equally might suggest that there's more to be found and added here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: I have clairifed the above. But yes I believe that I may have exusted all production info out there. I'll do another check to make sure Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]

George Washington

[edit]
Nominator(s): ErnestKrause (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC); Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the founding father George Washington. It is a co-nomination with Nikkimaria and is the sixth time that this page has been nominated. A previous GA nomination of the article from a decade ago was successful though subsequent FAC nominations did not move forward. The current nomination is a significantly trimmed and condensed version of the Washington biography which previously had reached about 230Kb in system size, though now condensed to about 160Kb system size. Looking forward to comments and criticisms from editors interested in this founding father. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cmguy777

[edit]
  • Support: I recommend George Washington pass FA nomination. It is well written. The only issue I noticed is the Introduction does not mention why/when Washington joined the Patriot forces. Maybe something like, "Believing Parliamentary Acts and the King were oppressing American colonists, Washington joined the Patriot forces." Maybe something to that effect. Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: Would it be good to briefly mention Washington and cherry tree story is just a myth invented by Weems, in the Early life (1732–1752) section? It is an interesting story. Readers might want to know more about it. I know it is mentioned in the article later. Here is the Mount Vernon article: Cherry Tree Myth. Maybe mention the George Washington Cherry Tree Myth has never been verified. Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a link for more information on the story in the Legacy section. Since it's a myth, I think that placement is more logical than within the chronology of real events. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. The article link I gave mentions the following: "little was known about his relationship with his father, who died when Washington was only eleven years old.3 There is almost no surviving historical evidence about Washington's relationship with his father, and Weems’ claims have never been verified.4" It might be good that the reader knows this in the Early life (1732–1752) section by adding little is known of Washington's relationship with his father, using the source provided. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (passed)

[edit]

Given the large number of images, I'm only going to highlight any issues:

AirshipJungleman29

[edit]

Alright, let's have another VA3 bio. Comments to follow; as always, they will be suggestions, not demands, so feel free to refuse with justifications. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Per MOS:ROLEBIO, the "and planter" bit of the first sentence is relatively non-integral to Washington's importance, and could be removed. The full "Founding Father of the United States" is also a little top-heavy (especially as "of the United States" is duplicated in the first sentence) but I don't quite know how you could slim it.
  • Per MOS:LEADREL, "Washington's first public office was as surveyor of its Culpeper County from 1749 to 1750" is relatively little emphasised in the body (around 75 words) so probably doesn't need a mention in the lead.
  • "In 1752, he became a major in the Virginia Regiment. During the French and Indian War, Washington was promoted to lieutenant colonel and subsequently became head of the Virginia Regiment." is to my eyes, slightly too focused on positions attained, especially considering his role in starting the war. One mention of the Virginia Regiment should do.
  • The lead links "American Revolutionary War" twice (as it does for Patriot (American Revolution)) and doesn't give its start or end dates, which are likely needed per WP:EXPLAINLEAD. In fact, the only event between 1752 and 1787 the lead dates is his 1775 appointment.
  • "His 1796 farewell address became a preeminent statement on republicanism in which he wrote about the importance of national unity and the dangers that regionalism, partisanship, and foreign influence pose to it." is a little clunky grammatically, suggest rephrasing.
  • You could mention Mount Vernon in the lead. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AirshopJungleman29, I've done some reworking of the lead. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Early life - Colonial military career
  • "Even though Washington had not served the customary apprenticeship, Thomas Fairfax appointed him surveyor of Culpeper County, Virginia" might be undue, but why would Fairfax do that? Also, any relation to William?
  • You might want to give Saint-Pierre's full name at least once.
  • A map of some of the events of the French-Indian war would be handy; there is ample space for images.
  • The Battle of Fort Necessity is not referred to by name when describing its events, meaning the later referral to it is slightly confusing. It could have read something like "a French force attacked Fort Necessity with 900 men" and that would probably be fine. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon

[edit]

Great work on such an epic topic. With the usual caveats of neither being an expert nor a native speaker, I have the following comments:

  • what I miss in the first paragraph are the words independence and Great Britain . It's all too implicit for me. In the second paragraph this is mentioned, but I feel there is too much repetition between first and second paragraph. Not sure how to fix it, but the current first 2 paragraphs don't feel quite right to me. Perhaps the first paragraph should have fewer details and perhaps say something along the lines of "Washington played a central role before and during the American Revolution leading to independece from Britain." And then the 2nd paragraph can talk about leading Patriots etc. Just an idea.
Nikkimaria is reworking the lede. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Treaty of Paris in 1783 acknowledging --> is there a comma missing after 1783?
The treaty is the noun and acknowledging the verb portion, better without comma. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • with "considerable force" and "precision" --> who are we quoting here?
Chernow's words. Added to article now. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Valley --> you mean Shenandoah Valley?
Shenandoah added. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • but found undisciplined militia --> just checking if maybe an s is missing? (previous sentence uses militias)
References to "local militias" is distinct from the reference to the Army as a militia. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • above Boston --> north of
Change to north. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Above" is actually correct - the Heights were geographically south of Boston but were above it in elevation, which was a military advantage. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • emboldened his critics --> rephrase so it's clear whose critics
Those who favored Gates as a military leader for the war. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • In 1779, Arnold began supplying British spymaster John André with sensitive information intended to capture West Point, a key American defensive position on the Hudson River. --> this puzzled me: how could Americans want to capture an American defensive position? Perhaps instead of "intended to capture" spell it out more, something along the lines of "of how the British could capture"
Add emphasis on British as adversary. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • equivalent to $6.39 million today --> use a specific year as reference point
Chernow's quote was more as a comparison to the Vice President's numbers. Replace with Chernow quote. Inflation is computed from the start date given in the 1700s and may be computed up to the present date. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the first and only time a sitting American president led troops in the field" --> does this have to be a quote? If so, who is quoted?
Quote removed since Madison apparently was in the field during the War of 1812 while president: [6].ErnestKrause (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see instances of "the US" and "the U.S.". Should there not be a bit of consistency in abbreviation? In any case, per [[MOS:US] "between the US and Spanish territory" should be "between the United States and Spanish territory"
Switching to MOS preference for spelling it out. In other places it seems redundant and could be dropped as an optional adjective. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Slavery section could benefit from a bit of trimming of details
Its trimmed further now by a quarter, as part of the main article link to Wikipedia featured article on Washington and slavery. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Namesakes and monuments: I miss the year in which the federal city was named after Washington, and perhaps by whom, so it doesn't look like he named it himself
The original plans for the city from the 1790s did not include the name of it which might be pointed out or discussed somewhere. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The L'Enfant Plan for the city, developed in 1791
  • Washington protested to "Robert Cary & Co." that the low prices he received for his tobacco and for the inflated prices he was forced to pay on second-rate goods from London --> grammar?
Adjusted grammar. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is an audio file of a version of the article from 5 years ago. A few thousand revisions since. I don't think that can stay.
Its not clear how often this is used, and it is left over as an audio version of the GA article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it - it's quite outdated at this point, it would make sense to create a new one if this is promoted and someone is so inclined. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Infobox, the order of the offices listed puzzles me. The Chancellor of the College of William & Mary seems least significant so I would expect it to come last.
Priority of office seems to be the order being used, with presidency office coming first. Chancellor comes right after presidency. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any guidance in the documentation for Infobox Officeholder about the order. I have seen reverse chronological order used in several infoboxes for U.S. presidents. But that is hard to apply to this case, since his tenure as Chancellor overlapped his presidency.
Our article, Chancellor of the College of William & Mary, states that the position is "ceremonial", which explains how Washington could have held such an important-sounding title while also being the first president of the United States. The workload was not too heavy. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the ordering. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Washington Crossing the Delaware (1851) caption: can we add name painter? So it doesn't look like crossing took place in 1851
Added. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

It'll be a couple days before I can get to this but I want to take a look. Hog Farm Talk 21:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • ISBNs are inconsistently hyphenated.
  • Cite 306: "Vicchio 2019, pp. 27" should be p.
  • "He was later elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses and opposed the perceived oppression". Merely a suggestion, perhaps 'He was later elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses where he opposed the perceived oppression'.
  • Link Continental Congress?
  • "while sanctioning the Jay Treaty with Great Britain." Perhaps 'approved' or 'ratified' instead of sanctioned. It is not a common usage - I had to look it up - and commonly has negative connotations, as in "imposing sanctions".
  • "the highest rank in the U.S. Army. Washington consistently ranks in both". Mildly unfortunate that rank and ranks appear so close together.
  • A model of a lead. The one thing I would be inclined to change would be to add a sentence or so covering his wartime experience. This is - IMO - the crux of his notability but is covered with less than half a short sentence. This fails to capture the weight given to this period in the article.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note c: This reads as if it were only used this way in the 16th century. Perhaps "The mid-16th-century word "Indian" was used during the 18th century to describe the Indigenous peoples of the Americas'? And link Indigenous peoples?
  • Note e: "Washington protested to "Robert Cary & Co." regarding the low prices he received for his tobacco and for the inflated prices he was forced to pay on second-rate goods from London." Is "for" a typo? Suggest deleting it.
  • " Organization of the Board of War underwent several significant changes after its inception." When was its inception?
  • Some image captions have events linked, eg "the Battle of the Monongahela"; others don't, eg "Map showing key locations in the French and Indian War".

Legacy

  • "In 1976, he was posthumously appointed General of the Armies of the United States ... On March 13, 1978, Washington was militarily promoted to the rank of General of the Armies." I am now confused. And is the word "militarily" needed?
  • "to humanize Washington, making him look less stern, and to inspire "patriotism and morality" and to foster "enduring myths" ". "... to ... and to ... and to ..."
  • "Washington appeared on the nation's first postage stamp in 1847, and has since appeared on more United States postage stamps than anyone else." Could a synonym be found for one use of "appeared"?

Personal life

  • "sustained injury during the birth of Patsy, her final child, making additional births impossible". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
  • "though historians dispute his paternity." All of those who have opined, or some?
  • "Washington was a talented equestrian. Jefferson described him as "the best horseman of his age".[335] He collected thoroughbreds at Mount Vernon; his two favorite horses were Blueskin and Nelson. He enjoyed hunting. He was an excellent dancer and frequently attended the theater. He drank alcohol in moderation but was morally opposed to excessive drinking, smoking tobacco, gambling, and profanity." This reads more like a dumping ground for factoids than engaging prose of a professional standard.

Philosophy and views

  • "there were conflicts in his position concerning his slaves throughout his life." What does this mean? He was himself conflicted, he was in conflict with others regarding his position, that Washington owning slaves was in conflict with his official position[s]?

Post-presidency (1797–1799)

2007 Greensburg tornado

[edit]
Nominator(s): EF5 16:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the massive EF5-rated tornado that hit Greensburg, Kansas on the night of May 4, 2007. The tornado directly hit he town, damaging 95% of the buildings within city limits to some degree and killing eleven people. Meetsall criteria, passed a DYK that was recently featured and GA, so trying my luck at probably only the third individual tornado FAC ever. Also successfully nommed an FP for the tornado, which can be found in the infobox. EF5 16:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Departure–

[edit]

Glad to see this passed GA! I'll give a bit of constructive criticism:

  • Is the GT name really relevant if it was only used in studies?
I'd say yes, because that's what it's officially named as in NWS-led and other papers. EF5 14:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kiowa County Memorial Hospital, destroyed in the tornado," change to "which was destroyed in the tornado"
Done. EF5 20:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 2024, the tornado is the most recent to receive an EF5 rating in Kansas" I don't really see this being relevant - it's the only EF5 in Kansas. This should be replaced with maybe more from earlier in the lede about how it was the first EF5 tornado, which would go better here.
Done. EF5 20:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 2 miles (3.2 km) width estimate from the 1896 Seneca–Oneida tornado is considered unofficial" - in the text body, this sentence is entirely uncited, and is the rating unofficial at all? I'm less than convinced.
Done, removed. EF5 20:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meteorological synopsis: wasn't it a high risk day? The body only mentions a moderate risk.
The high risk was for May 5, the day after the tornado. EF5 20:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shortly after this circulation was first found" swap "found" with "detected" or some variant, ideally.
Done, EF5 20:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several storm chasers captured the formation of a tornado south of Greensburg around 9:20 pm CDT, which apparently strengthened as it neared Greensburg and began moving due-north towards the town, and at 9:38 pm CDT, storm chasers reported that it had grown to over 0.5 miles (0.80 km) in diameter. Eyewitnesses and storm chasers reported that multiple vortices were circulating around the perimeter of the large, wedge-shaped tornado during its early stages. A short time later, at least two distinct satellite tornadoes, including a narrow rope tornado, were reported by local media and observed by multiple weather spotters and storm chasers." Source doesn't back this up at all - no ctrl+f hits for "rope". "satellite", or "chaser", nor anything regarding multi-vortex structure.
Done, changed reference to a research paper. EF5 17:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would the tornado emergency text go better on WikiSource than here? The first half is boilerplate anyway.
Done, removed. EF5 14:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inline damage photos either in the summary or damage section would be great, especially when the school being hit is mentioned in the text but the swimming pool isn't.
Done, I've added three new images and removed the Bush one since it's not really relevant. EF5 14:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate to say it, but I'd really like a better source than the Cincinnati Enquirer for the satellite tornadoes.
Done, the research paper also backs up the tornadoes. CE should be reliable as it's stripped from the NWS. EF5 20:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Trousdale section should probably be given a mention in the final paragraph of the Greensburg tornado's summary, i.e. "the tornado then caused a wide tornado near Trousdale. It broke some records for Kansas.
Done. EF5 17:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned this in the DYK review, but why is Blagojevich given more spotlight than George W Bush? All Bush gets is an image and one sentence, where Blagojevich, who isn't even from Kansas, gets a whole quote.
Bush just said a few words, none were of long-term significance. EF5 20:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tornado was the first in over 50 years to kill at least one person in Kiowa County." Is this really needed? Tornadoes aren't rare enough in these United States in my opinion. Killer tornadoes tend to be both unsurprising and uncommon at once.
Over 50 years? Seems suprising to me, especially for Kansas. EF5 20:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depiction in media: There was another here you removed in the GAN. Can you find it with a better source than IMDB?
I cannot, hence why I removed it. EF5 20:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article came from nothing a month or so ago and is already pretty darn good. You've done great here, EF5. Cheers! Departure– (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Departure–: How's it look now? EF5 17:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely better. I'd remove Blagojevich's letter quote altogether, given that his speech doesn't appear to be substantial either. This NBC article and this from 2008 both seem a lot more substantial than the Bush coverage we have here. Saying "several" and only listing one for depiction in media isn't ideal, the "first" EF5 in Kansas seems unideal given it was the first EF5 in general but not the first F5 in Kansas (by a long shot). Ninth most recent seems unimportant - maybe replace that entire line with "Greensburg was the first of only nine tornadoes rated EF5 on the EF scale" or something to that effect. The Seneca-Oneida estimate is still unsourced and directly affects the lede. The infobox figure of $250 million also combats another estimate of $268 million - maybe inflation is the cause? "the first hospital in the United States to operate using carbon neutral energy" should be rephrased to "the first hospital in the United States to achieve carbon neutrality", and there's a lot of MOS:SANDWICHing going on, but other than that no clear show-stopping issues. Cheers! Departure– (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I guess Bush did say some cool stuff. I've replaced Blagojevich's letter with a sentence from Bush. "Several" has been removed and instead of a bulleted list the section is now a sentence. "First EF5 in Kansas" has been changed to "first EF5". Changed "second-widest" to "one of the widest" to compensate for the Seneca-Oneida tornado. I believe the $250 million is in fact inflation. Also changed the hospital sentence per your suggestion. Last but not least, I've removed a few of the images located on the left side of the article, as it was in fact SANDWICHing. Pinging @Departure–: (last time, I'm not trying to ruin your Christmas) to make sure I got everything. :) EF5 18:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- nominator has left WP, inviting anyone who wishes to pick up their active GAN/FAC noms; were this on the cusp of promotion I'd probably leave it open to see how that went, but since we're nowhere near that I'm going to archive it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: See the most recent edit to my userpage, I'll be back after New Years (something off-wiki was the cause of my "retirement" but I'll leave that there), does this still need closed? It's not like I can't work on it after Jan. 1. EF5's alt, Sir MemeGod mobile (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging @Gog the Mild:, as I don't want to have to renominate, and I know the bot works fast. Sir MemeGod mobile (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens I was delayed in completing this archive, so okay, I'll AGF and take a chance that this will be pursued -- unless Gog, who first alerted the coords to your 'retirement' feels otherwise. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll get to it by the 3rd. Sir MemeGod mobile (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that I will get to it, now that the self-block was lifted. EF5 00:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review/Spotcheck (LunaEclipse, support)

[edit]

Source review coming in a few days. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 00:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General advice: use IABot to archive sources and prevent link rot.

[61]:

  • Date is missing.
Done. EF5 17:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. EF5 17:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use this source to claim the city's hospital was rebuilt in 2011, yet the article dates back to 2010 and does not mention the hospital's reconstruction the following year. It talks about the plans to rebuild it, and not the actual reconstruction itself.
Done, I've added a secondary reference that date construction to March 2010. I don't see any reference to the hospital being rebuilt in 2011, can you point me to where in the article that is? EF5 17:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was reviewing this revision (ref 61a). I assume you typed "2011" by mistake, but you have already fixed the issue, so you should be fine. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 19:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[54]:

  • ResearchGate is unreliable per WP:RSP
Timothy Marshall, author of the survey, is considered an expert in his field (see Timothy P. Marshall), and seeing how ResearchGate is marked as "no consensus", I disagree about its reliability. EF5 14:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would https://www.tornadotalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Damage-Survey.pdf suit it better? EF5 17:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd... Last time I checked it was considered "generally unreliable", what's going on?
I double-checked the ResearchGate link and one of the authors uploaded the study, so it should be fine. There is a duplicate of this source (ref 22). Use it to replace ref 54.
@EF5: Please address the comment above.
@LunaEclipse: Addressed. EF5 21:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source verfies the statements it is attributed to.

[52]: See above. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 01:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[38]:

  • This one is blatant OR. Nothing here mentions it being surpassed by the aforementioned tornadoes or being the second-largest ever targeted.
Done, I've removed the entire paragraph as irrelevant. EF5 14:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[50]:

  • The amount of homes damaged on Main St. is not specified.
I've removed the claim. EF5 14:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[53]:

  • Date is missing (scroll down to the bottom of the article to find the original date)
I've added it as "2013". EF5 14:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[24]:

  • No mention of the high school being one block east of the tornado's convergence line.
The damage survey backed up that claim, so I've replaced the citation. EF5 14:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1]:

  • Pass.

[65]:

  • Pass.

[18]:

  • I cannot access this source, I will AGF and give this a pass.

[32]:

  • No mention of:
    • The 961 homes and businesses being destroyed
    • 216 of them receiving major damage
    • 307 of them receiving minor damage
I've removed it, I must've just added it as a "filler reference". EF5 21:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 21:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William D. Hoard

[edit]
Nominator(s): M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about William D. Hoard, 16th Governor of Wisconsin and founder of Hoard's Dairyman. This is a resubmission of the article to FAC following a failed nom in October and a Peer Review. All prior comments have been addressed and improvements made across the board. Thanks for taking a look! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:William_Dempster_Hoard.png: when and where was this first published?
I have searched far and wide for evidence that this portrait was published in a manner that meaningfully meets the definition of "published" in any of the ways we have discussed as appropriate for when the painting was completed in 1891 or after it was committed to the Wisconsin Historical Society archives in 1908 and I have found none. Copyright law is pretty murky on publication circa 1891, when it was presumably hung in the executive chambers at the Wisconsin Capitol Building. I went to the Commons village pump and asked about this in October and was told by folks there that by hanging it in a place without the means to restrict copying the portrait, it would have been considered published prior to 1978. It was hung in a place that did not specifically restrict copying (the executive chamber, a semi-public place) sometime between 1891 and 1908, so I believe that would count.
These volunteers also said that if the portrait was published "without a copyright notice (before March 1989), or with a notice (before 1964) but no renewal" then it would be public domain. Again, there is no specific evidence of publication in any manner other than hanging the portrait in the executive chamber, nor does the portrait appear in the US Copyright Office's archives from what I could find.
My guess, and that is all it is, is that the portrait was hung after Hoard left office in 1891, so it was published based on the definition the others provided in Madison in 1891, but there is no specific evidence that I have been able to locate of the specific date of hanging. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what tag would be appropriate for that design. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google-fu has eluded me for this tag. I am not entirely sure this image is appropriate at all, given state vs. federal copyright. Wisconsin holds its works in copyright unlike the feds. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know when the seal was first used? If it's old enough, it could be in the public domain due to age. Hog Farm Talk 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to have been created by an act of the legislature in the 1970s. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

Happy to support as per my peer review. 750h+ 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492

[edit]
  • Potential high value links: dairy farming, East Coast, Republican
  • Enos brought Hoard while purchasing dairy cattle and educated him on dairy farming as a child. - Your subject is "Enos", so this could be misunderstood that Enos was the child.
  • use of the Babcock test to test the butterfat content of milk - repetition of "test"
  • exhibit at the Centennial Exhibition. - Exhibit ... exhibition
  • Filled cheese is made with milk that has its fat content replaced margarine or lard - Missing a word
  • His administration passed a controversial compulsory education law that mandated schools educate their pupils in English and created the Dairy and Food Commission to oversee dairy production in the state and enforce bans on skim and filled cheese as well as other adulterated dairy products. - A little clunky. Perhaps split?
  • and passed a controversial compulsory education law that mandated schools educate their pupils in English.[17] - This duplicates information already contained above
  • the Milwaukee Sentinel - The name of the newspaper should be italicized
  • German-language publications throughout the state advocated for the law's repeal and called for Catholics and Lutherans to campaign for the law's repeal after the election of 1890. - repeal ... repeal
  • Scandinavian communities had fewer parochial schools than their German counterparts and were convinced by opponents of the law that it would prevent their children attending their parochial schools. - parochial schools ... parochial schools
  • The Bennett Law became the primary issue of the contest, though economic pressures attributed to the McKinley Tariff also played a significant role. - This is separated by a full sentence from the election, which I'm assuming is "the contest". Might be worth reworking
  • election of 1890 - Should be linked on first mention, rather than the third mention
  • using his publications to support Robert M. La Follette. Hoard was uneasy about La Follette's more radical positions and began distancing himself from La Follette. - La Follette ... La Follette ... La Follette. You use his name five times in three sentences. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The All-Story Magazine

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an influential early pulp magazine. All-Story published many writers who were either already famous or went on to become famous, but it is best remembered for launching the career of Edgar Rice Burroughs. Under the Moons of Mars, better known by its book title of A Princess of Mars, was his first sale; he followed this up almost immediately with Tarzan of the Apes. All-Story wasn't a science fiction magazine, but it did publish a lot of sf and fantasy. At the end of the 1930s these stories (and those in Argosy, its sister magazine) were hard to find for fans of the genre, so two more magazines were launched with the sole purpose of reprinting these old classics. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa

[edit]

I intend to review this (but make no promises). As an initial comment, more images would be nice, assuming of course that there are appropriate ones to add. TompaDompa (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the covers are out of copyright, so I can add at least one more -- space is the main consideration, given that I don't want the images to interfere with the tables of issue data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two more images added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

Put me down for a review, probably after Christmas. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was published monthly until March 1914, and then switched to a weekly schedule. Munsey merged it with The Cavalier, another of his pulp magazines, in 1914,: can we put a more specific date on the second one (we've changed levels of precision midstream)?
    I made it May 1914. It was weekly at the time and I could give the actual issue date but I think that detail isn't necessary in the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1920 it was merged with Munsey's Argosy; the combined magazine was retitled Argosy All-Story Weekly. The editor was Robert H. Davis;: this sounds as if Davis was the editor of Argosy All-Story Weekly.
    Switched sentence order, which I hope takes care of this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1912 All-Story printed Burroughs's Tarzan of the Apes, and more stories of Tarzan followed, along with two instalments of another of Burroughs' series: the MoS prefers the first style. See, later, Mary Roberts Rineharts' first story and Burroughs' Pellucidar series.
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • two magazines created to reprint old stories from the Munsey magazines.: anything to be done about the repetition here?
    Had a go at this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of changes of names and two merges in this story, and I'm intrigued that we've treated them differently. When the magazine merges with The Cavalier, we treat this as if All-Story is trundling on uninterrupted; meanwhile, when it merges with The Argosy, we treat it as if All-Story is no more. I'm not disputing this decision, but what's the thinking behind it?
    This is surprisingly complex in general. The short answer is that I follow the treatment in the sources on the history of these magazines. One common way to look at it is to see which magazine's volume and issue numbering is continued -- that's the magazine that is considered to carry on from the merge. Another is to see what happens to the name -- it's common to carry the secondary name as a subtitle of some kind for a while, but if that disappears after a year or two (as in this case) it's a sign that the magazine was absorbed into the other title. There are some cases where it's really not clear what happened at all, such as Future Science Fiction and Science Fiction Stories, which is why those two are covered in a single article. The reorganization of the Munsey magazines in 1929 is another example: before the change it was Argosy All-Story Weekly and Munsey's Magazine; afterwards it was Argosy and All-Story Combined with Munsey's, which is generally considered to be a completely new magazine, retitled All-Story Love Stories or some variation of that for most of its life. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first issue included the first instalment of five novels: first instalments, I think (cf. "the invaders cut off the heads of twelve villagers").
    Fixed. Sounds like you're getting the hang of this pulp fiction lark. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)
  • which science fiction historian Sam Moskowitz commented "caused some to class Serviss as the equal of Jules Verne".: not necessarily your problem, but it strikes me that Moskowitz is doing a classic bit of WP:WEASEL here. Can we substantiate this any further: does he give names, for instance?
    There's no more in the source. I would guess he's talking about the readers' letters, but that's just a guess. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italics versus quotation marks for titles: is the thinking that one-shot short stories are WP:MINORWORKS and so get quotes, while longer serialised novels are major works and so get italics?
    Yes, exactly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the March 15, 1919 issue: this kind of structure needs a comma after the year (it's the same idea as MOS:GEOCOMMA). There are quite a few later in the "Bibliographic details" section.
    Done, but some of them look hideous to my eyes. If leniency is available for any of these please let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree: I looked this up in the Chicago Manual of Style (with which the MoS usually agrees) to make sure I wasn't leading you the wrong way, and I'm afraid that I wasn't: the double comma is correct. The CMoS suggested going DMY in contexts when lots of dates will be used: another approach is to try to get that second comma to line up where you would want to put a comma anyway (so phrases like "on March 15, 1919, All-Story introduced a new character."). UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a look and I don't see any immediate places where it would be easy to fix; I'm OK with just letting them be. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • All-Story also published poetry, including work by Djuna Barnes: can we give the reader any sense of why we've singled her out: I don't think she's famous enough that most people will get it automatically. Presumably it's not just that she's got a Wikipedia article?
    That was in the article before I began working on it, and the source is sufficiently scholarly that I thought it was worth keeping. Plus it's nice to have examples of authors of each of the genres, including poetry, particularly as I don't cite many other women or any other modernists. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh no, I agree with the inclusion: I was wondering whether we could gloss something like "later known as an important figure in modernist and lesbian literature" to give a sense of why we were drawing attention to her above all the other poets who wrote for the magazine. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I like your wording; added that and found a couple of sources to cite it to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnston McCulley's Zorro series began: do I take it right that this magazine was the birthplace of Zorro? I think that would be worth mentioning in the lead. More generally, you could perhaps restructure the lead slightly to pick out the "big takeaways" that All-Story was an incubator for a couple of really famous characters that came out of the pulp era into the wider media world. Tarzan is mentioned there, but he gets a little lost among many other stories that are now mostly forgotten.
    Added a sentence to the lead. I added "the vigilante" as he's not as well-known as Tarzan but perhaps that's unnecessary? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I think it's always better to over-explain than under-explain, especially when we're trying to judge which bits of popular culture are well known (I'd suggest Zorro might have quite a strong generational skew, even before we start to factor in geography, language etc), though I wouldn't be too distraught if those words fell out. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When magazine titles appear in chapter/website/book titles, they should be in italics.
    Italics added for one website title. For the other two, the form is not that of the magazine title so I'm reluctant as it implies that was a title of a magazine at one point (Argosy, The, and All-Story (Cavalier) Weekly/Magazine). For the chapters in Tymn & Ashley, those are not italicized in the source; they're bolded chapter headings (and often don't match the magazine title, though in these cases they do). I can do this if you think it's necessary, and indeed I used to do this, but I now think these are better not italicized. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking of e.g. The Argosy and All-Story (Ashley 1985): is that not two titles? If so, should be The Argosy and All-Story. We've routinely used All-Story (italicised) as a shortened form of the title, just as you sometimes see e.g. Freewheelin', Fellowship or "Sultans", either in less formal writing or in contexts where the title is being used a lot. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've done that one, and two others where the exact form of the magazine title is available. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • popular science-fictional love stories: science-fiction is the usual adjective, I think. There's a possible inconsistency with having a hyphen here but not in science fiction historian Sam Moskowitz, but I think your choice is fine: one is more likely to be misconstrued than the other, since popular science is a thing. However, see later short science-fictional tales, where I think you've broken your own rule.
    Changed them all to "science fiction". "Science-fictional" (with and without the hyphen) does have a long history; see here for a handful of citations, for example (the website is run by Jesse Sheidlower, who used to be the American editor of the OED). But I think it's fine to use the better-known form. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand enlightened -- but still think you've made the right decision by changing. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a historical romance of knights and damsels in distress: consider linking damsel in distress, which would help to avoid the misreading that Metcalf wanted stories about knights in distress.
    Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burroughs responded with The Outlaw of Torn at the end of November, which Metcalf rejected: might be worth adding an EFN to explain what eventually happened to it?
    Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next three Barsoom novels appeared in All-Story over the next four years: I think something has gone awry here: we haven't yet mentioned Barsoom in the body, though we have mentioned Under the Moons of Mars.
    Oops, yes. Fixed. I'm tempted to put in more, since the series was enormously influential, but this isn't an article about Burroughs and as you say below there's plenty about him in the article already. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Gods of Mars was serialized from January to May, 1913: no comma here.
    Removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The initial rate of less than a cent per word that Burroughs received for his first sale began to increase: it might be worth flagging at the first instance, for readers who are slow with their math(s), that $400 for a manuscript of 70,000 words is just over half a cent per word.
    The trouble is that I don't know what the final word count was. It's quite likely that the final version wasn't exactly 70,000 words, and I don't have a reference that says how much it was, so I don't want to imply a final word count by giving an exact rate. I can confidently say the rate was less than a cent per word given the numbers Porges quotes but I can't get much closer than that without guesswork. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I did notice that we'd elided whether Burroughs actually met the word count specified. Probably can't be too precise here without OR, so will have to leave this one where it is. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burroughs gets the overwhelming majority of the airtime in the section on Contents and Reception. That clearly isn't a reflection of how much of the magazine his work occupied, but is it an accurate reflection of what the scholarship on All-Story looks like? I note that a lot of it is cited to Porges, which is a work about Burroughs rather than about the magazine.
    There's no question that Burroughs is the most important author to have been published in the magazine, but it's also true that the article simply spends more time on him because of the availability of the details in Porges. The other sources generally list a few names and a few stories, but don't go into nearly that much detail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Victor Rousseau" should link to Victor Rousseau Emanuel: Victor Rousseau was a Belgian sculptor.
    Oops. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cover illustrations did not at first have any relationship to the stories in the magazine: you may wish to show this by putting an early one and a late one side by side?
    Done, and thanks for fixing the sequence -- I ran out of time to make that change last night. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Popular brought back Fantastic Novels for another 20 issues between 1948 and 1951: missing a period at the end. Popular demand -- or do we mean Popular magazine? While looking for an answer, I noticed that the word "popular" is used frequently here: you may wish to vary it a little.
    This was opaque; I was referring to Popular Publications, a pulp magazine publisher. Now clearer, I hope. I've substituted one of the usages of "popular"; let me know if more need to go. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the magazine had reached 200,000 circulation: is this idiomatic? I'd say "a circulation of 200,000", but will defer if the professionals do otherwise.
    Changed; you're right that that was a clumsy way to say it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2006, a copy of the October 1912 issue of All-Story, featuring the first appearance of the character Tarzan in any medium, sold for $59,750: inflate?
    Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 1 and Note 2 are identical: clever use of the |name= parameter could avoid this.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All replied to now; thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: all sorted and another worthy addition to the pantheon of pulp-fiction FAs. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • " founded in 1905 and published Frank Munsey" - there's a word missing in there
  • "whose first sale was Under the Moons of Mars" - shouldn't the story title be in either italics or quote marks (not sure which is correct for a story title but I am pretty sure it should be one of them)....?
  • ""The Conquest of the Moon Pool", a sequel to latter story," - missing "the"
  • "followed in 1919, and were very popular" - the subject of the sentence is just a single story, so the verb should be singular
  • Minor possibly, but in the lead you have Frank Munsey and Robert Davis whereas in the bosy you have Frank A. Munsey and Bob Davis
  • That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All dealt with. It's amazing how one can't see missing words in one's own writing. Thanks for the review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • Would a pulp magazine link in the lead's first sentence be helpful? It is linked in the article, but I do not think it is linked in the lead, unless I am overlooking something of course.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that it may be helpful to qualify in the lead that Thomas Newell Metcalf worked as a managing editor, as I was a bit uncertain on my first read-through on why Metcalf and Robert H. Davis are presented as editors for the magazine, but presented in two different parts rather than together. By the way, I do appreciate the note in the article that defines the role of a managing editor to those unfamiliar with this type of industry.
    Done, though maybe I should just remove the mention of Metcalf -- he doesn't have his own article. He's important mainly because of the interactions with Burroughs, but I don't know if that requires him to be in the lead. I'll think about that some more and might cut him. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense. I will leave that decision up to you as I believe that you would know best about it. I can understand the argument for removing him as it avoid having to define the managing editor role in the lead, but I am not familiar enough with Metcalf or this type of article in general to say either way confidently enough. That being said, I could understand keeping him in the lead or keeping him in the article and removing him from the lead for the reasons you have said above. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, (and more stories of Tarzan followed), it may be useful to link to the Tarzan (book series) article. I was also wondering if this part, (set on Mars), would benefit from a link to the Mars in fiction article, but I am admittedly less certain about that or if it would be too forced or ambiguous in the prose.
    Both links added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was curious about the selection of File:All story weekly 19200410.jpg for its particular spot in the article? It is a striking cover that is visually interesting, but I was wondering why it was paired with the paragraph about Burroughs. Why not use File:Under the Moons of Mars.jpg instead, which while less visually interesting, is more directly related to the Burroughs paragraph and provides readers with a look inside the magazine and not just at the cover? This is more of a suggestion than anything, but I did question the image usage and placement on my first read-through of the article.
    I decided not to pick a Burroughs cover at that point because the Tarzan one is at the top of the article, so I picked one that illustrated a story by one of the other named authors -- Max Brand. I could swap the two images, but Tarzan is so universally known that it seemed the natural image to put at the top. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just realized I didn't answer your question about the internal image. I like that image, but I don't think I have room to include it -- I'm afraid someone with a wide screen would see sandwiching issues if I add another one. I don't think it's a good idea to have only Burroughs-related images -- he was important, but the magazine was important for other reasons too, and I don't want to give the impression that Burroughs is the only reason the magazine is remembered. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me, and I honestly did not consider that. I agree that it is best to not over-emphasize Burroughs in this article. I did not think about the lead image when making this suggestion. I agree that the Tarzan image is best kept at the top because of its popularity. And it is always best to keep in mind how readers will access the article, and Wikipedia in general, through different devices and platforms so I agree with the sandwiching concerns. With all of that in mind, I agree that the current image makes more sense in this context. As I said above, I really like the image, and it does show more of the art style and the variety of stories associated with the magazine, which is always a plus in my opinion. It was likely a case of me just over-thinking it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the Tarzan image is a good choice. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were there any other notable auctions related to the magazine other than the one for Tarzan's first appearance?
    Not that I'm aware of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a feeling that was the case, but thank you for clarifying it for me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that this review is helpful. I always find it a joy to read about this kind of stuff as it always reminds me of my brother as he loves more pulpy stories. Also, reminds me that I should read more short stories in general. I did not have that much to comment on to be honest, but after everything has been addressed, I will read through everything again to just make sure I do as thorough a job as possible as a reviewer. I hope you are having a great end of your year. Aoba47 (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Hope you're having a good holiday season. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I am glad that I am able to help with this review. I could not find anything further to bring up here, and I have added my responses above. I agree with your comments, and I will leave it up to you on how to best handle Metcalf's inclusion in the lead as I trust your opinion on that. I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. I hope you are having a great holiday season as well. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Hi Mike Christie, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

They are all in public domain because of their age. The images are relevant to the article and placed in appropriate locations. They all have captions and alt texts. The source links of the last two were dead but I was able to fix them. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, and for fixing those links. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another image of the same age now added; it has alt text and I just fixed the source link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update, looks good. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

What makes https://web.archive.org/web/20230128191052/http://www.philsp.com/data/data018.html#ALLSTORYMAGAZINE1905 and https://comics.ha.com/heritage-auctions-newsletter/rare-pulp-brings-record-price-at-heritage-.s?inFrame=yes&id=1823&date reliable sources? Mike Ashley and Michael Ashley seem to be the same person, so perhaps they should be given the same name. Greenwood Press is linked on its second mention. None of the sources seem questionable, checked the reviews of some and they seemed fine too. I assume that we are going by "OCLC, if that's not available ISBN" as the source formatting rule? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Philsp.com is maintained by bibliographer Phil Stephensen-Payne; per this he is treated as reliable by The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction.
  • The ha.com page is used only to support information about Heritage Auctions in their specialist field, that of auction prices for collectibles.
  • For Ashley I've used the form of the name on the books themselves, which has changed over the years.
  • Have now added publisher links in all source listings where there's an article to link to.
  • ISBN I think you meant to say the reverse? Which would be correct: ISBN unless it's too early, in which case use OCLC.

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, got the numbers of OCLC and ISBN mentally confused. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Z1720

[edit]

Non-expert prose review:

  • The "Contents and reception" section is a little long: I suggest splitting this section or using level 3 headings to break up the text.
  • The third paragraph of "Contents and reception": This is quite a long paragraph that I suggest breaking up or shortening.
  • I don't think the quote in the third paragraph that starts with "I was very much ashamed of my new vocation" is necessary. This quote seems to be about Burroughs's career and not the magazine and feels like it is off-topic. If it is to stay, I would prefer that it was summarised with prose instead to make it shorter.
  • "("Barsoom" being the name of the planet Mars in the series)" I don't think this is necessary for this article. As a reader who knows nothing about this topic, I didn't need to know this information to understand that this was Burroughs's series.
  • "In 2006, a copy of the October 1912 issue of All-Story, featuring the first appearance of the character Tarzan in any medium, sold for $59,750 (equivalent to $90,000 in 2023) in an auction held by Heritage Auctions of Dallas." This feels very off-topic for the section that it is in, and almost like it was added as trivia. Perhaps this can be moved to another section, like "Legacy"?
  • Speaking of "Legacy", why no legacy section? I think some of the information in "Contents and reception" could be placed in a legacy section. "Reprint magazines and anthologies" also speaks a little bit about the legacy when talking about reprints of stories.

