Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2024
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 30 December 2024 [1].
- Nominator(s): CarbonLollipop talk┊contribs 08:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
This article is about "Wyclef Jean", a song by Young Thug. I like this song a lot, and think that the story behind its music video is funny and interesting. I've improved this article a lot over the past few days, and feel it now meets the FA criteria. I look forward to receiving feedback! CarbonLollipop talk┊contribs 08:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Aoba47
[edit]- Is this just a song or was it released as a single? This article uses the infobox for a song, but the article for Jeffery lists it as the mixtape's second single. Considering that the mixtape article sources a radio release date for this song, I am leaning more toward this being a single, assuming that the citation from that article is accurate.
- Are there any citations that explicitly say that this is a reggae song? I am uncertain that describing a song as having a reggae beat is enough as a song could have a specific type of beat, but still be changed or subverted. It is similar to how saying a song having influences or elements of a certain genre is not enough to classify as that genre for the Wikipedia article.
- Do you have any background about the song's creation? If so, I think it would be helpful to add some here rather than going directly into talking about the song's composition. It would also be better to name the song the first time it is mentioned in the article, instead of saying just "the track", and to link Young Thug on the first mention. The jump from the lead to the article is a bit jarring.
- Is there any further information on the production process behind the song? The Jeffrey article says that TM88 and Supah Mario programmed the track, but that is not present in this article, and that Joe LaPorta was the mastering engineer and Alexander Tumay was the mixing engineer for all the songs on the mixtape. However, none of that information is present in this article. Also, why does this article not have a "Personnel" section? Not to sound like a broken record, but the Jeffrey article uses liner notes as a citation. Does this mixtape have liner notes that you can use?
- I do not think on award is enough to justify having a separate "Awards and nominations" section and table. I would suggest removing that and keeping it just in the prose.
- The chart placements and certifications should be present in the prose and not just in tables.
I hope that these comments are helpful. The FAC process can be difficult so I hope that this review does not come as unnecessarily harsh. At this moment, I do not think the article is prepared for a FAC. I believe it would be better to try the peer review process first, but I will leave that up to you. I hope you are having a great day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, thank you for the review! I've implemented your suggestions; here's what I changed:
- Added a Personnel section, based on the liner notes at Jeffery
- Everyone in the "Personnel" section should also be discussed in the prose. An example is that Joe LaPorta is only listed in this section, and he is not discussed in the prose. There are also issues with how the article discusses songwriters, as the infobox includes a whole listing of songwriters that are not discussed in the prose for the article and are not listed in the "Personal" section. Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Added that it was released as a single
- Included some information about the song's name, as I couldn't find much about its production process
- The transition from the lead to the actual article is still quite jarring. I would start by talking about Young Thug rather than burying that in the second sentence. See how articles like "I'm Goin' Down", "Your Girl", and "Fearless" each start the article by talking about the singer. The prose in general could use work. For instance, Jeffery should be clearly identified as a mixtape on its first mention (and it would better to both in the lead and the article to clarify where this falls in his overall release, as in is this his first mixtape, fourth, fifth, etc.?). Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Removed the Awards and nominations section
- Added the chart placements and certifications to the prose
- Added sources that categorize the song as being pop and reggae
- I've also slightly reworded the lead to flow better. Thanks again for the review! CarbonLollipop talk┊contribs 07:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for addressing everything. Unfortunately, I oppose this FAC for promotion. I do not believe that this is ready for a FAC. I am noticing issues with the prose and with information being inconsistently presented in the article, such as a lot of the songwriters only being in the infobox. I would strongly recommend that this be put up for a peer review instead. Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks again for the comments; they've been very helpful. I've reworked the lead and background sections. I've also found a few sources that I haven't yet included in the article, but I'm a bit too busy to add them all in time. @FAC coordinators: For now, I withdraw. CarbonLollipop talk┊contribs 22:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for addressing everything. Unfortunately, I oppose this FAC for promotion. I do not believe that this is ready for a FAC. I am noticing issues with the prose and with information being inconsistently presented in the article, such as a lot of the songwriters only being in the infobox. I would strongly recommend that this be put up for a peer review instead. Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- Nominator(s): History6042😊 (Contact me) 02:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
This article is about the Central Powers, one of the two alliances in World War 1, this is my first featured article so if this is really not ready please let me know. History6042😊 (Contact me) 02:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi History6042, welcome to FAC. Unfortunate I do feel this is not ready at this point, and would suggest withdrawal in favour of a peer review. Here are some specific issues:
- Some of citations do not appear to be reliable - for example, worldstatesmen.org has been deprecated
- Citation style should be consistent - at the moment there's quite a bit of variation
- Many of the sections are very short and choppy
- Some of the images have questionable licensing, eg File:Pavlo_Skoropadsky_portrait,_colorized_by_Ruslan_Habanets.jpg is missing verification that the source file is in the public domain
- The article would benefit from copy-editing and cleanup of Manual of Style issues, such as linking. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, could you please tell me how to withdraw. History6042😊 (Contact me) 02:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @FAC coordinators: for you. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) A coord (me in this case) will action. I echo Nikki's recommendation for PR. GAN is useful but the leap to FAC is significant, not least because the latter involves several reviewers. PR, which ideally also involves several sets of eyes, helps bridge the gap on the way to FAC. Another option applicable here is the Military History Project's A-class review, which is designed to come close to FA-level assessment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 28 December 2024 [2].
- Nominator(s): Amir Ghandi (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
I am renominating this article after it failed the first nomination only because of a lack of engagement from reviewers. This article is about a minor figure in the history of the Ghaznavid dynasty, the dynasty that ruled what is modern day Afghanistan and eastern Iran. Hurra-yi Khuttali was a princess from this dynasty and is regarded as the most politically active woman of her era because she interfered in the succession of her brother. Small details are known about her life, therefore the article itself is quite short. Amir Ghandi (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
ThaesOfereode
[edit]Hi Amir, it looks like you have Arabic transliterations in the {{Lang}} template. Unless the Arabic script is used, you should use {{translit}} instead. Other issues below:
- "free woman" → 'free woman' per MOS:SINGLE (also want single quotes around "agnomen").
- Done
- Deitalicize established loan words like "amir", "harem", and "sultan". All of these are common enough terms in English that they don't need italics.
- Done
- First instance of amir should be delinked to avoid a WP:SEAOFBLUE violation (i.e., before Mas'ud of Ghazna)
- Done
- Any reason you picked the spelling "Seljuq" over the more common "Seljuk"?
- Force of habit; changed it to Seljuk
More to follow later. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, @ThaesOfereode, would you be interested to continue this review? Amir Ghandi (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Amir. Yes, my personal life has become a little busy, but I should be able to get to this over the coming days. If I don't get to this by Wednesday, ping me again. In the meantime, it looks like your use of the {{lang}} template should be changed to the {{translit}} whenever the Arabic script is not used; as I understand, it will render oddly for screen readers. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Okay; changed the templates. Amir Ghandi (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- @ThaesOfereode Reminder. Amir Ghandi (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, some thoughts:
- You shouldn't replace hamzas/ayins with apostrophes; in names like Masʽud, it looks like you may have thought they should be straightened in accordance with MOS:CQ, but they should not be. Looks like the pipes can be easily removed. In other cases, the templates {{hamza}} and {{ayin}} can be added as appropriate for Arabic names.
- Fixed Mas'ud's name.
- Looks like the Maʾmunid page uses a hamza (not an ayin as in Masʽud; I've fixed this throughout as I may have been unclear), but I'm not sure that's correct; I don't speak Farsi, can you advise? If so we should expect it in Maʾmun's name as well. Same with Abuʾl-Fadl.
- Yes, all three use hamzas. I'll add them to the artilce
- Okay, done
- In footnote C, "Khatun" should be placed in a {{translit}} template. I'll let you decide whether it should be Farsi or something else.
- Done
- Consider a hatnote that says that the subject should be referred to as "Hurra" not "Hurra-yi" (my first guess) and that "Khuttali" should not be used as a surname. Thomas Aquinas's page has something similar for reference.
- Added
- For that matter, the name section should probably tell the reader what "-yi" means. Feminine suffix? Construct state?
- I don't have the source to add that unfortunately
- Bummer. No problem.
- Consider linking theology.
- Done
- which Ma'mun conceded to → to which Ma'mun conceded is more natural
- Done
- What is a "patriotic" rebellion? Aren't they all from the POV of the rebels? Unless there is compelling reason to keep it, I think the use of "patriotic" here should be removed.
- Deleted it
- Mahmud wished to retaliate the killing → Mahmud sought retribution for the killing is less awkward. (And remove the comma after "brother-in-law").
- Done
- Link concubines.
- Done
- "
along withher younger brother"
- Done
- What Turkic military commanders? This alliance is not established for the reader. Did the Ghaznavids ally themselves with other Turkic tribes? Which? When? Why? Why did these leaders find themselves scheming (?) in the Ghaznavid court?
- I meant the commanders of Ghaznavid military who happened to be Turkic. Deleted it for clarity
- What was Masʽud "preoccupied" with in the west? Where in the west? Baghdad? Rome? Lisbon? Also, probably don't need the parentheses here.
- Added and deleted the parentheses
- In footnote E, {{translit}} for "vali ahd" should be Persian rather than Arabic, right? Is "b." short for "bin"? Not sure I understand the parenthetical about the passive voice; there are only two passive sentences. In any case, the parentheses can be dropped; they're not really doing anything.
- Added translit for vali ahd; changed b. to ibn. The passive voice is more present when you read the text in Farsi. I deleted the whole sentence for clarity.
- Mas'ud lacked political shrewdness, therefore, Hurra is suspected to have influenced [...] → Mas'ud lacked political shrewdness; Hurra is suspected to have influenced [...]
- Done
- Any reason footnote G is a footnote? Seems pertinent enough to Hurra's decision-making to include it in the prose. If so, recommend linking oases.
- Brought to the body
- No need for a comma after conquests in India. Delink India in favor of linking conquests in India with Ghaznavid campaigns in India unless I missed this link being made prior.
- Done
- WP:SEAOFBLUE violation with Oghuz Turkoman should be corrected.
- Deleted Oghuz
- Link caravans as appropriate (perhaps Camel train or Caravan (travellers)?)
- Done
- Why did you pipe Seljuk dynasty to Seljuk when dynasty is the very next word?
- Amended
- Comma after his other aunts.
- Done
- Footnote H should be prose.
- Can you explain what you mean? I'm not sure I understand
- Sorry, I mean bring this to the body rather than leave as a footnote.
- Might link India in the sentence following what is currently footnote H, provided you delinked it as per my previous comment.
- Done
- Remove comma after 1041.
- Done
- realis mood – Okay, so this is more of a category of moods rather than one mood. If you mean the indicative mood, this sentence doesn't make much sense. If you mean another (energetic mood?), it should be specified.
- Changed with imperative mood (per the source).
- contemporary historian – Can this just be historian or at least historian of [insert specific title of period studied]? My first thought upon reading was that Amirsoleimani was a contemporary of Hurra.
- Changed to modern historian
- Good page all around, but there are some issues. Let me know what you think. Tremendously interesting topic. Looking forward to seeing more "women in bronze". ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Okay; changed the templates. Amir Ghandi (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Amir. Yes, my personal life has become a little busy, but I should be able to get to this over the coming days. If I don't get to this by Wednesday, ping me again. In the meantime, it looks like your use of the {{lang}} template should be changed to the {{translit}} whenever the Arabic script is not used; as I understand, it will render oddly for screen readers. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Amir Ghandi. Have you addressed all of TO's comments? If so, could you ping them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, @ThaesOfereode I've addressed all your comments Amir Ghandi (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yep, another quick read-through looks good to me so I'm happy to support on prose. Great work. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, @ThaesOfereode I've addressed all your comments Amir Ghandi (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Airship
[edit]As always, the following are suggestions, not demands:
- "considered the most prominent woman in Ghaznavid politics" this is not quite what the body says—that an action she took was the most prominent by a woman in Ghaznavid politics.
- Changed it
- Not sure if "in modern Afghanistan" needs to be in the lead.
- Deleted
- Two consecutive sentences starting "she was" could be combined.
- Done
- "a direct cause for" "a direct cause of" sounds more natural.
- Done
- "who was deemed unfit" this omits that she was one who deemed Muhammad unfit.
- Deleted
- " Her letter was one of the main reasons for Mas'ud's usurpation of the throne." a bit vague, you could go into more detail about what actually happened.
- Done
- "the Ghaznavid dynasty, who were a dynasty of Turkic origin" could be simplified to something like "the Ghaznavids, a dynasty of Turkic origin..."
- Done
- "she sought to learn sciences" this is slightly ungrammatical, probably needing a "the", and also a little unclear—which sciences?
- This was originally 'other sciences' beside theology, but one reviewer commented that theology is not a science, so I omited the 'other'. I'll add 'other' again since the source itself considers theology a science.
- The map provided is not that useful—a better one would show the Ghaznavid territories, which are referred to more often, instead of intricate details of Khwarazm. File:Ghaznavid Empire (map).jpg seems ideal, if you can find a source that verifies it.
- Done
- "The latter" is unnecessary—it wouldn't be the person who's died, would it?
- Replaced with 'He'.
- "patriotist" is not a word, is "patriotic" meant? If yes, I suggest "nationalist" instead as more suitable.
- I myself prefer 'patriotic' since the source uses it
- "the rebels killed Ma'mun because of his submission" if the whole rebellion broke out because of the submission, I would suggest mentioning that at the start of the sentence, not the end.
- I reworded the sentence. Thoughts?
- You could mention that Muhammad and his brother were twins.
- Done
- "inviting him" is a bit oddly phrased, would suggest "encouraging him" or similar.
- Done
- "Mas'ud marched east to claim the throne, and continued to receive letters from Hurra and his mother regarding the situation in Ghazna. On his arrival in 1030 in Ghazna, Mas'ud captured Muhammad and took the throne." these sentences are quite clunky; try to trim to reduce duplication.