Those are my thoughts. Feel free to ping me when giving responses. Z1720 (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved a paragraph in order to collect all the material about Burroughs together; I hope that takes care of the first point. I've also deleted half of the quote from Burroughs -- you're right that it's a bit off topic but I hope it's now short enough to keep. For your second point, it's a little shorter now that I've trimmed the quote. I think it might look longer than it is because the image is there. Do you think it needs to be shorter still? I'm a bit reluctant because it's not easy to see where to put the break, plus that would give a paragraph break against the image, which can look ugly.

The paragraph about the sale price of the magazine is now a bit more on-topic, I hope, since it's in a section specifically about Burroughs. Re "Barsoom", it's something that aficionados of the field would be surprised to see omitted -- the series had an enormous influence on the planetary romance genre and I think it would be wrong not to name it.

That leaves your suggestion of a legacy section. I did think about having a section like that, but decided against it because the sources generally discuss the magazine in terms of what stories appeared in it -- in other words, there's not much distinction between the contents discussion and the legacy discussion. The magazine was merged into Argosy, and there's an "Assessment" section there -- I could add the quote from Clute to this article, but I would put it just above the Burroughs section rather than adding a "Legacy" section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking up the section with Burroughs helps a lot. I still think the paragraphs are quite long, and typically, I suggest 4-6 sentences per paragraph. My preferred option is to reduce the prose size in those paragraphs. Some things that could be cut are "Burroughs was thirty-five years old in the summer of 1911, and unsuccessful in business." (moved to Burroughs's article) "Metcalf suggested Burroughs follow up Under the Moons of Mars with a historical romance of knights and damsels in distress. Burroughs responded with The Outlaw of Torn at the end of November, which Metcalf rejected." (move to Burroughs's article). Removing information like this will help the article stay focused on the magazine, not Burroughs.
Some additional questions: is George Allan England referring to George Allan England? Does Rhoades, Shirrel in the "Sources" section refer to Shirrel Rhoades? Z1720 (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut the details about the rejected novel. I'd like to leave the sentence about Burroughs being unsuccessful -- I think it's interesting to the reader that this wildly successful sequence from Burroughs came from someone who was treating writing as an embarrassing admission of failure in business. Re the links: yes for England and done. For Rhoades, I don't know -- I'm traveling and can't check the book for bio details that might settle it. I don't think it's the same person but will check when I get home. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support from me. My concerns were addressed, with justifications and answers to some questions given. I trust that MC will look into the Rhoades wikilink when they are able to. Z1720 (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've also now added a one-sentence "Assessment" section that includes Clute's quote, mentioned above. I don't like one-sentence paragraphs, let alone sections, but I don't think there's a better option here as it needs to come after the Burroughs section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am also not thrilled with the one-sentence section. Can a sentence be added to explain why Clute thinks the magazine is important? Z1720 (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to wait till I can access that source to see what else Clute says. I took that quote and the citation for it from Argosy, which I took to FAC recently. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For now I've moved it to the contents section, which is not ideal since as I said above I think it would be better after the Burroughs section, but this will work for the moment. If Clute gives enough background for me to add at least one more sentence I'll move it back. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sieges of Berwick (1355 and 1356)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article went through GAN in September 2021 and ACR in June 2022. Then it stalled. With access to several additional sources I have been able to expand and tweak it sufficiently that I now consider it may be worthy of FA status. A typical Medieval tale of cunning French, perfidious Scots, and an English army which bounces from northern England to France to Berwick, Lothian and then Carlisle over seven months, ending with little change in the situation apart from the expenditure of gold and blood. Also the Auld Alliance in action: the French distracting the English from Scotland, then the Scots returning the favour. This episode also marked the end of the Second War of Scottish Independence. No battles, no great drama, but - I think - a taste of a typical Medieval campaign. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from mujinga

[edit]

I'll get the ball rolling for a prose review. My level of expertise is shown by not knowing Berwick was so important back then.

One has to be a bit of an aficionado to be aware of that sort of thing.
  • "The disastrous English campaign of Stanhope Park brought" - my first thought here was that Stanhope Park was a general, is Battle of Stanhope Park acceptable?
I am so close I would never have thought of that. This is where your not knowing the topic is an advantage. Changed to "The disastrous English Weardale campaign ..."
  • "Edward never accepted the validity of the treaty[2] and by 1333 England and Scotland were at war again when Edward besieged Berwick, starting the Second War of Scottish Independence." - second Edward could be a "he"?
Fair enough. Done.
  • "with Edward's son about to lead an attack in south-west France" - maybe name him as the Black Prince?
I wondered about that. Ok, done.
  • "A force under Walter Mauny went ahead, escorting 120 miners." - why miners? *reads on* ah i see!
:-)
  • "Edward moved his army up the River Tweed to Roxburgh.." in this paragraph i was slightly surprised by the contemporary chronicler coming after the modern historians and i also wondered if it is worth adding a sentence saying something along the lines of "modern historians see the campaign as a success for Edward" or whatever, so that then the names which come after are clearly all historians .. on present reading it wasn't immediately clear to me Jonathan Sumption was a historian
Rephrased, is this clearer? Modern historians see the campaign as varying degrees of unsuccessful for Edward. Do I need to make that clearer?
that's great now! i was just giving an exmaple of a gloss sentence
  • i think dependent not dependant?
Oh dear.
Good grief!
Like many people, Sir Walter was inconsistent in the spelling of his name. (Did you know that six signatures of Shakespeare survive, and he spells his surname differently each time? And none of them are "Shakespeare".) Wikipedia is a notoriously unreliable source, and my sources lean heavily to Mauny.
Argh! I misread your comment, sorry. Standardised as "Mauny".
All addressed Mujinga, and thanks for boldly stepping up and being the first to tackle this. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
happy to support Mujinga (talk) 08:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]
  • "had been underway for over 22 years" – the OED makes "under way" two words.
Done.
  • "He was only prevented from worse depredations by his seaborne supplies not arriving due to bad weather" – two quibbles here. First the gerunds are back: it isn't "them not arriving" but "their not arriving" and as "seaborne supplies' not arriving" looks odd I suggest a simple "because". And we must have been through "due to" before: in AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer. But as we don't want two becauses in one sentence, may I suggest something like "He was only prevented from worse depredations because bad weather prevented his seaborne supplies from arriving"?
You certainly may. Thank you.
  • "The castle was overtopped in places" – overtopped is a word I don't know. Perhaps a blue link or something?
Wiktionary link added. ("To be higher than; to rise over the top of".)
  • "the Auld Alliance, which stipulated that if either country were attacked by England, the other country would invade English territory" – was there any formal agreement to that effect or was it merely an understanding?
I am unsure that an understanding counts as an alliance. It was signed in 1295, renewed in 1326 and while never formally terminated has been a dead letter since 1560.
  • "Norham Castle, a significant English border fortification" – and what did it signify? I think you mean major or important.
I do indeed.
  • "he led a chevauchée" – excellent! I'd been waiting for one of those.
:-)
  • "according to a contemporary 'by reason of the discord of the magnates'" – could do with a citation.
It has one. Number 23. Nicholson page 160. (From memory the last line. Want a photo?)
  • "devastation was a improvised campaign by Edward" – needs "an" rather than "a"
!
  • "A winter storm then scattered the fleet, so Edward cut short the campaign and withdraw" – two things here. First, you know my fusty old views on press-ganging "so" into use as a conjunction in formal prose, and secondly "withdraw" should be "withdrew"
Tweaking the first obviated the need to do anything about the second.
  • "a ceremony known as candlemas" – looks a bit odd without a capital C" – like writing "christmas".
Quite right.

That's my lot for now. Tim riley talk 18:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent stuff Tim. I think I managed a full bingo card of my usual errors, but you picked them all up. All fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. Highly readable, clear even to a layman like me, nicely illustrated, evidently balanced and neutral, and well and widely referenced. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. I hope there will be more to come in the same series. Tim riley talk 19:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Done. Thanks Nikkimaria. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Borsoka

[edit]
Frequently. My recently promoted Siege of Breteuil actually dealt with two sieges with a relief in the middle. Sieges of Vannes (1342), not an article I have contributed to, involves four separate sieges in one year. This is just the cases I have come across in the past week. There are numerous similar examples, in Wikipedia and other encyclopedias. In this case the two sieges form a single seamless event. (IMO) If you would prefer a different article name, feel free to suggest one, I am as ever entirely relaxed about such things. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I will conduct a source review soon. Hog Farm Talk 22:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HF, I shall strap myself in. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that after this many centuries, the British and French literature on this subject are in general agreeance? I know I would oppose a FAC on a Mexican-American War topic that used only American or only Spanish/Mexican sources because the literature from each side varies greatly in some respects, but I suspect that after over 650 years passions have cooled enough for both camps to be fairly representative.

It's all non-controversial stuff, certainly re POV. The original chroniclers didn't see it like that - "oath breakers", "suckers" etc - but no one has got jingoistic about it for a century or more. Some of the best work on things like French archives and tax records is done by UK or US academics. Although as Sumption laments, scholars often have to use an English approach because many French organisations (eg towns and religious establishments) deliberately destroyed their records so as to be able to obfuscate over tax demands, and many central records were similarly destroyed during the French Revolution.

The 1907 source is an archaeological report supporting some basic information that an archaeological report would be suspected to support, so no concerns there. The old 1911 EB citation also seems non-problematic.

I'm less sure that Robson is a high-quality RS - this is travel literature written by a TV presenter published by a publisher that apparently specializes in children's books and gardening literature. I wouldn't object to this at GAN, but I do wonder about it for FAC.

Well someone was happy with it at ACR. :-) I really like that quote and the only other places where I can find it are both nineteenth century. I entirely understand your doubts, so if you rule it out, let me know and I'll come up with some less grandiloquent form of words from a more HQ or two. And, obviously, bear a grudge about it for ever. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does the 19th-century attestation seem reasonable? I'm mainly concerned about making sure there is a reasonable historical basis for this quote. If you're confident that there is suitable attestation for this, I'm comfortable with citing Robson. I just want to make sure we don't have some variant of citogenesis occurring. Hog Farm Talk 16:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness no! It is nailed down enough. There are some variations of translation from the original Latin. "second Alexandria" or "another Alexandria" sort of thing. Eg here, note the third work - 2022 with a chunk of my quote - or in 1974 Davies in The Black Douglas has "so populous and busy that it might well be called a second Alexandria" and attributes it to the Lanercost Chronicle.
That works for me. Hog Farm Talk 17:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From a formatting perspective, I wonder why Robson is the only one with a linked publishers.

I have no idea. Good spot. Link removed.

I'll try to do a couple source checks tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 03:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source checks:

  • "In any event, Edward was in Newcastle in the north by Christmas Eve (24 December), where a large army was assembling, and a small fleet was being prepared to supply it. The army left Newcastle on 6 January 1356" - OK
  • "The miners tunnelled towards the town walls while Mauny prepared simultaneous land and sea assaults. On 13 January Edward arrived with the main English army. The Scots offered to parley" - OK
  • "Some sources state that in 1355 the town's and castle's defences were in good repair" - OK (assuming "some sources" is a reference to Sumption)
  • " the traditional place of coronation for Scottish monarchs" - OK
  • "Chris Brown considers that the invasion of Scotland and associated devastation was an improvised campaign by Edward, intended to deter future Scottish aggression" - OK

Pass on the source review. Hog Farm Talk 23:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Iazyges

[edit]
I am happy to amend my wording, but I feel that your suggestion, by putting ",encouraged by the French," inside commas, makes it a little less clear who "themselves" refers to.
I'm not coming up with a better answer; ah well. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and by 1333 England and Scotland were at war again when he besieged Berwick, starting the Second War of Scottish Independence. perhaps and in 1333 he besieged Berwick, starting the Second War of Scottish Independence.
Neat, done.
Hi Iazyges and thanks again. Both of your comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Octopussy and The Living Daylights

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This book is a collection of initially two but now four Bond short stories. It was published the year after Fleming's death and it comprises the remaining work about Bond that hadn't already been published up to that date. It wasn't widely reviewed and hasn't been as analysed as any of his novels, but it has some points of interest and some nice writing in it too. A profitable PR saw help from Tim riley and Dudley Miles, to whom many thanks. Any more constructive comments are most welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose readthrough

[edit]
  • Lede good.
  • Bond sees Trigger get in position to kill him and he realises that it is the cellist I might be sleepy, but I have no idea what "it" refers to here. I assume you mean the cellist is Trigger; Why not "she was the cellist"?
  • employee known to be a double agent working for the Soviet Union whose employee - the secret service? Might be easier to say "one of their employees" or something similar
  • "Background and writing history" good to me.
  • Development and style also good.
  • Release and reception good, well written reception section. (wow, they still used Guineas as a unit of currency?)
    Only as an invoicing mechanism to squeeze an extra 5% onto the bill, rather than the coin, which stopped in 1816! I remember seeing bills from professionals in the 1980s in guineas, but that was just an affectation by then, although it's still used in some animal auction houses (the extra 5 pence per pound being the auctioneers commission) - SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • plot device of auctioning of a Fabergé egg maybe "the auctioning"?
  • Went through and corrected some misordered citations.

@SchroCat: that's all! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Generalissima. All your suggestions duly enacted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good to me, good job. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I apologise for this, but on rereading for FAC I've found a few things I must have overlooked at Peer Review. Nothing to cause alarm and despondency but worth a mention, I think:

  • On reading the latest text I'm not wild about "an octopus that lives off his beach". The OED defines "live off" as to subsist on, derive food, etc., from; (figurative) to be supported by. whereas you, I think, mean Octopussy lives (i.e. dwells) offshore of the beach.
  • "While in New York he sent her a telegram that he needed time ..." – might be better with "saying" after "telegram"?
  • I'm sure you have excellent reasons for capitalising and including the definite article in the link for The Sunday Times but not for that for the Express, but it looks a bit odd to me.
    • Because The Sunday Times is the correct name for that publication, while Daily Express is as low class as it's contents suggest and drops the article. If only it would drop the poisonous articles in its pages too, the world would be a better place... - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "too long and specialised for the target audience, so he wrote the story" – you know my antediluvian views about pressing "so" into use as a conjunction in formal prose.
  • "Although he liked New York, his experiences on the trip soured his view" – this is the first we're heard of a trip there. Perhaps "on a recent trip" or some such.
  • "the part of the story where Smyth hunted ... Smyth is a semi-autobiographical portrayal of Fleming ... Fleming and Smyth were ex-military men ... Smyth is one of only two British villains" – but back in the Plots section he's "Smythe", with an e, six times.
  • "reprinted in Playboy in January 1964, while "Octopussy" was serialised in the March and April 1966 editions – I suggest a plain "and" or semicolon instead of "while" which seems too temporal for comfort here (the Bishop preached the sermon while the Dean read the lesson)
  • "published daily in the Daily Express newspaper – it is necessary (or even accurate) to identify the Express as a newspaper? You don't identify Playboy as a magazine or The Observer, Manchester Evening News et al as newspapers.

That's my lot, I hope. Over to you. Tim riley talk 16:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim; your suggestions all followed, except where noted otherwise.
Happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me to meet all the criteria; it's a good read, well and widely sourced, seems balanced, is well illustrated (I bet you had to do a fair bit of digging), and strikes me as comprehensive. I look forward to seeing it on our front page – as another of your Fleming articles is today, I see. Tim riley talk 13:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

You know it! I'm a bit backlogged so maybe a bit longer than the usual one-week turnaround, but I'll get to it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "published in different publications" reads a little awkwardly because of the repetition, although I understand if it can't be written around
    Tweaked a little around this - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am absolutely floored to learn that Octopussy was the name for an actual Octopus, what
  • Nothing to remark on until the Style section, which is unfortunately a little skint. I might even make it a subsection under Development, but won't insist
    Let me have a think about this - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In "Octopussy" he sees the hooks in action, keeping the pace of the story moving, despite no passages of action." - Repetition of "action", and also to be honest I'm not entirely sure what this means
    Tweaked a bit - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The story, which he considers a morality tale uses the flashback technique that Fleming liked." - needs a comma after "tale", but also how does the morality tale aspect relate to the flashback technique? Does he elaborate at all?
    Comma added. He doesn't link the morality tale to the flashback (neither do we, explicitly) but doesn't make too much of the point either, so we either have a medium sized sentence like this, or two very stubby sentences. - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's really all I've got. There's not much left to go over, following the PR and the other prose reviews already at this FAC. Nice to see you making your way through the entire Bond archive. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, PMC. All addressed. Happy to talk over any of them further, particularly the final one. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! Happy New Year :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Nikkimaria; I think this is a first for me, that there hasn't been a single quibble over any of the images. It's only taken a decade to get a clean sheet...! - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crisco

[edit]
  • Octopussy, starring Roger Moore as James Bond, was released in 1983 as the thirteenth film in the series and provided the back story for the film character Octopussy; - The short story provided her backstory, or it was new to the film?
  • Fleming had often hiked and skied in Kitzbühel in the late 1920s, while attending a small private school to study for entry into the Foreign Office and knew the area well; the experiences were used as the part of the story where Smythe hunted for the gold. - Feels like the comma is misplaced. Would "Fleming had often hiked and skied in Kitzbühel in the late 1920s, having attended a small private school to study for entry into the Foreign Office, and knew the area well; the experiences were used as the part of the story where Smythe hunted for the gold." work better?
    Reworked it in a different way: how does that look? - SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • who he named "Pussy" - I believe this should be "whom" or "which", as the subject is Fleming rather than Pussy
  • he wrote an article about the animal for The Sunday Times in 1957 "My Friend the Octopus" - Would a comma be better after 1957?
  • partly based on Amaryllis, Fleming's half-sister. She was a concert cellist with blonde hair, and Fleming managed to get a passing reference to her in the story, saying: "Of course Suggia had managed to look elegant, as did that girl Amaryllis somebody. - You have two links to Amaryllis in two sentences
  • Fleming also used her name as Bond's own housekeeper, May - Would "for Bond's own housekeeper" work better? The name is not the housekeeper; the woman with the name is.
  • The historian Jeremy Black sees Bond's colleague, the officious Captain Sender, as the antithesis of Bond and an echo of Colonel Schreiber, the head of security at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, who appeared in the 1960 short story "From a View to a Kill". - How so? Did they relish killing?
    In their officious manner - quite the opposite of Bond's approach. - SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the daughter of a character Bond had allowed to commit suicide, rather than face the shame of arrest and imprisonment - Is the comma needed here? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks Chris. All sorted, more or less down the lines you suggest, except where commented up above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MSincccc

[edit]
Placeholder. MSincccc (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the elements of the stories derive from Fleming's own interests and experiences, including climbing in Kitzbühel, Austria, wartime commando deeds and the sea-life of Jamaica.
    I think I'll stick with what's there - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rest of the lead is fine.
MSincccc (talk) 10:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Background
MSincccc (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adaptations and reprints
  • Yaroslav Horak could be described.
    We describe him as illustrating the work: I think it's a little superfluous to describe him as "the illustrator Yaroslav Horak" as well. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... he was adapted to be the father of Ernst Stavro Blofeld, the leader of the criminal organisation Spectre, and the former legal guardian of Bond in his youth.
Release and reception
Style
Within the James Bond series, Benson identifies what he described as the "Fleming Sweep", ... Could the full name be used here given that his name is being taken for the first time in the new section and that he was introduced in a previous section?
We could, but the previous full name and introduction was not too far above that people are likely to forget. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inspirations
  • Blanche Blackwell could be linked and described as the Jamaican heiress... as it's the first instance of her being mentioned in the article.
Characters
SchroCat The rest of the article is fine though I will take another look at it later. Minor comments above. MSincccc (talk) 10:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fleming was so unhappy with the final piece, he wrote to Wilson and refused payment for something he considered so lacklustre. Could be reworked for clarity and concision.
    It's all good as it is. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dissatisfied with the final piece, Fleming wrote to Wilson, refusing payment for what he deemed a subpar work. What about this one? MSincccc (talk) 12:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've indicated, I think it's fine as it is. There are lots of ways we can phrase it, but I don't see this change as an improvement. - SchroCat (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fleming had often hiked and skied in Kitzbühel in the late 1920s, while attending a small private school to study for entry into the Foreign Office and knew the area well... Could be reworked. Id you ask, I have an alternative sentence.
    This doesn't appear in the article: it was reworked based on a comment from a previous reviewer. - SchroCat (talk)
@SchroCat Two more only. The rest of the prose appears flawless. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 11:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support MSincccc (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Why are #5 and #53 formatted differently from the other paginated sources? What makes Slashfilm, Mutant Reviewers and Empire reliable sources? Otherwise, I see little that seems problematic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

##5 and 53 (and 57) all now have pages nos added, which I think is all of them. I think these three are considered generally reliable sources (there was nothing at RSN that debars their use on film topics), and they are the highest quality I could find that deal with the level of information being cited. Many thanks for your review, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

@SchroCat: i'll review this. ping me if i don't get back within seven days. 750h+ 18:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What a Merry-Go-Round

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following the smashing success of Voss, Alexander McQueen continued to lash out with What a Merry-Go-Round, which used imagery of clowns and circuses to portray the fashion industry as chaotic and deranged. Elements of the designs are considered to be potshots aimed at LVMH and its management as well as fellow designer John Galliano. Despite the aggressive undertones in the show, critics agreed that the clothes themselves were elegant and wearable, if perhaps not meant for the mainstream consumer. Though overshadowed by its predecessor, What a Merry-Go-Round is worth a look in its own right. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • McQueen Merry Go Round Look 67.jpg is fair use, and seems like a quite justified rationale.
  • McQueen, Musée des beaux-arts - 32.jpg - CC-BY-SA.
  • La Liberté guidant le peuple - Eugène Delacroix - Musée du Louvre Peintures RF 129 - après restauration 2024.jpg - PD

All of these seem good, support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • Apologies in advance for being nitpick-y, but I am uncertain about the use of "now" in this part, (that is now a signature of the brand), per MOS:RELTIME. I wonder if this could be substituted with something like, (that has become a signature of the brand).
  • Good catch, fixed here and in the body
  • I have a question for this part, (with at least six more in the finale). Is there a reason why we do not know the exact number of looks that were presented as part of the finale?
    • This is explained a little in a footnote later, which I've now added to the lead. Expounding a little: the runway video has too many cuts and moving parts to be able to properly count all the finale models with any certainty. Vogue's photos for sure miss some that are visible in the video, so theirs isn't accurate either. No retrospective sources provide a solid count, so I have to hedge with the "at least".
  • If possible, I would avoid sentence constructions like the following, (with early looks in neutral colours, and orange and green becoming more prominent later on). I have seen comments in other FACs that discourage the use of the "with X verb-ing" construction, and while I do not have any strong opinions on it, it is probably best to avoid when possible.
    • Yeah, fair, revised it in the lead and the body
  • Would it be possible to attribute this quote, "holding pens", in the prose?
    • Revised
  • Is there any particularly reason to include Krzysztof Komeda in the descriptor for "Sleep Safe and Warm"? I was just curious as the focus seems to be more on its inclusion on the Rosemary's Baby soundtrack so I was wondering why the composer would be mentioned here (as opposed to someone like the performer Mia Farrow).
    • No, not really, I've removed that detail
  • Here are some suggestions for some potentially useful links to add, (khaki, heavy metal music), but feel free to ignore this.
    • Added both

I hope that these comments are helpful. I have focused my review on the prose if that is okay. Wonderful work as always. I always enjoy reading through your work. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure that I have not missed anything, but I doubt that I will find any major. Best of luck with the FAC!

  • Thank you for your responses. No need to apologize. I hope that you are doing well and having a great start to your new year. I do not have anything else to comment on for my review. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Wonderful work as always. Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Navagero

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kimikel (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about 16th-century Venetian diplomat and writer Andrea Navagero. I've included nearly all of the information that I could find regarding him, from his early days translating Greek and Latin classics at the Aldine Press to his harrowing journey from Venice to Spain, during which he survived near-shipwrecks, imprisonment, and a volatile political scene. This is my first FAC, so pass or fail, I am happy to learn from the experience and would like as much feedback as possible. Thank you. Kimikel (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I can see no reason why this admirable article shouldn't become an FA. I know little, if anything, of the period, but the text strikes my layman's eye as thorough, balanced and reliable. It is also a good read – clear and interesting. If, as I hope, this is your first of many visits to FAC you will have to accustom yourself to an alarming amount of carping, quibbling and nit-picking about your prose. We all have to. With that in mind you may like to consider some or all of the following:

  • "In 1515, on the request of general Bartolomeo d'Alviano" – unexpected preposition: wouldn't "at the request of…" be more usual?
  • "he was designated Official Historian of the Republic of Venice" – do we need the capital letters in Official Historian, here and in the main text?
  • "As a result of his high standing among Venetian scholarly circles" – another unexpected preposition, I'd say. "High standing in" those circles strikes me as more natural.
  • "he traveled to Paris to acquaint himself with the royal court of Francis" – you really must decide whether you are using the American or the English spelling of "traveled/travelled". At present we have both throughout the text.
  • "Much to his dismay, however, he was appointed ambassador" – this is the first of six "howevers" in your text. It is a word that slips so easily from one's pen or typing fingers, but is more often than not a woolly superfluity. I reckon your prose would be crisper without the first, second, fifth and sixth "howevers".
  • "Navagero was born in 1483 to the wealthy and established Navagero family. The Navageros were a patrician family, members of the Venetian nobility" – infelicitous repetition of "family". It could easily be mitigated by recasting "a patrician family" as just "patricians".
  • "Geographer and writer Giovanni Battista Ramusio was Navagero's distant cousin" – clunky false title. A definite article in front of "geographer" would do the trick.
  • "and would grow to be among his closest friends" – does one grow to be a friend? The friendship grew, no doubt, but just "and would become…" strikes me as a more natural phrasing.
  • "alongside fellow humanist Agostino Beazzano" – another false title.
  • "As such, Navagero was tasked with negotiating" – I'm not sure what the phrase "as such" is intended to convey here. Do you mean "accordingly" or something like that?
  • "dreadful little place on some rocky mountain." – you should watch your punctuation. Wikipedia's manual of style bids us put punctuation marks outside the end quotation marks in sentences like this. I haven't checked the rest of your text for it, but I suggest you do so.
  • "he grew to resent Charles' powerful advisor" – I can't work out why you give King Francis an ess-apostrophe-ess possessive but deny it to the Emperor Charles.
  • "Mercurino di Gattinara, who he saw as delaying the peace negotiations" – "whom", please.

That's all from me. I'll look in again shortly. Meanwhile, over to you. Tim riley talk 14:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I am very appreciative of your review. I have implemented all of your suggestions. For the "however" comment, I removed the word entirely, but in some instances I replaced it with "but" or "though". If these words are also superfluous please just let me know and I'll take them out. Thank you. Kimikel (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good! After another read-through I'm happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. It is a good read, evidently well-sourced, looks comprehensive and balanced and is admirably illustrated. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 19:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Borsoka

[edit]
  • I would avoid presenting the same painting twice in the article, even if one of the images shows only a part of the painting (I refer to File:Andrea Navagero by Raphael.jpg and File:Andrea Navagero and Agostino Beaziano by Raphael.jpg)
  • The caption in the infobox is not helpful. Either delete or rephrase it (to be more informative).
  • However, these are only minor issues, and I reviewed the article during its peer review weeks ago ([7]), and I concluded that it met all FA criteria ([8]). After re-reading the article, I am convinced that it has even improved, so I support its promotion. Again, thank you for this excellent article. Borsoka (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Borsoka, I have implemented your suggestions. Thank you very much for your comments and also for your peer review, as it was a big help in giving me the confidence to move ahead to FAC. Kimikel (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Choliamb

[edit]

Hi Kimikel. I'm afraid I'm going to dump a big bucket of ice water on one specific section of the article, so let me start by saying that I think it's a fine article overall, full of valuable information and clearly written. It appears particularly strong on Navagero's diplomatic career, which is not something that I knew much about, and probably would never have bothered to learn about if I hadn't read the article. So thank you for that. My own interest in Navagero is, as you will see from the comments below, in his work as an editor of classical texts and as a Neo-Latin poet, and it is here, I think, that the article in its current form comes up a little short. His scholarly and literary activities are, for the most part, passed over very quickly, in a single paragraph (the second paragraph in the section headed "Career"), without much context and with several misstatements of fact in the space of half-a-dozen sentences. Without getting into an argument about whether his work as a scholar and a poet is more important than his diplomatic achievements, and without insisting on equal time for the things I find most interesting, I'll just say that I think the skimpiness of the discussion of this aspect of his life creates an imbalance that does not serve readers well. In a run of the mill biography, it wouldn't matter so much, but this is an FA candidate, and the comprehensiveness requirement states that it should "neglect no major facts or details". To me, at least, the article in its present form doesn't quite clear that bar.

Criticism without specifics is not very useful, so here are some specific examples of the kinds of information that might be used to improve the account of N.'s work as a scholar and poet:

  • First, a small point, but an important one: the first sentence of the lead should also include the Latin form of his name, Andreas Naugerius, which was the name under which all of his Latin works were published, and the name by which, until relatively recently, he was regularly known to both casual readers and scholars of Italian humanism. It is, for example, the form of the name that his friend and fellow Italian poet Girolamo Fracastoro used as the title of his treatise on the nature and purpose of poetry, Naugerius, sive de poetica, which takes the form of an imaginary dialogue in which Navagero is one of the principal interlocutors. When looking for sources, if you only search for Navagero, and don't also search for Naugerius, you will miss some important things. This is especially true in regard to his work as a scholar and editor of Latin texts, because in the field of classical scholarship (where his contributions are still regularly cited today), he is invariably referred to as Naugerius.
  • For the Aldine Press, with which he was involved since its inception, he translated the works of the ancient Roman writers Virgil, Quintilian, Ovid, and Cicero, among others. The Aldine editions were Latin texts, not translations, and Navagero was the editor (the "corrector", in the language of the time), not the translator. (The same mistake occurs in the first paragraph of the lead.) Look again at what Ady (the source cited here) actually says, and compare, e.g., the introduction to Wilson's edition of the Lusus, p. 7. The previous sentence in this paragraph, which says editing manuscripts of classic Greek and Latin works, gets this right, except that as far as I know Navagero did not produce an edition of any Greek text for Manutius. The preface of the Aldine edition of the Greek poet Pindar was addressed to him, but it was written by Manutius, and N. did not edit that volume. Do you have a source (preferably from a scholar who is actually familiar with the history of the Aldine press, not a popular historian repeating information at third or fourth hand) that includes the edition of a Greek author among his publications?
  • garnering a reputation as a scholar and a skilled writer. Can this be expanded? In regard to his scholarship in particular (I'll come back to his poetic reputation later), perhaps with some acknowledgment of how highly regarded his editorial work is by modern classicists and textual critics? This is particularly true of his edition of Ovid and his extensive notes on problematic passages in the works of that poet, which take up fifty pages in the Volpi edition of his collected works (on which see below), and which have often been mined by subsequent scholars. E. J. Kenney, the former Kennedy professor of Latin at Cambridge and editor of the Oxford Classical Text of Ovid's amatory works, described him as "an excellent Latinist and Ovid's most competent editor before Heinsius" (The Classical Text, p. 67), and Georg Luck has some useful and admiring comments about his methods and abilities in "Ovid, Naugerius and We, or: How to Create a Text", Exemplaria Classica 6 (2002), pp. 1-40, and "Naugerius’ Notes on Ovid’s Metamorphoses", Exemplaria Classica 9 (2005), pp. 155-224. Philology and textual criticism have advanced by light years since the early 16th century, and it's unusual for a Renaissance editor to be treated with this kind of respect by contemporary classicists.
  • All that remains of his poetry is a collection of 47 Latin poems referred to as Lusus. I still see this claim casually repeated, but it's not true, and hasn't been true since at least 1940. Although the Renaissance editions of the Lusus contain 47 poems, this does not take into account a number of other poems, not included in the Lusus, that survive in various Renaissance anthologies and manuscripts. The two essential works here are Maria Antonietta Benassi, "Scritti inediti o mal conosciuti di Andrea Navagero", Aevum 14 (1940), pp. 240–254 (JSTOR 25819298) and Claudio Griggio, "Per l'edizione dei 'Lusus' del Navagero", Atti del Instituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere, ed Arti, Classe scienze morali, lettere, ed arti 135 (1976-1977), pp. 87-113. (Benassi is available via the JSTOR link above; I think Griggio was also available online at one time, because I have a copy of it, but I'm not sure where I got it. If you can't find it, let me know and I'll send you a PDF.) Between the two of them, they have brought the total number of surviving Latin poems attributed to Navagero up to 69, although the attribution is not certain in every case. Both of these important articles are in Italian; if you want an English source to cite, the first paragraph of Dirk Sacré, "Andrea Navagero, Lusus: Three Textual Notes", Humanistica Lovaniensia 36 (1987), pp. 296-298 (JSTOR 23973625) is not great, but is probably sufficient. And in addition to his Latin poetry, Navagero also wrote verses in Italian, some of which survive. A handful of rime, sonnets, and madrigals, together with Italian translations of five of his Latin epigrams, are printed in the Volpi edition of his works (on which see below), pp. 275-286.
  • As it stands, the article tells readers nothing at all about the kind of Latin poetry Navagero wrote. The title Lusus might offer a clue (clearly not epic!), but it's not one that will be intelligible to most readers who don't know Latin. As it happens, the bulk of the collection consists of poems in the pastoral mode, looking back to ancient models like Vergil's Eclogues, but treating the material in a briefer, more epigrammatic form. These kinds of pastoral vignettes, sometimes called lusus pastorales, were a Navagero specialty, along with even shorter epigrams that imitate the rustic votive epigrams in book 6 of the Greek Anthology. The second part of the introduction to Wilson's edition of the Lusus gives some of the background; see also W. L. Grant, Neo-Latin Literature and the Pastoral, who credits Navagero and his friend and fellow Venetian Pietro Bembo with introducing the lusus pastoralis as a subgenre of Neo-Latin pastoral; and Giovanni Ferroni, Dulces Lusus: Lirica pastorale e libri di poesia nel Cinquecento, esp. chap. 2 (unfortunately not available online, as far as I can see). The votive epigrams adapted from Greek models are well discussed in J. Hutton, The Greek Anthology in Italy to the Year 1800, pp. 189–192; these made a big impression on the Renaissance French poets (see below). Navagero, like Vergil and other later writers of pastoral, occasionally used the pastoral setting as a device to comment on current affairs: so, most notably, Lusus 20 ("Damon") is in part an elegy for pope Julius II, with allusions to the military campaigns of 1512 (see Grant, p. 332, and Wilson's notes on this poem.)
  • The article in its current state also says little about the reputation and influence of N.'s Latin verse among other Renaissance poets, both those writing in Latin and those writing in the European vernaculars. An anodyne phrase like garnering a reputation as ... a skilled writer is pretty inadequate for a literary figure of his stature. He was widely admired by his contemporaries; Fracastoro wrote that he was surpassed by few, if any, of the poets of antiquity (paucis quidem aut nullis ex antiquioribus cedens), and as I mentioned above, made him the central character of the Naugerius, his dialogue on the nature of poetry. Among modern critics he is generally considered one of the finest Neo-Latin poets: cf., e.g., the remarks of Grant (cited above), who calls him "one of the most elegant Latin poets of the Italian Renaissance and one of the very few important Neo-Latin writers produced by Venice" (p. 140). As for influence, the votive epigrams based on the Greek Anthology were especially influential in France, where they were translated, adapted, and imitated by Ronsard, du Bellay, and other poets of the Pléiade: see Hutton, The Greek Anthology in France and in the Latin Writers of the Netherlands to the year 1800, pp. 332-337; Paul Kuhn, "L'influence néo-latine dans les églogues de Ronsard", Revue d'histoire littéraire de la France 21 (1914), pp. 309-325 (JSTOR 40517277); Paul Laumonier, Ronsard, poète lyrique, p. 128. And in a famous encounter in Granada in 1526, Navagero urged the Catalan poet Juan Boscán to try his hand at writing in the humanistic, Petrarchan mode then popular in Italy, a conversation that had a significant effect on the subsequent development of Spanish lyric poetry. (This story has been told many times; see, e.g., E. H. Wilkins, "A General Survey of Renaissance Petrarchism", Comparative Literature 2 (1950), pp. 327-342, at p. 332 (JSTOR 1768389), quoting Boscán's account of the meeting as told in the preface to Sonetos y canciones a manera de los italianos; an English translation of the relevant passage can be found in H. Keniston, Garcilaso de la Vega: A Critical Study of his Life and Works, pp. 74-76. Since you are fluent in Spanish, I will add a reference to A. de Colombí-Monguió, "Boscán frente a Navagero: el nacimiento de la conciencia humanista en la poesía española", Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica 40 (1992), pp. 143-168 (JSTOR 40299553). I haven't read it myself, but from the title it looks like it may have some interesting things to say about Navagero and his role in "the birth of the humanist spirit in Spanish poetry".)

I'm sorry to go on at such length about the shortcomings (or what I see as the shortcomings) of a single paragraph of the article, and I'm not looking for all of the above to be discussed in detail, obviously. But I think this paragraph could easily be expanded, and perhaps split into two (one for scholarship, one for poetry), and doing so would give you a chance to address these topics a little more fully and explicitly, and to illustrate the general points with a couple of specific examples like the ones I've mentioned above (or others -- there are plenty of others!). Doing so would, in my opinion, go a long way toward making the article a more balanced portrait of the man, and would remove most of my reservations about supporting FA status.

I'll finish up with a few additional comments on other points:

  • Navagero admired Catullus so greatly that, in order to assert Catullus' poetic supremacy, he burned copies of the work of Martial, Catullus' contemporary, every year. Martial was not in fact Catullus's contemporary: Catullus was writing in the second quarter of the 1st century BCE, Martial in the last quarter of the 1st century CE, a difference of more than a century. The story about the burning of Martial's works is a more complicated one than Watson (the source cited here) indicates, and it's not entirely clear from the conflicting early sources how reliable the story is, whether the burning was intended as a joke or a serious act, and whether it was the licentious content or the impure style of Martial's epigrams that Navagero objected to. The most comprehensive discussion of the various versions of the story is in E. A. Cicogna, Della vita e delle opere di Andrea Navagero, pp. 290-291, note 306. It is first recorded in 1545 by Paolo Giovio, in an elegy for Navagero (printed in Latin in F. A. Gragg, Latin Writings of the Italian Humanists, pp. 348-349; I think Gragg published an English translation of it somewhere, but I can't find it at the moment). Giovio is close enough in time to Navagero himself that there should be some truth to the story, but it still gives me pause, personally, and if I were writing the WP article I would probably hedge a little and say "he is said to have burned copies of the work of Martial", rather than stating it as 100% certain. Still, it's in the sources, and often repeated, so you're well within your rights if you want to leave it as it is.
  • In addition to the funeral orations for d'Alviano and Loredan, both of which are mentioned in the article, Navagero is also known to have delivered a similar oration for Catherine Cornaro in 1510 (see Cicogna, cited above, p. 227, note 12). Unlike the other two speeches, this one doesn't survive, but it may be worth mentioning anyway, both because it provides additional evidence of the respect accorded to him as an orator on grand state occasions, and because Catherine herself (the last ruler of the Crusader kingdom of Cyprus) is such an interesting character.
  • Navagero's brother Pietro retrieved his coffin, which was later buried next to his beloved garden in Murano. More specifically, Navagero was laid to rest, according to his own instructions, in the church of San Martino di Murano, which apparently no longer exists. At some point in time a memorial inscription was set up by two of N.'s nephews, the sons of his brother Bartolomeo, either in San Martino or in San Giovanni in Bragola or Bragora. For all of this, and for the Latin text of the memorial inscription, see Cicogna (cited above), pp. 169-171. (On pp. 318-321 he also reproduces a group of interesting primary sources on the death of Navagero.) I've cited Cicogna in all three of the last three notes, so let me just insert an additional plug here: his account of Navagero's life and works, published in 1855, is a prodigious work of scholarship, full of all sorts of fascinating information drawn from archives and private sources, much of which is, as far as I know, unavailable elsewhere. It's very dense and not an easy read, especially if your Italian isn't great, but being able to search it electronically for keywords makes it possible to dip into it for his comments on specific subjects of interest without having to read it all from beginning to end.
  • Finally, the WP article should certainly include a reference somewhere to J. A. Volpi and C. Volpi, eds., Andreae Naugerii patricii Veneti oratoris et poetae clarissimis opera omnia (Padua 1718), which is still the standard edition of his collected works. In addition to the poetry, it contains the two surviving funeral orations, prefaces from his editions of classical texts, a collection of letters, and his accounts of his diplomatic journeys to Spain and France, as well as a selection of works addressed to him or about him by his contemporaries (like Fracastoro's Naugerius). (Table of contents on p. 430.)

That's it for me. Once again, apart from the reservations expressed above, I think this is a good article, and I enjoyed reading it. Happy holidays, Choliamb (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Choliamb, thank you very much for bringing these shortcomings to light. I will work on rectifying all of this over the next couple of days. Kimikel (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Choliamb: I would be very appreciative if you could take another look at the article when you have the time. I believe I have incorporated all of your suggestions, mostly in the section "Writer and scholar". If there is still a major piece that I am missing out on, or if I have introduced another inaccuracy, please let me know and I will be happy to continue editing. I hope that I have addressed your concerns and I thank you for your incredibly detailed support. Kimikel (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kimikel: I didn't check all the references, but I did give the new section a quick once-over, and it looks good to me. I'm much happier with the article's balance now, thank you. I do see one misunderstanding:
  • two separate scholars, Maria Antonietta Benassi and Claudio Griggio, uncovered more of Navagero's Latin works in Italian manuscripts, adding twelve poems to his known body of work. The numbers are still not quite right here. Not your fault; you're relying on Sacré, and his summary is a little confusing. It's true that Griggio published 12 more poems, but that was on top of the 10 new poems previously published by Benassi, so between the two of them they added 22 (not 12) new Latin poems to the corpus, for a total of 69, not 59. (Benassi also published some additional Italian poems.) The complete collection of 69 Latin poems according to Griggio's edition can be consulted online in a couple of different places; perhaps it would be helpful to add one or both to the WP article as external links:
  • Also, FYI, I see that a new print edition of Navagero's Latin poetry will be published in the spring by Harvard Univ Press, in their I Tatti series of Renaissance Latin texts and translations. No reason for this to appear in the article yet, but you may want to keep an eye on it for future revisions.
Assuming the numbers are sorted out as explained above, I'm now happy to support. Thanks for improving WP's coverage of Renaissance humanists. Happy New Year. – Choliamb (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editing to add a reply to UndercoverClassicist's question below about Navagero's time in Padua. The indefatigable Cicogna (pp. 224–225, note 5) reports that his presence in that city is confirmed by a volume in the episcopal library, which lists him as a witness in the awarding of doctorates in 1501 and 1502. (In the entry for 1501 he is described as Venetus artium studens; in 1502 the other witness was his lifelong friend Fracastoro). Choliamb (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected the number from 12 to 22 poems and added an external link to the MQDQ Project's Lusus. I want to thank you again for all of your assistance in making this article a far, far more comprehensive biography, something Navagero certainly deserves. Kimikel (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

Seems that this has already had some very skilled eyes pass over it, but I'll add my carping, quibbling and nit-picking shortly. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think we need a brief caption to give a date, artist and brief context for the infobox image, especially as the artist is notable.
  • Throughout, text (including titles) in non-English languages needs to be in Lang templates. You can set |italic=no if you wish, but generally non-English words in the Latin alphabet are also italicised.
Done Kimikel (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure most of what we give as "occupations" in the infobox really were "occupations" in the modern sense: particularly the translating, poetry and history-writing were more aristocratic side-interests than professional work. Perhaps the |known_for= parameter would be useful here?
Moved everything besides diplomat to known for Kimikel (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He dedicated himself to editing classic Greek and Latin manuscripts: advise classical instead, which is more neutral description and easier to defend (were the manuscripts really "classic", as distinct from the works themselves?).
Replaced all instances with "classical" Kimikel (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than the date of birth, the Early Life section is pretty light on chronological precision: is that a reflection of the sources? Do we have any idea, for example, when he was at Padua? (I see the dates now added on Padua, but the broader point stands).
Hello UndercoverClassicist, thank you for your comments. I believe I have implemented all of your suggestions in this round of comments. Please let me know if there is anything else, or if I need to redo something you've already listed. Thanks! Kimikel (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a result of his high standing in Venetian scholarly circles, he was named the Venetian ambassador to Spain in 1523, and navigated the volatile diplomatic climate caused by the conflict between Holy Roman Emperor Charles V and Francis I of France. : I think we need to mention here that Charles was also king of Spain.
Done Kimikel (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of his contemporaries believed that he had the potential to become an ascendant and successful politician: what is ascendant saying here that isn't covered by successful?
Removed Kimikel (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, the article moves lightly over things that might be better fleshed out or explained, particularly for readers who are not versed in the (many) areas of study touched on here. For instance:
    • Navagero was born in 1483 to the wealthy and established Navagero family. The Navageros were patricians, members of the Venetian nobility.: the Venetian nobility wasn't just one thing: do we have any idea of how aristocratic this family was?
Established that the Navageros were part of the case nuove of the Venetian nobility
Good change, but we now have a small problem with Navagero was born in 1483 to the wealthy and established Navagero family. The Navageros were among the younger case nuove, or "new houses", of the Venetian nobility, as opposed to the more established "old houses".. This seems to be contradictory. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • He attended meetings of the academies of Rome, and subscribed to the humanist and Epicurean schools of thought: what were those things? Was that unusual or interesting at the time?
I have broken these into different sentences which define each idea, and tried to contextualize them more in the era and how they related to Navagero. Kimikel (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quote marks on "convivial social gatherings" make it sound like we're being euphemistic here. This is a mundane enough phrase that MOS:QUOTEPOV applies and we can remove them without a problem. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • He delivered a funeral oration for Catherine Cornaro, the final Queen of Cyprus, in 1510: how was it that he ended up doing that? Venice is a long way from Cyprus, isn't it?
Added that she was born and died in Venice, will address other two Kimikel (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of his contemporaries believed that he had the potential to become an ascendant and successful politician: perhaps not your doing, but this is textbook WP:WEASEL, and it makes a big difference as to which contemporaries are being talked about. Does di Robilant give any specifics?
I 100% agree with the weasel comment, but unfortunately di Robilant does not. Will look for another source that attributes it to somebody Kimikel (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have not been able to find anything that is attributed to a specific person and backs this claim, not even in Cicogna's exhaustive biography. I kept the sentence as it was but since his political career in the Council is not hugely relevant to his life, I can just remove it entirely to avoid the weaseling. Kimikel (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, Navagero admired Catullus so greatly that in order to assert Catullus' poetic supremacy, he is said to have burned copies of the work of Martial, another Latin poet: this doesn't really connect unless you know a little about the relationship between the two: Catullus was the first major Latin poet of invective and, to Martial, the greatest. Martial saw himself as a humble imitator/apprentice to Catullus, but I imagine the two formed rival "fan clubs" in the Early Modern period.
Added that Martial was imitator/"literary inheriter" of Catullus Kimikel (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We mention a lot of modern scholars in the section on his Latin and other compositions, but I think we need to be more precise as to exactly when those people were writing. "Modern", in classical scholarship, can cover at least the last century, if not the last two.
Added years of publication for modern scholar quotes Kimikel (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When editing a work, he generally preferred its older readings and interpretations: I think I know what you mean here, but it's not quite idiomatic or clear. What are, for example, the Aeneid's older readings? We mean older readings and interpretations of the Aeneid -- but then what is "older" in this context? A hundred years or a thousand?
From what I have read Navagero did not specify which manuscripts he was taking from, he just claimed to have found a reading in "old manuscripts". I added this tendency of his to the article, if it still does not read well, I can just remove it entirely Kimikel (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah: this may not quite be the same thing. In textual criticism, a manuscript's "reading" of a text is the word or spelling it has in a certain position. So, what N. may well have been saying is that, given a manuscript of the Aeneid from 1300 that began with "I sing of arms and the man" and one of 1400 that began "I sing of farms and the man", he would write "arms and the man" in his edition because the manuscript containing that reading is older. That's pretty standard practice in modern textual criticism, though I doubt the field was coherent enough to say the same in Navagero's time. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining, apologies for having misunderstood. Since it's now considered standard practice, I felt it wasn't necessary to include it in the article and removed it. Kimikel (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say this goes the other way: assuming it wasn't standard at the time, it's more of an argument for inclusion that it's standard today. We wouldn't comment that Einstein thought the world was made up of atoms, because everybody did in his time, but it's a major part of Democritus's biography that he did. I suspect Choliamb might have some insight into whether this kind of technique was yet mainstream? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when N. explains a change in the text by citing a vetus lectio, he means a reading that he found in an older manuscript. One reason why his editions are better than many other early editions is that they are based on examination and comparison of many manuscripts; he and Manutius didn't just take the first one that came to hand as a copy text for the printer, as some other publishers did. And yes, the value of older manuscripts was well understood in N.'s day, and had been since the days of Petrarch and Poggio, who actively searched for old manuscripts to correct errors in their own copies of ancient texts (and along the way rediscovered many lost works as well). N. emphasizes his reliance on old manuscripts in order to make it clear that the new readings in his editions are not just his own conjectures, but have some ancient authority. Kenney in The Classical Text, pp. 33–34, cites an interesting passage from N.'s notes on the pseudo-Ovidian Letter of Sappho, in which N. writes that, with a few exceptions, "everthing I have changed, I have changed on the basis of ancient copies", and that his improvements to the text are the result of his labor, not his ingenium (i.e., his hard work collating manuscripts, not his own talent as an poet). He insists on this because conjectural emendation was evidently still viewed with suspicion in some quarters, and it was not uncommon for less scrupulous scholars to claim that their own conjectures were not conjectures at all, but readings found in some imaginary ancient manuscript that no one else had ever laid eyes on (examples in Kenney, p. 33). Whether it's worth mentioning this in the article is something I'll leave you to decide. Choliamb (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: I believe I've addressed everything up to this point. If I need to expand further on any of these previous points, please let me know. Thank you. Kimikel (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Despite his election to the Great Council, Navagero devoted much of his time towards editing manuscripts of classical Latin works at the Aldine Press printing office, garnering a reputation as a scholar and a skilled writer. For the Aldine Press, with which he was involved since its inception: the chronology is confusing me here. Firstly, if we can, I would be explicit on the date of his election (should be c. 1503), rather than "at the age of twenty" and requiring readers to look up his birth date and do the maths themselves. Secondly, wasn't the Aldine Press established in 1494? In other words, he had apparently been editing since the age of eleven, which seems unlikely, but we also haven't presented this as a long-standing activity that predated his political career.
  • Added year of election. Cartwright Ady claims N. and Ramusio "were connected with the Aldine press from its foundation" but I removed that clause because his connection to the press isn't really concrete until 1514 when he started editing there, and it would be odd if he started editing at 11. I haven't seen any other source claim that he was with the Press much earlier than when his editions were published. Kimikel (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • deeply knowledgeable in regards to classical literature: in regard to (or just "about").
  • though he destroyed some of his own works as they did not meet his rigorous standards: I'd like to see this fleshed out a bit. Don't most poets -- indeed, most writers and artists -- produce drafts and other bits-and-pieces that never see publication? Can we give any specifics on what "rigorous standards" means here?
  • Martial, who called himself Catullus's "literary inheriter" and imitated his work: I think that's doing Martial quite a disservice. He clearly drew on Catullus and references him frequently, but was also quite clearly doing something new and different (in particular, his invective usually mixes in a lot more wit and wordplay with the obscenity).
  • A collection of Navagero's Latin poems titled Lusus (lit. 'diversions') was first published posthumously in 1530.: was this the first collection of N's Latin poems to be published? The phrasing here is a bit clunky, but seems to be pointing in that direction.
  • reminiscent of classical Latin pastorals, namely Virgil's Eclogues.: we need particularly rather than namely, since pastorals must refer to more than one work. Admittedly, I'm struggling to think of any others that have survived (though there are a couple of Greek ones) ...
  • Similarly to the Eclogues, much of Lusus affectionately describes pastoral life in the countryside of northern Italy, written in Navagero's rigorous and proper style: a run-on sentence which has ended up in the wrong place: the Eclogues are not written in Navagero's rigorous and proper style (incidentally, I'm still not sure what this means beyond "Navagero spoke good Latin", which was true of most highly educated people in his day).
  • the poems and epigrams: strictly speaking, an epigram is a poem.
  • We go into a lot of detail on the reception of Lusus in the biographical section, which somewhat interrupts the flow and moves us forward several centuries at a time. On the other hand, we don't really have a section in this article for Navagero's assessment and legacy, which is quite a good thing in a scholarly biography. Put bluntly, why did this person matter and how is the world different because he lived in it? I think we have an opportunity to kill a few birds with one stone here: you might want to look at Eduard Fraenkel, R. A. B. Mynors or (with apologies for crediting myself) George E. Mylonas as examples of scholarly biographies where the key threads have been pulled out into such a section, leaving the biography section more chronological and descriptive. I see that Choliamb has kindly provided a lot of reading on the legacy/impact of N's Latin verse.
  • I've done this with a new section at the bottom. Please let me know if I missed the mark on this; I wasn't sure what belonged in the biography and what belonged down there. Kimikel (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good place to pause for now. Do let me know if anything is unclear, or if I can help with any of the points above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse me for adding one more quick comment down here, so that it doesn't get lost above:

  • It would be better, I think, to refer to the Lusus throughout as "the Lusus", with the definite article (like the Eclogues, the Georgics, the Metamorphoses, etc.).
  • UC's point about the Lang templates is well taken, and they know much more than I do about proper WP style in such cases. But the Latin template should not have been added to Vergil's Eclogues, because Eclogues is a naturalized English word, not a Latin one. (The Latin form is Eclogae.)

Happy New Year to you both. Choliamb (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from MSincccc

[edit]
    • As a result of his high standing in Venetian scholarly circles, he was named the Venetian ambassador to Spain in 1523 and navigated the volatile diplomatic climate caused by the conflict between the Holy Roman Emperor and the kings Charles V of Spain and Francis I of France. Finer version.
Hello Msinccc, thank you for this first round of comments. I implemented all of them except for the one I noted above. I appreciate having your eyes on this. Kimikel (talk) 13:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kimikel Upon Navagero's return to Venice, he joyfully found his library... Can the "joyfully" be omitted here?
Apart from the one comment above, the rest of the article is fine. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

[edit]

File:Andrea Navagero and Agostino Beaziano by Raphael.jpg (not used in the article, but one image depends on it) and File:Portret van Andreas Navagero Andreas Navageri (titel op object), RP-P-1909-4345.jpg have bare URLs. ALT text could be capitalized and added to the other images. Image placement is fine. Sources seem pertinent, reliable and consistently formatted, can't speak about completeness. Many offline sources, though, someone ought to check them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus fixed the bare urls, added alt text. Please let me know if I missed something, thank you for your review! Kimikel (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK, a bit more detail on the portrait URL might be good. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flight Pattern

[edit]
Nominator(s): Z1720 (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a dance performance depicting the plight of a group of refugees. Choreographed by Crystal Pite for The Royal Ballet, it was the first time in 18 years that the ballet company commissioned a work by a woman. If successful, I think this would be English Wikipedia's second featured article about a dance performance, and I would like this to be TFA on World Refugee Day. Your comments and feedback are much appreciated. Z1720 (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Just a place holder for now. I hope to look in tomorrow. Tim riley talk 16:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few minor points on prose:

  • " a one-act contemporary ballet by Canadian choreographer Crystal Pite" – clunky false title. The addition of a definite article will make the desired improvement.
  • "their spines unravelling" – I should think if one's spine unravels one is probably dead. It seems an odd verb to use and I can't quite picture what you are trying to convey.
  • "the couple has lost a child" – but later you use "their" rather than "its" for "the company". Either singular or plural is fine, but I recommend consistency.
  • "with the dancer's fate left ambiguous to the audience" – you might consider omitting the last three words. To whom else would it be ambiguous?
  • "masterfully layored" – what?
  • "Reviewers highlighted the 18-year gap since the Royal Ballet commissioned work from a female choreographer" – this is bound to pique your readers' interest and it would be a kindness to add an explanatory footnote saying who the previous one was and giving the name of her work.
  • Many sources mention the 18-year gap, but none mention who the last choreographer was. I'm scared that trying to do this research myself would results in WP:OR so, unless someone can find a source that mentions the last choreographer, I might be stuck. Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the company often performs in their repertoire" – this lurches between singular and plural: either "the company often performs in its repertoire" or "the company often perform in their repertoire".

My only point about the substance of the article is that you don't mention the conductor (Koen Kessels) or the soprano soloist (Francesca Chiejina) who took part in the première. You mention the costumier, set designer and lighting designer (or unlighting designer to judge from the Royal Ballet's YouTube video) and it seems wrong to overlook the musical performers. The 2019 revival had the same singer but a different conductor, but I don't think it is necessary to mention that.

I hope these few comments are of use. Tim riley talk 13:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: in the opening line is it relevant to mention Pite's nationality? Tim riley talk 13:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Comments above. Thanks for the review, and let me know if there's anything else to address. Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a final read-through I'm happy to support the promotion of this article to FA. It is clear, a good read, seems neutral and balanced, is well and widely referenced (with some heavyweight sources as well as press coverage) nicely illustrated and meets all the FA criteria in my book. The false title is still in the lead but I do not press the point. I look forward to seeing the article on our front page. Tim riley talk 18:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

[edit]

This seems an interesting subject! On first glance though can you let me know why you do not link the publications in the references? Ippantekina (talk) 02:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ippantekina: I was worried about a WP:SEAOFBLUE with the article title and the archived link. Z1720 (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall a well-written article; my issues below are rather nitpick-y
  • I would not capitalise "the" in "the Royal Ballet" per MOS:THEMUSIC
  • Should we italicise loanwords like pas de deux?
  • I'm not sure if we should pipe "tension" as this is a commonly understood word, unless it is a ballet jargon which I'm unaware of?

Ippantekina (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ippantekina: Thanks for the review. Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from MSincccc

[edit]
Lead
  • Flight Pattern is a contemporary ballet by the choreographer Crystal Pite,... "Choreographer" could be de-linked here as most occupations are. The "the" ensures that there are no false titles.
  • by the dancers Marcelino Sambé and Kristen McNally. Again, to avoid false titles.
Critical reviews
  • Reviewers differed on the emotional impact of the piece: some thought it was impactful[21][25] and that the choreography avoided abstract and metaphorical movement to a positive effect.[8] Others felt the choreography was simplistic and sanitised,[20] melodramatic,[7] or lacked the depth of her previous work.[5] Sambé's performance was "exuded fluency These two sentences could be merged or rephrased, as you prefer.
  • Luke Jennings, writing for The Guardian,... Dropped the "when".
  • Kat Lister stated in The Independent that the performance at Royal Opera House,... The newspaper's name could be linked here.
Performances
  • succeeding the Belgian choreographer Sidi Larbi Cherkaoui's Medusa... Finer version which also avoids false titles.
MSincccc (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

I'll comment on this in a bit. 750h+ 16:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're Not Sorry

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a lesser-known song by Taylor Swift. Well... I don't know what else to introduce about Ms. Swift, so err, enjoy this song and article, I guess? I believe this article is well-written and comprehensive for an FA, and I'm open to any and all comments :) Ippantekina (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • I am uncertain about "see" in this context, (lyrics see Swift calling out), as lyrics can obviously not see anything. Maybe a different word choice here would be better?
  • Should the lead clarify that this song was released prior to the album? I think that it would help to explain its status as a promotional single, and readers may be unaware that this download release on the iTunes Store was done prior to the album's release. It may be obvious though so feel free to disagree.
  • For this part, (a March 2009 episode), it may be helpful to link "Turn, Turn, Turn" (CSI episode), which is a redirect to the episode. The redirect is already used in the article so it would be consistent to use it in the lead as well. I think you could just link the phrase without naming the episode as it is not notable enough to mention by name in the lead.
  • It may be nice to link catchy, but this is just a suggestion.
  • I would link re-recording in the lead and in the article itself.
  • Why is the "Release" section placed before the "Music and lyrics" section? It seems out of order.
  • Thank you for the explanation and for the link to the other example. I can understand using a certain order if the information is best presented that way so this should not be an issue for me. Aoba47 (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "released" is repeated multiple times in the first paragraph of the "Release" section, and it would be good to add variety.
  • Just out of curiosity, and apologies in advance if this is obvious, but how was the electronic remix released? Was it put out as a standalone remix on places like iTunes Store? I am guessing based on when it was released that it was not made available on the Fearless album, or at least physical copies.
  • I would avoid the repetition in saying "sing the song".
  • The following source (here) has credited authors that are not included in the citation.

I hope that this review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article again a few more times just to make sure that I have not missed anything. I doubt that I will find anything significant though as you have done a great job with writing about one of Swift's lesser-known songs. The mention of the CSI guest appearance, as well as the iTunes Store, are big throwbacks for me. It would be cool if she ever performed that remix live. Anyway, best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: thanks for the review! I've addressed your comments above. Let me know if any outstanding concerns remain :) Ippantekina (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. You have done a wonderful job with this article, and I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I always enjoy reading through your articles, and I hope you are having a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words as always :) Ippantekina (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am just glad that I could help. I have posted my image and media review below as I thought that it may be helpful to get that out of the way. Everything looks good to me with that. I just have a quick question about the summary for the audio sample. Aoba47 (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

brachy0008 (minor)

[edit]

hi! this is my… second FA review… im completely inexperienced (i did review a mariah carey article before (FA)) and as advice, im here… to do more reviews for a little prep for my you know, first FAC

  • Erin Strecker of Billboard wrote about how seems a bit ambiguous.
  • Rob Sheffield writing for Blender: Where is the commas? Minor punctuation error. (/j)

and that is all the nitpicking i could find so far. will get back to you later ;D

Image and media review (pass)

[edit]

Image use and placement make sense to me. Both images have appropriate WP:ALT text. The WP:FUR is complete and well-done forFile:Taylor Swift - You're Not Sorry.png, and I do not see any issues with File:Taylor Swift - Fearless Tour - Los Angeles 05.jpg. The audio sample, File:YoureNotSorry sample.ogg, has a clear purpose and use in the article, but I do have a quick question about this part. The file information for this sample seems shorter than those you have done for other Taylor Swift articles, such as this one for "Labyrinth" (Taylor Swift song), and I was wondering about the reason for it? Once this has been addressed, this will pass my image and media review. Aoba47 (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Aoba. I've added detailed FUR for the audio sample. Let me know if that works! Ippantekina (talk) 05:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good to me. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Redfield

[edit]
Nominator(s): Boneless Pizza! (talk) and StarScream1007 13:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a main character from the Resident Evil game and film series; who is known for punching a boulder at the active volcano in video games.

After Aoba47, Crisco, and Shapeyness (from their talk page) peer reviewed the article I feel like the article has improved a lot. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Media review and support from Crisco

[edit]

Prose comments:

  • Video game magazines have been polarized in their critiques of the character, - Pretty sure it's not just magazines. Journalism is not synonymous with magazine.
    Replaced 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some critics have referred to a scene of Chris punching a boulder in Resident Evil 5 (2009) as one of the most memorable within the Resident Evil series, which was also subjected to internet memes. - "Which was ..." is a dangling modifier and could be read as "the series was also subjected to internet memes", which is true but not what you intended here.
    Replaced to "Which is" 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rearranged like this — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chris joined the special operations unit of the Special Tactics and Rescue Service (S.T.A.R.S.). - Isn't S.T.A.R.S. the spec-ops unit of the RPD? I'd rephrase this as "Chris joined the Special Tactics and Rescue Service (S.T.A.R.S.), a special operations unit of the Raccoon Police Department.
    Replaced 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Character designer Tsutomu Kawade noted that Chris' signature was his powerful arms, and they were aware of that. His concept color is green, and Kawade wanted it to be visible, so they designed his attire in blue-tinted green. - These sentences are clunky. Perhaps something like "Character designer Tsutomu Kawade noted that the team was aware of Chris' powerful arms being his most distinctive feature. Their design thus accentuated his arms, with attire in blue-tinted green that continued his concept color."?
    Replaced 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • photo realistic depiction - isn't photorealistic one word?
    Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the director of Resident Evil Village, Kento Kinoshita, the production team initially had a different plan for the game's downloadable content (DLC); Kinoshita said that the crew initially preferred a DLC with Rose Winters as the main character, rather than with Chris rejoining the action. - This doesn't really segue with the rest of the paragraph. Also, it doesn't really communicate that a Chris-based DLC was initially discussed.
    I guess it doesn't habe enough detail, so I ended uo removing it. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a bio-terror attack - Bioterrorism is unhyphenated above
    Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use "Rose Winters" above but "Rosemary" below
    Removed 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He also makes a cameo appearance in Fortnite Battle Royale (2017),[68] Nintendo crossover video game Super Smash Bros. Ultimate (2018) as one of the 'Spirit' power-ups,[69] Dead by Daylight (2016) and Tom Clancy's The Division 2 (2019) as an alternate skin,[70][71] State of Survival (2019),[72] digital collectible card game Teppen (2019),[73] Dead Rising Deluxe Remaster (2024) as an outfit for Frank West,[74] and a robot dressed as Chris makes a cameo reference in Astro's Playroom (2020) and Astro Bot (2024).[75][76] - Might be worth splitting
    Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • particularly since his more muscular appearance in Resident Evil 5. - particularly since his more muscular appearance debuted in Resident Evil 5.
    Replaced 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Internet - Capitalized or not?
    Maybe not, replaced 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • videogames - With a space, I should think? — 
    Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • I would remove the second comma in this sentence: (Several actors have portrayed Chris, including Wentworth Miller and Robbie Amell, in the live-action Resident Evil films.) It does change the meaning. With the second comma, it is saying that several actors have played Chris in the live-action films with Miller and Amell as just two examples. Without that comma, it is saying that several actors have played this character, including these two live-action instances. I'd go for the meaning without the comma.
    Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 21:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, (with particular focus on the frequent modifications to his design and inconsistent appearance), I do not think that "particular" is necessary as that is already assumed with the word "focused". The final bit seems a bit repetitious to me as it is saying the character is receiving criticism for his design being frequently changed and then saying again that his appearance is inconsistent. Maybe something along the lines of (on the frequent modifications and inconsistency in his design)?
    Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 21:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think that "subjected" works in this context, (which is subjected to internet memes), as I always perceive the word as having a more negative connotation. I would use a different word choice here.
    Replaced 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 21:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, (modeler Yosuke Yamagata), would it be helpful to have a link for modeler?
    Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 21:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would more directly attribute the following quote, "pretty dramatic". I believe that this is said by Jun Takeuchi based on context, but since this quote comes in for a new sentence, I think it would be good to clarify who is saying this quote.
    Done 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 21:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would avoid using the following sentence construction, (with X verb-ing), when possible as it is something often discouraged on the FAC level. An example of this is, (with the two leading a group to destroy Umbrella's only remaining research facility), as well as this, (with fans using it to demonstrate Chris' masculinity).
    I believe this is done. I found three instances, but please let us know if I missed anything. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  00:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be consistent with using title case for the citation titles. I know that this is a pain, and I was honestly only made aware of it somewhat recently, but it does seem like another common point made in FACs.
    This should be done as well. Please let me know if I missed something or if any the titles still need adjustment. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  01:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that these comments are helpful. I believe that should be everything, but I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure that I have not missed anything. I am always happy to see more fictional characters in the FAC space. Great work as always with that. Best of luck with the FAC, and I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @StarScream1007. Anyway @Aoba47, done. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current peer review, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. I hope you have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for reviewing! Sure, I'll review it tomorrow. =). 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks by Lazman321

[edit]

As you requested, I'll be conducting spotchecks soon here. Lazman321 (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Boneless Pizza!: I think that will be all for my spotchecks. Definitely an improvement over my spotchecks for Claire Redfield. Willing to support once addressed. Lazman321 (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lazman321 Hi again. I've addressed all of your concenrs now. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Support based on spotchecks. Lazman321 (talk) 04:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 04:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Tintor2

[edit]

I will be doing the source review. Tintor2 (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources I'm reading count as WP:Reliable sources as approved by the project of video games:

  • PCGamesN, Engadget, IGN twice, Bloody Disgusting, GameSpot, Polygon, Platinum Games, Kotaku (this sound lately became controversial in discussion but it's older), 1UP.com, Gameinformer, Eurogamer, GamesRadar+, VG247, Nintendo World Report, Push Square, GamePro, Edge, The Gamer, Den of Geek (lately discussed by the project but still not decided if it's bad), The Escapist, Shack News (I'm not sure about this but the wikilinks leading me to such article seems to make it strong for reliable), Gematsu (lately more approved than Siliconera, I often visit that site and it well written), Anime News Network (probably the most reliable site that deals with anime and related projects), Yahoo News, Siliconera is pretty much like Gematsu and a lot of websites tend to borrow content from it. Destructoid, Gamepur (I'm not familiar with this website but still it seems well organized), Screenrant (kinda like GameRant the commentary might be too subjective but it's pretty useful as far as I've been told), GameSpy, NintendoLife, GameZone, Complex
  • Twitter accounts: @aesthetics_re seems to official.
  • 5-8, 12-13, 15-16, 19, 39-40, 48, 49: Credits to the original games
  • 14, another official twitter account.
  • Bibliography: all of them possess wikilinks so they are accessible to every user
  • All citations possess the writer's name and dates and are consistently linked.

@Boneless Pizza!: This is all I read. I'm not too experienced with FA reviews but I tried doing everything a source review has to do. I hope this article passes so I give it a pass. If I missed anything, somebody feel free to correct it.Tintor2 (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kotaku and Den of Geek are reliable, while Screen Rant is reliable for pop culture purpose and as a valnet source, it shouldn't be used a lot; that's why I used only once (BTW, GameRant is a low quality, thus I wouldn't def use it). Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 01:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. It's that I remember recent discord talks about Kotaku and Den of Geek not being approved by the project but since nothing was decided I'm sure they count as reliable. Tintor2 (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the content were obviously written like it was made from AI; that's a different story and its unreliable. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

Reviewing. Feel free to refuse the suggestions with proper justification. 750h+ 12:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lead
  • character, with focus on the frequent ==> "character, with a focus on the frequent"
concept and design
  • he had trained intensely in order to fight the series' ==> "he had trained intensely to fight the series'" (conciseness)
  • Chris' actions serve as a major mystery ==> "Chris' actions served as a major mystery"
  • His appearance was once again redesigned, with ==> "His appearance was again redesigned, with"
appearances
  • biological warfare activities, and ultimately comma here is unnecessary
  • private organization with the goal of exposing Umbrella's biological ==> "private organization to expose Umbrella's biological"
  • a man identifying himself as "Redfield" arrives "himself" is unneeded
  • Mia and Rosemary are rescued, Chris and his team head to the BSAA's European ==> "Mia and Rosemary are rescued, and Chris and his team head to the BSAA's European"
critical reception
  • mass throughout the games in repeatedly changing remove "in"
  • by IGN and in a Famitsu's reader survey remove "a" or remove the " 's"

@Boneless Pizza!: fine work on the article. address my comments and i'd be happy to leave a vote. best, 750h+ 12:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've addressed all of your concerns already. Many thanks for the review. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
happy to support. 750h+ 12:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Emerging from my home in the void to offer a few pointers for this review. From my own experiences with FA, you dont need to link all the publishers when you are using the same source, as it risks overlinking things. Other than that, I am not sure what else I can say about this, other than good job.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty Revealed

[edit]
Nominator(s):  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an audacious miniature by Sarah Goodridge that challenged established norms and played on contemporary tropes: a portrait of her bared breasts. She gave this miniature to the man who bested Satan himself, Daniel Webster, shortly after the death of his first wife, and it has been seen as a sort of "come hither" gift. It is now held by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, having been sold by Webster's descendants more than a hundred and fifty years after she gave it to him.

I wrote this article in 2014, around the time I did September Morn, and it has been a GA since then. I've tidied up the article, expanded a bit with since-published material, and gotten everything ready for FA. As an aside, this is also the most popular article I've ever written, having accrued almost two million views in ten years.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Sarah_Goodridge_Beauty_Revealed_The_Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Miniature_Painting,_Sarah_Goodridge_Self_Portrait.jpg, File:Daniel_Webster_(1825)_by_Sarah_Goodridge.jpg


Prose review by Generalissima

@Crisco 1492: that's all my thoughts! Generalissima (talk) (it/she)

Support Looks good to me after the fixes and clarifications. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod

[edit]
  • I've done minor changes; ok I hope.
  • I don't find the descriptions of either the original or current framing/packaging very clear. It's now in a box, like a set of silver spoons, yes? Was there an earlier box? Where does the leather case fit in?
  • Do we know when the current box was added?
  • The article makes it sound like she worked the ivory herself. This doesn't seem very likely; I'd imagine smooth and flat plaques could be bought.
    • The source very explicitly says that she was known to prepare the ivory herself. "She would master the art of cutting fine shavings of ivory into the desired shape for a portrait, preparing the surface for watercolor by sanding it and treating it with gum arabic." I've added "shavings" to the sentence to make it clear she wasn't working directly with the horns/tusks. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it elephant ivory?
  • More later, I expect.

Johnbod (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok so far with changes. Further points:
  • "perspective" is used twice. This usually means Perspective (graphical) in talking about paintings, but here it just seems to mean "view"; better to use that. so "She employed a frontal view that showed only the area from the collarbone ...". The other: "Presented from a frontal perspective,[2] the painting depicts the area from the bottom of the collarbone to the area just underneath the breasts ..." would be better as just "The painting shows a frontal view of the area from the bottom of the collarbone to the area just underneath the breasts ...".
  • "the breasts presented in a gradation of color, which gives a three-dimensional effect" - short of a verb ("are"), but the term form this in painting is "modeling". The best link is to the rather overlong Light_in_painting#Pictorial_representation_of_light. Maybe "the breasts are modeled in gradations of color and shade, giving a three-dimensional effect"
  • "eventually auctioned through Christie's in 1981,[17] with a list price of $15,000 (equivalent to $50,000 in 2023)," - auctions don't have "list prices", they have auctioneers "estimates" before, then on the day a hammer price (as seen on tv, but before seller's and Buyer's premium and any tax applicable).