- Done
- "who had assumed total power in Ghazna after Muhammad's ascension to become the real power behind Muhammad's government" this also essentially says the same thing twice.
- Amended
- The last paragraph of the "Biography" section needs a thorough copyedit—it really lacks clarity.
- Done
- Too many commas in the last sentence of "Assessments".
- Amended
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Amir Ghandi. Have you addressed all of Airship's comments? If so, could you ping them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @AirshipJungleman29 I've addressed all your comments Amir Ghandi (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support I especially like the new prose on the marriages—much clearer. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @AirshipJungleman29 I've addressed all your comments Amir Ghandi (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Amir Ghandi. Have you addressed all of Airship's comments? If so, could you ping them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
FunkMonk
[edit]- Support - I seem to be the only one to have completed a review last time around, so here is my support again. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
HF
[edit]- "Abu al-Hasan died at an uncertain date between 1006 to 1010 and was succeeded by his brother, Ma'mun II." - If I'm reading the source correctly, the source says The date of ʿAlī’s death and the accession of his brother Abu’l-ʿAbbās Maʾmūn II is not definitely known, but must have been ca. 399/1008-9
- "He, with the same intent as his brother, married Hurra in 1015" - source says 1015/1016 which doesn't seem to be quite the same as what's in the article?
- When I was writing the article, I based the dated on the dates in the Encyclopaedia of the World of Islam article, which uses the Hijri calendar. I had to use an app that converts the dates, that is why the year is specified. For example, in the article the year of Hurra's second marriage is recorded as 406 AH, which in turn could be converted to 1015. I'll correct the date now.
- "a dynasty of Turkic origin whose realm included modern day Afghanistan, eastern Iran and northwestern India" - source specifies Baluchistan, rather than "eastern Iran"; is this really the best way to phrase this, as from what I can tell eastern Iran is more expansive than Baluchistan?
- From the source: "GHAZNAVIDS, an Islamic dynasty of Turkish slave origin (366-582/977-1186), which in its heyday ruled in the eastern Iranian lands, briefly as far west as Ray and Jebāl; for a while in certain regions north of the Oxus, most notably, in Kᵛārazm; and in Baluchistan." The source doesn't single out Baluchistan, it is mentioned with other regions.
I was going to check Bosworth 1963 as well, but the Internet Archive is acting up again today. I'm a bit concerned about source-text after some issues came up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sabuktigin/archive1. Hog Farm Talk 02:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @Hog Farm, would you be interested in doing a review? Amir Ghandi (talk) Amir Ghandi (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately not. I just keep getting busier and busier IRL. Hog Farm Talk 16:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. Amir Ghandi (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately not. I just keep getting busier and busier IRL. Hog Farm Talk 16:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
I hope to be able to restart a review this weekend. Hog Farm Talk 14:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I've had a chance to read through this; I spot-checked a couple isntances and didn't have any significant concerns with that or with the read-through. Supporting contingent upon this passing the source review. Hog Farm Talk 00:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Edwininlondon
[edit]Just a few drive-by comments from a complete lay person:
- would be nice if the opening sentence would mention which modern-day part of the world we're talking about
- ruler of Ghazna --> links to the city of Ghazni, or should it perhaps go to Ghazni Province?
- I believe I've already linked Ghazna both in the lead and in the body
- She used two nisbas --> perhaps help the reader out a bit by explaining what directly in the textthat is, rather than forcing them to click through or guess that footnote c explains it
- Done
- recorded by Shabankara'i --> add a description, just like British orientalist Clifford Edmund Bosworth
- Done
- by Abu'l-Fadl Bayhaqi (d. 1077) a secretary --> comma missing
- Done
- Amir Mas'ud of Ghazna --> 1) should Amir be linked? is it a title like emir? 2) am I right that this is the newphew? Better to say so, plus when the nephew is introduced I would refer to him by his full name and title
- 1) to prevent WP:SEAOFBLUE, no, and yes it is the Persianized version of emir. 2) Yes, done
- since the Ma'amunids --> is there a stray "a" here, given that it is the Ma'munid dynasty?
- Indeed, amended
- However, he was killed --> he is a bit ambiguous (and the subsequent his)
- Mentioned the name
- Hurra, along with her younger brother, Yusuf ibn Sabuktigin --> is that the name of her brother or a different person? do we need some commas here?
- Moved the comma to the end
- the Sultan --> the sultan (if I interpret MOS:JOBTITLE correctly)
- Done
- the Seljuks --> who are they? what happened to the Turkomans?
- My mistake, the Seljuks are a Turkoman dynasty that lead the other Turkomans. I replaced 'Seljuk tribes' with 'Seljuk dynasty.'
- footnote h: why not put this in the main text?
- Its a hinderance to the flow of the text
- she is metaphorically covering their shame --> I would add attribution here
- Done
- as it was Bayhaqi's intentions --> singular or plural? and did Bayyhaqi state this intention or is this an interpretation by Amirsoleimani?
- Reworded the sentence
- Iranian historian, Shirin Bayani --> no comma here
- Done
- The Boswell sources in ibliography should be order by time, not randomly
- Done
That's all I have. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Amir Ghandi. Have you addressed all of Edwininlondon's comments? If so, could you ping them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Edwininlondon I've addressed all your comments Amir Ghandi (talk) Amir Ghandi (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- All fine as far as prose is concerned, I Support on prose. I don't read Persian so can't do a spotcheck.Edwininlondon (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Edwininlondon I've addressed all your comments Amir Ghandi (talk) Amir Ghandi (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Amir Ghandi. Have you addressed all of Edwininlondon's comments? If so, could you ping them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Borsoka
[edit]- It was most likely... Could you attribute this PoV to a scholar (and ideally explain it a bit)?
- That makes two 'according to's in one paragraph. I don't think that's pleasing to read. Also, could not find anything to expand on that
...an honorific laqab 'agnomen'... I think the three non-cotidian terms are unneccessary; furthermore, the term "agnomen" is possibly misleading. Why not "a laqab (honorific)" with links? If you think all three terms are to be mentioned, the last term ("agnomen") should be enclosed in brackets.- Done
... and not her actual name Is this necessary? If not, delete it. If yes, could you add a link (because for me the laqab is also an "actual" name used in souces)?- Deleted
Do we know what is the origin of her second nisba (Kaliji)? If we do not know it, we should make it clear.- No, and wouldn't that be an unsourced edition? None of the sources even mention that the origin of Kaliji is unknown.
An explanation for khatun?- Done
Could you expand the first section's second paragraph to avoid a one-sentence paragraph? For instance, it could be stated in a separate sentence that the only source contains only sparse references, and we could also be informed that it is reliable or unreliable. Based on section "Assessments and historiography", I understand one of her letters has also been preserved in a manuscript - is it the same source?Mention the period of reign of Mas'ud (as it is mentioned in the first sentence of the following section in connection with her father).- Done
...is a probable candidate Could you attribute this PoV to a scholar (and ideally explain it a bit)?- Done for the attribution, sadly can't expand it further
This marriage would have secured an alliance... Why future-in-the-past?Hurra may have been taken hostage by them. Could you attribute this PoV to a scholar (and ideally explain it a bit)? Please also read my comment below.Hurra may have been taken hostage by them. Mahmud threatened the rebels with invasion unless they released Hurra. Contradiction? (The first sentence implies that she may have not been taken hostage, but the second sentence says that she had been seized.) Perhaps the two sentences could be rephrased to contain only facts ("Hurra was seized/imprisoned/prevented from returning to her homeland/...)....after Mahmud's death, she was entrusted with the care of his wives... Why not widows?- Changed to widows
...who was crowned in Ghazna... Could you quote the text from the cited source verifying this statement?- Bosworth: "...Muhammad succeeded in Ghazna according to his father's will"
His coronation is not verified. I am not sure that Ghaznavids were indeed crowned.- Okay I'll delete it then
- Bosworth: "...Muhammad succeeded in Ghazna according to his father's will"
..., which was dependent on the powerful leadership of the sultan Could you quote the text from the cited source verifying this statement?- Bosworth: "...Ghaznavid empire was basically dependent on the military leadership and executive talent of its Sultan"
...encouraging him to take the throne while she and the other women of the court were confided in the Citadel of Ghazni I do not understand the relevance of the part beginning with "while she...".- Deleted
He also imprisoned Ali b. Il-Arsalan Qarib, the al-hajib al-kabir (commander-in-chief) of the army, who had become the real power behind Muhammad's government. Is this relevant in the article's context? I would delete it.- Deleted
- ...Hurra is suspected to have influenced By whom?
The region of Khorasan housed rich oases, centres of industry and crafts and important trade routes. Therefore it was an integral part of the empire. Therefore?- Deleted
File:Ghaznavid Empire (map).jpg: 1. Explain that Mahmud was her brother in the caption (as you introduce similarly Mas'ud I in the other picture's caption). 2. What is the source of the map?- 1) done 2) map is compliant with the Cambridge History of Iran map of the Ghaznavids
Borsoka (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- I added the source to the file. Excellent article, so I support its promotion. Thank you for your work. Borsoka (talk) 07:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Image and source review
[edit]File:Mas'udIGhaznavidCoin.jpg has a few bare URLs as sources. ALT text could state a bit more what is being shown. File:Ghaznavid Empire (map).jpg ought to explain a bit more clearly where the map background is from. Clifford Edmund Bosworth is not consistently formatted in the sources section. Sources seem pretty good otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Added a source to File:Mas'udIGhaznavidCoin.jpg and changed its ALT text. Clarified File:Ghaznavid Empire (map).jpg and changed the Bosworth sources for consistency. Thoughts? Amir Ghandi (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- That ALT is better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Jo-Jo, is that two passes? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Did some light spotchecking that raised no issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for that Jo-Jo. As this is Amir Ghandi's first nomination at FAC the article needs a source to text integrity check and a check for plagiarism. Are these things which you may be able to do? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC) Or is that already covered in the above? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Jo-Jo, is that two passes? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Jo-Jo, just checking if you have seen this? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hey @Gog the Mild, is this good to go? Amir Ghandi (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not until we hear from Edwininlondon and a sourcing spot check has happened. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hey @Gog the Mild, is this good to go? Amir Ghandi (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- That ALT is better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- 8 This needs someone who a) can translate this language (Farsi or Arabic?) and b) has source access.
- 17 This needs someone who a) can translate this language (Farsi or Arabic?) and b) has source access
- 23 This needs someone who a) can translate this language (Farsi or Arabic?) and b) has source access
I must stress that I probably can't complete this spotcheck w/o someone who can read Farsi/Arabic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Seems like I need to be approved for these Google Drive links. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus Changed the access settings of the files; I believe you can see them now Amir Ghandi (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Jo-Jo, can you access them now? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, save for them in Farsi that I noted above. Struck out another item, but I am not sure that the formatting will work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Jo-Jo, can you access them now? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus Changed the access settings of the files; I believe you can see them now Amir Ghandi (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, @Gog the Mild@Jo-Jo Eumerus, is the source review in halt until we can find someone who reads Farsi? Amir Ghandi (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. I am not sure if we can trust automated translation for Farsi. And I don't have access to these sources, anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Do we really need to check especially those sources that we cannot understand? Do we really want to put in practice a ban on the candidacy of articles that are partially verified by reliable sources written in languages other than English, Spanish, French, German and Russian? Borsoka (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- For a spotcheck, yes, I do insist - as we've seen in, for example, certain ArbCom cases, unverifiable sources in other languages sometimes are misinterpreted/misrepresented. I don't feel comfortable with saying "Eh, too hard to verify this one, I'll assume it's correct" when spot-checking. Besides, it's not true that this would disallow articles with sources in other languages - sometimes you can rely on automated translation tools, or on editors who can speak the language. I've been told that DeepL can be trusted for Hungarian, so if someone can say the same thing for Farsi and Google Translate, that would be one option. Of course, I would need access to the sources in 8, 17 and 23 too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Do we really need to check especially those sources that we cannot understand? Do we really want to put in practice a ban on the candidacy of articles that are partially verified by reliable sources written in languages other than English, Spanish, French, German and Russian? Borsoka (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. I am not sure if we can trust automated translation for Farsi. And I don't have access to these sources, anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Drive-by comments
[edit]- Citations: when a cite refers to more than a single page in a source, you should use 'pp', not "p".
- Bosworth (2020) does not seem to be used as a source.
- "She was married to two Maʽmunid rulers of the Khwarazm region" there is an ambiguity in this. So maybe follow it with 'first Abu Ali Hasan, and on his death his brother Maʽmun II'?
- All Done
- Any reason why the infobox does not include Hurra's birth and death dates? And is the date of her first marriage known, or the date of her first husband's death?
- All three are unknown
Gog the Mild (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- This nomination has stalled on the source review and there have been no additional comments in the past week. As such I'm archiving.
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 December 2024 [3].
- Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
The Gusuku period corresponds to the early protohistorical period of Ryuykyuan history. It features the sudden migration of Japonic-speaking peoples into the archipelago, displacing the previous inhabitants of the Shellmidden period, saw the construction of a bunch of castles everywhere, the growth of an agricultural society, pirates, endemic warfare, and eventually the formation of the Ryukyu Kingdom. Previously, articles on this period on-wiki have conflated archaeological and historical sources with the traditional mythical narrative. I hope you all enjoy reading about this obscure period of history as much as I enjoyed writing it! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
750h
[edit]Will review. Ping me if I don't get to this within seven days. 750h+ 08:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Feel free to refuse my suggestions with proper justification.
- lead
- Directly following the Shellmidden "directly" is redundant.
- Done. - G
- fortresses which this won't affect my vote since the other is still widely used, but it's generally preferable to add a coma before "which".