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I'm still recovering from SchroCat's Secretum (British Museum) FAC, and I doubt if I ought to be exposed to such things at my time of life. I could quibble about "following the death of his wife; she may have intended to provoke him" (who was "she"?) but in practice nobody is going to misunderstand you. I also wondered about "potentially from looking at herself in a mirror", where "possibly" might perhaps be more accurate. I boggle a bit at the suggestion that the clothing indicates a performance similar to the curtains of vaudeville, as Goodridge was decades dead before vaudeville started in the US, but my quarrel there is with the author of the source and not with Chris's citation of it, which is fine. The article is far outside my area of expertise, but all things considered I am happy to add my support for its promotion to FA. It is a good read, well and widely sourced (with 18 sources for a 1,500-word article), judiciously illustrated, and evidently comprehensive. – Tim riley talk 16:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

[edit]

I read through the article's prose and had no concerns. The "Explanatory notes" section uses parenthetical referencing, which per WP:PAREN has been deprecated: these should be replace with inline citations. Let me know if help is needed converting these. Z1720 (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Z1720. Per WP:PAREN, This includes short citations in parentheses placed within the article text itself, such as (Smith 2010, p. 1). (emphasis in the original). The notes do not qualify as "within the article itself", and this style has been used since 2020 in Gao Qifeng and The True Record. Personally, I prefer harv in this context as it allows readers to reach the referenced material with the same number of clicks as the SFN templates used in the body of the text. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reading of the above quote is that it emphasizes that inline citations are deprecated within the article body text, but doesn't comment on notes. I do not see text anywhere within WP:INLINE, WP:PAREN, or the original RfC that gives an exception to references within notes. The RfC says that harv templates can be used within ref tags. Z1720 (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Z1720. The footnotes are not part of the article text itself (again, emphasis in the original). As I noted previously, prior consensus at FAC has been to accept harv templates in explanatory notes. I can post to the MOS talk page for clarification if you would like, and in this instance the content of the footnotes can be reasonably worked into the body without overburdening the text or excised without detrimentally affecting the meaning. However, I am vehemently opposed to SFN in explanatory notes; it looks sloppy and is unfriendly to readers by requiring yet another click.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the treatment of explanatory notes, I note that MOS:FNNR treats them as though they are equivalent to citations (If there are both citation footnotes and explanatory footnotes, then they may be combined in a single section, or separated using the grouped footnotes function.). Template:Efn also treats explanatory footnotes as similar to citations, defining explanatory notes as footnotes which provide something other than, or more than, a reference to a source that supports the accompanying text (emphasis mine). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for starting that conversation at Citing sources. Since this is my only concern, and the discussion will help find a resolution, I can support this article. I am confident that, if changes/reverts are required, they will happen once the discussion reaches a conclusion. Z1720 (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

There's a variety of sources, and thus also of citation styles. What is https://publicdomainreview.org/? International Art Market 1981 and Nichols 2019 probably need pagenumbers. Was "American Beauties: The Cult of the Bosom in Early Republican Art and Society" reviewed by something to establish that it's a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Public Domain Review is an online non-academic journal that highlights works in the public domain as part of a general effort to promote an understanding of the public domain and works therein. It has received coverage in The Guardian, and according to our article essays in the journal have come from several notable curators.
  • Added the page number for International Art Market
  • Nichols 2019 is a website and thus does not have a page number. The author has a PhD from Oxford University, with the dissertation "Human Curiosities in Contemporary Art and Their Relationship to the History of Exhibiting Monstrous Bodies" in 2014, and has served as a curator at the Dowse Museum of Art. I thus believe that this source thus meets WP:SPS guidelines.
  • "American Beauties: The Cult of the Bosom in Early Republican Art and Society" was a PhD thesis successfully defended at the Virginia Commonwealth University. It was supervised by Eric G. Garberson, who has published extensively on art history and archives since the 1990s (meeting the "supervised by recognized specialists in the field;" component of WP:SCHOLARSHIP). A graduation requirement at VCU is a successful thesis defense, meaning there was some level of peer review. I have not been able to identify who the reviewers were; the CV for Rivka Swenson of VCU's English department lists her as an outside reader for the dissertation. I believe that this meets the WP:SCHOLARSHIP requirements, especially for the material cited to it, none of which is particularly controversial. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I guess though that for paginated websites, giving a page number is a good idea. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question for coordinators

[edit]

Randy Travis

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Travis is of the most iconic country music singers and a leader in the neotraditional country genre; he also has a fascinating backstory regarding how he handled losing his singing ability to a stroke. I recently re-wrote the entire thing top to bottom, getting it successfully to GA and featured in DYK. It's one of my longer and more exhaustively sourced contributions, so I feel it might have the goods to become my first ever FA. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
@Nikkimaria: Done. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

[edit]

Initial comments

[edit]
  • There's five consecutive sentences in the second paragraph which use his surname. Suggest alternating with "he" for variety
  • "Travis released "Where That Came From", his first studio recording since his stroke, where his voice was" => "Travis released "Where That Came From", his first studio recording since his stroke, for which his voice was"
  • "Travis also holds several film and television acting roles" - not sure "holds" really works here. Maybe "undertook"?
  • The "biography" section only covers the first 18 or so years of his life so I don't think that's an appropriate heading. "Early life" would be better.
  • "Randy's then-future wife" - just "Randy's future wife" is sufficient, the context is clear
  • "After doing so, he began to hold a conversation with Hatcher" - I think "After doing so, he held a conversation with Hatcher " is fine
  • " under the custody of the Hatchers" - only one Hatcher has been mentioned, which other Hatchers were there? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: I think I've addressed your issues up to here. The 1990 Cusic book does not clarify who else was in the Hatcher household at the time and just says "the Hatchers", so I changed it to just mention Lib as she's the only notable Hatcher in that context. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

[edit]
  • "His first contract with them resulted in the recording of four songs. These were "Prairie Rose", "On the Other Hand", "Carrying Fire", and "Reasons I Cheat"." => "His first contract with them resulted in the recording of four songs: "Prairie Rose", "On the Other Hand", "Carrying Fire", and "Reasons I Cheat"."
  • "For this capacity," - don't think "capacity" is really the right word here. Maybe just lose those three words completely?
  • "Next was Travis's twelfth number-one "Forever Together"," => "Next was Travis's twelfth number one, "Forever Together","
  • "AllMusic writer Thom Owens said of Full Circle, "his mid-'90s albums suffered from a tendency to sound a bit too similar too each other." - second "too" is spelt incorrectly, also there's no closing quote mark
  • "the first performances with Dupré cut back to three concerts" => "the first performances with Dupré were cut back to three concerts"
  • "For much of his career, Travis was managed by Elizabeth "Lib" Hatcher, a former nightclub owner." - I don't think you need to restate this, as it was covered above. Maybe just start this section with "Travis and Hatcher lived togrther..."
  • Some of the last paragraph of "personal life" feels like it overlaps with the last part of the "career" section and might fit better there......?
  • That's all I got on the rest of the article - nice work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

Looks pretty good. But some comments to prove I read it:

  • "Travis wrote "I Told You So" by himself in 1982 around the time he attempted to sign with Curb Records. Monk had also submitted the song to Lee Greenwood at that time, although he declined it. Both Darrell Clanton and Barbara Mandrell had recorded the song as well," "Also" seems out of place here, and "as well" is a poor choice of words, as on first reading it seems to refer to Greenwood. Consider re-wording.
  • "Overall, Always & Forever and its singles accounted for a number of award wins and nominations" "Overall" seems out of place here, and I know some editors hate "a number of", preferring "several" or "numerous"
  • "It also accounted for Travis's second consecutive Grammy Award". It was his first consecutive
  • Didn't Travis sing "Forever and Ever, Amen" at the 30th Grammy Awards?
  • "and Clint Eastwood" ??? Clint Eastwood?
  • "Next was Travis's twelfth number-one" Break paragraph before here (and comma after "one")
  • "Jackson also co-wrote ... while Travis also co-wrote" repetition here, and "also" is unnecessary. Consider re-wording
  • "Travis said that he intentionally wrote more songs for the album than previous ones, as he had fewer tour dates and thus had more time to focus on songwriting." That makes it sound like it was not intentional
  • Consider moving the two paragraphs about his stroke from Personal life up to 2013–present
  • "Another singer who cites Travis as an influence" We haven't said that Singletary does, so no first one has been cited yet.
  • "Travis and his wife selected Dupré" You haven't introduced her yet, so the reader might think you are referring to Hatcher
  • You have to admire a couple who live together for twenty years and then divorce on the grounds of incompatibility.
  • "On January 31, 2013," This is out of chronological order.
  • "Video of the incident was aired on the Investigation Discovery program Exposed: Naked Crimes on December 26, 2023." Citation required here.

That's all! Have a merry Christmas! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: @Hawkeye7: I think I got everything up to here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I'll review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 01:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Although some radio disc jockeys considered the song "too country"," - I think there needs to be some mention about the prevalent pop country at the time to provide context as to why more traditional-sounding country music was considered a potential liability at the time
    • The extra info about contrasting it with pop-country is not supported by the Cusic book, and I feel saying something like that would be a WP:SYNTH violation. I rewrote that section.
  • "One track on the album was Dennis Linde's composition "What'll You Do About Me", which was previously released by Steve Earle in 1984" - the cited page doesn't seem to actually say that this track was on the Travis album?
    • Added a source confirming this part.
  • "Nine years after its release, it was certified double-platinum" and "In 1997, Old 8×10 received its highest certification of double-platinum." - I think we only need one of these statements
    • Got that.
  • "(also titled "Down with the Old Man (Up with the New)")," - source only mentions the Down with the Old Man portion of this subtitle
    • Added a source. I legit thought I'd already put that Billboard article in there.
  • "This footage consisted of him singing Christmas songs and reading Helen Steiner Rice's poem "The Christmas Guest" inside the Big Room, a cavern at Carlsbad Caverns National Park." - I'm not seeing a mention to the Rice poem in the linked article
    • This was an error on my part. The Travis/Abraham book mentions the poem, and I accidentally shifted the footnote.
  • " As of 2024, Dupré still tours in this capacity alongside Travis" - source is from 2023
    • Fixed.
  • The lead mentions multiple appearances on Matlock, but the body only mentions the house painter one
    • Fixed.
  • ""Nude Travis demanded smokes?". August 13, 2012. Archived from the original on January 15, 2013. Retrieved March 13, 2021." - this appears to be from Canoe.com, under the now-usurped canoe.ca webname, which was a news aggregator and web portal. Is this a high-quality RS, especially for more salacious material such as naked celebrities demanding cigarettes?
    • Removed.

I think the content is mostly fine, but this could benefit from a specific source-text integrity check; I found several little bits where the sourcing doesn't explicitly support all the details. Hog Farm Talk 01:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm comfortable with the content, but I'd like to hold off on formally supporting until after the customary spot-check of source-text integrity for first-time nominations. Hog Farm Talk 00:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Kinda wonder why "Randy Travis: king of the new country traditionalists" isn't cited even once on Google Scholar, especially as the other books are. Remind me, what makes https://ew.com/article/1990/10/12/notable-country-album-releases/ a reliable source? Same question for https://www.whiskeyriff.com/, https://tasteofcountry.com/randy-travis-tribute-concert-stars-remarks/, https://www.acmcountry.com/winners?awardTitle=randy+travis&awardCategory=&awardYear=&actionButton=Submit and https://www.wideopencountry.com/fools-love-affair-randy-travis/. AllMusic sometimes has a byline and sometimes not. Italics too are sometimes inconsistent, I think People should have them for example. https://www.maconcentreplex.org/event/music-of-randy-travis/ needs an archive; best check every link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously don't think Entertainment Weekly is a reliable source? Or that the Academy of Country Music's own website is reliable for verifying award nominations and wins from that organization? Taste of Country has been deemed a reliable source per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, so that one should be fine. I'll see about Wide Open Country and Whiskey Riff, and work on italics. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Think I got everything mentioned. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, seems like I got my wires crossed re EW and AoCM. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations

[edit]

Ovalipes catharus

[edit]
Nominator(s): TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the New Zealand paddle crab, Ovalipes catharus. It's one of twelve species of Ovalipes and the only one found in New Zealand. Known for their paddle-shaped rear legs, high aggression, voraciousness, and proneness to cannibalism. I found this a couple months back in this state, where its last two major contributions were by Prosperosity and Ttbioclass (the latter being a student editor who did almost all of the work on the 'Mating and reproduction' section). However, major edits prior to these – while helping to expand the article – had what I felt were severe problems with copy-editing and focus (for example, at one point, comparing these crabs to prawns by saying they don't have a narrow body and tail). I quickly realized I had to rip out basically everything before the 'Mating and reproduction' section and start from scratch, and so I did. I worked on improving this to GA status over a month or so, reviewed by Esculenta, and at this point, I want to stress test it as a FAC because I think I've done about as much as I can with it after the GA review.

Disclaimers:

  • The Osborne 1987 PhD thesis is cited so much because it really was a landmark work on O. catharus. Attempts to cite peer-reviewed journal articles for this information would just result in citing something that cites Osborne 1987 in some way which is likely indirect to what we need to communicate. I promise it seems absurd until you realize that probably 80% of the works cited in this article also cite Osborne in some way; it's just that seminal.
  • The Richards 1992 master's thesis is discussed in the GA review, and I think its usage is easily defensible. The R.J. Davidson 1987 master's thesis was written at a time where R.J. Davidson was already an expert on this behavior, having published about almost this exact subject the year prior (note there are two pre-eminent O. catharus experts named Davidson, the other being G.W.).
  • There are still unused refideas which I've suggested, but for the vast majority of them, I think they walk a fine line between meticulous and extraneous detail. I just keep them there in case someone has a revelation about how to include them in a relevant way (or, in the case of H.H. Taylor et al. 1992, in case I ever get access to that $200 book).
  • I really would love to have better images in the infobox (the dorsal view of the preserved specimen is a great angle but lacks the real colors of O. catharus due to the preservation, and the ventral view despite being a great angle with correct colors is literally a dead crab in a puddle on the shore), but these were the best suitably licensed images I could find of these two crucial perspectives of the crab.
  • If there's anything even remotely important I didn't cover in the article, you can probably audit that by checking either in the Fisheries 2023 citation or the McLay 1988 one.
  • I had minimal involvement with the 'Mating and reproduction' section, but reviewing it, it seems to hold up. I've since rewritten the entire 'Mating and reproduction' section to my liking. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I'm very confused. At Commons, I licensed it under "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International". At the source, it's licensed under "Copyright Museums Victoria / CC BY (Licensed as Attribution 4.0 International)". I don't see the discrepancy. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies; I was looking at something else. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good! It just worried me for a second because I'm convinced that's the only genuinely good freely licensed image of this variety on the entire Internet. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

[edit]

Ooh, New Zealand biology? Mark me down for a prose review to come. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • TheTechnician27 A most preliminary thought; this would be quite a good use case for SFNs or Harvids. Especially with larger sources like Osborne 1987, readers will struggle with where to find the claim within the source material without a page number for each cite. This will also make the job of source reviewers much, much easier. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking about doing that, but I didn't know to what extent they were used for journal articles/theses rather than books. I can definitely go ahead and implement that (today, even), since I agree it'd be especially useful for Osborne 1987. Incidentally, I checked out Endemic flora of the Chatham Islands on your list of articles to see if O. catharus was there (before noticing it said "endemic" and "flora", duh), and then I realized it was a FLC. Since I've been thinking about featured lists myself (like is Paralomis a list or an article? I really don't know at this point!), I think I'll familiarize myself with the criteria and take a look at it. This isn't an invitation for you not to tear this article to shreds, though; since I'm tentatively planning to target another species of Ovalipes, I have a personal, vested interest in making this article as robust as possible to be able to draw on its structure in the future. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generalissima is being tactful. Eg, if I were reviewing then - to select the first random example I came across - I would want each of those ten references to Haddon narrowing down to something tighter than the entire six-page article; ideally a single page each. Even as a closing coordinator I would be unhappy if there were several like that, or if they had longer page ranges. Like Haddon and Wear, or Fenton et al. As for Glaessner - you want me to wade through 55 pages to verify your cite?! I recommend that you take Generalissima's advice and beseech her to keep giving it. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question above tho, I think the typical strategy for large genera like that is to have the genus article be an article while splitting off the table of each species into its own list (though a basic taxonomic list of species without the details/subspecies/etc. is often included within the genus article itself from what i've seen) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All done! All remaining sources which don't use {{sfn}} are ones where we only use at most three pages. The lone exception to this is Vennell 2022, which spans six pages, because I don't have access to the book and have to take (and willingly trust) Prosperosity's word for it. I wasn't trying to pull a fast one here; I just didn't know what the typical sentiment around using {{sfn}} for journal articles and theses was compared to book citations. @Gog the Mild:, I did ask for this article to be torn to shreds, so I hope you'll believe me when I say that I appreciate the nature and manner of your feedback. During this process, I also corrected several pieces of misinformation, and I strongly believe these were among the last if not the last ones. A few of these were small-to-moderate mistakes I directly made, but some were in the 'Mating and reproduction' section which I realize in hindsight that I was inappropriately lax and frankly negligent in my review of. I think I had a subtle preconceived notion going in that this was the "good part" of the article. I apologize for grinding the review to a halt right as it got started, but I think it should be able to proceed as normal now. If nothing else, this probably cleared out several problems that would've come up anyway. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Generalissima, just querying if you were still intending to do a full prose review. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • One comment: I can't do a full review, but its recommended that there be no cites in the lead paragraphs. They are meant to summarize the body of the article which should already be cited. Otherwise, good luck. We need a crab FA article. LittleJerry (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the premise here, but I heavily disagree that the lead should be uncited. This sort of stylistic prescriptivism 1) directly contradicts WP:LEADCITE which indicates editors are free to choose either way, 2) makes the lead substantially less maintainable by forcing editors to go digging in the article to then find a citation, and 3) is to the detriment of a reader who might simply want to get the gist of a subject but still wants to verify something we're saying. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]

Great to see this here! Looks mostly good, but I have two general concerns that should be addressed:

First, the article could be more accessible. Please have a look at WP:MTAU. This is especially important for an FA, since when it appears on the main page, it will be read by non-experts. You are not writing for experts. Specifically, whenever possible, the reader should not have to follow links in order to get a basic understanding of the text. In some cases, you could replace jargon with more common terms (maybe "pincers" and "rearward" instead of "proximal"), and in others, you could add a brief in-text explanation in brackets. In particular, I think that these terms would benefit from such an in-text explanation: chelipeds, dactyli, fingers (what does it mean in the context of crabs?), isometric, osmoconformer/osmoregulator, stenotherm, Phosphorylation of ADP.

Second, the "Taxonomy" and "Diet" sections seem to be shorter and less specific than other sections (particularly the description section). The Diet section contains some general statements that are already covered in much greater detail in the "Description" (maybe it is worth to move those discussions down to "Diet")? And maybe rename the section to the more general "Feeding"? There are a couple of papers concerned with specific aspects on the biology of this species, so there seems to be more to add. Regarding the taxonomy:

  • can we add the etymology of "catharus"?
  • maybe there is something more to add on the research history? Circumstances of the 1843 description maybe? For example, was the description based on life specimens, or based on a collected one (holotype collected where?)
  • The "Taxonomy" should have a little bit on the classification of Ovalipes itself. Yes, you have a footnote, but I think it warrants spelling out in the main text. Also, it does not seem there is consensus that Ovalipes sits within Ovalipidae, as this study ([9]) proposes something else.

Other comments:

  • Ovalipes catharus has an oval-shaped, streamlined, and slightly grainy carapace with five large teeth to either side of the eyes and four teeth at the front. It is overall sandy grey with orange-red highlights and dotted with small, brown spots. Its carapace – I suggest to switch the order. Discuss the color (including the white underside, too), and then the carapace shape, or vice versa, but not carapace -> color -> carapace -> color as it is currently.
  • a butterfly-shaped mark – remove the link to "butterfly"? It does not help I think.
  • somewhat hairy, and a line of setae runs from – Is "hairy" refering to setae, too, or are these different structures?
  • as a form of signalling – link to Animal communication?
  • chelae – maybe replace with "pincer" or add that word in a bracket)?
  • on the posterior border of the arms – what is the "posterior border"? Doesn't that depend on posture?
  • but it may exhibit negative allometry in males – add "(grows more slowely)"?
  • Relative length diminishes compared to the width – the "relative" is redundant here, I propose to remove it.
  • It can reverse its ventilatory flow – It would help to add a bit of context here; what does it mean to reverse the ventilatory flow, and why are they doing that?
  • Internal anatomy – This section has much stuff that's not anatomy, including the paragraph on biochemistry.
  • Ovalipes catharus is colloquially known as the paddle crab, the common swimming crab, or Māori: pāpaka. They were – Here you address the species in plural, elsewhere you use singular. That should be consistent (I think the convention is to use singular when talking about the species).
  • Having been synonymised with O. punctatus alongside three other species prior to 1968, O. catharus is part of a distinct subgroup of Ovalipes which also includes O. australiensis, O. elongatus, O. georgei, O. punctatus, – When O. punctatus is a synonym, why is that one still listed and appears as a separate species in the cladogram?
  • fine granules on the raised ridges of the top side of its hands – "Hands"? Are these the pincers?
  • Ovalipes catharus is native to New Zealand, where it can be found from Stewart Island to Northland and in the Chatham Islands. They are also uncommon on the southern coast of Australia – "also uncommon" somehow implies they are uncommon in New Zealand.
  • Members of the isolated population of O. catharus from the Chatham Islands tend to be larger and take longer to mature than those in mainland New Zealand. – that does not belong under "Taxonomy" I think.
  • The following cladogram – It would help to date this (e.g., "from a 1998 study") and indicate on what it is based on (molecular data?).
  • Large Ovalipes catharus tend to feed less frequently but generally on algae as well as on larger animals s – Can't quite follow. They feed less frequently in general? Or they feed infrequently on algae and frequently on animals? "Frequently but generally" confuses me.
  • Ovalipes catharus does not appear to be typically parasitised by nematodes or barnacles.[86] Instead, the overwhelming majority of them – A bit confusing, needed to read several times. I think the general advice applies: State the most important facts first (here, Triticella capsularis), then add the details/secundary info (the parasites that don't apply to this species).
  • through vigorous waving of the female's body, which disturbs their egg cases and causes them to break out.[98] Females generally release their larvae at night. – How females release their larvae should come later in the text, after the more general information, no?
  • How many batches of eggs does a female produce per season?
  • The zip is accompanied by what may be a courtship display whereby the crab "walks forward and flicks both swimming paddles in a twisting motion." – I recommend to rephrase this in your own words; I don't see why this should be quoted. Also, if you quote, you would have to state the author of that quote in-text according to the WP guidelines, I believe.
  • The females of a group – what "group"? Are they gregarious?
  • In one example, male crabs that had not cannibalised females readily accepted food, while those that had engaged in cannibalism rarely did. – Ok, it does not accept food because it just ate, but what's the point?
  • Males of O. catharus sometimes practice sexual cannibalism toward females.[13] This occurs when the female is soft-shelled and therefore vulnerable after moulting.[13] Male crabs generally protect the females during mating, but afterward, the female is vulnerable to cannibalism by other males or, less commonly, by her partner – "Secual cannibalism" is cannibalism between mating partners, right? But the text goes on to talk about cannibalism by other males, which is confusing.
  • The crabs are known to be a traditional food source – do we really need the "known to be" here?
  • There is a huge box in the talk page ("The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future") – has this been resolved, can it be removed?
  • Hope this helps. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry this response isn't in the correct order: the order itself didn't seem relevant, and I didn't feel like sorting it.
  • I think that these terms would benefit from such an in-text explanation: chelipeds, dactyli, fingers (what does it mean in the context of crabs?), isometric, osmoconformer/osmoregulator, stenotherm, Phosphorylation of ADP[, and proximal].
    • I've just eliminated the use of "isometric", because I agree it didn't really add anything. I've also given a brief description of 'stenotherm', because I agree it's trivial to explain inline. I've now added that the chelipeds are the "front legs" and informally called the chela "pincers" before introducing proper terminology in en-dashes or parentheses. Lastly, I've explained what the dactyli are in en-dashes. All of these I think cater to the casual reader without harming the experience of a serious reader. The next two points will be justifications for ones I disagree with you on.
    • Starting with 'Internal anatomy', I heavily disagree with most of this. In an 'Internal anatomy' section for a crab, there's some expectation that anatomical terminology will be used as needed; as noted in WP:MTAU, the lead should always be as accessible as possible, but some sections beyond that simply can't trip over themselves to explain every bit of terminology without losing their usefulness: "Wikipedia strives to be a serious reference resource, and highly technical subject matter still belongs in some Wikipedia articles. Increasing the understandability of technical content is intended to be an improvement to the article for the benefit of the less knowledgeable readers, but this should be done without reducing the value to readers with more technical background." Plenty of our coverage of internal anatomy is inherently rooted in wikilinking to terminology, for example (I couldn't find any recent anatomy FAs): pancreas, lung, gallbladder, etc. If you take a look at our definition of osmoregulation, that's about as basic as it gets, and that already includes terminology like "osmotic pressure". The part about "phosphorylation of ADP" (something which, to my recollection, is already high school biology) is already a significant reduction from the jargon present in the paper which talks in-depth about RCR-1 ratios; that is, this is already significantly over-explained solely for accessibility, and it would effectively be a coatrack within a coatrack to try to explain this process.
    • Regarding external anatomy, "fingers" in the context of a crab means both the dactylus (movable, top) and the fixed finger (immobile, bottom); I think this should be clear, however, through basic context clues (we're talking about the pincer, everyone already knows "fingers" are those appendages on the tips of our hands, and we say "both"). What I've just given is the most barebones definition of what the fingers are, and so stopping to explain it would be a rhetorical brick wall. Likewise, a "rearward" tooth is simplified to the point where people using this as a serious resource now need to figure out what we mean by "rearward", reducing its value from "proximal" which is precisely understood.
  • The "Taxonomy" and "Diet" sections seem to be shorter and less specific than other sections (particularly the description section).
    • The 'Taxonomy' section is short because that really is the extent of relevant taxonomic information I could find on O. catharus. Wear & Haddon 1987, Davidson 1986, and Davidson 1987 (master's thesis) are the only sources that really cover the diet as original research (and Davidson 1986 is mostly very niche information about how it selects mussels; I'll re-read it and see if there's anything else worth including). I think we adequately cover the relevant information in Wear & Haddon 1987, and Davidson 1987 inherently has a ton of overlap with Davidson 1986. It never hurts to double-check, though, and so I'll also re-read Wear & Haddon 1987. The 'Description' section is so long simply because there's a lot of relevant information from a comparatively wide variety of sources.
Looking at Wear & Haddon 1987, you cover the very basics, but there are specific details in their that readers might enjoy learning, for example that the bivalves it eats are usually very small (< 3–4 mm), and that the gut often contains remains from more than 100 individual bivales, and similar details. Not absolutely necessary to include such things, but there would be potential to further expand that section. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Diet section contains some general statements that are already covered in much greater detail in the "Description" (maybe it is worth to move those discussions down to "Diet")?
    • The only statements that overlap between 'Description' and 'Diet' are six words casually mentioning what the claws are used for (lit. "used for cutting" and "used for crushing") and a sentence about how its stenothermism applies to its eating habits (which is relevant to its internal digestive anatomy). Sometimes these tiny nuggets of information inherently overlap in different sections. I think enforcing a strict dichotomy here only hurts the reading experience.
Ok.
  • Maybe rename the section to the more general "Feeding"?
    • I think 'Diet' is substantially more clearly understood, applicable, and widely used than 'Feeding'. I don't think it should be changed, but if it is, I think "Diet and foraging [behavior]" would be most appropriate.
Ok. I thought that "feeding" would be more inclusive, also covering feeding habits, while "diet" is only about the contents. But I'm fine with that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further consideration, I think I am happy going with 'Diet and foraging', since the second paragraph is explicitly about how they obtain the food rather than the food itself. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here you address the species in plural, elsewhere you use singular. That should be consistent (I think the convention is to use singular when talking about the species).
    • Yeah, in hindsight, I kind of just used "vibes" to determine when it would be plural and when it would be singular (for example, trying to describe it as singular for an anatomical description but pluralistically as a population). I'll have a go at singularizing it. This is probably the biggest extant flaw with the article.
  • The "Taxonomy" should have a little bit on the classification of Ovalipes itself.
    • I thought about expanding this footnote out into the prose, but I didn't know if it'd be seen as too superfluous. I could expand it out, but I think a second opinion or a concrete argument is warranted here before changing it.
In other FAs, we usually provide a little bit about the family level for context. Maybe one general sentence about the family is something to think about. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it does not seem there is consensus that Ovalipes sits within Ovalipidae, as this study ([1]) proposes something else.
    • I think a single study contending that doesn't count as WP:DUE weight in what's already a minor explanatory footnote. This might later turn out to be correct, and it might deserve a mention in Ovalipidae, but all existing reliable sources I can find from 2018–2024 except this one by a single author place Ovalipes squarely within Ovalipidae (this includes WoRMS, extremely prolific carcinologists like G.C.B. Poore, S.T. Ahyong, and multiple peer-reviewed papers since Evans 2018). There's more than enough consensus for the purposes of the footnote, to my mind.
Ok if this is only a single opinion and the classification within Ovalipidae is still consensus. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the "posterior border"? Doesn't that depend on posture?
    • The posterior border is the one facing the crab's cephalothorax if its chelipeds are parallel. However, while I know that from prior reading and can show that via several images such as this one, I feel replacing the terminology "posterior border" with something like this (which would itself sound bloated and awkward) strays too far into WP:OR.
OK.
  • "also uncommon" somehow implies they are uncommon in New Zealand.
    • I've made it clearer.
  • "a butterfly-shaped mark" – remove the link to "butterfly"? It does not help I think.
    • I can see it from the perspective of it being tangential; removed.
  • A bit confusing, needed to read several times.
    • I'm trying but completely failing to see the confusion.
Confusion is here: You talk about parasites, then in the next two sentences introduce a symbiont, and after that talk about parasites again. I think it would be better to keep both categories separated. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you mean now. Similar to the carapace -> color -> carapace situation. I'll try to separate this out; I genuinely didn't see this. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • as a form of signalling – link to Animal communication?
  • Is "hairy" refering to setae, too, or are these different structures?
    • Nah, and I agree it could be clearer. I would say "hirsute" which technically flows better but is something 95% of readers would need to look up; I'll try workshopping this one, because even though I'm not sure what I could do better, it feels wrong.
I see. A wikilink seems to be missing. You could still just gloss it, e.g. "the antennae is somewhat hirsute ("hairy")" or similar. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest to switch the order. Discuss the color (including the white underside, too), and then the carapace shape, or vice versa, but not carapace -> color -> carapace -> color as it is currently.
    • Fantastic call, and I've done something similar: carapace shape -> color.
  • Can we add the etymology of "catharus".
Ok.
  • Maybe there is something more to add on the research history? Circumstances of the 1843 description maybe? For example, was the description based on life specimens, or based on a collected one (holotype collected where?)
    • If you take a look at p. 265 of the source, you'll note there unfortunately really isn't anything there that isn't already addressed better in Stephenson & Rees 1968; functionally the only unique things it says are that it's called the "common crab" (I could find no other sources on this) and that it was collected by Andrew Sinclair and sent to the British Museum (seems too extraneous to the taxonomy).
Information like that (collected by Andrew Sinclair and sent to the British Museum) is what we usually include in other FAs, and I personally find such information quite interesting, but I won't insist of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • but it may exhibit negative allometry in males – add "(grows more slowely)"
    • "Grows more slowly" is essentially correct, but this phrasing to me implies that the growth just "takes longer" but eventually catches up at some point. I've added in parentheses "grow proportionally smaller".
  • How many batches of eggs does a female produce per season?
    • My understanding of this is somewhat limited because I only corrected 'Mating and reproduction' rather than researching it fully, but the female is only inseminated once per season. Thus, the second section of 'Mating and reproduction' should apply here.
  • It would help to add a bit of context here; what does it mean to reverse the ventilatory flow, and why are they doing that?
    • Since the paper addresses it, I've added the presumed reason for the reversed direction, and I've added "reverse the direction" for clarity. However, explaining the breathing process to give an understanding of what ventilatory flow is is likely more suited to decapod anatomy. Similar to above, there's only so much we can do for a reader choosing to read about a species of crab's internal anatomy without sacrificing quality as a serious resource.
Perfect now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When O. punctatus is a synonym, why is that one still listed and appears as a separate species in the cladogram?
    • O. catharus and others were synonymised with O. punctatus, but that doesn't mean O. punctatus doesn't exist; it's just that O. catharus and others weren't identified as their own separate species from O. punctatus until 1968. You might be thinking of e.g. a junior synonym which completely obsoletes one of the taxa. It's the terminology Stephenson & Rees 1968 use, and I think it's the most elegant.
Per my comment above (Taxonomy is quite short), I personally think this is better spelled out. O. catharus was synonymised, by whom? When? And did subsequent publications simply not follow this synonymisation, or was the species re-established as a separate species at some point? Again, I am not insisting here if you really want to keep the taxonomy very short, but I found this synonymisation info a bit confusing without further context. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the "relative" is redundant here, I propose to remove it.
    • I don't see this as redundant; the "relative length" is what's diminishing, and that's qualified with "compared to the length" (just "with respect to the length" but less verbose).
I thought you wouldn't loose anything if you just skip the first "relative"; e.g. "the length decreases relative to the width", but yeah, I guess your version works too. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend to rephrase this in your own words; I don't see why this should be quoted.
    • I'm not sure this specific series of actions can be paraphrased without making it extraordinarily awkward, potentially inaccurate, less informative, or all three. If the article covered this ritual more, then I could probably formulate something, but right now, this is literally all the article gives on the choreography.
  • Also, if you quote, you would have to state the author of that quote in-text according to the WP guidelines, I believe.
    • Not true to my understanding per MOS:QUOTE. The direct inline citation is enough.
Ok.
  • "Hands"? Are these the pincers?
    • Pretty much certainly, as that's how I've always seem this terminology used. I just didn't want to overstep into WP:OR by accident, but I can change it (unlike "posterior border" above, this one is probably common and understandable enough that I can translate with minimal OR).
Yes, always use the same term when referring to the same thing, otherwise readers will assume that you are talking about something else. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Frequently but generally" confuses me.
    • Yeah, I think the "but" was corrupting the readability of that sentence. I've lightly altered it to significantly aid comprehension.
  • That does not belong under "Taxonomy" I think.
    • I was debating putting this in 'Description', 'Taxonomy', or splitting it between the two. I figured it was relevant to 'Taxonomy' because of the genetic isolation, but I agree in hindsight that it should be bumped up to the more relevant part about lifespans; done.
  • The following cladogram – It would help to date this (e.g., "from a 1998 study") and indicate on what it is based on (molecular data?).
    • The "from a 1998 study" is inherently part of the footnote system that we use. There's really nothing that stands out to me about this specific piece of information that makes that redundancy useful; that's generally reserved for exceptional claims predicated on a single source, and I don't think this is especially exceptional. If this is about the paper being 26 years old, no new species have been added since this was published, and I've seen no evidence that it's become outdated or superseded. Thus, I don't think we need to qualify it based on the date (and if we did, we probably ought to not be using it anyway). However, I agree with your second point, especially because it's based on morphological rather than molecular; fixed.
In other FAC discussions, "it's in the footnote citation so we don't have to include it in-text" has been a weak argument, as we don't want the reader to chase links for such information. I personally think that, especially for cladograms, which become outdated very quickly, the year does matter, especially as "1998" is quite old. Again, I won't insist since the point is minor. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sexual cannibalism" is cannibalism between mating partners, right? But the text goes on to talk about cannibalism by other males, which is confusing.
    • We do talk about cannibalization by her partner, but I agree it's treated as an afterthought in the next sentence. I've flipped the sentence and hopefully fixed that.
  • The crabs are known to be a traditional food source – do we really need the "known to be" here?
    • I see where you're coming from, but I think this nicely complements the second half of the sentence which reads "but researchers in the early Colonial period did not record much about harvesting traditions" (i.e. "we know some basic things, but not a lot").
  • This section has much stuff that's not anatomy, including the paragraph on biochemistry.
    • I don't fully see eye-to-eye on this. The first paragraph is about its respiration and how it works morphologically, the second is about the heart and circulation, the third (which I guess by a strict definition of "anatomy" could prompt a change to "Internal biology" or "Physiology") is about the functioning of its heart, respiration, and digestion in response to temperature, and the fourth is about both its mechanism for hearing as well as poorly understood (but still present) internal structures which produce sound. I've renamed the subsection to "Physiology and internal anatomy" to be more accurate with respect to the third paragraph. I've also moved it to its own section since it being in 'Description' has kind of been nagging at me anyway.
OK. Note that in other FAs, we often group sections like "Diet" and "Predators" in a "Biology and Ecology" section, and "Physiology" tends to be part of that, rather than description. But ok. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How females release their larvae should come later in the text, after the more general information, no?
    • Agreed, and I think it reads better this way too; changed.
  • What "group"? Are they gregarious?
    • I've changed this to "the females in an area" because I agree the source doesn't specifically define what a "group" here is except as the females in a specific area (I may have to check other sources to see if there's more information on that).
  • There is a huge box in the talk page ("The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future") – has this been resolved, can it be removed?
    • Please see one of the disclaimers of this nom. I put all of those there (this is the template {{refideas}}), and they're there because someone more clever or knowledgeable than me might be able to incorporate them without being extraneous, but I don't know how to do that. Good to have them around, in my opinion. If you've never used this template, I highly recommend it. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok.

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "Ovalipes catharus has an oval-shaped, streamlined, and slightly grainy carapace with five large teeth to either side of the eyes and four teeth at the front.[1][14][20] The carapace has two large, maroon eye-spots at the rear". This is confusing. You start with the carapace, then go on to the eyes and teeth and go back to the carapace. I think you need to keep the carapace together and explain the eyes and teeth more clearly.
  • "It is overall sandy grey with orange-red highlights and dotted with small, brown spots.[1][23] Its underside is white, and its rear legs – which are flattened and function as swimming paddles – have a purplish tinge." This is unclear. The first "It" appears to refer to the carapace so grammatically so should "Its" in the second sentence, but it appears to be about the whole animal.
  • What is meant by "carapace teeth"?
  • "It has a long period of larval development – about two months". Long compared with what?
  • What is a megalopa? Is there an article you can link to?
  • "similarly to the otolith in vertebrates.[62] They are known to be able". "They" grammatically refers to vertebrates.
  • "Ovalipes catharus is colloquially known as the paddle crab, the common swimming crab,[7] or Māori: pāpaka.[8] They were described". You switch between singualr and plural. You should stick to one or the other.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't start with the carapace and then go to the eyes and teeth. The carapace itself forms these teeth, which are shapes, not implements used for eating (see below). The eyespots are markings on the carapace. "The carapace has two large, maroon eyespots..." Thus, the first two sentences focus exclusively on the overall shape and distinguishing features of the carapace, akin to describing a circular sawblade as: "a metal disc with teeth around the outer edge and with a logo in the center". I've since wikilinked to 'eyespots' to avoid any confusion, as while these are very common features in nature to a point where I don't think they warrant an aside, I absolutely should have linked from the get-go.
  • 1. Teeth of an animal normally means teeth in the literal sense, so I think you should add at first mention "(tooth-shaped projections)" to avoid confusion. 2. Are "eyes" in the first sentence eyes or eyespots? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dudley Miles: Oooh, shoot, I'm sorry, I had a total brainfart and thought you were referring to how I went into detail about the eyespots in the second sentence, completely forgetting that I'd referenced the eyes in the first. (Nice to meet you; I'm stupid.) Yes, the eyes in the first sentence are the eyes themselves. However, I only use those as a frame of reference to where the teeth are for accessibility reasons (otherwise, I would use anterolateral). I think for 99% of readers, this gives a more intuitive description of the location, and for that 1% of researchers who can immediately intuit "anterolateral", "to either side of the eyes" doesn't meaningfully impact their experience (Wilkens & Ahyong, for example, describe them as "behind the eyes" (both descriptors are correct)). As for the teeth, "tooth-like projections" when I read it conjures a strong image of flattened human teeth, so I've just called them "sawtooth-like projections" instead. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good call; fixed.
  • "Teeth" are used in the sense of the teeth of a sawblade. For the anteriolateral ones (the five to either side of the eyes), you can see them in the first image in the infobox (top-down) and in the third image of the crab's face (front-on). I don't think it would be WP:OR if I said "sawblade-like teeth" because it's unambiguously reminiscent of them, but I also don't know if that could alleviate confusion.
  • Long compared to other decapods; I've now specified, as yes, that was ambiguous. (Note this adjective isn't WP:OR; the authors writing a monograph on the life histories of Decapoda call the period "exceptionally long".)
  • I didn't initially wikilink because I have a strong aversion to double-dipping into a single wikilink in quick succession (same article, and the section Crustacean larva#Post-larva follows two sentences after Crustacean larva#Zoea), but I think you're correct that this is a suitable edge case; fixed.
  • Yeah, another case of singular versus plural (see below). However, this one is just unambiguously my fault because I didn't stick to my personal rule of 'singular no matter what for the description and anatomy'. Fixed.
  • Yup. I've been trying to think of what to do here, because sometimes I just have to talk about them as a population rather than as a singular entity. Sometimes it sounds natural to refer to them as singular, sometimes equally natural as plural. I kind of hate it. Haha TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in deeper waters, up to at least 700 m". "down" not "up".
  • "Up to" doesn't imply "up" as in a positive direction on the vertical axis, but rather "up to" as in a limit (common English usage, arguably more common than the former). This would cause confusion with the prior sentence which uses "depths up to 100m", and I don't think it does that for any good reason (if anything, I think it reads less naturally and adds confusion). However, I changed the comma to an en-dash, since I think that reads more naturally in the context of a limit rather than a positive vertical distance.
  • "up to at least" is clumsy and confusing. How about changing "can be found in deeper waters – up to at least 700 m (2,300 ft)" to "can be found at least 700 m (2,300 ft) deep"?
  • "to swim rapidly and catch faster prey". faster than what? Maybe "fast prey".
  • Agreed; done.
  • Dimorphic is an unusual word which should be linked or explained.
  • I figured the part after the semicolon could function as a context clue, but now I see the situation where a reader just immediately gets hung up and goes to a dictionary before reading on. Done.
  • "O. catharus appears to be largely unaffected by parasites present in Charybdis japonica". Why should a predator's parasites be relevant? This should be clarified, perhaps by moving the last sentence in the paragraph, "Ecologists...tolerance" above the parasites comment.
  • This one's kind of difficult, because on the one hand, I want to keep the parasites and symbionts together, and rewriting it to accommodate for that would require flipping the entire paragraph in a way I don't think reads as naturally. I can say that Miller et al. spend an entire article documenting this, and C. japonica isn't just a predator: it's a pretty similar crab (it would be one of O. catharus' closest relatives in NZ), so it is at least of some note that its parasites are basically totally different. Not done yet, but I see your point, and I'll try flipping the paragraph and seeing if that's workable.
  • "which lasts between 12 and 36 hours and even up to four days". "occasionally up to four days" seems better to me.
  • Since Haddon 1994 says "generally 12 to 36", I agree this isn't WP:SYNTH. Done.
  • "In one batch, a female crab produces between 82,000 and 683,000 eggs, but like in other crabs, a proportion of these are lost to disease, egg failure, and predation." This is over-cautiously worded as any animal which produces 1000s of eggs loses the vast majority, not just other crabs and not just a proportion.
  • Absent specific information from an RS, I can't say without WP:OR how many of these are lost (Haddon 1994 refers to it as "a proportion", but of course it's the majority; no crab is successfully spawning 683,000 new crabs). However, I would argue the focus of this half of the sentence isn't on the specific amount that are lost as much as it is the means by which they're lost. It seems obvious that these three things happen, but that Haddon went out of his way to bring up this ostensibly "trivial" point in an article targeted at an expert audience makes me see it as worth including for a general one.
  • "The crabs are known to be a traditional food source, but researchers in the early Colonial period did not record much about harvesting traditions." This implies but does nat state that are no longer harvested. This should be clarified.
  • To me, this doesn't imply one way or the other if they're still harvested, but rather that the ways they were harvested weren't recorded. For example, we still make cookies, but absent contemporaneous documentation, the way these cookies were made in the 1700s may be lost. Unfortunately, this is the one resource in this entire article I have no access to. Prosperosity, who added this, only had temporary access via a rental. It isn't ideal, but I trust what they've written accurately reflects the source.
  • How about simplifying with something like "The crabs are a traditional food source, but little is known about ancient harvesting traditions"?
  • Did commercial catches decline because of over-fishing? If so, this should be explained. If not, the reason for the decline should be explained.
  • Unfortunately, I could find no established reason for the decline. The master's thesis 'Investigating the socio-economic impacts of the introduced Asian paddle crab, Charybdis japonica, on New Zealand's native paddle crab fishery' tries to explore this, but section '4.7 Conclusions' indicates not even the experts know. The 2023 fisheries assessment further states: "For all PAD fishstocks there is insufficient information to estimate current stock status." I will however add that "The cause of this drop is unknown as of blah blah" or "the cause of this decline is not well-understood" (I'm thinking the latter).
  • "In 1984, research was conducted into exporting to the United States, which had previously failed due to spoilage and lack of market interest." I am not sure that this is worth mentioning, but if it is covered then the results of the research should also be explained. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, I've been unable to find what actually came of this research. The closest I was able to find to Murray 1984 is a mention in Osborne 1987 that "a trial paddle crab farm began [...] with the aim of producing soft-shelled crabs for markets in the U.S.A." Of course the presumable answer is "it was unsuccessful" because I can't find any evidence the US imports these, but that's WP:OR. I mention it in a footnote because the fact they were previously imported to the US would be notable enough to include in the prose were I able to follow it up with what eventually happened to it, but absent that, I feel it's still worth mentioning, just outside of the main prose. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AK

[edit]
  • "or Māori: pāpaka" should be "or, in Maori, pāpaka", both in the lead and body.
  • I think the current way is the correct way to use {{lang}}, but I could be mistaken.
  • Don't think crab needs to be linked.
  • I don't see any reason not to link 'crab'; it's standard practice to wikilink even common things when they represent the type of thing a subject is. (Ex. linking 'United States' within the first sentence of articles on US states; linking to 'dog' for the article 'terrier'; linking to 'smartphone' for the article 'iPhone'; linking to 'video game' for 'Super Mario Bros.')
  • "sandy-bottomed waters" Are there any non-sandy-bottomed waters in the ocean? I'm not quite sure what habitat preference this implies, exactly.
  • Yup! Seafloors are commonly thought of as just being "sand", but they can be large rocks, gravel, clay, and silt as well. I'm sure I'm missing other materials, but the crabs specifically prefer sand for burying and thus really only live where sand is.
  • Every sentence in the first para starts with It, this gets kind of repetitive.
  • Added in a "the crab's" to spice things up a bit, because I agree.
  • "which comprises over a quarter of its diet" cannibalism doesn't comprise any of its diet.
  • Correct; changed to "accounts for", since cannibalism isn't a thing you eat.
  • "could become outcompeted" to "could be outcompeted"?
  • The reason I say "could become" instead of "could be" is because "could be" to me reads as though this is something that has already happened, as in C. japonica is already currently outcompeting O. catharus, which seems not to be the case yet.
  • "is present in Māori culture, both as an artistic motif" I'd personally reword to "is used in Māori culture as an artistic motif..."
  • I don't think it's wrong to change it, but I just like the cadence of the sentence with a bit of a "breather" caused by the comma.
  • There are a lot of duplinks in the body.
  • Do you have any specific ones in mind? I'm using the standard way of duplicate linking wherein the lead is treated separately from the rest of the body. I did just fix two unnecessary dupes, though, that I totally missed before.
  • Gloss for cervical.
  • Link to neck? I'll do that, but readers might be a bit confused given our coverage of necks is so human-centric (let alone anything outside of tetrapods). Else I can link to Wiktionary, although I prefer to link "in-house" when possible.
  • "– the chelipeds –" "the" is unnecessary
  • I see what you mean, but I think using "the" works better with sentence flow and is more easily read than just "chelipeds" within en-dashes. I can't exactly describe it.