- Done. - G
- which proliferated across the archipelago would change "proliferated" to "increased rapidly" or something similar. Best to use words more understandable to a broad audience rather than large ones
- Done. - G
- background
- capacity prior to the introduction ==> "capacity before the introduction" (conciseness)
- Done. - G
- the Ryuykus prior to c. 800 CE ==> "the Ryuykus before c. 800 CE"
- Done. - G
- agriculture in lieu of foraging ==> "agriculture instead foraging" (conciseness)
- Done. - G
- endemic warfare prior to the ==> "endemic warfare before the" (conciseness)
- Done. - G
- Due to their close proximity "close" is redundant. "proximity" does the work
- Done. - G
- emergence
- peoples settled the Ryukyus should this be "peoples settled in the Ryukyus"
- "Settling the Ryukyus" is grammatical; see constructions like to settle the Americas or to settle the British Isles in academic lit. -G
- followed by the Okinawa Islands, the Miyako Islands, and finally the Yaeyama Islands. "finally" is redundant
- I think finally is important here to note that these were done in order, rather than all three at once. - G
- population of the Ryukyu Islands prior to the Gusuku "prior to" ==> "before"
- Fixed. - G
- divergence prior to the Gusuku "prior to" ==> "before"
- Fixed. - G
- or as evolution from a trade creole shouldn't it be "or as an evolution from a trade creole"
- Fixed. - G
- developments
- Archaeologial examinations of sites at "Archaeological" is spelt wrong
- Fixed. - G
- period sociey is a topic "society" is spelt wrong
- attributing the growth of a nobility and state i don't think article "a" is needed
- Makes it so it can't be read as (nobility and state polities) instead of (a nobility) (and state polities). - G
- You use "organization" (american english) in one part of the article but you use "metres" or "centimetres" (british english) in another part. you're going to need use you one type of english.
- Fixed. - G
- generally to the southwest so as to maximize sunlight remove "so as"
- Fixed. - G
- and surrounded with palisades. ==> "and surrounded by palisades."
- Fixed. - G
- with major bases on Kyushu and ==> "with major bases in Kyushu and"
- Kyushu is an island, shouldn't it be on here? - G
- port of call in the Ryukyus, and became a major center of piracy remove the comma
- emergence of the Ryukyu Kingdom
- histography
- mainly based off interviews ==> "mainly based on interviews"
- Fixed. - G
- two early 18th century versions of needs a hyphen between "18th"
- Fixed. - G
- dating to periods prior to the 16th and ==> "dating to periods before the 16th and"
- Fixed. - G
- began the 17,000 year rule hyphen needed between "17,000" and "rule"
- Fixed. - G
- Okinawa in name only, and that remove comma
- Fixed. - G
- written documentation prior to the 17th century ==> "written documentation before the 17th century"
- Fixed. - G
Great work @Generalissima:, thanks for the article. 750h+ 07:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- @750h+: Thank you very much! Responded and fixed stuff. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support. 750h+ 23:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Arconning - source review
[edit]Marking my name down here. Ping as well within seven days^. Arconning (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Arconning: Pinging! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reliable enough for the information being cited
- Consistent date formatting
- Consistent and proper reference formatting
- Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
- Spot checks sources match what they are being cited for
- No further comments, everything looks nice
- Support on source check, great work on the article! Arconning (talk) 09:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Support from Crisco
[edit]- Any reason for not including the image in the infobox, instead of below it?
- Following the Shellmidden period, the Gusuku is generally described as beginning in the 11th century, following a dramatic social and economic shift over the previous centuries. - Following ... following
- Fixed. - G
- leading to endemic warfare and the construction of the namesake gusuku fortresses ... eventually leading to the construction of the namesake gusuku. - There is some very similar construction here in the lede, so some rework would probably not be amiss.
- Fixed. - G
- mid-Shellmidden ... Late Shellmidden - Not consistent in capitalization. Other examples: Middle Yayoi period
- Fixed. - G
- contemporary sources - Contemporary to whom? Perhaps clearer if there were a "since 19XX, sources have" phrasing.
- Fixed. - G
- Rice and millet agriculture spread to Sakishima by the 12th century. - This is the first mention of rice and millet, but you don't link them until the next paragraph (WP:LINKFIRST)
- Fixed. - G
- Do we have a lang template for the loanwords in this article? (I ask for compatibility with screenreaders)
- Added these. - G
- slave trading - Is there a better link, focusing more on East Asia?
- I was unable to find one.
- Sho En - You spell the others "Shō"; why is Sho En losing the diacritic?
- Fixed. - G
- primary sources limited to foreign diplomatic and tribute records - tribute records were mentioned earlier; would be better to link there
- Fixed. - G
- Japan to development in the Ryukyus was challenged in the 1980s and 1990s as Okinawa's domestic development was emphasized, with historians such as Takara Kurayoshi and Murai Shōsuke emphasizing - Two uses of development and two uses of emphasiz(e/ing), with another emphasized in the next sentence. Might be good to rework.
- Fixed. - G
- the Gusuku Site is a specific archaeology site on Kikaijima. - You use a lower-case "s" in other uses
- Fixed. - G
- Overall, feels like the article is slightly overillustrated. I do like the images... maybe a use of {{multiple image}} would work to combine some? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Just going to cite a few examples, to give ideas: Chicago (band) and Xifeng concentration camp. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Generalissima, just pinging in case you missed my comments. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492: Okay! I think I got to everything. Tried to add a few multiple image templates and moved some around. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Great. I made one small fix, but otherwise looks good. Happy to support. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Image review - pass
[edit]Hi Generalissima, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Katsurenj%C3%B4_(16).jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Location_Ryukyu_Islands.PNG
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Turbo_marmoratus_light_2.jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Japanese_Foxtail_millet_01.jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Warehouse_at_Motobu.jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nakagusuku_Castle02n2700.jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:B-Qingbai-Kanne_mit_Deckel._Song._Museum_f%C3%BCr_Asiatische_Kunst._.jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Naha_Shuri_Castle50s3s4500.jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:King_Sho_Shin.jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Book_from_the_Ryukyu_Kingdom_(ca._1600).jpg
Most are own works, with one from flickr and two with an expired copyright. They are all either in the public domain or published under some version of CC BY-SA. All images are relevant to the article and placed in appropriate locations.
All images have captions. The caption "Shells of Turbo snails were prominent trade goods during the period" is a full sentence and needs a period. I suggest adding alt texts to "Katsurenjô (16).jpg" and "Book from the Ryukyu Kingdom (ca. 1600).jpg". All the other images have alt texts.
I agree with Crisco that, to make it visually better organized, the lead image should be included the info box, unless there is a good reason otherwise. The article has many images, but I'm not sure that this is a problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Phlsph7: Implemented all the requested changes; thank you! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the changes; that takes care of the concerns. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Support by Lee Vilenski
[edit]I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.
- Lede
- "era of the history" - I could be very off, but surely it's "era in the history".Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Checking Google Scholar, both are attested but "era in the history" is a lot more common; corrected. - G
- Can we split the opening sentence? In my eyes the first sentence should be succinct in explaining what the article is about. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed. - G
- Otherwise, the lede is quite tight. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- c. 1050 CE–15th century - considering circa just means roughly, can we not give a rough end date too? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, 1429 works for that. - G
- Prose
- Reconstruction of an elevated storehouse, Ocean Expo Park, Okinawa - image caption. Might seem petty, but I'd have something after storehouse. Don't want someone to think storehouse is a place, or Ocean Expo is a hut. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Added an "at". - G
- I'm sure you use it elsewhere, but could we spell out "ha" in full.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Done. - G
- Additional comments
- I've left some bare comments above, but I'm not finding enough to slow a support from me. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! Made this fixes. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose from Gog the Mild
[edit]Recusing to review.
- "is an era in the history of the Ryukyu Islands". Could this roll into a brief explanation of what and/or where the Ryuku Islands are.
- Done. - G
- "Shellmidden period". Why the upper-case S?
- This follows the sources; I think it's to differentiate it as a proper name for the period. - G
- "Gusuku period". Why the upper-case G? If it is upper case, shouldn't the p be as well?
- Hmm. Some sources do say "Gusuku period" (a la Yayoi period or Kofun period) but you're right that both words be capitalized is more common. Will adjust and move. - G
- "from the Dazaifu trade outpost on Kikaijima". This needs unpacking a little. At the moment it isn't comprehensible to a non-expert without diving into the links.
- Unpacked. - G
- A map at the bottom of the infobox would be nice.
- Done. - G
- "they were built in great numbers". Is it possible to give a number? I took "great numbers" to be several thousand.
- Gave a rough number and elaborated in the body. - G
- "merged as tributary kingdoms". Tributary to what?
- Elaborated. - G
- "The rise of the local aji nobility steadily ...". What is an aji?
- Just used "lord" for the lede. - G
- "simply prestige labels under which they operated". I really don't understand this. What is the "they" that is being labelled? What is the label being applied? In what way is it prestigious?
- Rephrased this. -G
- "to achieve political hegemony over the island". What is the difference between "political hegemony" and 'hegemony'?
- rephrased. - G
- Could Shō Shin be introduced. It is not clear from the text if it refers to a person a tribe, a nation, or something else.
- Introduced him. - G
- "organized a centralized kingdom at Shuri Castle". Erm, perhaps '... governed from Shuri Castle' or similar?
- Rephrased. - G
- "ushering in the Ryukyu Kingdom." A tad flowery. Maybe 'marking the start of' or similar?
- Rephrased. - G
More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Intermittent human settlement of the land bridge". I can't see where the source suggests that human settlement is intermittent.
- Rewrote this section.
- "although recent sites suggest possible initial dates of c. 7000 or c. 12,000 BCE." I am sure that what you mean is not what you have written.
- Rephrased. - G
- "This repopulation began the Shellmound or Shellmidden period." Why "repopulation"? When and why were the islands depopulated?
- Rewrote this section. - G
- "Complex hunter-gatherer societies emerged during the mid-Shellmidden, but polities such as chiefdoms did not emerge." "... emerged ... emerge ...": is it possible to rewrite to lose one of these?
- There are 19 cases of "emerged" or "emergence" which a reader starts to notice after a while. Synonym time?
- De-emerged the article. - G
- "This is attributed to low populations and carrying capacity before the introduction of intensive agriculture." I don't think that most readers will understand "carrying capacity"; is it possible to rephrase this to be more generally comprehensible? (And is not " attributed to low populations and carrying capacity" having two bites at the same cherry?)
- Rephrased. - G
- The "abandonment of agriculture instead of foraging." I don't understand what you trying to say here.
- Rephrased. - G
- "evidenced by flotation samples dating to the 800s." I think "flotation samples" unnecessarily confuses a reader. It also reads as if it is the flotation samples which date to c. 800.
- Rephrased. - G
- I am struggling to work out whether this paragraph is talking about cereal cultivation, per the first sentence, or agriculture more generally.
Having gone through just the lead and the first section I have come across a lot of instances where the meaning is either unclear or insufficiently explained. To the point that I am leaning oppose. I am going to take a break for a while and then have a look at a random section further down to see if things improve.
Gog the Mild (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Trade and foreign relations
- "Although trade links (mainly of shells)". This doesn't make grammatical sense. In so far as it does, it reads as if shells were being traded for other shells, which I assume is not the case.
- Rephrased. - G
- "date to the Yayoi". It would be helpful to a reader if you gave the date, if only in parentheses.
- Rephrased but added a date to the Yayoi earlier. - G
- "the transition into the Gusuku period saw the import of Chinese ceramics and Japanese soapstone cauldrons". What was imported previously?
- clarified. - G
- "used alongside native earthenware" → 'which was used alongside native earthenware'.
- "iron knives and magatama from Japan." What are magatama? (See MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links.")
- Clarified. - G
- "formal tribute relations". These need explaining in line.
- Clarified. - G
- "the establishment of formal tribute status during this period resulted in a much greater volume of trade". Could you give me the wording from the source which supports this.
- "After the start of formal tribute relations with Ming China in 1372, the material wealth of several major gusuku sites such as Kumejima, Katsuren, Shuri, and Nakijin increased dramatically." - Smits, 2019, p. 35
- "the Ashikaga shogunate". Add 'Japanese', or better still say 'the feudal military government of Japan'.
- Clarified. - G
- "Diplomatic relationships with the Ashikaga shogunate may have been opened by the Lord of Shuri in 1403." My understanding, which may be faulty, is that the Ashikaga shogunate came to power in 1336. If so, I don't see how a trading relationship could be opened 33 years earlier.
- Rephrased this with a more general statement to avoid hedging bets on a potentially incorrect date or ruler. "Trading relations" here means formal recognition and management of trade as opposed to haphazard merchants - made this clearer in the text. - G
- "from the late 13th century onward to the end of the Gusuku period." Delete "onward".
- Done. - G
- "the Southern Court during the Nanboku-chō period". What were both of these? And ideally give a time period.
- Clarified. - G
- "Wokou": a section header in a foreign language, especially when it has not been previously introduced, is not helpful. Perhaps "Piracy"?
- Renamed. -G
- "during the late Gusuku period". Give the dates.
- Done. - G
Sadly I don't feel that this meets the FAC criteria, in particular 1a (its prose is engaging and of a professional standard) and 2 (It follows the style guidelines). Specifically MOS:NOFORCELINK, WP:TECHNICAL and WP:NOTHOW (scientific journal) issues come up frequently enough for me to feel that there are deeper issues here than can reasonably be settled at FAC and so I am regretfully opposing. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your thorough review. I will try to resolve this over the next couple days and hopefully bring the prose up to a higher standard. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: I locked in, went through, and gave the whole thing a prose refresh wherever I could see it. Don't feel obligated to do line by line suggestions or anything, but let me know if there's any areas that still need work. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Just checking back in on this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies for not getting back to you earlier, both RL and WP have been brisk. I doubt I shall be able to give as thorough a re-review as you would like, but I am happy to re-look at at least parts and say what I think.
- @Gog the Mild: Just checking back in on this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: I locked in, went through, and gave the whole thing a prose refresh wherever I could see it. Don't feel obligated to do line by line suggestions or anything, but let me know if there's any areas that still need work. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Lead
- "Perhaps link era?
- Done. - G
- "after a dramatic social and economic shift over the previous centuries." Can a social and economic shift which takes place over centuries be called "dramatic"?
- Sure, if it dramatically changes how people live. This is essentially a scale model of the Neolithic Revolution, which was quite dramatic. - G
- "including imports of foreign ceramics". If ceramics are imported it seems redundant to specify them as "foreign".
- Fair point - corrected. - G
- "three kingdoms (the Sanzan) emerged tributary kingdoms to the Ming dynasty of China." Is an 'as' missing?
- Oops, fixed. -G
- "confederations of nobles or powerful local rulers". Maybe delete "nobles or', as "powerful local rulers" would seem to include them.
- Fair point. - G
- "King Shō Hashi of Chūzan became the sole tribute king in Okinawa". Do you mean he was the sole tribute king for the island of Okinawa, or for all of the Ryukyu Islands and he was based in Okinawa?
- Sort of both, clarified. - G
- "governed from Shuri Castle". Which was where.
- Clarified. - G
Emergence of the Ryukyu Kingdom
- "loose confederations of aji". This is the English language Wikipedia. Why are we confusing readers with avoidable foreign language terms? 'lords'?
- Fair enough. - G
- Link polities?
- Done. - G
- "They may not have corresponded to territorial control on the island, instead serving as labels which various powerful aji operated under during diplomatic and trade relations with the Ming." This is not as clear as it could be; in particular "during" doesn't seem to work. (In the context of the rest of the sentence.) Perhaps swap this with the last sentence of the paragraph and rephrase?
- Done. - G
- "Hashi likely took the throne from Bunei with the aid of Chinese officials." Who or what is Bunei?
- Clarified. - G
- "He was a powerful military leader". Hashi or Bunei?
- Clarified. - G
- "although probably lacked political control over all of Okinawa." Missing a 'he'.
- Added. - G
- "The various other kings of Chūzan followed him as the sole tribute king of Okinawa". I don't understand what "followed" means in this case.
- Came after, as opposed to preceded - maybe that's a subtle engvar? Anyhow, rephrased. - G
- "The various other kings of Chūzan followed him as the sole tribute king of Okinawa, forming the First Shō dynasty". This reads as the various other kings of Chūzan forming the First Shō dynasty. Is this what you meant to communicate?
- Yeah. - G
- "a rapid series of rulers of only a few years each". You don't need "rapid" and "of only a few years each"
- Fair enough, rephrased. - G
- Link warlord?
- Ok. - G
- Caption: "18th century depiction of Shō Shin and attendants, as depicted by Shō Genko". Could we avoid depiction and depicted in the same caption?
- Good point; removed "as depicted"
- "Wokou": as this is the English language Wikipedia ... ?
- De-wokoufied. - G
I didn't make it to the end of the Emergence section, but while the article reads a little better than ten days ago, overall I still don't feel that it is up to FA status nor close enough to warrant being worked on at FAC to get it there. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild Thank you very much for the lookthrough at the very least. I'm curious though - is an oppose of a coordinator considered final in these circumstances, or can this still pass if other reviewers disagree? (also, responded to all your feedback) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- As Gog states at the top (and it'd be the same for me or FrB or David Fuchs) he is recusing coord duties to review, thus he's here as another editor and the weight given to his oppose depends on actionable issues raised against the FA criteria, not on his position as a coord. Promotion is based on consensus, not the number of supporting vs. opposing reviews, and if actionable issues remain, even if raised by only one editor, then we can't say that consensus has been achieved. As it happens, another reviewer, Airship, has raised a fairly long list of points regarding the lead alone, and given the nom has been open around six weeks already, it seems even less likely that consensus to promote will be achieved in a reasonable timeframe. So I am going to archive this now, and recommend that a PR be undertaken before another nom, two weeks or more from now per FAC instructions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
SC
[edit]Comments to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- @SchroCat: Just checking back in on this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I’ll be here soon. I’ve had an avalanche of work in that (most due before Xmas), that I am having to deal with, but hope to be with you shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I’m really sorry it’s taken so long to get to this, but I’m here now...
- I’m not sure what is meant by “Their settlement on to the creation of Kamuiyaki ware, a new form of stoneware with cultural influence from Korean ceramics.” Is it ‘Their settlement led to the creation…’?
- oops, fixed. -G
- ”practically no indigenous influence whatsoever”: not sure you need the ‘whatsoever’.
- Removed. - G
- ”Pre-Proto-Ryukyuan”: lowercase ‘p’ on ‘pre’?
- Done. - G
Done to the start of Gusuku castles. More to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- MSincccc
Placeholder. MSincccc (talk) 05:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- The lead is fine. I will return with further comments later. MSincccc (talk) 05:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Airship
[edit]As always, suggestions and not demands. Feel free to refuse with justification. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Does "era" need to be linked? Also 11th century,
- "Japonic culture from Japan" the link "Japonic" goes to Japonic languages; per MOS:EGG I would suggest changing "culture" to "languages".
- Shellmidden period is somehow linked in the infobox but not in the lead itself.
- "dramatic social and economic shift over the previous centuries. The Shellmidden-Gusuku transition has been linked to Japonic-speaking migrants and influence from a Japanese trade outpost on the island of Kikai" are the latter two things the main parts of the "social and economic shift", in which case this is somewhat confusingly phrased.
- Also, if the "dramatic" nature of the change is contested, as indicated in the last paragraph of the article, we probably shouldn't say that it was in wikivoice in the lead.
- There's significant focus on languages in the lead and body, but as far as I can see, no discussion of what the languages were before the Japonic influx. Is this simply unknown?
- "The period saw widespread agriculture" you've already said an equivalent to "the period saw", so it can be cut and the sentence adjusted accordingly.
- "Trade occurred" clunky. "occurred" can be removed and the sentence adjusted accordingly.
- "in the region" we know the article is talking about a single region only.
- "the steady expansion of fortifications, eventually evolving into the gusuku. The gusuku were large stone fortresses built in the hundreds across the archipelago" whether "the steady expansion" refers to numerical increase or just getting bigger physically is unclear. Also, "the gusuku" is repeated twice in four words.
- "The rise of the local nobility" this seems like a big societal change that deserves more discussion than six words, especially considering the evolution into kingdoms.
- " although he likely failed to achieve complete political control over Okinawa" seems too much detail for the lead (MOS:LEADREL). Same for "and governed from Shuri Castle in Shuri, Okinawa" ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 December 2024 [4].
- Nominator(s): Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
This article is about a deadly and destructive earthquake in Mexico, known for its devastating mudslides which contributed to the losses. It had an estimated magnitude of 6.3 to 6.4 and occurred within the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt, a region experiencing extensional tectonics, where normal faults produce seismic activity. This event may have been due to shallow normal faulting, the kind of faulting observed in other earthquakes along the belt. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- Don't use fixed px size
- File:Templo_de_Teocelo,_Veracruz,_terremoto_1920.png: what is the author's date of death? Ditto File:Earthquake_Isoseismal_map_terremoto_1920_Xalapa_pdf.pdf, File:Saltillo_Lafragua_church,_terremoto_1920.png, File:Landslide_scars_on_Cerro_Colorado_in_Patlanalá,_Puebla.png, File:Enríquez_Street,_Xalapa,_terremoto_1920.png, File:Cosautlán,_Veracruz_1920_terremoto.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note the original publication does not identify the authors in the front pages so I attributed to Instituto Geológico de México, 1922. They are in the public domain according to Alamy although the uploaded files are screenshots of the report. At least one of the authors I found via secondary source is Teodoro Flores d. 1955. The other may have been Horacio Camacho, d 2015.
- Alamy entries:
- Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- They are in the public domain in which country according to Alamy?
- They are currently tagged as life+70 - if the likely authors died in 1955 and 2015, that tag wouldn't apply yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- That I'm unable to decipher, I'm checking with Alamy over the matter. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- There are seven other works uploaded by Panorami bot in 2010 and 2016 from the 1922 source under CC-BY-SA-3.0. More are found under this cat Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria have you concluded scrutinization? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- You had indicated you were checking with Alamy - did you hear back? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- They don't have any further information about the PD country. Past alamy works on Commons use the CC BY-SA 4.0 Int'l license. Anyways I'll just remove those images until it gets sorted out Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- You had indicated you were checking with Alamy - did you hear back? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria have you concluded scrutinization? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- There are seven other works uploaded by Panorami bot in 2010 and 2016 from the 1922 source under CC-BY-SA-3.0. More are found under this cat Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- That I'm unable to decipher, I'm checking with Alamy over the matter. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- They are currently tagged as life+70 - if the likely authors died in 1955 and 2015, that tag wouldn't apply yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Support from Ganesha811
[edit]- Noting that I intend to review this and should have comments up in the next couple days. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not a full source review, but the vast majority of the sources appear to be reliable government reports or academic papers. Not seeing any red flags. The Catholic Telegraph and San Diego Union are both fine as generally reliable historic newspapers. I would recommend adding links to their articles in the citations. It's also usually worth checking if any of the academics have Wikipedia articles and linking those, they sometimes do.
Lead
[edit]- Why does the lead use moment magnitude instead of Richter? Is that now standard for seismology?
- Moment magnitude has been the standard for earthquakes larger than magnitude 6.0 since its introduction. None of these sources provide a Richter magnitude estimate either.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough!
- I'd say some of the geology can be moved out of the first paragraph and shifted to the second, while some of the human impact can be moved up higher in the lead.
- Some prose oddities in the lead:
past seismic-hazard zoning projects have classified
- past as of 1920 or past as of today? Should it be "had" instead?normal faulting which may have been identical to the one involved in 1920
. The one what? A fault? Which fault? Not sure what this sentence is trying to say.
- Clarified Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
accommodated by
what does this mean, exactly?
- Hopefully the wording is better, I've omitted the wordDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Any reason the cost of damage is given in US dollars rather than pesos?
- US dollar comes from the Catholic Telegraph reflected in the bodyDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Meanwhile, the newspapers
which newspapers? All newspapers? Seems a broad statement.
more than N$300,000
N$ appears to be the usual symbol for the Namibian dollar, not the peso - why is it used here? Does the 300,000 include the previous mentioned 20,000?
- N$ is the symbol of the new peso introduced in 1993 which the template appears to follow. N reflects the ISO 4217 code for new peso when MXN is injected into the template. A number of editors have been confused with the template output so I will manually key in Mex$ which they should be familiar with. The 300,000 and 20,000 come from separate sources that don't acknowledge each other so I don't know.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Follow-up, 20,000 has been omitted, it's a minor detail so that shouldn't be a problem Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable.
- Follow-up, 20,000 has been omitted, it's a minor detail so that shouldn't be a problem Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
were raised
should be "was raised".
- Could you move/split up your reply to the locations of the relevant comments and note which prose issues have been addressed? Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's very helpful. Continuing on with the review later today! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
a 2017 research
remove "a" or add a following word like "study" or "project"assigned in the epicenter
assigned to, not assigned inthe mainshock originated within the Earth's crust
where else would an earthquake originate?established communication services
this fact doesn't appear to be mentioned later on in the article. What is it summarizing?through joining
- recommend switching this to, joining
for readability.The El Salvador and Honduras
- recommend modifying tothe Salvadoran and Honduran governments, as well as Pope Benedict XV
and adding wikilinks to all 3.
- Six points above this comment done. Some parts of the lede were modified following Mike's earlier comments.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Tectonic setting
[edit]- If I'm reading the map correctly, the Middle America Trench is southwest of Mexico. How can the two Pacific, oceanic plates subduct "northwestwards" - wouldn't it be northeast?
- That's my typo. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
(slabs), dehydrate
no comma needed
subducts at 50
50 degrees from what baseline? How is this measured?
- Earth's surface. Imaging the slab geometry requires seismic tomography and studying earthquakes within the slab to project a 3D image, which isn't relevant anymore if that's what you're asking. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Could you rephrase these sentences (and the one mentioned below) to make that clearer? Thanks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Is it better now? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's more comprehensible, thanks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Is it better now? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
plunges to about 50-60
this is now as compared to the angle of the earth's surface, or something else?
- above answered. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Intraslab earthquakes within the Cocos plate occur at 60–100 km (37–62 mi) depth, but cease abruptly some 100 km (62 mi) south of the TMVB, possibly because the slab does not produce earthquakes in the north before plunging steeply to 120 km (75 mi) depth beneath the TMVB.
I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to say. How does the second part relate to the first and what is the implication of either?
cease
should be "ceases"
- Am I reading correctly that it is impossible for an inactive fault to generate earthquakes?
- An active fault is one that moves and could generate earthquake. Inactive faults don't move presently hence don't produce earthquakes. You're correct. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- What is that vertical white bar on File:Trans Mexican Volcanic Belt extension2.jpg? Why is extension shown going in both directions?
- It's the line of section, I've added a text to indicate this. Because the crust the volcanic belt rest atop has to move apart, arrows would indicate that movement.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- FYI Ceranthor made new suggestions at PR 2 which I've tried to address. @Ceranthor use this space if you have to comment. Thanks for going through the article. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- But those volcanoes and faults on the diagram are purely hypothetical, and not intended to represent actual faults/mountains, right? So couldn't the line of section equally be anywhere along the TMVB from coast to coast? FWIW I agree with Ceranthor's grammar and other comments and will not duplicate them. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hypothetically it could look like this all along the volcanic belt. There isn't enough research on every part of the belt to give an accurate picture of how the faults actually look like, it's currently a blank canvas with no right or wrong, Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Damage and casualties
[edit]The earthquake killed 648 people
why favor the source that says this over the other sources with widely varying estimates?