Bejeweled (video game)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Lazman321 (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bejeweled is a 2000 match-three video game developed and published by PopCap Games. If you're even slightly interested in casual gaming, then even if you haven't heard of this game, you will most certainly recognize the ubiquitous match-three mechanic, which Bejeweled popularized. This passed a GA nomination back in October, and after several copyedits and a peer review, I believe it is ready for a FAC. Lazman321 (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the following reviewers: GAN reviewer @ProtoDrake: and peer reviewers @TrademarkedTWOrantula: and @Vacant0:. Lazman321 (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, thanks for pinging me! (Not sure if I'll have time to review; the holidays are coming up, and I need some time to relax.) TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 22:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I remember playing Bejeweled 3 on the Nintendo DS - I'll take a look at this. Hog Farm Talk 14:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • For Foxy Poker - would Sexual content in video games be a better link that what is currently given? Per the Kotaku source, this was a strip poker video game, while the current link target is focused on the more standard online smut
  • "Astraware ported Bejeweled to Pocket PC on August 8, 2003,[21] and Windows Mobile on May 3, 2004.[22]" - any hope for a seconday source for this information?
  • "such as over 2,200 match-three games on the Apple App Store" - I think this number here would be best with an as of date, since this is likely to change over time
  • " "Sprint PCS announces the launch of Multiplayer Bejeweled on Sprint Vision". DemiVision. May 13, 2003. Archived from the original on July 31, 2003. Retrieved September 23, 2024." - I'm unfamiliar with this source - is it a high-quality RS? This isn't on WP:VGRS, which tends to make me think this is a fairly obscure source
  • DemiVision is a primary source; JAMDAT bought technology from DemiVision in order to achieve the multiplayer gameplay of Bejeweled Multiplayer. They also happened to be the only source I could find for Bejeweled Mutliplayer's release date. Lazman321 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • GBA ports for Bejeweled and Bookworm were announced in January 2004 to be released by Majesco later that year. Although the Bookworm port was ultimately released, the Bejeweled port wasn't, and literally the only other information I can find of it was an entry on Kotaku claiming it was canceled, though it states the wrong year. Given how dubious and minimal the sourcing was, I chose not to include it in this article. For now, I'll remove the category, though would you prefer I include a mention of this unreleased port in the article? Lazman321 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed the category. I removed Peter Hajba from the infobox because there was no secondary sourcing of his involvement in this particular game and he was credited under a pseudonym in the readme. Lazman321 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above comment does make we wonder if there's anything to be said about the music of the game? I never played this version, but the music of Bejeweled 3 was definitely a part of the ambience of some modes of the game.

Good work here; only a few comments above. Hog Farm Talk 00:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I have addressed your concerns above. Lazman321 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Sorry, forgot to ping you. Lazman321 (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the decision to leave out the Game Boy Advance information due to the weak sourcing for it. Supporting. Hog Farm Talk 02:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BP!

[edit]

This game makes me nostalgic. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • At References. Perhaps rename all PocketGamer.Biz into "Pocket Gamer" only?
  • Ref 8, GameSpot wasn't italicized
  • What makes GamesWelt and Wireless Gaming Review reliable?
  • Maybe rename the section from "Sources" into "Bibliography"?

I think that's it. The article is obviously written very well. Btw, I was wondering if you're able to do spot chekcing/source integrity at Chris Redfield's FAC? Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Boneless Pizza!: Thanks, I have addressed your concerns. If I have time, I may be willing to do spotchecks for your FAC. Lazman321 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! I tried to read the entire article again to find any errors, but I couldn't. Thanks for addressing some of my concerns. I'll Support this FAC; looking forward to Tetris soon. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TTWO

[edit]

I have no recollection of this game. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 03:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "with chain reactions potentially following" - Chain reactions (as far as I can see) aren't noted in the gameplay section.
  • "JAMDAT's Bejeweled Multiplayer includes an additional multiplayer mode" - Is it the only version that does so?
  • I feel as though the term "simple video games" isn't precise enough. However, if you feel this term works, feel free to keep it in.
  • Lead says the team discovered Colors Game, while the gameplay section says, "Vechey discovered a match-three browser game titled Colors Game".
  • Removing mention of who discovered the game in the lead.
  • "...significant monetary revenue from that success." - Could cut "from that success"
  • Shouldn't the Mac OS X release date come before the Windows Mobile release date? Normally, a release section is supposed to go in chronological order, but I get it if you want to leave this unchanged.
  • "were developed for multiple years" - As in the code was updated for the game ports? Not sure what you mean here.

That's all from me! TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 01:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TrademarkedTWOrantula: Thank you, I have addressed your concerns above. Lazman321 (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, looks like you've earned my support! TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 05:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber

[edit]

Loved this game and played it alot 20 years ago - I read this on the plane and honestly couldn't see any glaring errors on comprehensiveness and prose so consider this a tentative support pendign how others feel about it. 20:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Image review (passed)

[edit]

Prose comments

  • The game was inspired by a similar match browser game, - Match was already used above, so similar covers it sufficiently here.
  • At the time, the PopCap team consisted of John Vechey, Brian Fiete, and Jason Kapalka. - Reads as a non-sequitur, since the preceding and succeeding sentences both deal with the game.
  • Bejeweled has since been ported to many platforms, particularly mobile platforms - Platforms ... platforms
  • trial run - Why not link game demo instead of Wiktionary?
  • and included the game in their Hall of Fame in 2005,[46] becoming the only puzzle game alongside Tetris to do so - "to do so" -> "to be inducted"
  • Worth mentioning PopCap's use of Bejeweled mechanics in their other games? (Beghouled in Plants vs. Zombies comes to mind). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: I have addressed your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: It has been two weeks since my reply; could you please respond? Lazman321 (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

[edit]

Just ended my wikibreak. Will jump in and leave some comments! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that I peer reviewed this article, I noticed that only one of my recommendations were left undone:

  • The style of reference titles is currently inconsistent. It is recommended to have all titles use title case capitalization.

I've already reviewed rest of the article and from my point of view it meets the FAC criteria, but I had to re-read Reception and Legacy considering that they had been slightly rewritten. Once the reference titles get fixed, I'll support this nomination. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vacant0: Thank you very much. I left the titles as is because of a post I made at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 96#Title case. According to its responses, the guidelines on title case in reference titles largely only applies to major works; minor works such as articles and chapters can use either title or sentence case based on what the source uses. Lazman321 (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Who is John Walker from https://kotaku.com/from-bejeweled-to-plants-vs-zombies-how-popcap-got-jus-1844338169? Are pages like https://kotaku.com/15-years-later-november-2004-might-still-be-one-of-the-1839905549, https://archive.ph/aqd0P, https://www.gamespot.com/articles/polishing-bejeweled/1100-6301815/, https://www.pcgamer.com/popcap-week-john-vechey-on-founding-popcap-making-bejeweled/ and https://www.gamesradar.com/the-legacy-of-match-three-games-from-bejeweled-to-candy-crush/ subject to some kind of editorial review? Seems like sources are consistently formatted and reliable otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Is there a reason you're suspicious? John Walker is a well-established video game journalist and editor who founded Rock Paper Shotgun, and aside from the PocketGamer.biz article about Gardenscapes, which is a blog post from a guest author that I have no problem with replacing, I find no reason to suspect that these articles didn't undergo the same editorial review as any other article. Lazman321 (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am trying to be a bit more rigorous with videogame sources than I usually am because I am not sure if WP:VGRS is still up-to-date and I don't have the expertise to judge VG sources otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a post on WT:VG/S for help. Lazman321 (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: After some consideration, I will remove the Kotaku article about November 2004 and replace it with a primary source, as the Kotaku article does seem to have citogenesis and fall under the "blog/geeky posts" that WP:VG/S recommends avoiding. Lazman321 (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Blue (album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): mftp dan oops 14:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings FAC, and happy holidays.

This article is about the debut studio album by Spiritbox, a work of musical art I consider to be a magnum opus of heavy metal. Spiritbox are groundbreakers in mixing metalcore with post-metal, and with this record they have become by far my favorite metalcore group from North America. I originally wrote this from spare parts on the band's page, and achieved good article status for it back in August 2023. I was left some helpful feedback by a reviewer who treated it in the style of a featured article, which I have since taken.

I attempted FAC for this last April, but it was closed in June as unsuccessful. I have expanded information of the album's content and promotion significantly since then and, after a copyedit, I am confident enough to go for another round. I'm really excited for this one, because I actually created this article and hope to reach the Four Award with it. mftp dan oops 14:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3family6 - support

[edit]
Prose and structure looks good! I still need to go through all of the references. There's two cases of over-citing: "critics have identified the album's style as metalcore,[18][19][20][21]" and "LaPlante both screams and sings throughout Eternal Blue.[2][19][33]". You only need one or two citations there. Potentially, if necessary, you could bundle the references into one citation, but I don't think that this is necessary. Just use one or two citations to make the point.-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer before I act: I kept four next to metalcore because Spiritbox's genre has, in the past, been contentious, and this was precautionary to hopefully help ward off debates over how genres should be applied or even ordered in the infobox. At your insistence, I will proceed, but I just wanted to clarify it had an extra purpose. mftp dan oops 14:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I figured. Both from personal experience in genre wars and per WP:OVERCITE, that's typically why multiple citations are given. If you think it's necessary, again, you could bundle the citations, but I think if you have two separate sources calling the album metalcore, then that's a valid genre tag. If the genre is debated in sources, then that debate should be mentioned. If it's not contentious in reliable sources, then an editor disputing that needs to prove it with sources. And even then, that wouldn't justify removing the mention of metalcore.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. I'll probably end up doing something similar to what the band's biography or Deftones does (though maybe not quite as heavily as the latter band does). The other overcite has been addressed. mftp dan oops 14:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How's it look, 3family6? Any further concerns? I'll be adding Courtney to the composition section. I used that photo of Josh in the band's biography and he joined the band after EB, and putting it in promotion would be too close to the Joshua Tree image in my own personal opinion, so I'll be commenting on her lyrical input in the caption. mftp dan oops 15:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For images, it looks good. I just need to go through the sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MFTP Dan
Ref 30 is a duplicate of ref 86. Merge those, please.
Done. mftp dan oops
Make sure the formatting and wikilinking of sources is consistent. For example, some Loudwire and Billboard references have wikilinks to the Loudwire and Billboard sites, some do not. Please go through and ensure that all wikilinks are given, if a source has a Wikipedia article. Same with the formatting. I don't think you need to list Townsquare Media as the publisher of Loudwire, but, if you do, make sure all the citations to Loudwire articles do that. I'd personally just take out that field as it's not necessary. Also, some website citations have the website italicized, some do not because the field is "publisher" rather than "website" (ref 100, for example). That needs to be consistent.

Will do. mftp dan oops 19:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is Lambgoat.com considered a reliable source? I think for the usage here it's fine, since it's press release content being cited as primary sources. But I was wondering more generally. It has an editorial staff, so I'm thinking it's fine. I just was wondering if there's been any discussions about it.

It has a loose consensus for basic things like this that's about 10 years old, but I considered these circumstances before using it. mftp dan oops
This source I'm slightly concerned about for use supporting a BLP statement. The article is posted by the site owner/editor, so essentially a self-published source; and if used as a primary source, it's a statement from a different individual than the subject, albeit a member of the band. Realistically, it's probably fine, but I want to make sure that nothing here is running afoul of WP:BLPSPS.

I never thought about it being self-published from that angle. Do you think I could attribute the information to LaPlante in the text? Would that help? mftp dan oops
Other than those issues, everything looks great!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@3family6: I've made an effort to address all of these statements; I went ahead and attributed LaPlante with the Wall of Sound ref, and axed one Lambgoat ref where it wasn't necessary. Is that enough for a support? mftp dan oops 23:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the Wall of Sound interview, the issue with citing LaPlante for this is that she is making an essentially self-published statement about a living person. I'm going to go ahead and run this question by the BLP noticeboard.-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is taking her word and attributing it as such still self-published? I don't follow. I'd like to note that that's the only extant online source covering the information. mftp dan oops 13:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not technically "self-published", but it would be a primary source statement. The discussion at the noticeboard largely seems okay with it, although one editor did express that technically the source might fail BLPSPS and would therefore be a best source. I personally am ignoring the technicalities here, as I think inclusion improves the article and it's certainly not defamatory. All issues are resolved.-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, regarding Lambgoat.com, it was brought to RS/N today regarding an unrelated article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review and support from Crisco

[edit]

Note for transparency: I am responding to a generalized request for reviews in Discord.

Prose

  • After revealing the project and releasing an extended play (EP) in 2017, development on Eternal Blue began in 2018. - Missing the subject; "development" was not the one revealing the project.
  • which guitarist Stringer and former Volumes guitarist Daniel Braunstein produced - Any way to avoid repeating "guitarist"?
  • LaPlante used both screamed and clean vocals on the album - Definitely feels like "scream" and "clean vocals" should be linked for non-genre fans.
  • The project is the only studio album Spiritbox released while bassist Bill Crook was a member of the band, though he did not play any bass parts on the album. He left the band in May 2022. - Is this really lead worthy?
    • All addressed up to this point, except for the last one. I could be overruled and convinced to remove it, but as far as I'm aware, this is fairly routine practice for album articles, unless the band has an especially turbulent history, which Spiritbox is not. mftp dan oops 01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • LaPlante had joined the band in 2012 to replace the vocalist, who had departed mid-tour - I'd mention Krysta Cameron explicitly
  • Stringer and LaPlante became uncomfortable with being replacements for the band's previous members and wanted to pursue a new personal and creative direction,[6] so they decided to quit the band in late 2015. - This can definitely be rewritten to be more professional. Something like "Uncomfortable with being replacement members and wanting to pursue a new personal and creative direction,[6] Stringer and LaPlante decided to quit the band in late 2015."
  • Spititbox - Typo. Also, you mention Spiritbox three times in this paragraph; reworking to avoid mentioning the band as much would be good.
  • shared - So they didn't release them through normal distribution channels? This implies to me that these were released gratis (similar to shareware)
  • Paragraph 3 of #Background uses the word "singles" four times in three sentences.
  • The section #Composition feels like it would flow more logically after #Recording; you've just spent four paragraphs talking about how they came to record the album, then you skip the recording process to talk about the album itself.
  • Continuing down, I'm seeing a lot of repetition of words (Spiritbox used several heavy metal-based musical styles on Eternal Blue; critics have identified the album's style as metalcore, progressive metal, djent, post-metal, and alternative metal, for example). Honestly, part of me wants to completely restructure the first paragraph in #Composition.
  • mid 2019 - mid-2019
  • "fluidity that is inherent in heavy music" - This opinion would be attributed
  • "romantically sorrowful" - Same as above
  • religious faith - Could probably be shortened
  • catchy - Another opinion, this time using Wikipedia's voice
  • The songwriting for Eternal Blue commenced early - Early is quite subjective; a statement like "several years before release" would be more objective
  • In September 2020, the band announced they had signed with Rise Records as part of the label's partnership with the band's vanity label Pale Chord Records - Both "label" and "band" are repeated in this sentence.
  • in the following 24 hours, the band sold 6,500 vinyl pre-orders for the record
  • Simon Crampton, in a summary of his review of the record, called it "one of the most self assured, emotionally enriching and musically diverse albums of the year",
  • Top Album Sales - I'd mention that this is a chart.
  • My basic impression is that the article is a bit too verbose, using more words than necessary to express its information. I've highlighted some examples above, but they aren't the only ones.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero

[edit]

Not to go all CRTC on you, but how are they Canadian? Reading the background it seems that the core duo of the band were previously in an American band and the blue linked member seems to be an American. If they are based somewhere in the great white north, it might be worth saying that.

Originally, I had something talking about that in here, but I cut it. It is present on the band's article. I can re-add it if you like. (The rest of the original members were, in fact, actual Canadians. But now they're just down to Mike... 😂) mftp dan oops 21:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are these websites high quality RSes? They have the general vibe of a SPS including being a stick wordpress template

Source credits for mxdwn
Alright, so the following refs were listed on the guide at WP:A/S as generally reliable, which shapes much of how albums like this are sourced.
  • Although defunct, Dead Press! was listed as generally reliable at A/S. These three were in fact published by the owner and editor of the website, but my understanding is he did in fact have an editorial team.
  • Blabbermouth is a common heavy metal reference. According to A/S, the source is acceptable with caution. I noticed a couple places where this was an extra and removed those. Metallica uses the source extensively. For a recent album example, Heaven Upside Down makes use of the publication.
  • Metal Injection was discussed a little more recently than these other two and is likewise listed. EDIT: Actually, I think I could go without this one, removed. For what it's worth, the same author has credit with Exclaim!, but I'm not that fussed about it. mftp dan oops 21:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can get back to you on the others. This always comes up as a problem on heavy metal releases, because the reality is that modern heavy metal is sorely lacking in good journalism with people who give a shit about proving their credentials, but I wouldn't have used them at all if I didn't have enough confidence they could be added here. mftp dan oops 21:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

metal.it is a dead link for me in the EU

Fixed. mftp dan oops 17:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Countries of publication are used inconsistently. If you include a country you should probably have a city.

I don't know what you mean here. Did I do something I forgot about? Or maybe I borrowed a reference from the band's biography that I didn't originally put there? mftp dan oops 17:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Michigan Daily is a student paper and they are rarely RSes for things away from their community. See WP:RSSM

I understand why you think this way. I actually remember dissenting on this one once, but I was met with resistance. It seems they run a ship better than any other publication of their type. Regardless, I reasoned that this was exclusively used as a self published source about Mike himself. mftp dan oops 17:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find hair or hide of any interview at Apple Music

This is a special case and instructions to access it are contained within the citation. You have to inspect the page elements. (F12 on Windows) mftp dan oops 21:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need something better for worldwide sales figures than an instagram post. It is also a broken link and the archive didn't work

I removed this. Unfortunately it seems there's nothing on the web elsewhere that supports this information. I had hoped that, with time, more sources would emerge corroborating the information, but this did not happen. mftp dan oops 06:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does Hard Force collect charts? Are they reliable? It seems like something beyond what I would expect from an online publication

Hard Force is a longstanding French publication which was established in 1985 as a print magazine. They're partnered with SNEP and cover the rock and metal charts in major European markets, including France, Belgium, Germany, and the United Kingdom. See the most recent iteration for France specifically here, where Laurence Faure notes, "Il ne s'agit pas du choix éditorial de nos équipes, mais du reflet des ventes françaises" ["This is not the editorial choice of our teams, but a reflection of French sales"]. It seems unfortunately they recently stopped doing Europe as a whole, the last being 23 October this year. mftp dan oops 18:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are quotes sometimes included in the citation templates?

Is that a problem? mftp dan oops 21:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

--Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PMC

[edit]

Hi, sorry about the delay (running theme but I get there in the end).

Lead & Background
  • In para 2 of the lead, you have two successive sentences that start "blah blah includes..."
  • Para 3 is all about charts/reception, except sentence one about more singles. I might move that to para 2, which is all about completing the album. If you feel like you have too much in para 2, I might remove Crook, as it sounds like he wasn't that important to the album
  • Also in para 3, I might move the critical reception such that the charts are all together. Right now we go chart, reception, charts.
  • "Stringer and LaPlante chose to leave" ->" Stringer and LaPlante left the band" tighter
  • "Shreddy Krueger's drummer Ryan Loerke became the band's first permanent drummer." since it make sense that the drummer would become a drummer, we can lose some redundancy by rewording to something like "Ryan Loerke of Shreddy Krueger became the band's first permanent drummer" (also, do we have a time frame for this? I notice I asked about this in the last FAC)

All of these have been looked at. mftp dan oops 20:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recording
  • The more I look at the Joshua Tree image the less I think it makes sense in the article, especially since the main Spiritbox article has lovely free images of all the musicians. And especially since it means the first image of LaPlante, the band's driving force, gets shunted way down the article. I might feel differently if it were a photo of their exact recording environment but it isn't really.
  • I noticed that you use "the album" a lot, to the point that it becomes a bit noticeable. You can introduce a little variety by writing around a few of these - for example, "The release was originally scheduled for April 2024, blah blah". Last sentence of para 3 has it twice.
  • I might move the Revolver sentence to para 1, since it seems to go along with the anticipation of release. Then para 2 is all about the completion of recording
  • From prev FAC - "Although Crook was an official member" Do we know why the bassist didn't record the bass parts? That's weird, and if he was causing drama, potentially of interest for the article
  • I might split para 2 at "Eternal Blue was produced by...", since the rest of the para concerns the production and recording
Composition
  • I know I said differently at the last FAC, but I think if we're quoting "post-metalcore" and "nu-metal-meets-djent riff-fest", we need in-text attribution. Who said those?
  • "Near the debut record's release..." this sentence feels oddly placed here, since we're talking about the album. Perhaps move to background or recording? Or maybe combine it with the whole opening sentence to get something like, "Although LaPlante defined Spiritbox as a metalcore band, critics have identified several heavy metal-based musical styles on Eternal Blue: metalcore, progressive metal, djent, post-metal, and alternative metal."
  • "The band's use of digital synthesizer" -> "Digital synthesizer is prominently used". Gets away from passive voice and trims the needless "the band"
  • I'm not sure "displaying" is the right word here, although I'm not sure what is
  • "In a post-release interview..." this whole sentence is very long and really needs to be split.
  • Again per the prev FAC, the quote about Stringer's "dissonant, spastic, crazy..." style absolutely needs attributed in-text
  • Para 1 feels a bit all over the place. Right now it goes genre, genre, genre, synth use, genre-adjacent description, inspiration, disregarding genres... I might separate the inspiration/"who cares about genre" into its own paragraph
  • Again per the prev FAC, "to diversify into styles which yielded stronger, full tracks rather than a small portion of a song," it's not clear how these this is connected to his wild playing style. Does that style only work for small portions of songs? (also, I'm not sure you need that new comma after "stronger")
  • It's not clear what significance the various tunings have. Is drop F# common in metal? Totally unheard of? Is it weird to change tunings 4 times in a song or is that comically low?
Songs
  • The section frequently mentions LaPlante writing the lyrics to this or that song. Since you established earlier that LaPlante wrote most of the lyrics, you don't need to keep specifying this. You only really need to call it out when someone else did the writing, since that breaks with the established norm.
  • "The song creates a dramatic atmosphere in which LaPlante envisions a band's entrance to a live show" - sorry, does this mean the actual lyrics concern LaPlante envisioning a live show? Otherwise I think it needs revised for clarity
  • "the song's self-described "nu metal references"" - "self-described" isn't the phrase here, since I assume the song isn't describing itself
  • I'm not sure the working title stuff is actually relevant here - the title was changed away from the Slipknot ref, and it doesn't seem like there's any further connection to Crahan (unless he's the toxic ex in question?) I think it would work in an article about the song, if there was one, but it doesn't really give much for the album
  • Do we know why Carter offered to feature? And why LaPlante accepted despite not wanting features?
    • Is it common for metal albums to have lots of guest features? I ask because if so, it might be worth moving LaPlante's unusual reluctance to have guests out into the first section of Composition, perhaps along with her vocals, since she was concerned about proving her vocal abilities
  • Again, I might split this para once you start getting into Yellowjacket, because you have about half the paragraph talking about two other songs, and the rest talking quite extensively about this song
  • "in a way "that doesn't make sense"" per who
  • Suggest revising the first two sentences about Holy Roller to get some more flow and remove redundancy. Something like, "In "Holy Roller", LaPlante takes the role of the Christian Devil, speaking internally to the listener as a sort of personified evil; [Name of Critic] described it as the band's heaviest song, "far darker and more violent" than any of their previous material." (It's gonna be obvious that the song references religion if it's written from the point of view of a figure in a particular religion, right?)
  • "LaPlante wrote the song's lyrics, which are about a real-life experience; the song was inspired by a difficult break-up of a friendship and the coming-to-terms with its end." Redundancy again. "The lyrics describe LaPlante's coming-to-terms with the difficult end of a friendship" achieves the same thing in less than half the words, and with much greater impact.
  • The sentence about Strange World has "written" then "wrote", you can write around this and gain some fluidity in the process. Try something like "the lyrics concern LaPlante's anxiety about Spiritbox's growing recognition and her fear of failure". This also gets rid of the unnecessary quote
  • Since Strange World, Halcyon, and Circle are all about LaPlante's career anxiety and are in sequence, let's get them into one paragraph so the reader can see the connection. You can simplify and reorder things to tie them all together: "Similarly, "Halcyon" concerns pressure to succeed. LaPlante felt it had a similarly dramatic atmosphere to "Sun Killer", though catchier. "Circle with Me," the final song written for the album, traces LaPlante's emotional journey from this anxiety to empowerment and self-confidence." Again, far fewer words but a much greater impact for the reader.
Release
  • "was announced for release" is an odd phrase, and this is a rare instance where I'll recommend more words. "Spiritbox announced the release of Eternal Blue on May 25, 2021" sounds more typical
  • You don't really sell a pre-order. You sell something via pre-order, or place a pre-order. So maybe "6,500 pre-orders were placed for vinyl copies" or "6,500 vinyls were pre-ordered"?
  • "This aborted tour cost the band many unexpected expenses" -> expenses aren't really something you cost. Something like "The cancellation caused financial difficulties for the band" might read more smoothly
  • Move WCAR to be mentioned first or last, then you can spend time on Smith without going back and forth. Also, again, trim. "Although he had never met Spiritbox, Shinedown singer Brent Smith offered them $10,000 to cover costs, concerned that the band would collapse from the financial hardship."
  • "Spiritbox first found critical and commercial success with "Holy Roller", which was released on July 3, 2020." - hadn't they been finding critical and commercial success for the last couple years by releasing singles and EPs?
  • "a resounding positive reception" resounding is egging the pudding here
  • "In retrospect regarding "Constance"..." suggest a rephrase to something like "Loudwire cited the emotional resonance of "Constance" as an example of what made Spiritbox a "buzz-worthy" new band" (the rest of the quote is really not that necessary, and now we're explaining why it makes them buzz-worthy)
  • I'm not sure what Rock Sound's quote adds, since we already say that critics thought the song showcases their versatility
  • I was bold and removed some redundancy in this section
Critical reception
  • Many of my comments about this section from the first FAC still stand. I strongly suggest revising this section in line with WP:RECEPTION, which is a helpful guide to writing top-quality reception sections
  • Copying myself directly, the best reception sections are split into smaller paragraphs focusing on one or another theme (where possible). For example, you might have one about the lyrical composition, one about the vocals, one about the drums, whatever. I would strongly recommend overhauling to do so here, if possible. Even if you don't have enough for paragraphs on individual concepts, maybe a clearer split between positive and negative appraisals?
  • There's still too much quoting when there could be summarizing
  • I might use the boilerplate Metacritic text so unfamiliar readers know what it's based on: "On Metacritic, a review aggregator site that compiles reviews from mainstream publications and assigns a weighted average score out of 100, Eternal Blue received a score of X that was based on Y reviews."
  • You've tweaked Katsiaficas's thing about "encompasses all of the dynamics on the album", but it still isn't clear what it means
  • The quote following "musical journey" is still pretty redundant to the part calling it a musical journey; you need some trimming here somewhere
  • The huge quote from Garland needs trimming

Overall, I see a lot of the same thing I pointed out in the GAN and in the original FAC, which is that you often use many words when a few will do, which impacts the flow and impact of the article. I cannot recommend WP:REDEX (and Tony's other exercises) enough for improving one's prose. Learning to cut my own tendency to use lots of words has made an enormous difference in the quality of my articles.

I also notice some issues with organization - paragraphs don't always have cohesive themes, and there are many that should be split or reordered. I don't know that I want to oppose, but I've made some fairly large suggestions for prose improvements. The bones are there, but it needs the fat trimmed so we can see the beauty of the muscle. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm used to taking on bigger prey which received more relevant mainstream attention - Bleed American, Tell All Your Friends, Dookie - so it's possible I may have overcompensated, thinking there wasn't enough here. I've got my work cut out for me here, but I think I can handle it. Cutting is easier than adding material. mftp dan oops 20:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GL Mk. I radar

[edit]
Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a British radar system that aided the Army's anti-aircraft gunners. I think it's interesting because it was so low-tech that it helped convince the Germans that British radars were not very good (along with the similar MRU, an article I'll get to) and the amusing bit about it causing a nationwide shortage of chicken wire.

The article went through A-class some time ago, and it looks like I'll have some time to work it over the holidays, so here goes... Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Why are there two of File:GL_Mk._II_radar_transmitter.jpg?
  • File:GL_Mk._II_radar_transmitter.jpg: source link is dead
@Nikkimaria: Queries: (1) what should I use instead of fixed px sizes? (2) should I use an archive URL for the dead link, or find another page with the same image? (3) There are two copies of the one image simply because we needed one to be in the lede for the DYK - I'm trolling the web looking for one to replace it at the bottom. (4) Canadian pic, what do I need in this case, a second tag for the US as well? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(1) |upright=. (2) Either, as long as the latter would verify the information provided on the description page. (3) If no other image can be found, the duplicate should be removed, DYK or no. (4) Commons requires images to be free in both the US and their country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok all fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like the dead source link has changed? Where and when was File:GL_Mk_IIIc_radar_Accurate_Position_Finder.jpg first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it seems to have saved the new URL this time, not sure what I did. The second was first published in 1942/3. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NRC lab reports, Ottawa. They would have been available in the UK and US at the same time, and likely other Commonwhelth nations but I can't confirm that. The original image is now in the archives in Waterloo. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, to clarify, which part of that cannot be confirmed, and what do you mean by "available"? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot confirm it was available in other commonwealth nations in the radar circles - namely Australia, NZ and South Africa, but I assume they did. The UK definitely got it, it's in Kew. By "available", the parties to the arrangement, which included at least the UK, US and Canada, sent copies of their research documents to the other parties when they were published. So in this case it would have arrived at the radlab within days of it being published in Canada. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking on Commons, it seems that there is a perfectly good alternative here, the Mk. IIIB image. Is this one perhaps more useful? Do UK images in PD also require a US tag? If so, would this one be easier to verify? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, how is it looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graham Beards

[edit]
  • "Plans to introduce the Mk. II with accurate bearing and elevation were underway from the start" From the start of what?
  • "1,679 Mk. IIs were ultimately produced." Can we avoid starting this sentence with numerals?
  • "The GL effort was started very early during CH development, and like CH of that era, used relatively long wavelengths as these could be generated and detected easily using existing electronics from commercial shortwave radio systems". The lay reader might wonder how long wavelengths can be obtained with shortwave radios.
  • "The antenna was only marginally directional, with the signal being sent out in a wide fan about 60 degrees on either side." There is a fused participle here. How about "and the signal was sent out in a wide fan about 60 degrees on either side." Or just drop the "with"?
  • "A more serious limitation was the displays themselves" I think "themselves" is redundant.
  • "As Mk. I arrived in the field, a number of improvements in the basic electronics were introduced." Perhaps "several improvements"?
  • "To better study the AA problem" Are you happy with the split infinitive?
  • "The separate range and bearing receiver units could operate on a number of frequency bands" Several ?
  • "A common oscillator was used by both receivers, which was sent into the four-tube radio frequency (RF) section" Perhaps provide a link to Electronic oscillator?

That's it from me for now. Graham Beards (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are updated. Thanks! Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Graham, how is it looking now?
I thought the rule was that you should bold the topic in major sections, sort of like a mini-lede? I am certainly not married to this, if it needs to go I'm happy to do so. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No big deal, but it looks wrong. Graham Beards (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I've copyedited a bit; revert anything you disagree with.

  • "which provided both mobile early-warning service, as well as relocatable service in case a main CH station was knocked out". You don't need both "both" and "as well as"; either "both mobile early-warning service and relocatable service" or "mobile early-warning service, as well as relocatable service" would work. But it took me a second to understand the point of "relocatable". How about "which provided mobile early-warning service, and could also be relocated to replace a main CH station if one was knocked out"?
  • I don't think any change is needed, but I'm curious as to how accuracy was measured. If the radar was accurate to 25 yds for an aircraft several miles away, how was this determined? Even at slow speeds an aircraft would cover that distance in less than a second, so any form of human-triggered measurement seems unlikely to be precise enough. Could tests be done against objects on the ground?
  • "and produce a null on the display": what is a null? I understand the concept, but does this just mean that the display would be blank? And I see the word is used later in the article; it appears the display is not blank so I am unclear what is meant.
  • I see there's an article on GL Mk. III radar, but not on GL Mk. II radar. If the Mk. II is covered in this article, shouldn't the title reflect that?
  • "by sliding a copper ring along post on the core": presumably this should read "along a post"?
  • I don't think we need the wikilink to ladder, unless you intended that to go to some technical article with a similar name.
  • "Images exist that show both antennas combined on a single cabin": why is this worth mentioning? Surely images exist of many of these devices and their installations.
  • For note c I think you need a source for the suggested explanations. Without one I think it would be best to cut the note.

I don't know enough about electronics to provide any subject matter feedback on the description section, and I struggled to understand some of it, but that's the nature of technical articles. I think the article does what it can reasonably do towards explaining the material as simply as possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All updated. Some notes:
  • The accuracy was a function of the pulse width. Back then you could only be sure the target was within the distance that the pulse covered at the speed of light. So you want as short a pulse as possible to get better range accuracy. But there's limits to how short you could get with their electronics and still have a solid signal. Today they use various tricks like pulse compression that allow you to use long pulses and then compress them on reception and ~1m is not an issue.
  • I hear you on the title? I didn't like "Mk. I and Mk. II". For the AI radar I went with Mk. IV, as the vast majority were Mk. IV sets, but in this case it really is more mixed. But also two articles seemed wrong too. Suggestions?
  • I have no idea who linked ladder!
  • I trimmed C, but still worth mentioning that the sources don't say I think.
Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the title, maybe Early GL radar? Or failing that, GL Mk. I and Mk. II radar is at least accurate, if a bit clumsy. Whatever you pick, don't move the article till the FAC concludes as that would screw up the bot that handles closes. Looks like you skipped my second-to-last question? All your other responses look fine. I expect to support but would like to read through again first; please ping me once the other reviewers' comments are resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree this needs a better title. Early British radar systems perhaps? RoySmith (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this is one of several designs that would fall under that title. CH and MRU definitely do! I think Mike's second one works? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did miss that one point. The issue here is that both Mk. I and Mk. II used two separate cabins for transmitter and receiver, but there are photographs showing both on a single cabin. There's really little information beyond that, but it seemed worth mentioning. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

[edit]

I'm reading through this now. So far, looks pretty good. Note that I'm not into milhist; I approaching this from the engineering standpoint.

Development
[edit]
  • The first mention of radar in the UK was ... Do we really have a solid source for there being no earlier mentions? See User:RoySmith/essays/First is worst.
    • Still needs to be addressed.
  • The GL effort was started very early during CH development, and like CH of that era, used relatively long wavelengths as these could be generated and detected easily using existing electronics from commercial shortwave radio systems I stumbled when reading this, because I remembered reading earlier about 600 MHz being used and didn't think there was any 600 MHz gear in commercial use back then. When I went back I saw that the 600 MHz was a different unit, but you might eliminate this confusion by saying up front something like "Despite Butement's earlier experiments with 50 cm technology, the CL used relatively long 50 meter wavelengths as these could be generated ..."
  • antennas on the order of 25 m perhaps link to half-wave dipole here.
  • Clearly, this was not practical is that you doing the editorializing ("clearly"), or does the source say that?
  • produce a smoothly varying voltage, does the source say "smooth"? I assume "linear" would be a better word, or more likely Sawtooth wave.
  • sent into the CRT's other channel, typically the Y-axis It took me a little bit to understand what you're getting at here, mostly because my familiarity with modern radar sets had me assuming it would be using a Plan position indicator, which these early radar sets didn't. It might be useful to mention that this is known as an A-scope display, and perhaps use the illustration at Radar display#A-Scope.
  • For this role, the system used two receiver antennas mounted about one wavelength apart I'm having trouble visualizing this. One wavelength apart in what direction? Normal to the azimuth? Vertical? Horizontal? Drawing a diagram would help here.
  • The transmitter, which had a power of about 20 kW is that 20 kW average continuous power, or peak power? I suspect the latter, but the source should say.
  • Three antennas were mounted in a line down one of the long sides of the framework again, a diagram would be really helpful here.
  • Behind the two bearing antennas were reflectors mounted about a wavelength away, which had the effect of narrowing their reception angle that sounds like you're describing a yagi. If so, link to that.
  • it provided very accurate range measurements on the order of 50 yards does the source characterize it as "very accurate"?
  • You've described a few different crew positions; people watching each of two different scopes, and "the range readers", which I suppose are the same people. It would be useful to give an exact rundown of how many people were in the crew and what each person did.
    • Still needs to be addressed.
  • could be attained with these lobe switching systems. a reader who is familiar with antenna design will understand what you mean by "lobe", but most readers won't, so a short explanation (and, again, a diagram) would be useful here.
  • It was found that in certain orientations of the transmitter and receiver, the small antenna used to trigger the time base would see too small a signal to work I'm confused. I think what's going on here is that the time base sync is sent from the transmitter shack to the receiver shack by radio, but that's not clear. Again (and I know I'm getting repetitious here) a diagram would help.
  • By late 1939 became clear "IT became clear"?
  • well into an effort to build an S-band GL radar system I know that S-band means a certain wavelength (although I had to go look up the exact number), but most readers won't have a clue what you're talking about. It's especially confusing since if you click on S-band you get to an article that's talking about frequencies, and most of this article has been talking about wavelengths. They're just two different ways to say the same thing, but most readers won't understand that. So a short explanation here would be useful.
  • it combined scanning and tracking into a single unit with an internal generator set that touches on something I've been wondering about; where did the Mk I and II units get their power? I assume in addition to the receiver and transmitter shacks, there was a separate generator shack that came along with it? How many total vehicles did it take to move and set up one of these units?

At this point, I'm done with Development. I'll pick up again with the rest another day.

Many edits, I think I got everything on your list. Some notes:
  • half-wave is already there, just above.
  • sawtooth is definitely the correct term.
  • a-scope is linked already just above.
  • it's not a yagi. Similar, but different. It's actually built exactly like a modern UHF TV antenna, with dipoles in front of a passive rectangular reflector.
  • I just removed the s-band, simply say "microwave" seems good enough in this article.
  • I do NOT have a description of how this was hauled. This is actually a bit curious because all the other units I've worked on always go out of their way to describe this, right down the individual model of trucks. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Description
[edit]
  • In some places you talk about "wooden cabins", in other places, "wooden huts". I assume these two terms refer to the same thing, so it might be clearer if you just stuck to one consistently, or at least at the first usage, say something like "cabins or huts".
  • I'm also curious (and I assume so will our readers be) why these were built of wood. Was it just a convenient material or was the fact that wood is not electrically conductive an important factor?
  • mounted on AA gun carriages Readers who know about these things will know what AA means, but many won't. So you should define the term. I'm assuming these were used because they included the ability to support a great deal of weight while being able to be pointed accurately in any direction in addition to being towable behind a truck; if that is indeed the case, saying so will be valuable to our casual readers.
  • with up to 50 kW of power again, needs to be clarified that this is (I assume) peak power.
  • the entire area in front of the transmitter antenna's current bearing given the subject matter, when I see "current", I think Electric current, so could you pick a different word here to prevent confusion?
  • the signal was even less directional vertically than horizontally it should be mentioned (obviously with a RS, not just my say-so) that the narrower horizontal beam width was a direct consequence of the antenna being wider horizontally than it was tall, and that the antenna was intentionally shaped like that to achieve this effect.
  • potentiometer which exponentially increased the charge in a capacitor bank This is confusing. Earlier you said The system worked by charging a capacitor at a known rate until it reached a threshold that triggered the time base which makes sense (and is basically the same as the variable trigger delay in modern lab oscilloscopes, at least until the end of the analog scope days), and by "known rate", I assume "linear". But here you're talking about charging at an exponential rate, which I don't understand.
  • for reasons that are not recorded in the references, this solution was not used we're supposed to be using WP:RS, so I'm unclear where this bit of information came from.

OK, that does it for a first pass from me. Overall, this was an enjoyable read. As noted in a few places, I think the addition of some explanatory diagrams would go a long way towards helping a non-expert reader understand how this all works. I know a fair bit about radar, so I was able to fill in a lot of the gaps from my personal knowledge. I suspect most people will just be lost, however.

Some other random thoughts...

  • The introduction of the cavity magnetron in 1940 led to a new design effort using highly directional parabolic antennas to allow both ranging and accurate bearing measurements while being much more compact is a little deceptive. It's not the parabolic antennas that allowed it to be more compact, it's the fact that it used shorter wavelengths. The greater accuracy may have been due to the parabolic antennas, but the shorter wavelengths is what allowed them build build those antennas in practical sizes. So I would certainly mention that the cavity magnetron allowed them to operate at those wavelengths.
  • You should tell the reader what "gun laying" means
    • Still needs to be addressed.
I think I have all of these as well.
As to the "exponential" bit, I have only this: "The design of the potentiometer is based on a time constant r = 167.1 microsec, the grading being exponential so that time-interval or range readings are linearly related to the angular settings of the potentiometer shaft." This is only used on the bearing display, the range display is different. Reading it now I'm not at all clear one what this accomplishes. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your changes look good. I've noted a couple of items above which still need to be addressed. I know this may be going beyond the requirements of WP:FACR, but I'll repeat my suggestion that some good diagrams in a few places would go a long way towards making this approachable to a non-expert reader. I understand most of the technology here so I'm able to do a lot of imagining how things must be arranged and I'm really just filling in details as I read along. Most readers, not so much. I recognize that this is a highly technical subject so it's unreasonable to expect that somebody who knows nothing about electronics will be able to follow every detail, but I do think there's room to do better in this regard. RoySmith (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maury, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Sorry, missed this. I asked over in the illustration requests, but I have not heard back. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the other notes... the "first" is directly stated by Buttment in a historical overview published 1931. This is recreated in Sayer on page 303, "This memorandum was the first as far as we know to propose...". I guess this could be just them plugging their own work, so if you think that's not enough it can be removed, the only important part here is that they were thinking of it before the AM.
I have added a bit on gun laying in the lede, I think linking to the article in question is enough? I also added a note to Bedford which states this, albeit in passing.
I have no details on the crew positions in the references I have. I know there were two displays for range and bearing and a third was added for elevation, and there were two hand wheels in the first cabins, but I'm sure there were more people involved for which I have no details. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Morlaix

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another in my long running Lance and Longbow series, this article is about the first significant clash on land of both the Hundred Years' War and the Breton Civil War. A large French army attacked a smaller, possibly much smaller, English force and it ended badly. I am much reminded of Wellington on British cavalry 500 years later.

Our officers of cavalry have acquired a trick of galloping at everything. They never consider the situation, never think of manoeuvring before an enemy, and never keep back or provide a reserve.

This has recently been much expanded by me and is fresh from a GAN review by Serial Number Redacted so thorough as to approach the rigorous. All comments, concerns and complaints are welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I'll review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 18:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "He was released in 1943 on condition that he gave up the struggle. " - Was he released by the Free French or the Vichy? The date appears to be wrong
Vichy. His goalers freed him in the chaos of the German take over. Clarified.
  • " By July Joanna had been forced back to the far west of Brittany" - is this an alternate name of Jeanne of Flanders?
Sorry, as this is the English language Wikipedia they should be standardised as "Joanna". They are now.
  • Is there a link for cog as referenced in the caption?
Linked.
  • "Northampton's 1,350 men are described by the historian Jonathan Sumption as being half men-at-arms and half archers. while Kelly DeVries says most were archers" - comma after archers instead of the period, or were you intending this to be two sentences?
Whoops. Comma inserted. (Not something I type very often.)

The sources all look to be reliable from a quick glance. I don't think I have anything else to add to this. Hog Farm Talk 20:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm. Is that it? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks good to me. The GA reviewer didn't leave much for later reviewer to complain about. Supporting. Hog Farm Talk 21:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
Hi Nikkimaria, can you confirm that you are referring to the infobox image? (As the other five images don't use px.) Thanks Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ta, Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:CarlosIdebritania.jpg needs a US tag
Done.
Swapped for another, similar, image.

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Another clear, well sourced and highly readable article from Gog about the Hundred Years' War. I look forward to supporting its elevation to FA, but first a few quibbles and carps.

  • "and was shot to pieces by the English archers using longbows, it then broke without making contact" – needs a stronger stop than a comma.
Replaced with a semi colon. That do?
Yup. Tim riley talk 17:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his younger half brother, John of Montfort, claiming the dukedom; Joan was married to Charles of Blois, a well connected and militarily orientated French nobleman" – and there will be fisticuffs if Gog again persists in forgetting my wise words about three missing hyphenations and, in "orientated", two superfluous letters.
Oh deary me. Clearly old - and incorrect - habits die hard. Fixed. Um; I can only fond two missing hyphens. Should "militarily oriented" be hyphenated?
You're right, I think that the last doesn't need a hyphen, and I withdraw.
  • "Philip found the idea of having a relative as the duke attractive, it would bring the traditionally semi-autonomous province more firmly under royal control" – another comma splice that needs a stronger stop.
Semi coloned.
  • "Their fleet of 260 ships, including an unknown number of galleys, took the Genoese by surprise and 11 of their ships were burnt" – 11 Genoese ships, I presume, but it isn't entirely clear. If my assumption is correct may I suggest "took the Genoese by surprise, burning 11 of their ships"?
Restructured to, hopefully be clearer.
  • "a force far inferior to that of the French" – we've been here before, too. Numerically inferior no doubt, but let's not get judgemental here. Perhaps just "a force far smaller..."?
Tweaked.
  • "Edward III was planning to follow on with a substantial force, so Northampton's first mission was..." – I write as an old codger, and many younger non-codgers may disagree, but I don't regard "so" as a proper conjunction in formal English prose. In my view you need "and so" here.
Humf I say, as an old codger myself. Now "proper".
  • "Morlaix is approximately half way between Brest and Guingamp" – I was going to ask for a hyphen here, but to my surprise the OED renders "halfway" in this sense as a single, unhyphenated word, so there you are!
:-)
  • "Charles left it well-provisioned and well-garrisoned" – neither hyphen is wanted.
SOme people are never happy. Repositione elsewhere in the article.
  • "Charles' force greatly outnumbered the English" – we've been through this before: if Charles is to be pronounced à la française then plain ess-apostrophe is right, but as John isn't Jean in your text and Philip isn't Philippe I think we are firmly in the realm of anglicised renderings of French names, and so Charles would be pronounced with an "s" on the end and the possessive would be Charles's.
A barbarous usage. Reworded to avoid the necessity.
But there are still five incidences of Charles' without an ess-apostrophe-ess. Or are you saying that just ess-apostrophe is right? Tim riley talk 17:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I pronounce it "charles" and struggle with the idea of it being pronounced "charleses", but I shall have a look at the others and see what might be done.
Hmm. I have cut it back to two cases, but we still have a disagreement as to whether even one is acceptable.
  • "Even this was only sufficient for perhaps fifteen minutes continuous shooting" – either fifteen minutes' continuous shooting (with apostrophe) or fifteen minutes of continuous shooting.
Drat! Good spot.
  • "although as the battle wore on the rate of fire would slow" – you and I are at one about eschewing superfluous commas, but I think a comma here would usefully break up "the battle wore on the rate"
I try hard not to argue with you over such things, if only because I usually lose. But for the life of me I cannot see where a comma might permissibly fit, much less improve the flow; although any possibility would certainly break up the flow. You have my permission to insert a comma into the sentence wherever you think best.
I'd put a comma after "on", but it's your text and I don't presume to pontificate. Tim riley talk 17:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Modern historians differ as to its composition." – This is the fourth "as to" in the text and one does begin to notice it. Perhaps just "about" here and there?
  • "was made more difficult for the French by their mercenary crossbowmen having deserted" – have I bored you before about gerunds? Well I'm going to again. Grammatically this sentence should be " ... their mercenary crossbowmen's having..." but as that is a lumpen piece of prose, may I suggest "made more difficult for the French because their mercenary crossbowmen had deserted"?
You certainly may. (I am pleased to hear that your AI Gog is all but indistinguishable from the real one.) Changed.
  • "the first time the English tactic of deploying their men-at-arms on foot with massed longbowmen on either flank was used outside Britain" – this is bound to pique your readers' interest, and it would be a kindness to add a footnote saying when and where it was used in these islands. And are you sure "Britain" rather than "England" is wanted here?
Re Britain, unless you wish to claim just outside Perth as English, which would be likely to pique some readers. I was considering adding a short paragraph to the main article about where historians consider Morlaix fits in the development of the English tactics. It seemed a bit of an overloaded, but this morning it seemed more reasonable. What do you think? Whatever it is I shall either footnote or main article the information, although it may not be for a couple of days due to social committments.
It was just a suggestion and I leave it in your hands. Tim riley talk 17:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a natural daredevil, and having been egged on by you, I am going for it. I shall ping you once it is done. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. I hope some or all is helpful. Tim riley talk 15:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As ever, all of it is most helpful Tim. Thank you. Most comments actioned and all responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After final rereading I'm happy to sign on the dotted line and support the consecration of this article as an FA. Tim riley talk 19:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I wonder if the The Battle of Crécy, 1346 sauce should be sfn'ed not by year, but by chapter title. Looked through the sources and their reviews, seem OK (worst thing I read is "redundant") but I am beginning to wonder if the lack of French sources creates a reliability problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo and thanks for looking at this. Regarding your comments:
  • BofC, I am not sure what you mean. Could you point me to an example of sfn'ing by chapter title? Thanks
  • And for our purposes "redundant" means 'already well established in the literature', so good.
  • There are, obviously, HQ RSs in French. I own some of them. I even accessed some when putting this article together. I could easily replace several of the existing cites with French language sources saying much the same thing. Which I assume would make you happy but would fail the FAC because WP:NOENG "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance" which is policy. I can confirm that I have checked the French-language sources, such as they are, and found nothing of note not covered by equal or better quality English-language sources; note that the French version of this article only uses English-language sources. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I must note though that NOENG does not say that it overrides DUE/UNDUE points, so I want the assurance that there aren't aspects covered better/differently in the non-English sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Iazyges

[edit]

Claiming a spot. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Brittany was a province of France but while the dukes of Brittany were vassals of the French kings they governed the duchy as independent rulers I think this could do with a bit of a re-organization, perhaps Brittany was a province of France, as the dukes of Brittany were vassals of the French kings, however they governed the duchy as independent rulers or something similar.
Well now. As it happens I prefer the first version, I find that your suggestion causes me to jump back and forth a little. More pertinently I used the same form of words for the opening sentence in my other current FAC after the wording was thrashed out with a couple of reviewers. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Breton Civil War, 1341/archive1#Support by Borsoka. UC raised much the same point as Borsoka in their earlier review. If you feel strongly about this I could ping both of them into this discussion to try and reach a consensus?
  • There was a single usage of "Brittainy" here (and in the Breton Civil War article) that I assumed was supposed to be Brittany, and changed accordingly, but just wanted to double-check.
You are quite right, I just keep having a mental blip.
  • John's wife, Joanna of Flanders, was in Rennes with her two-year-old son, also John and the ducal treasury when news of John's capture arrived for a bit of clarity, consider also named John; present sentence at first read to me as if John was a third person, not the son.
You are quite right. Changed as you suggest.
  • (ie, very many) suggest just (very many)
Done.
  • fifteen minutes' continuous shooting consider fifteen minutes of continuous shooting
Done.
  • I did notice that there is inconsistent metric to imperial translation, sometimes from meters into feet, and other translating meters into yards. Suggest standardizing all to be meters translated to feet.
Done.
Hi Iazyges, thanks for the review and I'm glad you liked it. All of your comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to Support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Constantine

[edit]

Upon kind invitation, I will review in the next few days. Constantine ✍ 22:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Constantine, that's kind of you. I shall brace myself. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
  • had sided with John of Montfort's faction in the Breton Civil War might be useful to also specify when this conflict began? E.g. 'the recently erupted Breton Civil War' or something similar.
Done
  • When the French sighted them they deployed 'they' is not entirely clear, perhaps 'When the French sighted the English position, they deployed...'?
That seems worse. I have gone with "When they sighted the English position, the French deployed", that work?
Much better indeed. Constantine ✍ 16:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • first major land battle of the Hundred Years War for consistency, 'Hundred Year's War'
Done.
  • This was the first major land battle of the Hundred Years War. I would also add that it set the tone for English encounters with the French in this conflict, as noted in the Historiography section.
Done.
Background
  • Regnal years for Edward III?
If you mean either in the infobox or the lead, or both, I don't do them there, just at first mention in the main article.
  • Just for clarity: was English support for John the result of the French backing for Charles? The sequence of statements currently suggests otherwise, or leaves the causal connection between the two unclear. It would help if This army overran all of eastern Brittany apart from Rennes and captured John were given a date.
Done.
No, the French backing for Charles was because John tried to insure his position by secretly negotiating with Edward.
Perhaps add 'In response' before The French declared Charles the rightful heir? Constantine ✍ 16:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rejigged the paragraph to get that in in chronological order.
Thanks, IMO much improved. Constantine ✍ 16:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • as the faction's figurehead what was that faction? Put another way, were the Bretons divided in their allegiances, or did some of them support the Blois claim? Did these allegiances have a geographical variable (it is suggested thus further down)?
Added.
Background is possibly getting a bit bloated now. And whatever point one stops explaining the nuances is going to be a bit arbitrary
I agree, and am always prepared to accept a refusal to add more details on these grounds. However the conflict is not just an English-French one but also an internecine Breton one, so some context should be given. The additions are also more than sufficient for me. Constantine ✍ 16:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
English intervention
  • arrived under Sir Walter Mauny in May add 1342 just for clarity
Done.
  • Relink Genoese to Republic of Genoa? I also assume the first instance of galleys was left unlinked to avoid the sea of blue? Perhaps 'fourteen galleys, hired from Genoa,...' instead?
Good thinking, done.
  • Do we know how large the French army besieging Brest was? There are mentions of the size disparity, but if any numbers (or estimates) are known, it would help. For example, Charles was now aware that his force greatly outnumbered the English, although not by as much as Charles had hoped is confusing for me: if the French army 'greatly' outnumbered the English, what does this mean? Going by the next section they were three or even more times as large, which is scarcely grounds for Charles to have hoped for an even more lopsided ratio. And if Charles was initially not aware that the English were numerically smaller, why did he hope to outnumber them by a wide margin in the first place?
Re Brest we have no clue. The modern sources have phrases such as "a vast host", "an enormous French army".
I can't help it if you're confused. Charles wanted more men than he had. He probably shared this with every military commander ever. Maybe he could then besiege some towns as well as attack the English Perhaps he realised how incompetent he was. Perhaps it was a status thing. (Yeah, I like that one too.) The sources don't say. They say Charles lost a lot of troops to the army in Picardy and wasn't happy about it. I have no objection to editing out Charles' unhappiness if that jars.
If it derives from the sources, that is fine to stay. Constantine ✍ 16:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the French mistakenly believed it would be used in northern France, probably disembarking in Calais. An army was gathered to confront this imagined threat So German WW2 generals were not the only ones to fall for that... More seriously, Calais was not in English hands then, was it? So the French feared that the English would seize Calais and not just disembark there?
Oh, very good point, I shall check. (Off hand Sluys seems more likely.) Nooo! My fault, the source says "Edward's real intention must be to land in the Pas-de-Calais" and I saw what I wanted to. Sorry. Changed.
Fine, but why the change to Picardy instead of Pas-de-Calais? Constantine ✍ 16:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. So as to avoid over-close paraphrasing. 2. Because the coast of Picardy is (more or less) the same as the French coast of the Pas-de-Calais.
Opposing forces
  • The men-at-arms in the French army were equipped similarly to the English is that not redundant since The men-at-arms of both armies...?
Fixed.
The reference {{sfn|Prestwich|2007|p=155}} is now double and redundant. Constantine ✍ 16:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, that may teach me not to do edits during the gaps in the Christmas festivities. Thanks for double checking. Fixed.
Battle
  • decided to attempt to relieve Morlaix suggest 'decided to attempt to relieve Morlaix' as the decision was not to attempt, but to succeed.
Done.
  • because their mercenary crossbowmen had deserted any indications as to why? Professional soldiers deserting after a lost battle is known, but here the outcome appears to still have been open...
Nope. Some of the modern sources don't mention crossbowmen at all. My guess is that they mean they fled after getting shot up in the first attack. But that is OR.
Aftermath
  • when Edward III arrived at Brest on 26 October the siege was abandoned and Northampton marched to join him Why? This move seems illogical, since he was victorious and was about to receive even more reinforcements.
No source gives a reason. Almost certainly Edward pulling in his forces for his big push across Brittany to besiege Vannes. But that is OR.
Done.
Historiography
  • Perhaps a mention of this battle being part of the broader "Infantry Revolution" in 14th-century warfare?
To my surprise, you are the second reviewer to ask for more in the Historiography section. I shall work something up.
I have added a fair bit on the English combining longbowmen and dismounted men-at-arms post Bannockburn, but don't think it appropriate to wade into the "infantry revolution", assuming it is still alive as a theory to be waded into. I think it is put well in Bachrach and Bachrach Warfare in Medieval Europe.

The regular deployment by English commanders of archers alongside dismounted men at arms who were positioned in a phalanx has been described by a number of military historians, including most prominently Clifford Rogers, as marking a revolution in military affairs. In numerous articles and books, Rogers has identified what he describes as a particularly English approach to combat in the field, whereby English commanders undertook the tactical defensive in battle while maintaining the strategic offensive in the various theatres of the Hundred Years’ War in Scotland, France, and in the Iberian Peninsula. English commanders, and particularly Edward III, inculcated the imperative among their subordinates that it was crucial to force the enemy to attack them, after the English army had established a sound defensive position. It certainly is appropriate to observe the enormous success enjoyed by the English armies during the course of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, however, it also is important to understand that Edward III was not the inventor of the tactical deployment of a phalanx supported by troops equipped with missile weapons.

They continue at chapter length - very readably IMO.
Fair enough. Constantine ✍ 16:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: That's it, the article is in great shape already, and as usual, written with clarity and care to provide context to its readers. Constantine ✍ 12:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's late. I shall try to wrap up what's left in the morning. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Constantine and thanks for the expert review. I have come back to all of your comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A pleasure Gog the Mild, that's it from me. Well done and a happy New Year! Constantine ✍ 16:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support on criterion #3

[edit]

For now at least. SerialNumber54129A New Face in Hell 12:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the coordinators

[edit]

Festive greetings to all @FAC coordinators: Given the progress of this - 3 supports, source and image passes, another review from Constantine pending - could I have permission to nominate another one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well why not, I can't think of anything better at Christmas than more medieval death and destruction... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your wish is my command, oh mighty coordinator. Another slice of death and destruction coming up. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

[edit]

Non-expert prose review. I made some copyedits: feel free to revert if they are not helpful. Additional thoughts:

  • "The historian Andrew Ayton concludes like Sumption that the English consisted of about the same number of archers as men-at arms" Why is this in a different part of the article than Sumption's and DeVries's analysis? I think they should be together.
  • The "Historiography" section: many parts have an "X said Y" structure and I am not sure if naming each source is needed. If no other sources disagree with a statement, like in the first paragraph, why does the article need to outline each individual source's analysis? Can the information not be presented as prose instead, without naming the source in the text, and using inline citations to specify where the information comes from? If naming the sources is going to stay, I think new sentence starters are needed.

Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Belvidere Apollo Theatre collapse

[edit]
Nominator(s): Departure– (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the collapse of a theater venue in Illinois which had been hosting a sold-out concert. This is my first FA nomination, and the article has been out for around a week; it was assessed as B class and I've significantly expanded it since then. I have around 98% authorship but from my spot checks everything's cited, no tags are present in the article, and it has a good mix of sources. I do cite a Facebook post but I believe it's acceptable as a matter-of-fact statement by the Belvidere Fire Department. Departure– (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EF5

[edit]

I love to see this at FAC, and I'll neutrally give feedback:

  • Images need alt texts.
  • A second paragraph in the lede would be marvelous, or at least paragraph out the current one.
  • NWS -> National Weather Service for consistency.
  • Template:2023 tornado outbreaks should be added.

Will do a prose review soon, but these are my opening comments. :) EF5 16:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks for the suggestions! Departure– (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that my anxiety is a little simmered down, a prose lede review:

  • Lede:
  • causing the ceiling of the theater to suffer a critical structural failure and collapse onto a sold-out concert headlined by the death metal band Morbid Angel. Although not required, I'd suggest rewording this to say "causing the ceiling of the theater to cave in and subsequently collapse onto a sold-out concert headlined by the death metal band Morbid Angel".
  • with over 200 in attendance 200 what? "people" or "concertgoers" should go after the "200".
  • and was determined to have had winds of 90–100 miles per hour (140–160 km/h) struck the theater, The "km/h)" should have a comma at the end and as a result the comma after the "theater" should be removed. While we're at this sentence, , causing the failure of the lower roof structure, with large amounts of debris falling into the venue should probably reworded to say ", causing the failure of the roof's lower structure; large amounts of debris fell into the venue as a result".
  • Multiple people were buried by debris caused by the collapse How many? It's best to be specific where possible.
  • which was met with a swift response per WP:PEACOCK, I'd remove the "swift", but that's just a suggestion.
  • one was pronounced dead at the scene and 27 were taken to hospitals by ambulance, out of a total 48 that suffered non-fatal injuries. As above, one what? While I do know that it's referring to, some readers may not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EF5 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the first claim, we have next to no detail surrounding the specific means of collapse, so saying that the ceiling caved in would come without RS media's support. The wind speed thing bypassed my spot checks when I rewrote the lede. Over 200 in attendance will be changed to over 200 in the venue; I'm using "multiple" because the figure was over 10 but was never specified and 48 injuries occurred. I believe the swift response thing is discussed in RS media, and it is known that debris from the collapse made it onto the stage so I can't say anything about specifics other than the fatality being a concertgoer. Departure– (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten the above claims adjusted but the swift response claim will have to be verified by me later on. I believe the speed of the response was emphasized in the press conference, but if you see it in the lede but not the article that means I'll have to add it in the prose with a citation. Departure– (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, it's already cited. Comments on the response were in the article, and are cited to Alicia Tate-Nadeau who my work here and on the 2021 Naperville tornado gave her her first links related to actual disaster response. Speaking of, this should be added to the disaster response project. @EF5:, you're more familiar with the rating tool, could you do that for me? Cheers! Anyway the quote is [i]f it wasn't for the fast and coordinated efforts, on Friday night, we would have seen a more tragic outcome from events from today and it's cited to Pritzker's visit to Belvidere under the Aftermath section. Departure– (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, good job! I'll take one last look tomorrow, and apologies if I did something wrong as I've never really commented on an FAC before. :) EF5 21:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears I've forgot. Anyways, great job on the article! Support, as I have nothing to add. EF5 18:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Borsoka

[edit]
  • This is my first review of an article of a catastrophe, so sorry if some of my comments would be amateurish.
  • Was the district known as "North State Street Historic District" already in 1922?
  • I would introduce Belvidere as a city in the state of Illinois in the USA in the first sentence.
  • Could you add a background about tornadoes in Illinois or Belvidere (no more than two or three sentences)?
  • In 2017, the venue was owned by Maria Martinez. Why is this relevant? In the previous sentence 2022 was mentioned, and the tornado struck the venue in 2023.
  • Introduce Morbid Angel, and the other bands in the main text.
  • Is spring the tornado season in the region? Either yes or not, this could be mentioned.
  • EF3, EF4, EF1?
  • Event coordinators recorded that 260 were inside the Apollo Theatre that night, including concertgoers, performers, and staff. ABC7 Chicago reported that the concert had been completely sold out. The concert begin at 7:00 pm. I would change the sequence of the three sentences: 3th, 2nd, 1st. What is ABC7 Chicago?
  • ...the National Weather Service records...The National Weather Service damage survey determined ... Tenses should be used consequently.
  • ...3 to 5 feet... Could you convert them to meters as well? Borsoka (talk) 10:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...caused by the collapse Delete.
  • Decode EMS.
  • The United States Tour of Terror 2023 resumed with a performance in Hobart, Indiana on April 2. Is this necessary? If yes, one sentence cannot make a paragraph. (Perhaps this info could me mentioned in a note at the first sentence of the second paragraph of section "Response".
  • ...six firefighters who assisted... Why not past perfect?
  • ...six firefighters who assisted in the response to the collapse at the Annual Fallen Firefighter Memorial and Medal of Honor Ceremony in Springfield, Illinois. Rephrase to avoid misunderstanding (did the collapse happened at the annual ceremony?)
  • Shortly following the collapse, the sole deceased victim had been identified as 51-year-old Frederick Livingston Jr. of Belvidere. Livingston had been at the concert with his son Alex, who survived the collapse despite standing nearby when debris from the roof crushed his father. Consolidate the two sentences to avoid repetition of information mentioned in section "Response". Perhaps, "The sole deceased victim, Livingstone had been at the concert ...."
  • ...had been created to raise money... Why past perfect?
  • ...following his death Delete.
  • Introduce WLS-TV.
  • By June 28, 2023, six lawsuits had been filed against the theater for failing to protect concertgoers from the risk of injury or death. Some more info to create a paragraph?
  • ...the collapse, when Belvidere Fire Chief Shawn Schadle stated... I would split the long sentence into two: "...the collapse. Belvidere Fire Chief..."
  • File:CollapsedApolloTheatreBelvidere.jpg: could the date/relative timeframe mentioned in the caption ("in an hour after the collapse" or "hours/days after the collapse")
  • The lead needs a comprehensive copyedit because it contains repetitions and its chronology is unclear. Borsoka (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this interesting article. Borsoka (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure about the North State Street Historic District; that'd require more research on my end.
  • Adding mention of Belvidere being the largest city and seat of Boone County would require a citation that might be out of scope, but I could have it with the NSSHD above.
  • I would not say that it is the largest city and the seat of Boone County. I would only introduce Belvidere because I doubt that all our readers have learnt of this city and the state of lllionis.
  • I'll add a bit of background of tornadoes in Boone County. Belvidere was hit pretty bad in 1967.
  • The owner was added there because I needed more for the background section but I'll get rid of it; they're re-introduced in the reaction section.
  • My concern is that the sentence is out of context. It could be rephrased: "Since 2017, it has been owned by Maria Martinez./In 2017, Maria Martinez seized the property/...". Furthermore, this info is relevant before the venue's 2022 reconstruction is mentioned.
  • Is the tour information not enough of an introduction?
  • Not sure about tornado season, but maybe I'll find more about that.
  • I'll substitute other tornadoes for the text-based "significant", "major" and "violent".
  • I'll re-arrange that, but I just wanted to attribute the text to a source. ABC7 Chicago had the most indepth coverage of this event specifically.
  • I'll reword attributions to the survey.
  • 3 to 5 feet in a {{cvt}} tag incoming.
  • Easy enough.
  • The tour resuming was mentioned and I think it's important because one tour date was skipped; I can't say it directly because it wasn't easy to find in a source.
  • For both firefighter parts, there might have actually been seven. I need to re-check that, but I know six of them were from BFD in particular.
  • Lawsuits are currently pending, and the number might actually be up to eleven, but I'll have to re-check that.
  • I believe the survey was on 1 April, so I'll recheck the DAT.
  • Lede CE incoming. Departure– (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • FYI, per this, Maria Martinez was still the owner when the roof collapsed, along with her husband.
  • Could you split up the Dan Zaccard et al. interview into multiple cites and give offsets for the approximate locations of the supporting clips? Twenty-two minutes is too long for a reader to be able to easily find the supporting material. {{Cite AV}} will let you cite a time offset.
  • "A historic severe weather event occurred on March 31 across northern Illinois. Having anticipated the severe conditions in advance, the Storm Prediction Center outlined a rare high (5/5) risk convective outlook": "anticipated" is redundant with "in advance". "Outlined" seems an odd choice of words, and "convective outlook" is opaque to most readers, and I've no idea what "5/5" means, even after following the link. Giving the outcome in the first sentence means you have to go back in time for the forecast, which convolutes the syntax. Suggest "On the morning of March 31, 2023, the Storm Prediction Center forecasted a high risk of severe weather events for two areas ...", possibly adding whatever is intended to be conveyed by "5/5". I think we also need to explain "Enhanced (3/5) risk".
  • You use the pluperfect a couple of times in the "Timeline" section, but I don't think there's a need to do so -- we're narrating a sequence of events so "An emergency operations center was established" and "a tornado watch was issued" seems fine. Searching for "had" finds quite a few more I think you could look at -- any reason not to just use simple past tense in the "Collapse" section, for example, and for most of the "Victims ..." section? There are certainly some cases where it's correct, such as in the "Response" section.
  • "Also at this time, the National Weather Service records that the damage path of an EF1 tornado had begun": suggest "At about the same time, an EF1 tornado began southwest of ...". There's no need to give the source since it's cited and reliable.
  • What makes the facebook post of the video of the tornado a reliable source?
  • "During this time, one concertgoer stated they recalled the windows breaking due to high winds, which was followed by multiple audience members being led to the venue's basement, until the tornado approached the building": I don't see most of this in the cited source.
  • Per MOS:ORDINAL, don't start a sentence with figures.
  • Per MOS:RANGE don't use "between" with an en dash range.
  • "which described the incident a mass casualty collapse": missing a word?
  • "however allowed firefighters to enter the building": another missing word?
  • Check for uses of "however" -- it's easy to overuse and can often be deleted, tightening the prose without changing the meaning.

At this point I started skipping further down the article to spotcheck for writing and grammar issues. A couple more:

  • "who survived the collapse despite standing nearby when debris from the roof crushed his father": we've already said his father was the only fatality; we don't need to repeat that he survived.
  • "Hopes for the Apollo Theatre's recovery began shortly after the collapse, when Belvidere Fire Chief Shawn Schadle stated that he believed the building would get remodelled after preliminary surveys by structural engineers indicated further collapse of the venue was unlikely and that repairs may be plausible." A long sentence that would benefit from splitting; and that's a misuse of "may" at the end -- it should be "might".
  • "expressed interest in sharing resources for the Apollo Theatre's response to the collapse, with one architect also expressing that": avoid repeating unusual words like "express" in such a short span. I would just use "say" for the second one -- see MOS:SAID.

Weak oppose. Sorry, I don't think this is quite at featured level yet. I think the article would benefit from a copyedit to meet the "well-written" requirement of the criteria, and there are a couple of MoS issues. I've made this a weak oppose because it's a short article and I think can probably be fixed while still at FAC if you can find a good copyeditor to work with. The list of issues above is not long, but it's also not exhaustive; I only glanced through the second half of the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments from Thebiguglyalien

[edit]

At a quick glance, I'm not sure whether I'd consider the sourcing high quality here. If we use Wikipedia:Tiers of reliability as a reference, virtually all of the sources fall under the passable-but-not-great Tier 3. It also seems like there are some unnecessary minor details in here, such as the quotes from different figures that don't really say anything. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this is an effectively unfixable problem. This is an event from less than two years ago where coverage was thick locally but ultimately it hasn't received much followup beyond tier 3 of those yet. I hate to hear this but this is an unfixable problem for the time being. I've included nearly every source I could find that wasn't just regurgitating old information. Departure– (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't go quite that far. I expressed concern about one source, above, and I think a source reviewer might highlight others, so I'm not saying there are no issues with the sourcing, but newspaper coverage can be perfectly acceptable at FAC. It can introduce other problems -- for example a local paper might go into detail about something that might be undue emphasis from our point of view. Thebiguglyalien is correct that better sources would be an improvement if they can be found, but I don't think that's going to happen here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

Well over three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hotline Miami

[edit]
Nominator(s): λ NegativeMP1 06:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"No matter who you are, bearing too much weight... inevitably leads to the collapse of everything." - Don Juan

Hotline Miami is a lot of things. It's a highly influential and critically acclaimed indie game (considered one of the best games of all time, actually), a very successful title that put its publisher Devolver Digital on the map, a cult classic, a driving force being the rise of synthwave, and a lot more. It also happens to be my favorite video game of all time, which motivated me to put in the effort required to bring this article here today, starting back in April 2023. I've actually rewritten this article twice, once in 2023 (which led to a quickfailed GAN, not exactly my proudest moment) and again throughout this year. And this time around, I opted to use more high-quality sourcing, like academic sources and more retrospective articles commenting on all aspects of the game. And that time, it actually passed GAN (reviewed by Nub098765). Now, with the extra work I have done on the article since then, I believe that all high-quality sourcing about the game has been exhausted, creating what I believe to be the most comprehensive source of information on the game available. And with that, I believe that it should have little in its way from becoming a featured article. Its sequel passed FAC earlier this year, and I hope that here, the first game will be able to join it with a star of its own. I look forward to reading and addressing any comments. λ NegativeMP1 06:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pokelego

[edit]

Disclaimer: I am reviewing this as part of a review swap with the nominator. Not leaving comments on Lead and Gameplay among other areas because I did not find any noticeable problems with them.

Synopsis
[edit]

-Looks very good, but I feel Richter needs some elaboration since he comes out of nowhere and I have no idea what his actual role in the story is.

Themes and analysis
[edit]

-Again, very well-done. My only major gripe is, again, certain characters are only brought up here like they've been brought up before; I have no idea who Don Juan and Rasmus are because they haven't been acknowledged before now. While I can infer their significance, it would be good to clarify that they're the masked personas and that the personas have different tints before introducing them.

Reception
[edit]

-Could the GameSpot source be more specific? What aspects of boss fights were irritating and where did the reviewer feel the game slipped up?

-"instead "serving as a mirror to the player." I feel this quote is very good, but at the same time could potentially be confusing on a first read. Maybe paraphrase this one, if possible?

Legacy
[edit]

-"Many of these similar narrative themes, gameplay mechanics, or soundtracks to Hotline Miami" I assume this is meant to be "Many of these include similar narrative..."?