- Reworded to "between 648 and 4,000", is that better? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, though I recommend also adding a phrase or a sentence explaining the widely varying estimates (i.e. which are contemporary vs modern reviews). —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do, currently on a 14 hr flight to SFO so i'll try with the slow onboard wifi Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, running through the sources, most of them don't address the varying numbers but I've added a line about the origin of the lowest figure from the 1922 report while contemporary refs give higher numbers. Another line acknowledging the lack of clarification regarding this discrepancy. I think acknowledging we can't explain because there's no discussion about it should make up for it. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do, currently on a 14 hr flight to SFO so i'll try with the slow onboard wifi Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
earthquake in Mexico
- change to "in Mexico's history"
- Done
building constructed
should be "buildings constructed from" - also, attributed by who?
- Reworded
XI isoseismal band
- might be more readable to just say "in the area of the most intense damage" or "in the area of the severest shaking"- The section discussion landslides first covers many separate landslides, but then seems to describe one massive landslide in particular along the Huitzilapa. Could you rephrase to make the sequence of events clearer?
- Reworded, hopefully it's better. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
there were only two residents survivors
should be "only two residents survived." The second part of the sentence is not needed, seems obvious.
- Done
- The section switches between using US dollars and pesos. Should be consistent throughout the article, preferably in pesos (with modern equivalents given).
- I've adjusted all currencies to eflect the US dollar as of 1922, which is the earliest reliable conversion I could find from the fed reserve. Should the adjusted figures and ref for conversion stay in prose or do I leave it in a footnote? I have it in the prose just for now. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's fine to keep it in the prose. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Noting that some comments in the sections above have not yet been addressed.
Response
[edit]resumed his position
why was he not in office at the time of the quake? Would be good to have some context.refuge
should be "refugee", I thinkrequested for donations
can just be "requested donations"Veracruz, coordinated
should probably be ", also coordinated", unless he was the one coordinating the government relief also.- The sentences about the newspapers' efforts can be moved so they don't split up the sentences about Guizar y Valencia's efforts.
- Any details available on the type of assistance that the USA or Germany provided?
- Pts 2, 3 & 4 done. The current source doesn't elaborate pts 1 and 6. If I can find something about them, I'll add them Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811 I couldn't find anything about Aguilar's temporary departure from the position, so my guess was this is a very minor point. Perhaps ommitting it could be justified? Deschamps also isn't involved in the response. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 18:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Ganesha811 will you continue the review? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, there are a number of points above you haven't yet responded to (including under 'Lead'). Please mark them off as you go or reply with a comment, thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please check again I don't think I missed any as of comment Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811 all your points have been addressed. Please continue. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 20:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I will take another look, thanks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811 all your points have been addressed. Please continue. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 20:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please check again I don't think I missed any as of comment Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, there are a number of points above you haven't yet responded to (including under 'Lead'). Please mark them off as you go or reply with a comment, thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Ganesha811 will you continue the review? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- After another read-through, I'm able to support. Thanks for your changes to the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Further comments
[edit]wooden jacales generally performed well
this detail, while interesting, can probably be removed from the lead and kept only in the body.
2008 hazard zoning...risk is higher
this phrase can also be removed from the lead to keep the focus on the 1920 quake
Mexico is one of the world's...Venta de Bravo faults and Chapala graben
This whole paragraph (with the exception of the first sentence) feels like it could be removed or reworked. Perhaps some of the information can be brought to the start of the section (or Tectonic Setting) to provide broad context, but we don't need too much here.
- Reworded and moved to tectonic setting. I added further details initially concerned the original description was vague.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
The landslide began
this paragraph still reads a little confusingly - are we talking about one landslide? Two (Huitzilapa and Patlanalá)? Many? Please rework a little more to clarify the number of distinct events and make the sequence clearer.
- Reworded. Hopefully it's clear to you there were multiple small landslides along the Huitzilapa and its tributaries that later combined into a single mass that traveled further downstream and swept away these villages.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811 All points have been addressed Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811 follow up, please Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'll take a look tomorrow and see if there's anything else. Your changes look good. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811 follow up, please Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Mikenorton
[edit]- Hi Dora the Axe-plorer, finally got around to this.
- Comments will be on the Lead, Tectonic setting and Earthquake sections, possibly more to follow, I'll see how I go. Mikenorton (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks you for going through the technical details of this article. It's very helpful. All of the points have been addressed. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 04:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Lead
[edit]affected the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt in the states of Puebla and Veracruz
- Maybe say that it "affected parts of the states of Puebla and Veracruz towards the eastern end of the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt", as only a small part of the belt was affected and I don't think that the term is used for a well-defined geographic area.
was assigned in the epicenter
"was recorded at the epicenter", would be better.
mainshock originated within the Earth's crust
- the key here is that the data recorded showed that it must be in the continental crust of the overlying North American plate, rather than the oceanic crust of the subducting Cocos plate, so we need to say that.
Tectonic setting
[edit]- Benz et al. (2011) talks about three large plates, meaning the Pacific, Cocos and North American plates. The Rivera plate is not mentioned in the text and only appears in one of the maps as a microplate, so another source is probably needed.
- Two of the three plates listed, the Rivera and Cocos plates do not converge with each other, this needs rewording.
The Mexican landmass rests atop the westward-moving North American plate
- as we're calling it a "landmass", this would be better as "The Mexican landmass forms part of the westward-moving North American Plate". Another point is that we need to be a bit more specific about which landmass we're talking about - the Baja California peninsula lies on the Pacific plate - mainland Mexico is a term sometimes used for this.
- Some of the volcanic products in the TMVB reflect partial melting of the upper part of the subducting slab, but that is probably a detail too far for this article.
It aligns obliquely along the trench where the Cocos and Rivera plates subduct at a different angle
- This is unclear. "It aligns obliquely to the trend of the trench" is better I think. The change in subduction angle does not match the boundary between the Rivera and Cocos plates. That boundary runs SW-NE through the El Gordo Graben and the Colima Graben into the proposed slab-tear. Suarez et al. (2019) (the cited source) says that the "location of the TMVB is due to the geometry of the Cocos plate". This is the progressive change in dip towards the southeast along the slab, from constant dip in the northwest to flat-slab (plus very steep dip further away from the trench) to the southeast> I'll see if I can find a form of words to clarify this. Perhaps something like "The change in geometry of the Cocos plate from constant moderate dip in the northwest to flat-slab (plus very steep dip further away from the trench) to the southeast produces contours on the top of the slab at 100 km and deeper that trend roughly west-east, matching the trend of the TMVB."
The slab is subhorizontal between Guerrero and Oaxaca, causing 250 km of flat slab subduction
- "causing" is definitely the wrong word, perhaps "demonstrating" would be better. As to the distance, I checked back with the Pardo & Suarez (1995) source. Although they use 250 km in the abstract, in the main body of the paper they say "In Central Mexico, the geometry of the downgoing slab becomes almost subhorizontal between 110 km to 270 km from the trench", so that's actually 160 km extent, which matches nicely with the diagram that I recently added. I suggest that we base our text on Pardo & Suarez's formulation.
As a result, the volcanic arc is further than typical
- this seems a bit clipped, suggest "As a result, the volcanic arc is located further fromthanthe trench than is typical".
Some of these faults are visible for more than 50 km
- to clarify suggest "Some of the scarps formed by these faults are mapped for up to 50 km", which also matches with the Viveros et al. (2017) source that is cited - adding "along their length" might help to make it clear that we're talking about horizontal extent.
Earthquake characteristics
[edit]suggesting that the preceding mainshock was a shallow focal event
- as in the lead section, should make it clear that this means in the North American plate crust
- Hi Mikenorton, 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) 13:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Dudley
[edit]- "The volcanic belt undergoes crustal extension which causes normal faults to form in response to the tectonic deformation." This is very obscure. "volcanic belt" should be linked and "crustal extension" and "tectonic deformation" are not explained in the articles they link to. I gather that it was a vertical slip outside a plate boundary, but I do not understand beyond that what you are saying. The lead should be easily understandable to non-expert readers.
- Reworded and linked to rift which is a more specific example. Let me know if there still needs improvement.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- "These faults can produce earthquakes and pose a threat to highly populated towns due to their close proximity." What does this mean? You appear to be saying that the earthquakes are usually close to highly populated towns, which does not make sense. Maybe when they are in close proximity?
- Yes, close proximity. Reworded.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- "The Bishop Rafael Guízar y Valencia". Why "The bishop"? I would delete "The".
- "Mexico lies at the convergence of three tectonic plates." The articles on the plates appear to say that the convergence is off the Mexican coast.
- Amended to off the coastDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- "The changing geometry of the Cocos plate from constant moderate dip in the northwest to flat-slab in the southeast." This is ungrammtical.
- "100 km (62 mi)" This conversion is false precision.
- Added "about 100 km" unless you meant using Template:Cvt is FP which you will have to explain why.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I mean that an approximate figure like 100 km should be rounded to 60 miles. 62 is false precision. See Template:Convert#Default rounding. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wouldn't the same principle apply to measurements across the whole article then? Why is 62 mi singled out. I think adding "about" before these approx figures (and the mi conversion) would suffice. Though I would agree to apply sigfig=1 across all km measurements (and the article will still have to indicate they're approx.). Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- That would be fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wouldn't the same principle apply to measurements across the whole article then? Why is 62 mi singled out. I think adding "about" before these approx figures (and the mi conversion) would suffice. Though I would agree to apply sigfig=1 across all km measurements (and the article will still have to indicate they're approx.). Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I mean that an approximate figure like 100 km should be rounded to 60 miles. 62 is false precision. See Template:Convert#Default rounding. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Added "about 100 km" unless you meant using Template:Cvt is FP which you will have to explain why.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Crustal deformation in the TMVB is characterized by extension." No change needed, but does this mean that the earthquake occurred in an area where the earth is being pulled apart, unlike the compression caused by the Pacific plates subducting under America?
- "The assessment was based on seismic records since 1912, excluding earthquakes dating back to 1568." "excluding"? This is an odd qualification. A search in the source for "1568" gave no hits.
- Reworded with additional clarification on the earthquake records. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- "suggesting the mainshock likely have identical characteristics". Ungrammatical. "had"?
- In contrast, intraslab earthquakes would be located further due to their deeper source." Further to what?
- Last para of 'Earthquake characteristics' section. I find this confusing, although this may be due to my ignorance of the geography. You say that the last major TMVB earthquake was the 1920 one, and then mention deadly ones in 1959 and 1967. Below you say that the deadliest in Mexican history was in Mexico City in 1985, and several sources say the city is in the TMVB.
- I should clarify I meant the source meant most recent M6+ earthquake was in 1920. The 1967 and 1959 events are unrelated to the belt. I don't see how the statement regarding 1985 ranking 1st and 1920 ranking 2nd in death toll contradicts anything said above, especially when figures are given.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think I understand your comment now. "1985 Mexico City earthquake" is a descriptive title; the epicenter was 300 mi away in the Pacific. I'll rectify that. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 18:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- In the same para I would move the sentence about the Pacific coast to the end of the para, as it appears to be a separate point which interrupts the flow.
- "However, contemporary studies reported larger figures without discussing the discrepancy." "contemporary" is the wrong word. It implies contemporary with the 1922 report, whereas you cite much later studies.
- "The Francisco Verdad, a National Mexican Rite fraternal organization, requested donations from its members through the local newspaper, El Dictamen." This is not significant and I would delete. Similar organizations would contribute in any disaster. Most of the contributions in this and the following paragraph are too small to be worth mentioning.
- Fair enoughDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- The last two sentences of the article are not relevant to the paragraph and might be moved to the first para of the section. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Looks fine apart from listing relief contributions which are too small to be worth mentioning, and this is a minor point. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose from Graham Beards
[edit]I am not convinced the prose is FA level. I found the article a slog to read; a jumble of facts rather than a continuous narrative. Here are some specific examples:
- "There are normal faults in the volcanic belt that form because the underlying crust undergoes extension. Located near the center of maximum seismic intensity, it may represent the causative fault." This is from the Lead and I thought what volcanic belt?
- Para 1 in the lede: "A moment magnitude 6.3–6.4 earthquake affected parts of Puebla and Veracruz towards the eastern end of the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt ..." Unless you are referring to something else I didn't catch.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Both are linked. How does this comply with WP:OVERLINK? Graham Beards (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- They link to different articles though TMVB is a specific example. I'll unlink the latter. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is more overlinking: Metamorphosis, Teocelo, Cosautlan, Ayahualuco and Oaxaca. (Please forgive any spelling mistakes). Graham Beards (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- PS. And they should be linked on their first occurrence in the article. Graham Beards (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Right. Done with that. And it doesn't apply to the lede–body duplicate wikilinks I assume? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- PS. And they should be linked on their first occurrence in the article. Graham Beards (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is more overlinking: Metamorphosis, Teocelo, Cosautlan, Ayahualuco and Oaxaca. (Please forgive any spelling mistakes). Graham Beards (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- They link to different articles though TMVB is a specific example. I'll unlink the latter. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Both are linked. How does this comply with WP:OVERLINK? Graham Beards (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Para 1 in the lede: "A moment magnitude 6.3–6.4 earthquake affected parts of Puebla and Veracruz towards the eastern end of the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt ..." Unless you are referring to something else I didn't catch.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
-Graham Beards (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- "However, a brief account in 1546 may be an earlier example." Brief account of what?
- Clarified Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Seismicity in the TMVB is infrequent, with the most recent major earthquakes being the 1912 Acambay (Mw 6.9) and 1920 Xalapa events." This is an ugly fused participle. How about "...and the most recent major earthquakes were"?
- "Mountains in the area exhibited landslide scars which transported loose earth, vegetation and bedrock." This needs an article "The mountains..."
- "Similarly, wooden jacales performed well in Chilchotla" Performed? Perhaps "held up" or "resisted"?
- Buildings are not meant to collapse onto the people living inside so performed, they did. Though I will agree with "resisted".Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- That was rather patronising. Graham Beards (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Explaining my word choices? "Performed" is a term commonly used in the engineering (I'm not an engineer but I've read papers) glossary which I also used. Your wording is more reader-friendly so thank you. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, telling me that buildings are not meant to collapse onto the people living inside. As if I didn't know. Graham Beards (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Explaining my word choices? "Performed" is a term commonly used in the engineering (I'm not an engineer but I've read papers) glossary which I also used. Your wording is more reader-friendly so thank you. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- That was rather patronising. Graham Beards (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Buildings are not meant to collapse onto the people living inside so performed, they did. Though I will agree with "resisted".Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- "The hospital was so severely cracked that it was at risk of collapse, but was running at full capacity treating patients." What else do hospitals do apart from treat patients?
- The fact that it was at risk of collapse but running at full cap describes the gravity and urgency in the aftermath. A rational human being would never think to step foot in a building that could seriously injure them if it collapsed. I think this statement should remain. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- You have missed the point entirely. Why add "treating patients"? Graham Beards (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Removed that bit Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- You have missed the point entirely. Why add "treating patients"? Graham Beards (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- The fact that it was at risk of collapse but running at full cap describes the gravity and urgency in the aftermath. A rational human being would never think to step foot in a building that could seriously injure them if it collapsed. I think this statement should remain. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- "At a performance theater" What other sorts of theaters are there in this context?
- The performing arts kind as opposed to a movie theater Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- What difference does it make? It's this kind of trivia that spoils the prose. Why not just say "theater"? Graham Beards (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- You're right about that. Article suffers from my obsession with unvaluable detail Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- What difference does it make? It's this kind of trivia that spoils the prose. Why not just say "theater"? Graham Beards (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- The performing arts kind as opposed to a movie theater Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- "In Teocelo, Guízar officiated a sermon and distributed" So what, he's a priest.
- I noticed this article contains a number of non-notable additions which I've agreed to remove. This being one of them in an effort to trim the prose. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- "He also preached in other affected areas until 1921." So what?
- Addressed in above comment Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Several Mexico City newspapers also wrote that Veracruz was destroyed, which its city officials refuted" Newspapers don't write, journalists do.
- The two FAC reviewers before you took their time scrutinizing the article and typed out all their thoughts and confusion in a constructive manner. It's very helpful from my end observing and learning the process when I'm a first time nominator. They took of their time to reveal as many problems to me before closing with a decision, which I appreciate far more. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are unfamiliar with the FAC process. First, this is not peer review, articles are expected to be FA quality, or close to it, before nominating. And second, I haven't closed the discussion: far from it. I am sorry you do not find my comments constructive. They were meant to be so. I suggest you take a look at other nominations to see how things are done at FAC. A bit of advice, it is best to work with reviewers rather that taking umbrage. Graham Beards (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Great, I look forward to your further comments. I will reply to every comment you make above then. TY Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note that Graham was giving examples ("Here are some specific examples:") not providing an exhaustive list. Graham, and the coordinators, will require reassurance that similar issues do not remain elsewhere, see eg WP:FIXLOOP. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Graham Beards, do you have further comments? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are still numerous problems. I suggest withdrawing the nomination and seeking an independent copyedit. Graham Beards (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Graham Beards, do you have further comments? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note that Graham was giving examples ("Here are some specific examples:") not providing an exhaustive list. Graham, and the coordinators, will require reassurance that similar issues do not remain elsewhere, see eg WP:FIXLOOP. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Great, I look forward to your further comments. I will reply to every comment you make above then. TY Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are unfamiliar with the FAC process. First, this is not peer review, articles are expected to be FA quality, or close to it, before nominating. And second, I haven't closed the discussion: far from it. I am sorry you do not find my comments constructive. They were meant to be so. I suggest you take a look at other nominations to see how things are done at FAC. A bit of advice, it is best to work with reviewers rather that taking umbrage. Graham Beards (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie
[edit]I saw that there was an outstanding oppose for this FAC and decided to take a look at one section at random. I picked "Damage and casualties"; here are some comments.
- I can see why Graham felt the text was not a smooth read. Sections like this, which tend to accumulate facts from multiple sources, can be hard to write because a lot of the information is hard to paraphrase, so it can feel like a data dump. For example: At least 419 deaths were from a landslide triggered by the earthquake. Many residents died in Patlanalá (239), Barranca Grande (101), Cosautlán (85), Quimixtlán (80) and Teocelo (35). In Xalapa, the death toll was between 3 and 50. At least 167 were injured, including 85 in Teocelo; 60 in Cosautlán; and 10 in Quimixtlán and Xalapa, respectively.
- The repetition of "At least" is ugly; the sense of being fed data is going to be strong no matter how you write a paragraph like this, so try to avoid anything that feels like repetition.
- The range of "3 to 50" is so wide as to be surprising, but there's no comment associated with it. I can't read Spanish, but from the source I can read I would guess you have two sources that give the two numbers. I don't think it's a good idea to quote that as "3 to 50"; it would be more natural to tell the reader exactly what the sources say -- something like "Contemporary newspaper accounts reported fifty dead at Xalapa, but a modern assessment only counts three fatalities" (I made that up, based on a guess at what the modern source says, but you get the idea).
- The long list of deaths and locations is tedious to read, as is the list of municipalities with damage. Could a table be made of this, so that the prose could be written without having to include these lists?
- A table could work, but there is no casualty breakdown for the upper-end figures. They all come from the SSM, which is also the lowest of the range.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- The section starts with "The earthquake killed between 648 and 4,000 people": as above the range is so broad that it's surprising, and we should draw the reader's attention to it immediately, instead of waiting another sentence or two. Perhaps "Sources differ on the number of deaths caused by the earthquake: contemporary reports estimated that there were between 2,000 and 4,000 dead, but ...". Again this would also help flow.
- The comment about heavy buildings that were not seismic resistant makes me wonder whether building with seismic resistance in mind was ever done at the time these buildings were constructed. If we can source it it would be nice to add that as context: something like "None of the buildings had been built with seismic resistance in mind, and many heavy masonry buildings experienced serious damage." And let's avoid the repetition of "heavy".
- Right, and heavy has two meanings there.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- A couple of prose infelicities:
- "a mass that cascaded through multiple villages for 20 km (12 mi) and leaving": discrepancy in tense between "cascaded" and "leaving"
- "In the worst affected area, landslides occurred from Chilchotla to Acantiopa": this is a bit vague -- was the area from Chilchotla to Acantiopa the worst-affected area? Or was it just an area within the worst-affected area, which is what the current syntax implies?
- "The mountains in the area exhibited landslide scars that dislocated earth, vegetation and bedrock." The scars didn't dislocate anything -- the landslides did the dislocating.
- "The city's hospital was so severely cracked": the hospital as a whole can't be said to have cracked -- its walls and foundations presumably cracked.
- "Some commercial offices and churches sustained cracks while collapsed homes claimed lives": I think this is just about Orizaba, but it's a generic statement that was probably true everywhere. I think this list of facts in this last paragraph would be better presented as some introductory summary comments -- whatever you can source that is generally true, such as this sort of generic statement -- followed by individual examples from the various towns.
- This is hard to avoid, but there is repetition in the section from the different reasons for introducing the comments. For example, you have the comment about heavy masonry buildings that were not seismic resistant in the first paragraph; in the fourth paragraph you have "Many stone buildings were heavily damaged". The first one is there because of the seismic resistance comment; the second is there to contrast with the lesser effect on the wooden jacales in Saltillo Lafragua. Anything you can do to assemble this narrative to avoid repetition like this would be helpful.
If I read the rest of the article and found similar issues I would expect to oppose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems clear that this is not moving towards a consensus to promote, so I will be archiving it. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 23 December 2024 [11].
- Nominator(s): Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Chocolate today is a mix of cocoa powder, cocoa butter, milk solids and vanilla, lecithin and PGPR, perhaps some cheap fats depending on where you live. A few thousand years ago it was quite a bit different. This article has come about with the generous reviewing time of It is a wonderful world and Tim riley at GA and PR respectively, I hope it's an enjoyable read. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Passing comments only, but:
- FNs 80 and 88 throw up error messages for me
- "Today" as a section title fails MOS:RECENT
- SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Support from Tim riley
[edit]I peer reviewed the article and raised a few points, all of which were dealt with satisfactorily. On rereading for FAC I have found nothing more to quibble about and am happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me to meet all the criteria: well written, full without being overfull, evidently neutral and balanced, well and widely sourced and nicely illustrated. I enjoyed reviewing it, and I look forward to seeing it on our front page. Tim riley talk 14:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
It is a wonderful world
[edit]As mentioned, I passed it to GA. I am not familiar enough with the FA criteria to give a general support or oppose, but I will carry out the spot check:
Spot check
|
---|
During this check I fixed some errors, and added some information to some of the references:
this script is very good for identifying these fixes. It is a wonderful world (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC) Reference numbers refer to this version. [1]: no problems [4a, b]: no problems [5]: no problems [41]: no problems [58]: no problems [122]: no problems [125]: no problems [126a, b]: no problems [133]: no problems [137]: no problems [149]: no problems [150]: no problems [161]: no problems Short note on comprehensiveness: I see this source isn't referenced, have you sifted through it? It is a wonderful world (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC) |
I found no issues during the spot check, and very few in my recent more extensive spot check at GA. It is a wonderful world (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Support from NØ
[edit]Putting down a placeholder. I enjoyed reading White chocolate, so why not? :) My own FAC could use more reviews in case you are interested.--NØ 22:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- "It is unclear when what can strictly be considered chocolate was first drunk" - I found it a bit difficult to understand what is being said here upon first reading it. Is there a way to simplify?
- I reworded the full sentence sentence: "Multiple cacao beverages were consumed, including an alcoholic beverage made by fermenting the pulp around cacao seeds, and it is unclear when a drink that can be strictly understood as chocolate originated."
- Yep, that more than takes care of my concern. Thank you.
- I reworded the full sentence sentence: "Multiple cacao beverages were consumed, including an alcoholic beverage made by fermenting the pulp around cacao seeds, and it is unclear when a drink that can be strictly understood as chocolate originated."
- Psychedelic drug might be worth linking to
- "Since World War I, chocolate has developed further, creating couverture and white chocolate" - Maybe add "been" between "has" and "developed". It reads a bit like the chocolate developed itself currently. It is also not clear who did the "creating" in the second part of this sentence, and it reads like the chocolate did it.
- "This is considered unlikely as there is no clear reason why the 'sh' sound represented by 'x' would change to 'ch', or why an 'l' would be added." - Unlikely according to whom? Since there is just one source cited, it might be worth attributing if there is no larger consensus.
- I'll walk you through my thinking briefly. The Coes gave opinions on several etymologies, initially in 1996. One of these was pretty influential (on cacao). Kaufman and Justeson wrote a paper, which is a crazy read because at times it goes into polemic. In it, they criticize a few of the Coes etymologies, but not this one, implicitly endorsing it. Further to this, the xocatl is dropped from the literature, and a different etymology has some consensus. I've attributed for now.
- I will trust your expertise on this. The topic is way out of my domain so feel free to consider my suggestion optional.
- I'll walk you through my thinking briefly. The Coes gave opinions on several etymologies, initially in 1996. One of these was pretty influential (on cacao). Kaufman and Justeson wrote a paper, which is a crazy read because at times it goes into polemic. In it, they criticize a few of the Coes etymologies, but not this one, implicitly endorsing it. Further to this, the xocatl is dropped from the literature, and a different etymology has some consensus. I've attributed for now.
- "The decorations on these high-quality ceramics suggest that cocoa was a centerpiece to social gatherings among people of high social status." - "high-quality" seems to be in wikivoice currently
- "Both cocoa beans and the vessels and instruments used for preparing and serving chocolate were given as important gifts and tributes" - "important gifts" sounds a little bit redundant, since I am not sure what would qualify as an unimportant gift. Do you mean to say it was given as a gift to important people?
- "The Maya then removed the husks and pounded the nibs" - Is the plural "Mayans" or "the Maya"? There seem to be usages of both whereas it is probably best to be consistent. I am also seeing "The Maya peoples" used a few paragraphs below.
- "The bean was used as a symbol for the human heart removed in human sacrifice, possibly as they were both thought to be repositories of precious liquids—blood and chocolate." - Avoid repeating "human" in close proximity if possible.
- "It was served to human sacrifice victims before their execution." - Might be good to mention who was serving it
- The source's source says "On the festival eve, cacao beverages were served to the individuals slated to be killed as sacrifices to the god to “comfort them”"
- "Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés may have been the first European to encounter chocolate when he observed it in the court of Moctezuma II in 1520." - You later go on to say there is no evidence he was responsible for its introduction in Spain, so should this be attributed or has this fact been proven beyond doubt?
- This is not contested. If you can find the energy to get access to it through the Wikipedia Library, there is a very romantic poem about chocolate by William Baer I love on JSTOR [12] which features this fact prominently, even if it gets (basically) all the history wrong.
- "Chocolate was an acquired taste for the Spanish living in the Americas" - "people" would make sense after "Spanish" in this case to avoid confusion with the language, although this suggestion is in nitpicky territory. There is also "Spaniards" a few sentences later so you may change it to be consistent.
- "Its earliest documented introduction to the Spanish court occurred in 1544 by Qʼeqchiʼ Mayan nobles brought to Spain by Dominican friars" - Did the Mayan nobles do the documentation or the introduction?
- "Coenraad Johannes van Houten received a patent for the manufacturing process for making Dutch cocoa." - Repetition of "for" seems avoidable as "of" works instead of the second one.
- "At the time however, there was no market for cocoa butter, and it took until the 1860s to be widely used." - Add a comma before however
- "Quakers were active in chocolate entrepreneurship in the Industrial Revolution, setting up J. S. Fry & Sons, Cadbury, and Rowntree's." - The names at the end could be introduced as "companies" or "firms", whichever is appropriate, just to avoid any confusion.