Overall this article is fantastically well-written and I have very few overall issues. Patch up the above and I'd be happy to Support. I will do a source check at some point in the upcoming days as well. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above should be addressed. Though with the GameSpot reviewer one, he himself was kinda vague, only pointing out the boss fights and something about the games dialogue that I don't think can be properly written into reception. Nevertheless, I've done what I could. λ NegativeMP1 16:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NegativeMP1 Sorry about the delay. Beginning the source review.
-As a note, is there a reason only some sources (Like Game Informer and GamesRadar) have parent companies listed, while others (Including sources from the same source) don't? I'd try to make the citation style consistent here unless there's a reason why they don't have one listed (Such is if they're the parent company themselves).
-Some sources lack author names and publication dates entirely as well, so I'd add those where they're missing. Some sources also lack hyperlinks to the outlet writing them (For instance I saw a Vice source that wasn't linked).
-I can't verify some of the scholarly sources due to paywalls and other similar reasons. Due to the level of accuracy in other citations, and the fact some other citations in the article also verify this content, I assume good faith that these are covering what they're meant to.
Images:
Both fair use images have a valid usage criteria. I see nothing amiss with the usage of them, so that looks good.
Gameplay:
-Source 8 is tagged as Gamasutra, though it has now rebranded to Game Developer.
Intentional, this specific source was created in 2012 when the site was still named Gamasutra.
-Minor nitpick, but Source 10 does not specify that the dogs are guard dogs.
Fixed.
Themes and analysis:
-Section looks good
Development:
-Looks good
Marketing and release:
-The Steam update says the update was on September 9th, while the article says the 19th.
Fixed.
Reception:
-Looks good
Legacy:
-Any reason why Hotline Miami is bolded in Ref 99?
Markup error, fixed.
-Neither source used for the breakout game statement says Hotline was a breakout title, and instead only says the game was wildly successful for the company. While they can mean the same thing, in this case, it isn't really specified and just seems at a glance to be discussing its influence on the company more than it is a breakout title. I'd either clarify/reword this, or find another source that says this more clearly.
Reworded.
-Ref 128 is entirely italicized.
Fixed.
I'm admittedly a bit busy so I'll be getting to this throughout today. I will get to Development and Reception later today. I'll ping you once again once the whole thing is done. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Minor Point in Prose

[edit]

I also agree with the other reviewers that this ready to be a FA, since I haven't found any issues in the article. One recommendation @NegativeMP1:

Footnote for Beard in Synopsis: I think defining "elsewhere" (could it be a manual? a trailer? or agreed upon by fans?) would be helpful for lay readers. RFNirmala (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the "elsewhere" bit because there are no sources that clearly say where he is referred to as "Beard". Obviously, reliable sources call him that, but I fear that clarifying "elsewhere" as just sources could possibly fall onto the lines of WP:SYNTH. So I think the way I've handled it for now is how to do it. λ NegativeMP1 04:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EG

[edit]

I plan to leave comments soon so this doesn't get archived. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:
  • Para 1: "Hotline Miami is a top-down shooter video game developed by Dennaton Games and published by Devolver Digital in 2012." - This is a bit ambiguous as one can interpret this as "developed in 2012 and published in 2012", or "developed at an earlier date and published in 2012". Anyway, I see that the next sentence says when exactly the game was released, so I'd get rid of "in 2012".
  • Done.
  • Para 1: "The game inspired other developers during the 2010s and has been attributed to the success of its publisher." - You mean, the game has been attributed as a reason for the publisher's success? Right now, the syntax is reversed (this phrasing basically says that "the success of its publisher is a reason for this game").
  • Done.
  • Para 3: "The game was the first release from Dennaton Games," - Should this be "the first released by..."?
  • Yeah, changed.
  • Para 3: "The game's soundtrack was contributed to by several different artists." - I suggest using active voice rather than passive voice.
  • Adjusted.
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gameplay:
  • Para 1: If there any articles for "melee" or "ranged weapons", it may be helpful to add links to these.
  • I'm pretty sure those articles used to exist, but they're gone now.
  • Para 1: "also knock out enemies with a door, using them as a human shield, or kick them against the wall" - I'm confused whether this is supposed to refer to two or three things, as "knock out" and "kick" use a different verb form from "using [as a human shield". Is it "(1) the player can also knock out enemies with a door, using them as a human shield, (2) kick them against the wall"? Or is it "(1) knock out enemies with a door, (2) use them as a human shield, (3) kick them against the wall"?
  • The issues here seem to be caused by only one grammar mistake, so it should be fixed.
  • Para 1: "perform a finishing move" - For the benefit of people who are unfamiliar with the game, it may be helpful to clarify what a "finishing move" is.
  • Reworded to hopefully make it more apparent.
  • Para 2: "Both the player and enemies can be felled by a single attack" - In other words, the same attack can kill both the enemies and the player?
  • No, as in both the enemy and the player are extremely vulnerable, and can be killed immediately. I've tried to reword it to convey that meaning better.
  • Para 2: "amount of enemies" - Since enemies are a countable quantity, this should be "number" rather than "amount".
  • Done.
  • Para 2: "On PlayStation Vita, the functions of the mouse are shifted over to the touch screen, with locking onto enemies requiring the player to touch them on-screen" - Should this be on the PlayStation Vita?
  • Yes, fixed.
  • Para 3: "which grant different abilities depending on the one chosen" - I think "depending on the one chosen" may be unnecessary, as readers may be able to reasonably infer this from the wording "can choose from a variety of animal masks, which grant different abilities".
  • Done.
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EG, nudge :-) . Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I forgot about this, what with New Year's and all that. I'll leave feedback tomorrow, thanks for the reminder =) – Epicgenius (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Red Phoenix

[edit]

Per a request for feedback posted at WT:VG, I will review. Comments to come shortly. Red Phoenix talk 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Several artists contributed to the games soundtrack - Presuming we're missing an apostrophe; shouldn't it be "game's"?
    • Fixed.
  • The player can be felled by a single attack, as well as enemies - This reads ambiguously; either the player and enemies are both felled by one attack, or the player can be felled by an attack and by enemies. I'm presuming it's the former, and would suggest "Both the player and enemies can be felled by a single attack.", but if it's the latter, please clarify because don't attacks usually come from enemies in a video game?
    • I really don't know how to make this sentence read better without seeming wordy, but I've implemented a rewrite of this bit.
  • Aiming is predominantly done via a computer mouse, though the player can lock onto an enemy and not have to aim. - Is locking on also done with the computer mouse? I ask because these two statements are combined but only aiming is highlighted as being done with a mouse, and locking on is spelled out as "not [having] to aim".
    • Adjusted.
  • Before each chapter begins, the player can choose from a variety of animal masks - Is this something they wear? Or just a selection of a trait?
    • Specified.
  • The game also supports achievements, which are obtained by doing specific challenges like killing two enemies with one brick throw - We haven't mentioned "brick throws" yet so this read a bit awkwardly to me. Might suggest "The game also supports achievements, which are obtained by doing specific challenges like killing two enemies by throwing one brick at them."
    • Done.
  • The package contains instructions advising Jacket to retrieve a briefcase from the Russian mafia at a metro station using violence - Is the metro station using violence? Is "using violence" really part of the instructions, for that matter? Just seems odd; I might consider striking those last two words entirely to solve both issues unless it's a plot point worth emphasizing, then it should be reworded.
    • Done.
  • I was confused by footnote [d]. Did they fight to the death twice at the same point in the plot with two different outcomes? That doesn't seem to make sense unless one is resurrected and they fight to the death again. If they fight the second time at a different point later, I'd point that out because it reads like this all happened about the same time.
    • I've tried to make this more clear.
  • In one final encounter with Richard, he tells Jacket that he will "never see the full picture". The whole paragraph so far has been about Jacket and Richter; was this really Richard? Where did this encounter come from? It also reads awkwardly; I'd rephrase to "In one final encounter, Richard tells Jacket that he will "never see the full picture".
    • Yes, this was Richard. Implemented your suggestion.
  • He then reveals to him that he was reliving the events of the past two months while comatose after being shot. - Stick to one person per sentence being referred to by the same pronoun. Who revealed to who? Who was reliving the events of the past? Yes there's one way to read it in context, but it can come across as ambiguous with potentially other meanings.
    • Fixed.
  • Footnote [e] also appears to be missing an apostrophe for "game's"
    • Fixed.
  • and steals the file on the police investigations of the killings before heading to a nightclub that the calls were tracked to - Usually you don't want to end a phrase with a preposition, consider "to where the calls were tracked".
    • Done.
  • Afterwards, Jacket walks out onto a balcony, lights a cigarette, and throws a photo off of the balcony. - Whose photo?
    • The sequel strongly implies that it was a photo of Beard, but in the game itself it's unclear, and since no sources really discuss it I chose to leave it out.

That'll take me through the end of the plot so far. I'll pick up more in a bit. At the very least I'll plan to finish the prose, but I might also be willing to do an image and source review if no one gets to those first. Red Phoenix talk 14:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's carry on:

  • Early on in Development, there's a link to Artificial intelligence. It would be better to change the link to Artificial intelligence in video games, which is more specific to what the developer had difficulty with. Specifically the latter article focuses on the behaviors of enemies and non-playable characters, not AI as a whole in every application worldwide.
    • Done.
  • The two collaborated in making a promotional game based on the band - If the game was promoting the band, I'd just say "a promotional game for the band".
    • Done.
  • Is there a reason given for why they changed the name of the game from Cocaine Cowboy to Hotline Miami? If this can't be explained, we've put the cart before the horse a bit in structure and the fact of its original name seems to stick out, but could be fixed by adding a "before changing the name" at the end of that sentence.
    • I don't really think they've ever explained a specific reason why, but I have added that bit. I'm not too sure how I feel about the wording there though, so I'm also open to removing the fact entirely.
      • I'll let Popcornfud take a look at this when he does his copyedit. If he doesn't think it looks awkward, I'll trust his judgment. Ok with the lack of reasoning for the name change if they haven't said - this happens all the time in the development of everything creative, from books to TV and movies to video games and computer applications.
  • the game expanded after Vlambeer shared a demo with Devolver Digital, who then offered to publish it. - Who is Vlambeer? One could reason that Devolver Digital is a publisher based on the sentence, but this is the only mention in the whole article of a "Vlambeer". Is this a person? A business entity?
    • Specified, and also wikilinked.
  • When designing the gameplay, Wedin stated that they were designing a game that they wanted to play, initially being unconcerned with what an average consumer or a critic would think of it. - Did he really say this while designing the gameplay, and not after the game was released? Because that's what the sentence suggests.
    • Reworded.
  • The levels featuring the Biker were one of the last parts of the game to be developed, being created near the end of development. - We have a bit of singular-plural disagreement; either change to "some of the last parts" or just eliminate "one of" if it was the last set of parts.
    • Adjusted.
  • The game's writing... You mean the plot, or the game code?
    • Replaced with plot.
  • In a June 2012 post on his personal blog, Söderström said that he was wanted the project to have an interesting, but "unintrusive" story that players could skip through if they wanted to - Again, should not end on a preposition. I'd just remove the "to" at the end, and it works just fine as a sentence otherwise.
    • Done.
  • a friend of the developers and owner of the apartment the two developed the game in - "in which the two developed the game".
    • Done.
  • While the team felt that the game's violent nature could cause controversy, the team believed the decision to use pixel art would mediate any potential problems - This is an odd use of "mediate", in my opinion, which is usually to settle a difference between two parties. Based on the sentence, I think "mitigate" is a better word, which means to lessen or reduce the impact.
    • Done.
  • I'll do a copyedit pass through the music section. There are several things that read awkwardly to me as I look through it, and I think it would just be quicker if I go through that paragraph. I'll just ask that after I'm done giving it a pass that you follow up with me if you feel any meaning has been lost and sort out what's been made incorrect while maintaining a professional standard of writing.
    • Addendum: I have two questions on the Music section I can't resolve.
      • Artists such as Åkerblad (under the alias "El Huervo") made direct contributions themselves. - This comes out of nowhere - what kind of "artists"? We already described how music artists contributed their work, then listed more contributors, then mention other artists such as the person who did the box art made direct contributions? It's not implied anywhere he contributed to the music and it feels very out of place, even if it was a musical contribution.
        • I've cut this sentence entirely and just incorporated the mention of Akerblad into the sentence before it.
      • "the aforementioned "Hydrogen"" - it's not mentioned anywhere in the prose above. The linked music sample above, whether it stays or not, cannot count for "aforementioned"; it would have to be mentioned in the prose elsewhere to be "aforementioned".
        • This is a problem that didn't exist before another editor came through and moved the Themes and analysis section further down in the article, where "Hydrogen" was actually discussed. Fixed.
  • On that note, as I wrap up the development, I will respectfully decline to do an image review, at least. An image review should also evaluate the validity of the fair use claim of the music sample, and I will plead my ignorance that I am not qualified to evaluate whether the music sample has an appropriate claim of fair use in this instance, so I'll leave that to another reviewer.

More to come. Red Phoenix talk 15:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep going.

  • Reception towards the game at A Maze was mixed, but was later praised by attendees at Rezzed. - The reception was praised?
    • Fixed.
  • The game's soundtrack was released via Steam in January 2013; a physical release, with all of the tracks pressed across three vinyls, was released in 2016 through Laced Records. It was a limited release, with only 5,000 copies made, and was funded by a Kickstarter campaign that raised over $75,000. - How come the soundtrack and vinyl release are combined into one sentence when there's an additional full sentence about the vinyl release specifically?
    • I don't know why I worded it like that, split.
  • Versions of Hotline Miami for PlayStation 3 and PlayStation Vita, developed by Abstraction Games, released on 25 July 2013 in North America, and a day later in Europe. - Were they developed or ported? Also, please use "was released" instead of released; it's a matter of transitivity.
    • Fixed.
  • Further uses of "released" in the paragraph should be "was released".
  • Footnotes f, g, h, and i all are unnecessary. If the following paragraph is going to use those sources to demonstrate the topic sentence's point, it's not necessary to say these sources are why this topic makes sense, and then spell it out with the same sources in the ensuing paragraph.
    • I'm pretty sure I've been previously told that you need to source topic sentences in reception sections. I've removed the notes for now, but I'm quite hesitant still.
  • The Reception section otherwise reads well to me, but I will qualify that by saying engaging Reception sections are one of my biggest struggles personally as an editor, so other editors may disagree with me.
  • At the end of the Sales section, I'd just replace the "it" with the title of the game to make sure people don't confuse it with the PlayStation Vita in which one sold 1.5 million units. As I read it, I got the clarification at the end but I didn't get it when I started the sentence.
    • Done.
  • If you're going to list all the awards IGN nominated the game for, there's no reason to separate "Best Overall Game" from all the other awards in a different sentence.
    • Done.
  • Best Overall Music",[79] It won the award for "Best PC Sound". - Comma makes this a run-on sentence and needs to be broken apart either by a semicolon or as a separate sentence.
    • Fixed.
  • "Believed" is an odd term to use for something a reviewer said. It implies they thought something once and no longer do. Consider simply using "said", see MOS:SAID. This happens a couple of times in the Themes section.
  • This type of character was compared... - by whom? Even if it's sourced, say "by Papale and Fazio". Don't make the reader look for it.
    • Fixed.
  • Again, footnotes j and k aren't necessary if all of that is supported in the paragraph below. If they aren't, just cite the sources directly. There's not enough to worry about readability; it's more of an inconvenience to the reader to have to chase down the source.
    • I've kept the notes that serve as reference bundles, but the other ones are gone now.
  • Don't use "titles" to refer to video games, see WP:ELEVAR
    • Fixed.
  • The game is often attributed to the success of Devolver Digital, which has since become one of the most successful indie game publishers. - Wait, so this game is because Devolver Digital was successful?
    • Yeah, the sources say that. If there's a problem with this wording, I'm not sure how to really tweak it.
      • So that prompts another question: Does the game exist because Devolver Digital was successful? Or was Hotline Miami successful because Devolver Digital was successful? Or did Hotline Miami make Devolver Digital successful? There's some ambiguity here. Red Phoenix talk 13:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • The last one. Reworded.

Stopping before I do the sequel section due to time constraints. Will finish in a bit. Red Phoenix talk 16:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing up a first pass of the prose:

  • Shortly after the games release - "game's"
    • Fixed.
  • critic reviews being generally lower - What does this mean? Are the scores lower? Are the reviews "more negative"?
  • Another use of "released" when it should be "was released"
    • Completely removed this bit and condensed it to "Due to differences in gameplay and level design, Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number was not received as well as the first game."
  • Does the sales of the game series being five million across both games include the collection? How does that figure in?
    • I don't really know, and the source doesn't make it very clear. I'm open to removing this bit entirely.

@NegativeMP1: That'll do for a first pass of the prose. I also recommend after these fixes that you seek out a copyeditor to do a thorough pass as well; I don't mean to sound too critical but I think there is some miscellaneous tightening up of the prose that can be done to make it sound more professional. I can refer you to one if that person has the time, if you don't have one in mind. I'll also plan on a second pass after you have resolved the issues above, and I may return for a source review later if no one else picks it up; I won't lay claim to it at the moment. If you're interested in returning the favor, I'm looking for feedback at the FAC for James Scott, a professional boxer. Thank you; this article was a very interesting read. Red Phoenix talk 17:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Phoenix: I've addressed all of the comments you've left above, and I apologize for any inconveniences regarding the wording. I don't really have a specific copyeditor in mind either. A source review was already done by Pokelego above as well, so I think that should be covered. As for your FAC, I'll return the favor and take a look at it after I read through and leaves comments about Virtual Self (EP). λ NegativeMP1 05:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NegativeMP1: Hi, thanks for getting right on this. A couple of comments for you: On topic sentences, a good way to think about this is that the topic sentence is the lead of the paragraph. We don't need to source lead sections in articles because the sourced body below supports everything stated in the lead. A topic sentence in a paragraph functions the same way: what comes in the same paragraph supports what is stated in the topic sentence.
As for a copyeditor, I personally recommend Popcornfud, if he is available and willing. He comes with my highest recommendation as a copyeditor, although as with anytime you have another person copyedit your work you'll want to go back and make sure nothing had its meaning changed or important context removed by accident.
On the topic of a source review, I had assumed that had not happened because I did look over the reception section and I saw numerous cites in violation of WP:WIAFA criterion 2c: consistent citations, which I would expect a proper source review to pick up. Essentially, the red flag I saw is that all sources of a specific type must have the same data or exclude it; i.e. either every web source has a publisher, or none of them do; every magazine has an ISSN, or none of them do, etc. I may insist on a pass through before I am willing to support, or I may possibly do it myself if I have time. I'll take a second pass in the next couple of days to follow up, but if Popcornfud or another copyeditor is willing to take a pass, I may wait until they are done to give it another look, simply so I'm reviewing the most final version at the time. Red Phoenix talk 13:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How could I resist such flattery? I'll take a look at some point this week. Popcornfud (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look and did a basic copyediting sweep, just to trim some low-hanging fruit. Unfortunately, I don't feel the prose is there yet.
I'm seeing a lot of weird word choices (why would you write "utilization" when you can write "use"?), tautologies (the masked figures "foreshadow 'upcoming events", as if it were possible for them to foreshadow events in the past), and a lot of stilted, unnatural syntax, eg: Hotline Miami advocates an anti-violence message through making the player feel guilt for their in-game massacres. Some found this to be done through the utilization of upbeat music and its score system to motivate the player. That "some found this to be done" in particular is painful, combining a nasty passive voice with that classic weasel word "some" (meaning who, exactly?).
Sorry to blunt, but: in my opinion this article would benefit from a major rewrite. Popcornfud (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the copyedit and comments regarding the article prose. Although, I'm not necessarily sure how those statements would warrant a "major rewrite". Unless there's something greater that I'm missing, these just seem like easily resolvable issues. If I was told what each problematic statement or word was, at least, because at this point in the article I cannot highlight any issues myself. λ NegativeMP1 02:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for example, the part I quoted above needs to be replaced entirely. And there are a lot of sentences like that in the article right now. Popcornfud (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NegativeMP1: Just wanted to follow up and say thank you for making fixes on my comments, and give you an update where I'm at. I still have the one follow-up question above about Devolver Digital and what it means for the game to be "attributed to the success" of the publisher. Some of the other more minor points, I'm waiting on Popcornfud to do his copyedit pass so I can do a good thorough second pass. I still have reservations about source inconsistency and meeting WP:FACR criterion 2c; I would encourage you to look deeper into presence or absence of publishers and ISSNs.

That being said, if Popcornfud gets in a copyedit and it reads well to me, I will be inclined to give it my support then. It is a very well-written, well-sourced article that I think just needed polish to get the writing into FA-quality shape and the level of consistency expected in a featured article. If you do a little bit of work with the reference formatting I may be willing to jump in and polish up the rest. Although I still hesitate on the music sample as well, I won't withhold a support on that alone because I'll let whoever does the image review evaluate it.

Tl;dr: as long as it gets copyedited and my couple other concerns are addressed, I anticipate supporting soon. Red Phoenix talk 16:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I completely missed the question about Devolver Digital somehow, so I'll address that shortly. As for the publishers and ISSNs, I will take a deeper look sometime soon. Do publishers need to be included in sources even if it doesn't have an article? λ NegativeMP1 17:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I would say is this: it would be absolute easiest to just remove publishers altogether and that would be the simplest, but I see you have put a lot into getting publishers listed, so I would also say this is acceptable: Publishers should be listed when they’re available, i.e. identified on their website. An independent site, such as Rock Paper Shotgun doesn’t need one, but any like TechRadar, another Future plc property, would need its publisher if the others have them. Whether the publishing company has an article or not makes no difference; it’s about consistent attribution. The only other thing is that duplicate links are not needed in a source; IGN and IGN Entertainment don’t need to both be linked if they go to the same article, but they can both be mentioned, just only link IGN. Personally if I were you I wouldn’t worry about ISSN and just remove them - those can be extremely frustrating to track down. Red Phoenix talk 22:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - NegativeMP1, I'm so sorry I have to do this. When I asked Popcornfud to take a look at the prose, it was because I was finding that much of the prose I was reading did not feel as though it met WP:FACR criterion 1a, which requires prose of a professional quality—the comments I wrote for you in part are reflective of that. Everything that I gave you in the comments were where I identified issues, but even so, I was less than certain that those fixes alone would address the awkward writing of which I couldn't always identify specifics, only that it read awkwardly. I was hoping that Popcornfud could give it a copyedit and that would fix it, but that unfortunately does not appear to be the case. I trust his judgment when he says that this article needs a more major rewrite. This is no longer a case of just needing polish if he can't fix it with a simple copyedit.
This isn't to say I can't be swayed to change my mind and remove the oppose, or even turn to support, but I would need to see some major work on the prose such that issues like choppy sentence and paragraph structure are resolved. For what it's worth, though, there's still a lot to like here and I really appreciate all the effort that's gone into researching and writing this article. I just can't sign off on giving it FA status if the prose quality isn't there. I'm sure this won't be the end of the road for this article, though, and I'll be looking forward to see how it turns out when it is eventually ready for promotion. Red Phoenix talk 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How You Get the Girl

[edit]
Nominator(s): Medxvo (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song from Taylor Swift's 2014 album 1989. It was used in a Diet Coke commercial that stars the second-richest cat in the world, Olivia Benson, and has been performed in Swift's world tours since 2015. Fun fact—the choreography of the 1989 World Tour's performance was compared by several publications to Singin' in the Rain (1952).

I would like to thank Ippantekina, Dxneo, Gained, Heartfox, Brachy0008, and MaranoFan for being generous enough to participate in the PR and provide some constructive and helpful comments. Following the peer review, I believe the article is ready to be a FA, and I would appreciate any comment from everyone including the peer reviewers. Medxvo (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

support. article looks really great and as a final note, im really proud of you (and how you've helped grown the article). thanks for everything. =D brachy08 (chat here lol) 10:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so so much, Brachy! This means a lot to me :)) Medxvo (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ur welcome =D brachy08 (chat here lol) 12:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

[edit]
  • "Some critics praised the song as catchy and energetic: they particularly highlighted the chorus and how the track combines acoustic and electronic elements" → maybe semicolon rather than colon? – the first statement doesn't really "introduce" the second
  • "It incorporates" → The record incorporates
  • "was produced by Swift and Christopher Rowe, who had produced her" → "was produced by Swift and Christopher Rowe; the pair had produced her"
  • "Swift sings in the outro of the song, "And that's how it works / that's how you got the girl". The outro, which is written in past tense, suggests a reunion between the two lovers and a happy ending." → "The outro, which is written in past tense, suggests a reunion between the two lovers and a happy ending. Swift sings, "And that's how it works / that's how you got the girl"."
  • "Reviewing "How You Get the Girl (Taylor's Version)", critics praised the song's production and energetic sound; The Atlantic's Spencer Kornhaber deemed it one of 1989 (Taylor's Version)'s adrenaline-pumping and centerpiece tracks and Slant Magazine's Jonathan Keefe commented that the production "packs even greater heft" on the new version and considered it one of the tracks that validates the re-recorded album" → too much for one sentence
  • "reached number four on the Billboard Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart" → the date would be relevant
  • ""How You Get the Girl (Taylor's Version) reached number 29" → missing last song title quote mark
  • suggest replacing E! with a better source of possible

Best, Heartfox (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Heartfox: Thanks for the comments! I believe I've addressed all of them, let me know if anything needs further adjustments. Hope you're doing well :) Medxvo (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all addressed. Great work! If you are interested, I have a FAC currently open. Heartfox (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NØ

[edit]

Thanks for the ping! I will read through the article again during the weekend to make sure I did not miss anything at the PR. Just two comments for now.

  • The names and locations of studios in the infobox seem to be separated by brackets instead of commas on the other 1989 articles.
  • The sample caption does not need a period as there is no main verb.--NØ 19:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noting these, should be done now :) Hope you're having a good day! Medxvo (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all addressed. Great work! If you are interested, I have a FAC currently open. NØ 11:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

[edit]

Image use, placement and licence/rationale seem OK to me. Seems like source formatting and reliability are OK as well. Is 2023 Independent still reliable, though? (Yes. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)) Spot-check of this version:[reply]

  • 12 OK
  • 13 OK
  • 17 OK
  • 27 Need help with the first sentence about Marah Eakin. Not sure what it supports in the footnote.
  • 29 OK
  • 33 This does not link shimmery and Gibson
  • It says "'How You Get The Girl' has a Debbie Gibson sparkle to it"... I tried to paraphrase the "sparkle" thing to minimize the one-word quotes. Would it need to be "while Stereogum's Tom Breihan thought that it had the "sparkle" of Debbie Gibson's music" or is it okay as it is now? Medxvo (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 36 OK
  • 46 OK, but might want to put a different source for "Several reviewers" as this one's only about one reviewer.
  • Do you mean the "Some critics considered the lyrics straightforward and underwhelming" sentence? This should be the paragraph's topic sentence that summarizes the whole paragraph, as advised at WP:RECEPTION. Wood and Larocca both criticized the lyricism, as well as the other reviewers who criticized its poor quality. Medxvo (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 47 OK
  • 50 Where's "centerpiece"? Also, the comment about #46 applies here too.
  • It says "The heart of 1989 lay in adrenaline-shot anthems such as 'All You Had to Do Was Stay' and 'How You Get the Girl'". I think "the heart of the album lay in the track" means that it is a centerpiece track, no...? I've written the topic sentence as per WP:RECEPTION here as well, which should summarize the paragraph statements. Medxvo (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 53 Where's "five worst"?
  • The article is for the five best and the five worst songs from the album. Ahlgrim wrote the five best first ("Blank Space", "Style", "Wildest Dreams", "Clean", and "New Romantics"), then the five worst ("Welcome to New York", "Shake It Off", "Bad Blood", "How You Get the Girl", and "You Are in Love"). Medxvo (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 54 OK
  • 57 Where's 200,000?
  • 61 Where does it specify female?
  • 69 Don't see "singing in the rain"
  • 71 and 72 Only supports the first part of the sentence, as 72 doesn't mention "How You..."
  • Ref 71 mentions that it is the second Dublin show (and that she sang "Mean" at the first Dublin show), and says that it was an acoustic performance. Ref 72 says that it was "night one in Sydney" and that it also was an acoustic guitar performance. Medxvo (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 74 OK
  • 76 OK
  • 85 OK

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks so much for the review. I've replaced the 2023 Independent source with the Apple Music source which supports the provided information (the track's title and the release date). I've also left some comments above regarding your concerns, please let me know if anything remains unsatisfactory. Medxvo (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus. The two remaining issues should be done with this edit. Is there any remaining issue or is everything OK now? I hope you're having a good day and thanks so much again for your help and your time :) Medxvo (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jo-Jo, so is that three passes? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]

Just for clarification, I am working from this version of the article. My comments are below:

  • I would simplify "has a balladic production" to "is a ballad" instead as it is more concise.
  • Done
  • For this part, "The lyrics see Swift", I would suggest using a different word than "see" as lyrics cannot really "see" anything.
  • Changed to "find", feel free to tell me if you have a better option
  • Why not make a separate section for the re-recording as done for something like "Style" (Taylor Swift song)? There would appear to be enough information to support it as there is the background for the re-recording process, the release of 1989 (Taylor's Version), and the production credits for the new version, as well its critical and commercial reception. If you are worried about the "Background and releases" section being too short, you could move the chart information for the original version up there, like what is done for "Labyrinth" (Taylor Swift song). I was thinking that it would be more helpful to include all the information about the re-recording, infobox and all, in a single spot for readers to more easily access.
  • Uhhh.... This is such a significant change, but it's done. I also think that it would be more helpful this way. Please let me know how it looks now...?
  • It is more about restructuring the article and not about adding in new material so while it does make a significant change, I do not believe that this request would be considered too much for a FAC. Either way, I think the changes improve the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The re-recording infobox includes a link to the lyric video, but the original infobox does not have a link. To be consistent, it would be beneficial to link the music video there.
  • I think it doesn't have neither a music video nor a lyric video
  • I believe the Red in Citation 5 should be italicized as it is a reference to the album title. I would double check all of the citation titles to make sure that the album titles are italicized.
  • I have double checked multiple times before, but I didn't think that this one should be italicized because it's.. Red Alert which imo is a completely different thing...? It should be done anyways
  • For the citations, be consistent on whether both work/website and publisher are being (as in Citation 5) or just the work or the publisher (as in Citation 2). I do not think that a publisher is necessary for well-known stuff, and it appears that Citation 5 may be an oddity in the regard, but I still want to point this out in case I missed other instances of this.
  • I think only refs 5 and 11 have both of the website and publisher, and that's because their articles are being published by their parent company, NBC/The Recording Academy. Should the publisher parameter for these two citations be removed?
  • The author for Citation 40 reads Tucker Ken, rather than Ken Tucker.
  • Done
  • Done
  • Should be done

I hope that these comments are helpful for so far. I have not seen anything major. My comments are mostly nitpicks and clarification questions. I have only covered the lead and done a quick look at the citations, but I wanted to post at least a start for my review. I will try to post further comments over the weekend. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for these helpful comments. I believe most of them are addressed now; I've left some comments above. Medxvo (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just a suggestion so feel free to disagree with it. It may be nice to link catchy to give readers a broader context for it, but I can also understand if you decide against this as it is a rather well-known idea. Again, this more of an idea than anything else.
  • Done
  • I think it would nice to expand on Courteney Larocca's criticism for the song. I was actually questioning if any of the reviewers criticized the song for providing a plan for a man to force his way back into a relationship after he was the one to ruin the relationship. I find the parts regarding Larocca's review to be rather vague, and it could benefit from some expansion, while still keep it brief.
  • Should be done
  • For this part, (who was in the audience watching the show), I do not think that the "watching the show" part is necessary as I think readers would already know that by him being in the audience, he is watching the performance.
  • Should be done
  • It may be good to position File:Taylor Swift 7 (18912291189).jpg to the left as I know that some editors do not like when a person in a photo looks away from the article or off the page. It is not a major deal in my opinion so feel free to disregard this point, but I still thought it was worth raising to your attention anyway.
  • I didn't really like how it looks. It made the section look a bit disorganized
  • I would make the part on the Ryan Adams cover into its own paragraph as having it in the same paragraph with the Diet Coke advertisement leads to a more awkward transition in my opinion as they are both unrelated to one another.
  • How does it look now? Should the Diet Coke part be moved after the live performances or is it OK now?
  • It may be good to briefly include a part about the critical response to the re-recording in the lead.
  • Should be done
  • This is more of a nitpick, but I would avoid repeating "song" in this part, (likened the song's production to that of Radio Disney songs) if possible. An alternative idea could be "to music on Radio Disney".'
  • Done

I believe that this should be it for my review. Wonderful work. I do not notice any major issues. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure that I have not missed anything. Aoba47 (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aoba47: Thanks so much again for the helpful review. I believe the comments should be done, I've also left some comments above. Medxvo (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. Aoba47 (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good to me. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Greetings to you all. I would appreciate an update on this nomination, it has been open for 22 days with 4 supports and image/source passes, and the last comment was 2 weeks ago. Medxvo (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s heading in the right direction but considering this is a first-time nomination that has only been open for a little over three weeks, I’d like to keep it open for a little longer to see if it attracts additional commentary. FrB.TG (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: Thanks so much, I appreciate the reply! Medxvo (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am much the same, and would like to see a review by someone who knows nothing about popular music. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
invited someone to do a review brachy08 (chat here lol) 09:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vanishing (song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Vanishing" is the first song that Mariah Carey ever produced. I started this article about a month ago and I really like how it turned out. Thanks in advance for your comments, Heartfox (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina

[edit]

Comments soon. Ippantekina (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comma after "debut studio album"
    Added
  • This is kinda convoluted: "Vanishing is a torch song ... She wrote the ballad ...". I would suggest something like, introducing it as a song by Carey, and the second sentence elaborates on its nature ("It is a torch song with a balladic production")
    Reworded/moved "torch song" to second sentence and "ballad" to last sentence
  • "Situated in the gospel and traditional pop music genres" I'm all for phrasing variations but this reads kinda flowery for an encyclopedic entry. Maybe something more straightforward like "Categorized in the gospel and traditional pop genres"?
    Changed to "categorized"
  • I notice inconsistent usages of false titles throughout: "American singer Mariah Carey", "the drummer Ben Margulies", "the American television program Saturday Night Live". Please be consistent throughout.
    I think they're all there now
  • "Rather than release it as a single" releasing?
    Changed to "releasing"
  • "A blues-inspired[17] gospel[18] and traditional pop record" I think "record" is often used for albums and not tracks. Maybe "song" or "number"?
    Changed to "number"
  • I'm not sure if citing album liner notes for lyrics is the best practice, unless that lyric has been specified in album reviews or analyses.
    Ugh I knowwww but "You're vanishing / Drifting away" is basically the entire chorus and the gist of the song. I think four words is okay to quote without specific secondary coverage.
  • I'm not sure if the hyperlink to oscillate makes sense because the link leads to an article about physics.
    Removed link
  • "Its straightforward composition" not sure what straightforward means in this context.
    Changed to "Its composition is straightforward". This is meant to introduce the statement following the semi-colon: "an acoustic piano played by Richard Tee is the sole instrumentation" (ie straightforward/little going on)
I just decided to remove the clause as "sole instrumentation" seems to get the point across okay
  • "Patrick Dillett performed engineering and mixing" I know the issue with sea of blue but can one perform engineering and mixing?
    Added "the": "performed the engineering and mixing"
Added your suggestion
  • "Unlike "Vision of Love", Richard T. Ryan of the Staten Island Advance said" wrong subject here
    Changed to "Richard T. Ryan of the Staten Island Advance said "Vanishing" demonstrated Carey could limit the use of her vocal range, unlike "Vision of Love"."
  • "in which she exercised commendable discipline with her voice" err.. I get what this means but this reads lengthy. Can we make it more concise?
    Changed to "in which Carey used her voice judiciously"
  • "Critics have viewed "Vanishing" as a standout track in Carey's discography throughout her career"
    Removed "throughout her career"
  • "Courier-Post contributor Jeff Hall considered the song her best work in 1993" does this mean that the song was considered Carey's best among her 1993 songs?
    Changed to "in a 1993 article"
  • Which makes me notice.. is there not a release date in the Infobox?
    I think there is a difference among editors of whether album tracks should get infobox release dates. I don't personally care either way, it just seems to be a thing so I wasn't sure and have not added it.
  • I think it is necessary to include album release dates as well to indicate that the song has been released commercially. A short sentence in the prose would do (like, the album was released on XXX, "Vanishing" is track number X). If there are no release dates that it would be an unreleased song imo lol. Ippantekina (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added release date to prose and infobox
  • The third paragraph of the "Critical reception" is full of "A said, B said, C said..." I suggest some more cohesion here
    Cut down on the paragraph length by converting three sentences to sfns of the opening sentence. Made several wording changes.
  • "Entertainment Weekly writer Sydney Bucksbaum and Billboard's Gil Kaufman considered the performance impressive" this adds little value to prose imo.
    Cut

My review is exclusively on prose and that should be it :) Ippantekina (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ippantekina: Thank you for the very helpful comments, responded to all above. Heartfox (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing my comments! I've responded to a few remaining points above :) Ippantekina (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ippantekina: Responded above. Heartfox (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose — Ippantekina (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medxvo

[edit]
  • I would be consistent with the WP:FALSETITLES. "recorded and produced by the American singer Mariah Carey" seems to be the only one with no false title
    Removed "the"
  • "I enjoyed doing that because it gave me more freedom to sing" - enjoyed doing what?
    I thought it would be known that this is referring to "Vanishing" as this is preceded by the phrase "Carey described "Vanishing" as her favorite track on the album:"
    It was quite confusing to me so I checked the source and it seems like she's referring to the acoustic elements not the song as a whole, but even Carey's sentence structure is confusing to me so I guess that's fine. I suggest double-checking, though
  • I think maxi single can be linked
    Linked
  • "according to Stephen Holden" - a comma before according to?
    Added comma
  • "in the book Soul Music A–Z" - "in the book Soul Music A–Z (1991)"?
    Added 1991

I believe that's all I've got. Best of luck with the FAC! Medxvo (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Medxvo: Thanks for your comments, I have responded above. Heartfox (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Medxvo (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • Is Tatou notable enough to mention in the lead? I was wondering if this part could be shortened to "at a New York City club" with the specific name kept for the article itself.
    Changed to "at a New York City club"
  • The Butterfly World Tour article claims that Carey performed this song at the second Sydney show. I would not be surprised if this type of detail did not receive any coverage, but I wanted to bring this up just in case. I believe this is the only other time she performed this.
    It didn't receive any coverage that I could find
    I thought that would be case, but I just wanted to double-check to make sure of this point. Aoba47 (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may just be a matter of personal preference, but I would not use a PhD thesis as a source for Wikipedia unless parts of it were published elsewhere or it became notable on its own for whatever reason. I am always weary from my own personal experience with theses as the amount of oversight that it receives can and does really vary. WP:SCHOLARSHIP says that while they can be used, this should be done with care and caution. Is there any evidence this thesis is notable enough? Like has it been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties?
    I think it being a humanities thesis this is a different situation than something like a science field where maybe there is more potential for controversy idk. All that the thesis supports is that Carey uses whispering in the song and that the writer thinks it contributed to her artistic identity on the album. The thesis had 3 people on the dissertation committee and 4 examiners. Personally I would consider this a step-up from most secondary sources. These are not bold claims.
    I do understand your point. Thank you for taking the time to explain. I respectfully disagree. I would have an issue with a thesis for both the humanities and for the sciences. That being said, my review is focused on the prose. The thesis is not used for anything controversial or contentious so I will leave that up to the source review. It will not affect my review and my likely support. I wanted to ask you about it as it did caught my eye. While we may disagree, I hope that this response comes across as collaborative as I do genuinely understand your perspective. Aoba47 (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about this part, (the 2008 season of television program American Idol), as I have never really heard television seasons, at least in the US, referenced by the year of their release. I get that it makes things more concise, but it would just more natural to use seventh season and putting the year somewhere else in the same sentence.
    Converted to "seventh season", put "2008" at end of sentence
  • Were there any reviews for Kelly Clarkson's covers? Based on the titles for the citations, there seem to be praise for it.
    Yes but Ippantekina thought they didn't add anything to the article
    That is fair. Apologies for that as I did not look at the previous reviews. I was trying to think of ways to revise the sentence to include that this performance was praised, but I can see why that would not be necessary and how it could come across as rather empty since there would not be further details about it. It is always best to keep things more concise so it is for the best. Aoba47 (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that this review is helpful. Once all of my comments have been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure that I have not missed anything. Best of luck with the FAC, and I hope you are having a wonderful weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review :) Heartfox (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that I could help. This is a great song. I will read through the article again later tonight. I do not imagine that I will find anything further, but I like to just make sure. Aoba47 (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have read through the article again, and I could not find anything further to comment on. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current peer review, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. As always, I enjoy reading your work, and I look forward to review your FACs in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]

One citation spanning multiple pages is given in p; they need to be pp. Is Ashley S. Battel a prominent reviewer, or just the first person on AllMusic to comment on this work? What makes "Gregory, Hugh (1991). Soul Music A–Z. London: Blandford. ISBN 0-7137-2179-0. OL 1319820M." a reliable source? Also wonder about "Shapiro, Marc (2001). Mariah Carey: The Unauthorized Biography. Toronto: ECW Press. ISBN 978-1-55022-444-3." given some of the comments at Mariah Carey: Her Story. Is File:Vanishing Mariah Carey.ogg an important segment of the song? Is there an archived version of the source of File:Mariah Carey 1990 cropped.jpg? I notice the absence of an infobox image, like album cover or the like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "One citation spanning multiple pages is given in p; they need to be pp." → fixed
  • "Is Ashley S. Battel a prominent reviewer, or just the first person on AllMusic to comment on this work?" → This is a reviewer working for AllMusic.
  • "What makes "Gregory, Hugh (1991). Soul Music A–Z. London: Blandford. ISBN 0-7137-2179-0. OL 1319820M." a reliable source?" → Has been cited by University Press of Mississippi, Taylor & Francis, Arizona Republic
  • Shapiro and Nickson are two different books and St. Martin's Griffin and ECW Press are well-known book publishers. The book's style according to what some critics thought doesn't impede its reliability for basic biographical details. The fact that Carey was uninvolved in both books could arguably strengthen their neutrality. These are the two main biographies on Carey. Mostly they just synthesize existing newspaper/magazine articles and it's better to use secondary sources than primary sources per WP:PSTS.
  • "Is File:Vanishing Mariah Carey.ogg an important segment of the song?" → As per the file description, it is a "sample of the second chorus", "The section of the music used is discussed in the article in relation to the song (vocal range, vocal style, background vocals, piano, and lyrics) which received critical commentary." I think it is the most representative segment I could use.
  • "Is there an archived version of the source of File:Mariah Carey 1990 cropped.jpg?" → Added archive link to the file
  • "I notice the absence of an infobox image, like album cover or the like." → As the song wasn't released individually there isn't really an appropriate image that exists to use. Using the album cover would not align with NFCC.

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for doing these reviews. Heartfox (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

[edit]

Non-expert prose review:

  • "According to Andrew Chan, author of Why Mariah Carey Matters (2023)" I do not think the year is necessary here: if the reader wants to know the year they can look at the inline citation or the wikilink.
  • The quotes in the second paragraph of "Composition" seem to be critical reviews of the music instead of analysis of the composition. I also think it falls to much into the "X says Y" pattern. What is trying to be conveyed to the reader with this paragraph?
  • The third paragraph of "Composition" has similar concerns to the paragraph proceeding it: the first half of the paragraph is what I expect from this section, but the second half feels like a series of quotes of critical reviews. I do not think the quotes are necessary: instead, perhaps combine them together in a summary and present the information as prose.
  • The first paragraph of "Critical reception" has too much of the "X said Y" pattern. The number of quotes are not necessary: if multiple reviewers have similar opinions, these can be stated as prose and cited to multiple sources. A possible example of a statement might be: "Many reviewers positively highlighted Carrey's singing on the track, commenting on the purposeful limitations she placed on her vocal range and timbre".
  • The second paragraph of "Critical reception" talks about Carrey's vocals again. While I know these reviews are more of a retrospective, I think it repeats some of the information in the proceeding paragraph and can be merged with it.
  • "David T. Farr of the Sturgis Journal and Gabbara called it underrated in 2015 and 2017, respectively." -> "with critics calling the track underrated in retrospective analysis" an example of how the names could be merged.
  • ""Vanishing" is the most beautiful ballad among her early recordings and its lyrics are unusually advanced compared to others in this period such as "Can't Let Go" (1991), according to Chan." The sentence's structure was unusual, probably to avoid the "X says Y" pattern and to put Chan's name at the end. If this is a quote from Chan, it probably needs quotation marks. If it is not, it will need to be reworded to more closely adhere to wikivoice.
  • I think the second half of the first and second pargaraphs of "Live performances" has the same "X said Y" problem of the above paragraphs.

Those are my thoughts. Feel free to ping me with responses: I know most of this has to do with "X says Y" concerns: while you have probably read this essay already, WP:RECEPTION might bring new ideas on how to rearrange some of these quotes. I think the article can have more confidence in making statements that are attributed to multiple critics, instead of using a quote and sentence for each reviewer. Z1720 (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Scott (boxer)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Red Phoenix talk 19:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Scott became the WBA's #2 ranked contender and defeated two #1 contenders for the Light Heavyweight Championship. He was named boxing magazine The Ring's light heavyweight champion. That's impressive enough as it is, but Scott did it while in prison.

Welcome to the bizarre story of a man convicted of armed robbery, and later of murder, who fought professional boxing matches inside the walls of Rahway State Prison in New Jersey. And make no mistake; he would likely have been a champion had the WBA not denied him the opportunity over his incarceration. James Scott's story is among the most unusual I've ever encountered, so much so it captivated me to leave my usual video game-related editing to research and tell this story. It speaks to the will of a prison inmate to stand out and show his talents, or as Scott called it, the "gold in the mud". Red Phoenix talk 19:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "After picking up boxing as an amateur" - I would personally say "After taking up boxing as an amateur"
  • "This led to Scott being offered to be managed by an architect" - this reads slightly tortuously. I would try maybe "This led to Scott received an offer of management from an architect"
  • Unless I am missing something, there's nothing to indicate when the whole thing with Russ happened. You say "While in New Jersey on a visit to the state on May 8, 1975, Scott was arrested and charged with murder and armed robbery." but had the murder only just happened? Or was it an earlier event which he was only arrested for in 1975?
  • "In one account, he let Spinks borrow the car, and that Spinks partnered with someone" => "In one account, he stated that he let Spinks borrow the car, and that Spinks partnered with someone"
  • "and called him "the Great Scott", his boxing nickname" - I think "and nicknamed him "the Great Scott"" is fine
  • "Muhammad offered $15,000 to Gregory for the fight, while Scott was scheduled to make $2500" - inconsistent use of commas in the numbers (here and elsewhere)
  • "However, he started to receive controversy on why he should be allowed to fight" - I think "However, he started to receive controversy surrounding whether he should be allowed to fight" would read better
  • "According to boxing promoter Bob Arum, the WBA had only then found out " - when is "then"?
  • "His next fight was against Jerry Celestine, who he defeated by decision " => "His next fight was against Jerry Celestine, whom he defeated by decision "
  • " Scott was knocked down twice by Martin, once in the first round, and the second knockdown occurring late in the second round" => " Scott was knocked down twice by Martin, once in the first round and again late in the second round"
  • "Scott also held an escrow account" - is there an appropriate link for whatever an "escrow account" is? I may be because I am not American but personally I have absolutely no idea what this term means
  • "There, Scott worked with kids" => "There, Scott worked with children" ("kids" is too slangy)
  • "after speaking with the trainers and kids from the boxing gym" - same here
  • Opponent column in the table does not sort correctly (it should sort based on surname, not forename)
  • That's what I got. An interesting read! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ChrisTheDude, and thanks for your feedback! I've addressed all of your comments, with a couple of exceptions. I did see one use of "$7,000" with a comma and I removed the comma. Per MOS:DIGITS, four digit numbers are acceptable not to have a comma, so I did fix the one time it was inconsistent. I also did not change the comment Murad Muhammad made about Scott's nickname, since Muhammad doesn't actually directly say he gave Scott the nickname; he says "we" but doesn't identify who else, so he's a bit ambiguous here. Aside from that, I mostly used your wording and got the table corrected to sort by last name. Let me know if you have any more feedback, and I'm glad you enjoyed the read. Red Phoenix talk 18:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Hi Red Phoenix, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

All images are relevant to the article and placed in appropriate locations. They all have captions and alt-texts. I'm not sure that the building in the second image is "blue-colored". I think the alt-text should be changed to something like "A white and pale green theater building". Phlsph7 (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated per your suggestion. Thanks for the review! Red Phoenix talk 13:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. This takes care of the remaining concern. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "the license plate number, which came back to Scott's car": suggest "which was that of Scott's car".
  • "However, he started to receive controversy whether he should be allowed to fight and make money while incarcerated": suggest "However, controversy began over whether he should be allowed to fight and make money while incarcerated".
  • "Although a prison guard told Family Weekly in 1980 that Scott was a changed man because of his passion for boxing, in 1981 a judge ordered Scott to stand trial again for the murder of Everett Russ." Why "although"? The two statements don't appear to be connected.

That's all I have; the article is in good shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mike Christie:, thanks for your review! All comments addressed; mostly used your wording and did some sentence and paragraph restructure on the third comment. Red Phoenix talk 19:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NegativeMP1

[edit]

I will be taking a look at this after I get around to reviewing Virtual Self (EP), as I alluded to here. Not sure how long it may take, but based on my upcoming schedule, my review here should be done by the end of the week. λ NegativeMP1 06:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Self got archived before I was able to complete my reviewer over there, so I'm here now. Overall, I think the article reads pretty well and should be up to FA standard. The only thing that somewhat stuck out to me was the sentence "Dickens claimed that he convinced Scott to consider boxing instead of "running around breaking heads with an iron pipe"", where I'm not sure if the quote could be paraphrased or not. That's all though, and I'm happy to give my Support. λ NegativeMP1 04:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrased. Thanks for your review! Red Phoenix talk 16:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

To follow. - SchroCat (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly White

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jon698 (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Beverly White, who was the longest serving woman in the Utah State Legislature. During her career she would sometimes be the only woman to chair a committee, held multiple leadership positions within the Democratic caucus, and was awarded as legislator of the year multiple times by multiple groups. She was also incredibly active in the Utah Democratic Party and the national party. Jon698 (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

[edit]

As a biography and a politics article, I'm interested in reviewing this. Steelkamp (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Three paragraphs in the lead start with the same word (White). Can this be reworded?
  • (off topic comment: I am surprised that the districts of the Utah House of Representatives don't have Wikipedia articles)
  • "She was educated at Tooele High School. She married Floyd White, who also became involved in politics. She entered politics with her involvement in the Tooele County Democratic Ladies Club and later became active in the Tooele County Democratic Party." This contains three sentences that start with the same word (she).
  • I would link Tooele High School and Tooele County in the lead.
  • "White first held office with her appointment to the Utah Board of Pardons by Governor Cal Rampton." I think a date for this should be mentioned.
  • "She was on the board until Rampton appointed her to fill a vacancy in the state house created by Representative F. Chileon Halladay's death." I think a date for this should be mentioned too.
  • I recommend linking whip (or a more specific link target if one exists).
  • "She died in 2021." This sentence can be removed, as her lifespan is already mentioned in the first sentence of the lead.
  • Can an image of White during her political career be used for the infobox instead.
    • I suggest adding a caption saying the year the image was taken, or published if the original date is not known.

Early life

  • "Her husband was elected to the city council". Is this the Tooele city council? Probably best to specify in the article.

Career

  • For both images in this section, I reckon the "upright" parameter should be used, otherwise the images are quite big. E.g. [[File:Calvin L. Rampton.jpg|thumb|right|upright|alt=Photograph of Governor Cal Rampton|White was appointed to serve on the Utah Board of Pardons and in the [[Utah House of Representatives]] by Governor [[Cal Rampton]].]]
  • "She served as vice-chair of the Tooele County Democratic Party during the 1960s. She served as a delegate to the Utah Democratic Party's state convention multiple times.[3][4][5][6] She served as secretary of the Utah Democratic Party for sixteen years until she was defeated by D'Arcy Dixon in 1987." Should be reworded as that's three sentences in a row that start with the same word.
  • "She was the secretary of the Utah delegation at the 1972 convention.[14] She served as an uncommitted alternate delegate to the 1976 convention.[15] She was a delegate for U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy at the 1980 convention." Same as above.
  • "During the 1976 United States House of Representative election Representative Allan Turner Howe" -> "During the 1976 United States House of Representative election, Representative Allan Turner Howe"
  • "as both of them were moved into the 21st district by redistricting." Is this strictly true that they were "moved into" the district, or did they both choose to contest the district? Would "as both of them moved into the 21st district due to redistricting" be better?

Political positions

  • The problem with the abortion paragraph is that it starts by saying White was opposed to abortion but the rest of the paragraph outlines ways in which she is in favour of it. I think the change in her views should be more explicitly mentioned.
  • "In 1977, the Utah state house voted 55 to 5, with White against, in favor of a resolution calling for a constitutional convention to amend the Constitution of the United States to ban abortion." I think this sentence is quite confusing. How about "In 1977, White voted against a resolution calling for a constitutional convention to amend the Constitution of the United States to ban abortion, while the state house voted in favour 55 to 5."
  • "and that anyone who would send them through the mail would be arrested." -> "and that anyone who sent them through the mail would be arrested."
  • "The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that capital punishment was unconstitutional in Furman v. Georgia ending the usage of capital punishment in the United States until the Gregg v. Georgia ruling." I think a comma should be added like so: "The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that capital punishment was unconstitutional in Furman v. Georgia, ending the usage of capital punishment in the United States until the Gregg v. Georgia ruling."

That's all for my first round of comments. Steelkamp (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Steelkamp: I have done all of your suggested edits except for three. I will have to look on Newspapers.com to see what specific city her husband was on the council and for a better image of White. White did change her political views over the course of her life. Would this be an acceptable changed? "During the 1970s White supported making abortion laws more restrictive, but was criticized by Nelson for her support of abortion rights during the 1990 election." Jon698 (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about something like this: "During the 1970s White supported making abortion laws more restrictive, but by 1990, she supported abortion rights". And then the thing about Nelson can be left chronologically. Steelkamp (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steelkamp: Done. Jon698 (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just did the image and added where her husband was a member of the city council. All I need is your thoughts on that change in the abortion segment. Jon698 (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second read through
[edit]
  • "who served in the Utah House of Representatives from the 57th, 64th, and 21st districts". Is this grammatically correct in American English? To me, it would sounder better as "who served in the Utah House of Representatives for the 57th, 64th, and 21st districts" but I would understand if the former is better in American English.
  • " and as a delegate to every Democratic National Convention from 1964 to 2004" -> "and was a delegate to every Democratic National Convention from 1964 to 2004"
  • "She lost reelection in the 1990 election to" -> "She lost reelection in 1990 to".
  • "On April 8, 1947, she married Marion Floyd White, with whom she had five children, at the Salt Lake Temple and remained together until his death in 2004." -> "On April 8, 1947, she married Marion Floyd White, with whom she had five children, at the Salt Lake Temple. They remained together until his death in 2004."
  • "Her husband was elected to the Tooele city council". Any idea what time period this was? Perhaps a year range.
  • Her occupation before becoming a state representative is conspicuously absent.
  • I think it should be said that although the election was in 1990, she lost her seat in 1991.
  • "She served as secretary of the Tooele County Council of Governments and the Tooele County Planning Commission". Are these positions in the state legislature? Otherwise why is this in this section?
  • @Steelkamp: I have done bullet points 1,2,3,4, and 7. I don't know if from or for is the proper term for representing a district, but it is a minor thing. As for her career there is not really a lot that can be said about it and she seemed to have been a stay-at-home mom. I don't know if I can find the exact years her husband served on the city council due to a lack of good coverage from Newspapers.com. For the "I think it should be said that although the election was in 1990, she lost her seat in 1991." comment would you like me to change the lede from "Following her tenure in the state house" to "After leaving the state house in 1991,"? Jon698 (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Steelkamp, how is this looking now. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reluctant to support a biography with such an empty section on early life. There is very little info there about her pre-political life and career. I also think the prose could do with some improvement, as its choppy in parts. E.g. these are two very short sentences right next to each other: "She graduated from Tooele High School. Her father died on June 25, 1978." Another example is "During the 1976 United States House of Representatives election, Representative Allan Turner Howe was convicted of soliciting sex. White joined other leaders in the Democratic Party in calling for a resolution to ask Howe to withdraw from the election as he would hurt the chances of other candidates and so that a replacement appointment could be made." This could be reworded as "After Representative Allan Turner Howe was convicted of soliciting sex during the 1976 United States House of Representatives election, White and other Democratic Party leaders called for a resolution to ask Howe to withdraw from the election so as to not hurt the other candidates' chances and so a replacement appointment could be made." This sort of thing often appears throughout the article, where sentences could be combined to make the prose flow better. Sometimes, there are unrelated short sentences next to each other, which makes it hard to combine them, but this also is an indication that the article is not comprehensive. I understand it is really hard to research this as there is no comprehensive biography on Beverly White out there and you are reliant on newspaper sources, but I don't feel comfortable supporting based on comprehensiveness and prose issues. Steelkamp (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have great news. I found a copy of Women Legislators of Utah, 1896–1993 and I hope that it can help me expand this article. Jon698 (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelkamp: I was rather disappointed by the book. Her section is only two pages long, pages 165-166. Her autobiography only gives us at best two paragraphs for her early life. Could you take the rather limited information regarding her early life, especially from White herself, in consideration for the comprehensive nature of the article? Jon698 (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* @Steelkamp: Any further comments? Jon698 (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Generalissima

[edit]

Just a quick thought - if we're using a Fair Use image anyway, why not one of the much higher quality images from this article as opposed to a low-quality newspaper scan? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Unsolicited comment) When using non-free media, we have a responsibility to use the "least un-free" option available: WP:FREER is the relevant guideline. There is a good argument that a scan from an old newspaper is no longer of any commercial value -- the newspaper company is no longer selling that paper, and very few people can access it anyway, so no business or publicity is lost. On the other hand, if we co-opt an image from the Salt Lake Tribune, that might mean that some readers (for instance, using Google Image Search) end up here rather than the SLT website, or else that we push them down the search-engine rankings, which would have very obvious commercial, advertising and publicity implications. Whether that argument is definitive or convincing here, I will leave up to others. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Generalissima: Also all of those images are of her in her 80s-90s. The page was previously using one of the images from that article. Jon698 (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that using an image from when she was active in politics is best, but it's unfortunate that the current image there is low quality and I encourage you to find a better quality image. Have you looked in Women Legislators of Utah, 1896–1993? Its possible that there is a better image of White there which could be scanned. Steelkamp (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generalissima, any thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ganesha811

[edit]
  • I should have time to review this tomorrow - looking forward to reading over it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her mother died - what about her father? Where was he?
  • Her husband was elected... any information on the time period when they were elected?
  • tenure as secretary what kind of position is secretary? Is it equivalent to chair, or was it a record-keeping position? Could clarify in text.
  • Doing math, we can deduce she was elected as secretary in 1971 - is that correct? Should be mentioned in text. Is that four terms - how long were terms?
  • Some description of where the 57th, 64th, and 21st districts are, geographically, would be helpful.
  • Is there any more detail available about her 1970s elections? Why did she lose in 1990 after facing no opposition for 3 elections straight as Democrats gained? Noting that her position on abortion is mentioned later in the article as a possible factor - any others? That could be mentioned earlier.
  • How many other women served in the state house at the same time she did? Any notable working relationships with other legislators, male or female?
  • Any detail available about what she did to be named legislator of the year in 1987? Who gave the award?
  • Any more detail about this controversial $50,000 debt? Held by who and owed to whom?
  • In general, the article seems a bit thin on detail. There's not much on her early life, personal life, character/reputation. It's a bit better on legislative accomplishments, but still scant - much of the article just reads like a dry listing of positions run for and attained or denied. Anything notable in her role as chair of the Social Services Committee? Or as member of Management Committee? The political positions section only discusses 4 topics - any other areas to note?
  • I know it might be tough to dig up this kind of detail on a state legislator as they don't tend to attract tons of individual attention, but I'm sure local newspapers will have had coverage and indeed the Salt Lake Tribune seems to be a major part of the sourcing. The more detail the better, this article isn't close to overdetailed yet. Overall a good read and few grammar or phrasing issues (seem to have been mostly addressed above). —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ganesha811: I added more details about her mother and the death date for her father. I was unable to find any newspaper sourcing for why her father decided to have her aunt and uncle raise her instead of himself. I'll be looking for geographic details of her districts and the 1970s elections stuff now. Jon698 (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ganesha811: I have added some material for why White might have lost the 1990 election. Her time with the hospital is listed as one of the reasons she lost and I'll be addressing the $50,000 issue soon. Is this added material suitable to address your concern? Jon698 (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also added a segment about a lawsuit against her that attempted to unseat her. It is in the tenure section. Jon698 (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The additions are good - I made a couple tweaks to one of them. I'd move the sentence about Nelson being critical of her abortion position to the paragraph about the 1990 election earlier. I think with that the 1990 issue could definitely be crossed off. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ganesha811: I have done what you asked. I have also added some information to the 1970s elections and expanded upon the hospital debt issue. May I cross those two off the list now? As for what she did as secretary of the Utah Democratic Party, it seems she did just perform secretarially duties like calling stuff to order. I also added a bit about her and the five other women that served with her in 1974. Jon698 (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a line about her opposition to an income tax refund and eliminating the sales tax. I will try and find other economic issues she talked about or voted on. I also added a line about her being a member of the LDS Church. Jon698 (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'd say just about everything I raised has been addressed, though the hospital debt thing could be rephrased to be a little clearer - I can take a swing at it, or you can if you'd like. Just be sure to scrub your additions for any grammatical errors. Thanks for the improvements! After you're done making changes I'll take a fresh look in a day or two. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Although more detail on the "legislator of the year" award would still be good to have. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesha811 Ping! :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should have time to look through today or tomorrow. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second look from Ganesha811
[edit]
  • She was the longest-serving - is she still the longest-serving female member, or was this only applicable at the time?
  • aunt Margret and uncle Dunn - is Dunn a first name? What was their last name?
  • What year did her father marry Margaret Vernon? The specific dates of her father and mother-in-laws deaths are probably too much detail - the years are fine.
  • "and remained married" inserted between the 5 children and the death date would help with flow, assuming it's true.
  • add "at" or "for" before JCPenney
  • Re: Howe, I think we could simply say that White and the other leaders called for Howe to withdraw, not that "they called for a resolution to ask Howe to withdraw", which complexifies matters.
  • Hallady, who served add "had"
  • "27-mile", not "27 mile"
  • She defeated Smith add "once more" or "again" or similar
  • her support for abortion rights add "for" before this phrase
  • Central Women Club of Utah is there a typo here? Women's Club?
  • it was debated This sentence should be swapped to move the phrase about Wilkinson to the start, making it less passive.
  • When was Debbie Winn elected?
  • equalized the amount equalized the amount or equalized the level/rate?
  • @Ganesha811: I have address all of your comments except for points 2 and 11. You can see this edit, and the two after it, for the changes I made. The source only lists the first names of her uncle and aunt. Central Women Club of Utah is what the source calls it and I know of organizations in my area that use that phrasing as well so it is probably not a mistake. Jon698 (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, fair enough. Two final comments - are there any sources anywhere that discuss the fact that her father re-married only a month after her mother died? Secondly, the lead describes her as an "activist and politician", but reading through, I see a lot of politics and little to no activism. Are there any reliable sources which describe her as an activist? If not, I think the lead should just describe her as a politician. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ganesha811: I looked closely for any newspaper coverage of it using many parameters while working on stuff from Steelkamp, but I found nothing discussing their marriage besides its announcement. I removed activist from the lede. Jon698 (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon

[edit]

Good to see more articles about women here at FAC. I have some minor comments:

  • White married --> she married
  • the whole article is still having a lot of "served" or "serve" sentences. Can we reword some?
  • Howe did not withdraw ..--> and what happened to the other candidates? Did they indeed get affected by Howe?
  • I am not sure about the sub-section titles: the 1st one is Politics, but the 2nd one is Utah House of Representatives, which is odd being of the smae level as Politics.
  • White won reelection to the 64th district in the 1972 election --> is reelection technically correct if she was appointed without election in 1971?
  • LDS Bishop --> probably better rendered as Latter Day Saints Bishop
  • seventy-two --> I think as per MOS:NUM this is correct, but just checking if you deliberately chose not to use digits here. A little earlier there is 27 miles, and later we have "voted 51 to 20"
  • Nelson criticized her for being the "most liberal" member of the state house, her support for abortion rights, and for the high number of legislative votes that she was absent for --> this doesn't seem to flow very well: the 2nd item in the list should probably in the same style as 1st and 3rd.
  • White ran for the position of Minority Whip in 1984 --> repetition of sentence structure
  • White also helped --> I would drop the also here
  • She received the Eleanor Roosevelt Award in 1994 --> is it known for what?
  • She aided in the --> repetition
  • The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that capital punishment was unconstitutional --> when?
  • In the Categories box there is a link to 20th-century members of the Connecticut General Assembly. Is that an error?

That's about it for the prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Edwininlondon: Thank you for your comments. I have already answered the easy ones, such as minor changes or errors, and will get to the bigger ones like points 2 and 3 later. For point 1, it is standard practice to have the first mention of the person in a paragraph be their name. Also do you have any suggestions for how I should reword for point 8? Jon698 (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Edwininlondon: For the Howe point: State Treasurer David Duncan simply stated that Howe would "hurt the whole ticket". No specific candidates were listed in the source. Would you like for me to reword the sentence to "called for Howe to withdraw from the election in order to select a replacement candidate." Jon698 (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EdwininLondon, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"*@Edwininlondon: Apologies for the second ping. I made a mistake with the first one and don't know if it was sent through. Jon698 (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Matterhorn logistics

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the logistics of Operation Matterhorn, the use of Boeing B-29 Superfortress bombers to attack Japan from bases in China during World War II. As part of some work on Operation Matterhorn, I spun the section on logistics off into its own article, since this was my primary interest. The challenges of conducting operations from remote bases in China supported only by air were formidable, and only partly overcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this article at ACR and can support. Matarisvan (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

In the second paragraph of the End of Matterhorn section, War Department should link to United States Department of War. XR228 (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Normally disambigs get highlighted, but this was set index article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Serial B-29

[edit]

Yo, acc. Worldcat, Haulman is 'Tannenberg Publishing: San Francisco, 2015'. Also I'm getting a 404 on Romanus, although that could just be me. No mention of the Burma Rd reopening? Nice article, cheers! SerialNumber54129 14:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaargh. The Center of Military History has been moving stuff around, and the URLs have changed slightly. I have corrected them. And added a sentence on the reopening of the Burma road. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one. It's a really good read, and provides interesting background on why the US wanted the British Empire to disassemble after the war. Cheers! Tight faded male arse. Decadence and anarchy. A certain style. Smile. 10:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

More to follow, hopefully. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do a bit more:

  • there remained critical shortages in some military occupational specialty codes,: This is slightly military-ese, I think: it's not the code that was in short supply as the people holding it. Suggest "shortages of certain specialist personnel", with a link to MOS if you wish.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • moved from the port at Calcutta to Assam by rail and barge, from whence they had to be flown across the Hump: not ideal structure with the from whence, given that the antecedent (Assam) is on the other side of a big block of meaning ("by rail and barge"). Grammatically, at least, we could be implying that they were flown from the barges. Suggest "barge; from Asasm, they had to be flown..."
    Tweaked the wording slightly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 90-days' temporary duty: no hyphen here.
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • that the temporary-duty ATC pilots continued to fly them until they had to return to the United States: the pilots or the aircraft?
    The pilots. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • would receive 1,650 tons out of the first 10,250 short tons: is tons different here to short tons? If not, would cut it: if so, would find a clearer way to say this.
    Added another conversion template. Short tons is an unusual unit, but was used by the ATC for convenience in calculation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • one crewman was wounded. In turn, they claimed to have shot him down, but all the aircraft involved landed safely: Would clarify they as the Japanese; it's a bit tricky in context.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were no supplementary rations, no additional personal or orginizational equipment, no clothing: typo. What do we mean by "personal or organizational equipment" -- anything that isn't strictly military? Would "personal or administrative" be clearer and accurate? I also have a slightly bizarre image in my head of these people working in the nude.
    Changed to "spare clothing" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd Air Transport Squadrons: typo in piped link.
    Looks okay to me. Oh, I see. The page was moved. It is not a typo though; just the official name, which in in American English, which we don't use on Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In late 1944, the Japanese Operation Ichi-Go offensive in China probed relentlessly toward the B–29 and ATC bases around Chengdu and Kunming.: not sure about this adverb: a probing action is, by definition, hesitant, at least by comparison with a regular offensive, while relentlessly implies a high level of pace and aggression.
    Changed to "advanced". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That month, the Burma Road was reopened, and the inaugural convoy reached Kunming on 4 February 1945.: I'm not sure you can have an inaugural convoy on something that is being reopened.
    Changed to "first". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chennault considered the Twentieth Air Force a liability: might consider reintroducing Chennault; it's been a while.
    Changed to "his Fourteenth Air Force". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final quotation is a long chunk of a non-free primary source: these are generally discouraged under a whole range of PAGs. How strong is the encyclopaedic argument for including all of it? It strikes me that most of it (from "Because Japan...") restates factual material that has already been stated in the article.
    Paraphrased it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and MoS: I am not qualified to pronounce on the content or sourcing, but can see no issues there either. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

[edit]
  • Lede solid throughout.
  • The cumulative effect of so many advanced features was more than the usual number of problems and defects associated with a new aircraft Might just be me, but this sentence is a little confusingly worded. Maybe something like "The large number of advanced features resulted in more problems and defects than what was usually associated with a new aircraft"?
    Re-worded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "shek" in Chiang Kai-shek is generally lowercased.
    Yes it is. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink B-17 at first mention.
    Wikilinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the 653rd Topographic Battalion under? Might be helpful to link.
    The 653rd Engineer Topographic Battalion was a mapmaking arm of the USAAF in CBI, stationed in India. The battalion produced maps for a host of military situations, including the major USAAAF activities in and around China. The battalion also produced "walk-out maps" for the Office of Strategic Service. Unfortunately, it has no article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Luftwaffe Henschel Hs 293 radio-controlled, rocket-boosted glide bomb I feel this is excessive detail; you can just say a Luftwaffe bomb.
    Changed as suggested.
  • I'm kinda confused if this uses American or British English; I'd swing towards the latter here, and if so it should be totaling, not totalling.
    American English. Corrected spelling of "totaling". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a military nerd, but reconnoitered was a very unfamiliar term to me; maybe worth wikilinking (perhaps to wikitionary)
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were many double spaces and a couple typos - i went through and fixed these, but feel free to double-check.

@Hawkeye7: That's all from me! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! And the corrections. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good to me. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]

I kinda wonder about the zigzag image placement. I know MOS:SANDWICH is frowned upon in FAs and I am not sure if there are browser settings for which the images would end up sandwiching the article text. A fairly pedantic question but does File:Rows of fuel drums in front of B-29 Superfortress 42-6281 in China.jpg need both the raw URL and a source template? File:AAF-V-map5t.jpg has a broken URL. File:Building B-29 bases in China February 1944.jpg, File:B-29 airfields in Ceylon.jpg, File:C-109 Liberator Express tanker unloading.jpg, File:B-29 Princess Eileen in China.jpg, File:Boeing-B-29-Superfortress-20BC-Andy's-Dandy-under-going-engine-repairs-in-India-16th-Mar-1945-01.jpg and File:Hundreds of Chinese laborers pull a roller to smooth a runway for an airstrip.jpg have a raw URL. File:Kharagpur Area Airfields.jpg and File:Chengtu Area Airfields.jpg might need some more information on what the source is. ALT text is OK as is image placement. What makes https://www.cbi-theater.com/ a high-quality reliable source? Sources seem OK. I suspect this is a topic on which there won't be (m)any Indian or Chinese or Indochina sources, but did anyone look for them? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I use zigzag placement in all my FAs, per MOS:SANDWICH: "Mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left." Added URL to the map. Raw URLs are normal on commons because there are no citation templates there. I made use of Li, who uses many Chinese sources. One Indian source was used. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, any come back? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be much more to add. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla Model S

[edit]
Nominator(s): 750h+ 07:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second candidacy, following this one. About an electric sedan produced by Tesla, Inc.. Asking previous reviewers @Epicgenius, Femke, and UndercoverClassicist: for a second review on this one. 750h+ 07:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EG

[edit]

Thanks for the ping. I looked at these changes and have only one additional concern:

  • Environmental impact, paragraph 2: "its 68 percent higher manufacturing emissions are offset within a few years of average driving" - Do we have a more specific time frame besides "a few years"?

This is not a major concern, so my support from the previous FAC still stands. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not per the source, no. I'm assuming it means half-decade, but that's an assumption. Thanks for the support. 750h+ 14:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Femke and UndercoverClassicist: pinging in case. 750h+ 05:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed, but avoid sandwiching text between images. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by (sorry...) from UC

May not have time for a full review, at least not in the near future, though I note the article seems to be in pretty good nick following its last round at FAC.

In the footnote for "Rollover", we have This means it has a 5.7 percent chance of rolling over.. That needs some more context to me -- is that a 5.7% chance of rolling over while parked on your drive, or while taking a corner at speed? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: late response sorry. fixed the footnote. 750h+ 10:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

[edit]
Lede:
    • I don't think we need the month or location of the first fire for a lede level overview.
    • Should "Best 25 Inventions of the Year" be in quotes? (genuinely not sure here)
        • bit confused here, since it was never in quotes
    • I feel we should mention the Model S Plaid at some point in the lede if its so important as to change critical opinion on the car.
      • don't really think so since it was one review.
      • Fair enough. - G
Development:
    • Wasn't the Roadster also electric? That should be mentioned for context.
    • Maybe a little bit about the state of electric cars at the time for context? I'm not a car nut, but I remember the Teslas being quite novel at the time.
    • You can combine the $50,000 and $70,000 figures into a single "$50,000–70,000" to avoid needing multiple parenthetical statements of the modern equivalents.
    • Shared a chassis design, or were they taking the same chassis off one car and placing it on the other? I'm assuming the former.
      • to be fair, it's both.
    • Did Franz von Holzhausen have any relevant experience beforehand?
    • I think you can shorten the background context about the Fremont plan - i don't think we need to know when it was built - and avoid having to jump back in time. Maybe something like "Toyota and Tesla announced a partnership and a transfer of an factory in Fremont, California, which had been abandoned by General Motors and Toyota during the Great Recession" — but like, better worded than that.
Design
    • Some stuff here is a bit technical. We don't need a crash course (heh) on all the parts, but if there's a simple way to explain the difference between an induction motor and a permanent magnet synchronous reluctance unit, and what that move accomplished, that'd be nice.
    • I think a portmanteau of "front" and "trunk" could be EFN'ed or even omitted
Models and updates
    • This is all quite solid, good job.
    • Lowest drag coefficient of any automobile or any consumer automobile? That seems crazy if true.
      • This was at the time
    • That bit on the restyled taillights drifts a bit into OR for my tastes; as its such a minor tweak, it might be best to just omit it until a magazine explicitly mentions that.
Technology
    • Also quite solid throughout.
    • What is a "yoke" steering wheel? That isn't really explained.
    • Entirely personal preference here, but I think an image that shows what the supercharger stations looks like would be good context for viewers - we already know what the car looks like by this point.
Environmental impact
    • Since we're citing a claim by Tesla directly in the image caption, it may be good to cite it.
Production and initial deliveries
    • Don't see any problems here.
Safety
    • Reception and legacy
It might be good to try to merge a bit more of these lesser known names and big quotes into general summaries of critical reception - obligatory plug for Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections.

750h+ That's all from me. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: i think i've addressed these, but if you have anything let me know. 750h+ 08:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BP!

[edit]

I'm not really familiar with this or a car person, but I will try to read this article tomorrow. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 183, website isn't linked yet
  • What makes CNET reliable? They are treated in WP:VP as low quality for FA.
🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RSP CNET was a reliable source before 2020 when it was bought by Red Ventures. All of the sources are from 206 or before. I fixed the other concern, @Boneless Pizza!: 750h+ 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to read the article, but I think I dont have any concerns left. So, I Support this FAC. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Pass

[edit]

To follow. - SchroCat (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN206: Not sure why Emissions has a capital E
  • FN273: Ditto the M in Most
  • FN279: "Review, Pricing, & Pictures" should all be lower case
  • The ISBNs should be formatted in a similar manner (XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X, for example)
  • You don't need to link the publishers of the books (I'll lay money that someone will remove them at some point in the next year)
  • The sources are all appropriate to their required goals.

That's my lot - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: all done. Thanks for the review. i'll try to get to one of yours hopefully within the week. 750h+ 17:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist and Femke: do one of you think we could fit a review in? this candidacy might require a large review from one of the previous reviews who had extensive concerns. thanks. 750h+ 18:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Z1720

[edit]

Non-expert prose review:

  • The development section is quite large. Can this be reduced or broken up with level 3 headings?
  • "a year before the company introduced its first vehicle, the battery-electric Roadster," I am not sure what this has to do with this model of car, and I think it can be removed as off topic.
  • "As of February 2024, the Model S has had seven product recalls." I think this might be against MOS:CURRENT, as someone would have to keep track of and keep updating it. I'm not sure if the exact number is necessary, especially if each recall is going to be explained later in the article. I would suggest removing it, and letting the reader count up the recalls if they want.
  • "Following the recall, Jerome Guillen, Tesla's vice president of sales," is this Jérôme Guillen?
  • The "Reception and legacy" is quite long and falls into the "X said Y" sentence structure. I think WP:RECEPTION's suggestions on grouping critiques by type of commentary, and reducing the quotes, will help make this section more appealing to readers. A quote from every source is not necessary.

I hope this helps. Please ping me when the comments above have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: what do you think? 750h+ 10:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the reception section might still be a little too long, with a lot of "X says Y" (especially in the first paragraph). But this is not enough to withhold my support. It might be beneficial to take another look at each quote, and see if every single one is needed or if any of their quotes can be merged together and summarised. Z1720 (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=1267597569"