- "In the 2000s, consumption grew in Africa; in Nigeria for example" - Add a comma before "for example"
- "In 2013 there were at least 37 bean-to-bar producers in the United States, increasing from one in 1997." - Add a comma after "In 2013"
- "In 2005, a non-binding, voluntary industry agreement called the Harkin–Engel Protocol was created to address child and forced labor." - created by whom?
- The absence of a close-up picture of an actual chocolate bar in the article seems worth bringing up. Surely one is available?
- Uploaded one, just the one from the dark chocolate article.
- Nice and well-researched article. Who doesn't like chocolate? Could not be me...--NØ 11:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- MaranoFan, I believe everything has been addressed, hopefully to your satisfaction. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. Happy to support for promotion.--NØ 17:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- MaranoFan, I believe everything has been addressed, hopefully to your satisfaction. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Jens
[edit]- Just a drive-by comment: The history of chocolate dates back over 5,000 years – Is that really the case? This seems to equate chocolate with cacao, but, according to the article, the only evidence of actual chocolate is only in 600 BC? I was also wondering if the article title should be "history of cacao" instead, though I do like the current title. What is your stance here? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reliable sources describing a history of chocolate treat domestication as the first step in the history. This is because we can't know when "chocolate" consumption began, as researchers will distinguish chocolate from alcoholic cacao drinks, and when we scrape out pottery we are getting evidence such as theobromine, which looks the same whether consumption was alcoholic or not. So we just generally characterize the history as going back 5000 years, even if we acknowledge we may be referring to pre-cursors.
- My personal view on this reflects Sampeck's; that it's more accurate to refer to "chocolate" as one "cacao drink" recipe among many, which would resolve this tension quite well, if only acknowledging chocolate as originating around the mid second millennium. She is prominent in the literature, but her critique doesn't seem to have been taken up too much. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm. May I suggest to make it clear at the beginning of the lead when the oldest known consumption of actual chocolate was? Otherwise I fear it is just misleading, and readers think that chocolate was invented 5,000 years ago, which is what the lead literally says, but which is not necessarily true. Furthermore, the lead goes like this: The history of chocolate dates back over 5,000 years, when the cacao tree was first domesticated in present-day southeast Ecuador. Soon introduced to Mesoamerica, chocolate gained cultural significance as an elite drink among different cultures, including the Mayans and Aztecs. – So this says that "chocolate" was around "soon" after 3,000 years BC, which contradicts the article body saying that the evidence only supports 600 BC (which is very far from "soon"). Then, you have "Origin in South America", implying that chocolate was invented there, which is not necessarily the case. I think you should make this clearer so that it is not miss-interpreted. Maybe the section "Early pre-Columbian" could be renamed in "Early pre-Columbian cultivation of cacao", to make clear that this is not yet about chocolate sensu stricto. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- I believe I've made these changes. I didn't rename the section "early pre-Columbian cultivation of cacao, as it isn't that it's not about chocolate in the strictest sense, but that it may not be. I did rename "Origin in South America" → "Cacao domestication in South America" as that's a better summary of Lanaud et al (2024). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- That works well, thanks! Will try to do a prose review soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- I believe I've made these changes. I didn't rename the section "early pre-Columbian cultivation of cacao, as it isn't that it's not about chocolate in the strictest sense, but that it may not be. I did rename "Origin in South America" → "Cacao domestication in South America" as that's a better summary of Lanaud et al (2024). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm. May I suggest to make it clear at the beginning of the lead when the oldest known consumption of actual chocolate was? Otherwise I fear it is just misleading, and readers think that chocolate was invented 5,000 years ago, which is what the lead literally says, but which is not necessarily true. Furthermore, the lead goes like this: The history of chocolate dates back over 5,000 years, when the cacao tree was first domesticated in present-day southeast Ecuador. Soon introduced to Mesoamerica, chocolate gained cultural significance as an elite drink among different cultures, including the Mayans and Aztecs. – So this says that "chocolate" was around "soon" after 3,000 years BC, which contradicts the article body saying that the evidence only supports 600 BC (which is very far from "soon"). Then, you have "Origin in South America", implying that chocolate was invented there, which is not necessarily the case. I think you should make this clearer so that it is not miss-interpreted. Maybe the section "Early pre-Columbian" could be renamed in "Early pre-Columbian cultivation of cacao", to make clear that this is not yet about chocolate sensu stricto. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest scaling up the diagram
- Done by 35%
- File:Mujer_vertiendo_chocolate_-_Codex_Tudela.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Spanish-Unknown-A-Man-Scraping-Chocolate-69_20_1-739x1024.jpg, File:Cover_of_Philippe_Sylvestre_Dufour_book,_17th_century.png
- Done
- File:Pre-1928_advertisement_for_Cadbury's_Dairy_Milk_Chocolate.png: why is this believed to be pre-1928? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Rereading the source, I can clarify it further to between 1905-1906. Dairy Milk Chocolate was released in 1905. On page 37 of the source (Cadbury's Purple Reign: The Story Behind Chocolate's Best-Loved Brand) is the relevant quote: "The box labels for Dairy Milk featured rosy-cheeked dairymaids ferrying gallons of creamy milk into the kitchen, but with the punch-line, 'Rich Nutty Flavour.' However, this was a temporary lapse from the key insight that it was all about the milk, so advertising for Cadbury's Dairy Milk from that point on was solely focused on reinforcing the brand's grip on milk credentials. A year after launch, the label and advertisements were featuring a pixie skimming the cream off containers of milk in a dairy with the punch-line amended to say, 'Rich in Cream.'" I can clarify why I initially wrote pre-1928 if you think it's a relevant consideration. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Llewee
[edit]Interesting article. This set of comments covers the early sections of the article (excluding the lead) up to the end of "spread".--Llewee (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- "Consumption was restricted to adult men, as the stimulating effects were considered unsuitable for women and children." - If this is based on the accounts and images that exist from the time, could that clarified? Giving that its unknown whether commoners were consuming chocolate it seems unlikely that we know for certain that no women and children were.
- I've attributed, the source says "Furthermore, until the mid-16th century, chocolate was only consumed as a beverage by adult males, since Mayan and Mexica/Aztec traditions held that chocolate was too “ stimulating ” for adult females and children."
- "Chocolate was one of the two most important drinks to the Aztecs." - Could this be clarified? (e.g most valuable, most prestigious, healthiest)
- I've added "It was a luxury," I'm not sure I can go much further from the sourcing.
- "Although chocolate was not consumed in the same way as the elite among commoners, it was widely available across Mesoamerica at the time of the conquest" - Could more detail be added about how commoners consumed it? My impression from the early part of the paragraph was that it was exclusive to the social elite with a few exceptions?
- Yeah. This is a really good question. Given the tension is reflecting some disagreement in the literature, I've attributed each opinion.
- "An inferior gruel" - inferior to pure chocolate or inferior to other types of gruel?
- To pure chocolate, clarified.
- "despite the spice only being introduced to Mesoamerica by the Spanish conquest" - the conquest is linked for the first time here though it and "Spanish invasion" have been mentioned previously
- "The primarily male Spanish population was systematically exposed to chocolate through the Aztec women they married or took as concubines" - The use of the word "systemically" creates the impression it was some kind of deliberate decision.--Llewee (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Removed.
- "Spaniards, casta and Afro-Guatemalan women who couldn't afford domestic servants likely learned to make chocolate from their neighbors" - This is partly a reiteration of an earlier point but we seem to have moved from chocolate being an elite food in south america to being a food of the masses without much explanation.
- Tell me if above changes are adequate for this text.
- It is clearer. It would be good to know why the shift happened but I assume that isn't specified in the sources.--Llewee (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- "and only in extreme cases did a man prepare it" - I think "unusual" or "rare" would be a better word than "extreme" here.
- "there was controversy whether chocolate was both a food and a drink or just a drink" - The word "about" should appear between "controversy" and "whether".
- "When chocolate was introduced to France is therefore difficult to pinpoint," - it is unclear what reason "therefore" is referring to.
- "it would only be settled as beneficial by 1684" - who decided it was beneficial?
- "taken from the Spaniards in 1655" - I assume conquered?
- "in England chocolate was a commercial product" - was this different from elsewhere?
- Yes, quite. Do I need to make this clearer, or were you just checking if I was implying something I didn't mean to?
- What does this mean in practice? I assume chocolate was also being bought and sold in other countries?--Llewee (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- The source: "England was a land of shopkeepers and enterprising private businessmen, while France was a highly centralized, authoritarian kingdom with vast, tightly regulated state monopolies. In France, chocolate was strictly for the aristocracy, while in England it was available to all those who had the money to pay for it, and it was on offer to all who patronized coffee-shops. Chocolate was becoming democratized." Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- "by the end of the 17th century it was compulsory to include it in British Navy rations" - While this was before the England and Scotland political union, it appears that the kingdoms' navies were integrated together in the 17th century so "British" is likely accurate. Perhaps link History of the Royal Navy (before 1707).
- Oh, very good to know.
- "spread to the North American colonies by the late-17th century" - I'd suggest linking "North American colonies".
- What is a good link here? This includes Canada.
- I think British America seems suitable.--Llewee (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Done, thankyou. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- "was well established among the elite of late-17th-century Philippines" - I might be mistaken but I think there should be a "the" between "of" and "late".
Thankyou Llewee for these comments. I've actioned them unless noted above. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, I'm going to be away from Wikipedia for a couple of days, I will answer these comments as soon as possible.--Llewee (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie
[edit]- Three "however"s in the etymology section. Often it can be cut without any change in meaning; I'd suggest eliminating or rephrasing to leave no more than one in the section. You might have a look at the other instances later in the article to see if any of them can be cut too.
- Evidence of cacao domestication exists as early as circa 3300 BC in the Amazon in southeast Ecuador by the Mayo-Chinchipe culture, before it was introduced to Mesoamerica. This emerged from research into residue in ceramics, which revealed starch grains specific to the cacao tree, residue of theobromine (a compound found in high levels in cacao), and fragments of ancient DNA with sequences unique to the cacao tree." Suggest "Cacao was domesticated as early as circa 3300 BC in the Amazon in southeast Ecuador by the Mayo-Chinchipe culture, before it was introduced to Mesoamerica. Archaeological evidence from residues on ceramics includes the discovery of starch grains specific to the cacao tree, theobromine (a compound found in high levels in cacao), and fragments of ancient DNA with sequences unique to the cacao tree." I'd like to avoid the current repetition of "residue", and bring the word "evidence" closer to what it's referring to.
- A general question, which may not have any relevance to this particular article: how does this article fit into the subject of cacao beverages? It's apparent there are other such drinks, and from the title of this article I assume they're not covered here. Are they covered anywhere? Or are they such a minor topic that the coverage should be just a paragraph in this article? Or in chocolate or cacao tree?
- "Inhabitants of ancient Mesoamerica created varietals of cacao": I think you want "varieties" here -- as a noun, "varietal" is used exclusively of wine, as far as I know.
- The word "cocoa" is introduced without definition. I think it should be defined, and it's also not clear to me whether you're using it in multiple senses -- sometimes it seems to refer to ground cacao beans, and sometimes as a synonym for cacao, meaning the plant generally.
- "was a centerpiece to social gatherings": suggest "was a central element [or important element] in social gatherings"; "centerpiece" has specific meanings which we don't want the connotations of here. I see "centerpiece" does have the meaning you give it here, though, so this might just be a BrEng perspective -- feel free to ignore this one.
- In the "Mayan" section we've switched to "chocolate" from "cacao" without explanation. The lead talks about "a drink strictly understood as chocolate", but we haven't yet told the reader what this strict definition consists of, so it's not clear why the change of terminology in this section.
- "There is uncertainty about how fresh cacao and its pulp were used in drinks": Does this refer specifically to tzune and saca? If so I think we should say so. If not I'm not sure what point is being made -- we apparently do have quite a bit of information about how cacao was used. Does this just mean there may have been other drinks about which less is known?
- "There is controversy among historians": is it actually controversy, rather than just disagreement? I think the weaker word would be better unless there's significant debate about it.
- "Through various eras": a bit vague -- can we make this more specific?
- "A gruel made by adding maize was held to be lower-quality than drinks without": earlier we refer to saca, which sounds similar to this, as not being chocolate, so now I wonder again about what the scope of this article is -- perhaps it should be "History of chocolate and cacao drinks"?
- "While the highest-quality chocolate was pure, additions were often made, requiring the removal and then replacement of the foam." I don't understand this. The method of making chocolate giving earlier is in the section about the Mayans, but assuming the Aztecs' method was similar, the additions happen long before the foam is created. And I can't visualize what is meant by "removal and replacement" -- perhaps they scooped the foam off the liquid, adding the dried chili, then poured the foam back on top?
- "Today, Aztec chocolate drinks are commonly understood to contain cinnamon": I don't know what "commonly understood" means -- is this a popular misconception? A scholarly error?
- "This cacao was argued to be inferior as it was not the same variety as the Criollo type grown in Mesoamerica: this was the Forastero, which was native to South America and although it yielded more fruit and was more disease resistant, it tasted dry and bitter." Suggest " ... which was native to South America and tasted dry and bitter, although it yielded more fruit and was more disease resistant."
- "Despite bans on importing this cacao around 1630, Guayaquil cacao continued to be exported by smugglers": this refers to imports but then to exports. I think I know the intended meaning, but could it be rephrased to be clearer?
- "the last change an application of the principles of humorism": in what way was this an application of these principles? What was thought to be achieved by warming it?
- "This habit of serving chocolate spiced to mimic the Mesoamerican flavorings had declined by the 18th century": but the mention of spicing it earlier in this paragraph refers to spicing it to suit Spanish, not Mesoamerican, tastes.
- "A fantastic 17th-century depiction ...": suggest "A 17th-century imagined scene of ..."
- "Tracing the spread of chocolate in Europe is complicated by the religious wars and shifting allegiances of the time, but it is understood that it was driven by cosmopolitanism and missionaries". Why would shifting allegiances making tracing the history harder? Presumably the wars are mentioned because they disrupted record-keeping or destroyed records, but more clarity would be good. The second half seems odd too -- cosmopolitanism refers to the vogue for chocolate drinking that appeared in the 17th century, at least in England? I think this could be said more directly if so. And the mention of missionaries is odd if we're talking about Europe.
- This last made me take a look at Reay Tannahill's Food in History, which I have a copy of. A couple of items from it might be worth mentioning (the book is online here), though how relevant some of these are depends on the question above about whether this article is strictly about chocolate or about cacao production and use. From pp. 241-242: There was a Spanish/Portuguese monopoly on cacao production for over a hundred years; Tannahill also says that consumption was "a jealously guarded monopoly", implying there was no desire to export it to elsewhere in Europe. The footnote about prostitutes being paid in cacao beans isn't directly relevant but supports the use of the beans as a substitute for money, which is interesting. The sequence of spread across Europe might be worth giving (though you do already have some of this sequence): Flanders and Italy, then Oxford and England, then France.
- "With the difficulty in tracing the spread of chocolate across Europe, it is difficult to pinpoint when chocolate was introduced to France. However, evidence suggests it was first introduced as medicine.": can we avoid having "difficulty" and "difficult" so close together, and the same goes for the two uses of "introduced"?
- I don't think the food safety laws in Britain are a result of chocolate adulteration particularly -- according to Tannahill (p. 294) chocolate was just one of many foods found to be dangerously adulterated, and it was the investigation by The Lancet that caused the new laws.
- "The process removed cocoa butter from chocolate liquor, the result of milling, by enough to create a cake that could be pulverized into a powder." The syntax is convoluted. If I understand the intended meaning, how about "The milling process removed enough cocoa butter from chocolate liquor to create a cake that could be pulverized into a powder"? And I'm not clear from this if it's the cocoa butter that is the cake or the remaining liquor. I would think it's the cocoa butter but the descriptions earlier in the article imply cocoa butter is what is removed in preparing chocolate.
- "This paternalistic concern was shared by other, irreligious chocolate manufacturers": is "irreligious" the right word here? Or were they simply Anglicans who paid less attention to their faith than the Quakers? And was this paternalism specific to chocolate manufacturing? That seems unlikely but if it's true it's so odd I think further comment is needed.
- "Milk had previously been added to chocolate, but it was expensive and difficult to keep fresh": what was expensive and difficult to keep fresh? Milk was presumably not expensive; was the process expensive? And was the result a chocolate bar or another form of the drink?
Leaning oppose. I'm going to stop there for now and wait till these comments are addressed before continuing. There's a lot of good material here, but a couple of paragraphs feel a bit choppy, as if you'd had difficulty figuring out how to integrate the information you'd dug up into a smooth narrative. For example, "In the 1980s, Indonesia increased production": OK, it's in the middle of a paragraph about production but it doesn't seem to be part of a narrative about chocolate production. And the article seems too short -- 1925 to the present-day is one screenful on my computer, but surely there is more that can be said about those hundred years. Have there been no innovations in chocolate manufacturing? More data about the growth in consumption, across various countries? And a third of that last page is the last three paragraphs, about very recent developments. I can see that as you get to the 20th century the boundaries between this article and one on chocolate itself, and perhaps another about chocolate manufacturing methods, become harder to define, but still it seems data-light. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: @FAC coordinators: Thankyou Mike so much for this. I put the article up at FAC for exactly this kind of feedback. I won't have time to action this until the holiday period is over, so I've pinged the FAC coordinators to withdraw. I might ask you for clarification after I work through this. I am more confident on being able to do some of it than others. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 07:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 23 December 2024 [13].
- Nominator(s): Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
This article is about the deadliest train crash in the 40-year history of New York's Metro-North Railroad. Five people on a Harlem Line train were killed during a winter evening rush hour in suburban Westchester County when a driver stopped her SUV on the tracks at a grade crossing near one of the largest cemeteries in the New York area. Almost ten years, an NTSB investigation and a lawsuit later, we still don't know why because she was killed as well. Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment
[edit]Overall in very fine shape, though there are 71 instances of the word 'accident' throughout while there are only a handful of uses of that word in RS. Should be switched to better words throughout (crash, fire, collision, incident, etc). I've been challenged in the aviation space for suggesting the same and have been told that MOS overrules RS, but I think this shouldn't be so contentious for this article Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, we had this discussion last year, and then its sequel. All I can say is that, for the reasons I gave in the first discussion, I feel you, and that should consensus come around on this I would be the first to make that change. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
TAOT
[edit]I will be reviewing this over the coming days. I will start at the lead and go in the order of the article's sections.
Lead and infobox
On the evening of February 3, 2015, a commuter train on Metro-North Railroad's Harlem Line struck a passenger car at a grade crossing on Commerce Street near Valhalla, New York, United States, between the Valhalla and Mount Pleasant stations, killing six people and injuring 15 others, seven very seriously.
This is 307 characters long; I recommend splitting it into two sentences.
- I took the middle part about which two stations the crash was between out (more detail than the lede needs to have) and split the section about the fatalities and injuries into a separate sentence. Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
It is the deadliest crash in Metro-North's history, and at the time the deadliest rail accident in the United States
"Is" and "and at the time" do not go together, because "at the time" refers to a past event but "is" refers to something in the present.
- Done
how the passengers were killed
Suggest "how the train passengers were killed" since a car can also have passengers.
- Done
In 2024, a jury hearing one found the railroad and Brody liable for the accident.
What is the meaning of "one" here? Hearing one what?
- Added the words "of the suits".
- For the infobox, suggest specifying that one train car and the automobile were destroyed, and the other train car damaged. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Changed.
- This is minor, but
the crossing signage
should really be "the crossing signals" since this is a crossing with active warning devices, not just crossbucks.
- Done.
- Suggesting linking NTSB in the infobox photo caption.
- Done.
- I will continue this review soon. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have responded above. I will have limited ability to respond to comments here early this week because I am working at the polls on Tuesday (aaaallll day here in NY) Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Background
Bombardier M7A electric multiple units
is a MOS:SOB.
- Fixed, although it made the sentence a little wordier.
- Suggest linking M7A in the image caption.
- Did that too.
- I'm curious about the use of "boom barrier", as I'm pretty sure the standard terminology in the U.S. is crossing gate. I do see that crossing gate is also linked in the following section, though both links go to the same page.
- I don't remember writing this ... might have been someone else shortly after the article was started. I have changed it to crossing gates since the cited Times article uses that term.
- Probably worth mentioning the M7As are in pairs, as otherwise the mentions of 8 cars and 4 M7As seem contradictory.
- Are all these links and mentions of the counties locations are in really needed? Imho they are excessive and make the sentences too long.
- I trimmed them. Writing both this and December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment drew a lot on my experiences visiting various Metro-North stations with my son when he was younger so he could take pictures and video, and the understanding of Metro-North's operations I gained. So maybe I was still thinking that way at the time, but it's not that time anymore.
- It might be best to reorder the second and third paragraphs, as you switch topics to the train leaving GCT and then go back to the previous topic in the next paragraph.
- Saw your point. Reads better now.
- I really think
making a turn onto Lakeview Avenue from the northbound parkway
is too much detail for this article. What's relevant is that the parkway was closed, I don't think this adds anything to understanding the topic.
- Tightened that a bit.
Lakeview Avenue crossed the two tracks using a grade crossing
should be "crossed the two tracks at a grade crossing". Also, grade crossing can be linked.
- I made it "crossed the tracks at grade" and linked the whole phrase.
After a crash at the Commerce Street crossing in 1984 that had killed the driver of the van involved
remove "had".
- Done.
- The sentences discussing Commerce Street should be consistent in tense, you use both present and past tense here.
- I changed that "next crossing was" to "is"; obviously it's still there. Daniel Case (talk) 07:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Crash
- Why is there a citation after the word "Alan"?
- I haved moved it to the end of the sentence. I suppose I might have left it there for some reason, perhaps temporarily, when I converted the NTSB report ref to {{sfn}}. Or there could have more near the beginning of the sentence. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not liking the organization of the first paragraph. You start with the driver going up Commerce Street, then backtrack to her being on the Taconic and having to divert due to the crash. Consider reworking this paragraph to put events in order.
- This took more work than anything else so far that's come up in this FAC. But that's why we have them.
- The same issue is apparent in the next paragraph, where the phone call is said to have taken place before the driver left the parkway at all.
- I wound up rewriting those three grafs so everything's more in order. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't it original research to say the claim of hearing a bell was wrong and sourcing it to the inspection report, a primary document? There's also nothing in the cited source to support
in New York bells are only required for pedestrian crossings
. Additionally, trains are often equipped with bells as a warning device. My advice here would be to simply say an inspection after the accident found the crossing was not equipped with a bell.
- The NTSB report is clearer that there wasn't a bell at the crossing, and has a footnote explaining that this is not required. I have sourced that and limited the endnote wording to just what the sources say. (All the same, I don't know if the train bells would have been as audible as any crossing bells would have been had there been any).
Hit the air brakes
should be "applied the emergency brakes" as specified in the NTSB report.
- Changed.
Passengers in the first car recalled being thrown from their seats on impact as the fire started
There hasn't been any mention of a fire until this point, so it should be "a fire".
- Changed.
until a manual override was sent
Was this from dispatch at Grand Central? Can you specify who did the override?
- The NTSB credits this to the office of Metro-North's power director. Absent another source saying that office is at Grand Central (which, of course, I wouldn't be surprised if it was), we can't say anything more than that. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Pages 23-24 of the NTSB report say the power director's office is in Grand Central Terminal. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's on page 23. I have added it and appropriately amended the footnote. Daniel Case (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Pages 23-24 of the NTSB report say the power director's office is in Grand Central Terminal. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- The NTSB credits this to the office of Metro-North's power director. Absent another source saying that office is at Grand Central (which, of course, I wouldn't be surprised if it was), we can't say anything more than that. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Link the first mention of third rail.
Victims
- Equity analyst is another MOS:SOB issue, since the reader would expect an article at equity analyst.
- Changed to that. Daniel Case (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Will pick up from the end of the victims section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Aftermath
- Can we have inflation templates for cost numbers? I've been victim to those requests many times at FAC, and now I get to inflict them on you (joking).
- Oh, no problem. That hadn't occurred to me, actually, since it has been for most of the lifetime of this article so recent that one wouldn't think to include it. But, it has now been nearly ten years, so yes—and of course it's easy because I've done it on so many other articles.
- This is nitpicky, but I've never seen anyone use the spelling "high-rail" in the U.S., it's usually hi-rail or hirail.
- I've always heard them called hi-los — the idea being that they're high relative to the tracks but low to the road. But ... that isn't in the lede of the linked article. So I went with hi-rail, which is.
The interim pastor at Nadol's Church of St. Mary the Virgin, noted that communities like Chappaqua depend on commuter rail for economic and cultural reasons
Is that comma necessary? It seems out of place to me but maybe there's some MOS thingy that says I'm wrong.
- Took it out. I think at one point we had used his name, so his job description was an appositive phrase. Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Investigation
- Any chance we can say a bit more about the NTSB team? How many members, and how long did they ultimately stay?
- I looked hard just now. All the NTSB's original press release says is that they're sending a "go-team" and who was heading it, but not exactly how many members. I suppose more detailed information might be in agency financial records, which although they're probably public are not the sort of thing routinely put online.
- If you can find room, it might be a good idea to show a photo of the contact shoe with the third rail to illustrate how it works. A photo showing how the third rails used by the MTA often have a cover might also be a good addition.
- Hmm. I spent a lot of time considering how I might be able to do this after I first read this. I realized that it would be best to get such a shot—or even better, video—at a station with an adjacent grade crossing, of which of course there are several on the electrified portion of the Harlem Line vs. none on the shorter electrified portion of the Hudson Line. There, you can deal with the train slowing down and/or outright stopping to make it an easier shot.
Brewster seems like it would be ideal for this, as you've got the third rails on the outside and they run close to the crossing, and can be photographed or videoed from or through nearby fencing, particularly on the northeast and southwest corners. Plus it is conveniently the closest crossing/station pair to where I live (although still a bit of a drive).
I wish you'd raised this possibility a couple of weeks back, now that Metro-North has revived its annual Open House down at Croton-Harmon. It might have been easier to get this there.
Obviously, as you suggested, this doesn't have to be done now, but I like the idea and I think we can do it soon.
- Success! I went to Brewster last weekend and took a short video clip (OK, it's not perfect but it gets the idea across). Daniel Case (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm. I spent a lot of time considering how I might be able to do this after I first read this. I realized that it would be best to get such a shot—or even better, video—at a station with an adjacent grade crossing, of which of course there are several on the electrified portion of the Harlem Line vs. none on the shorter electrified portion of the Hudson Line. There, you can deal with the train slowing down and/or outright stopping to make it an easier shot.
reduce the possibility of inadvertent contact with the high-voltage rail
Suggest making it clearer you are referring to contact of people (or wildlife or anything that isn't a train contact shoe) with the third rail, obviously you would want the contact shoe to make contact with the third rail. I understand what you're saying here, but it is kind of confusing when it comes immediately after the explanation that the under-running is meant to prevent ice from building up (and presumably causing problems for the contact shoes).
- Added wording to that effect
- When listing the safety features in the second to last paragraph, you did not include the flashing lights though my understanding is they also worked correctly.
- Added. Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Reports and conclusions
- It's the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, not Manual of. Easy mistake to make, I work with the MUTCD on a daily basis at my day job and if you told me it was "Manual of" I'd probably believe you. Probably why we all just call it the MUTCD at work.
- Thanks! Changed.
- I looked through my copy of Train Wrecks by Robert C. Reed, and it does agree that collisions involving the rail coming through the bottom of a train car are very rare and have been since steel rails were widely adopted, but they were unfortunately a common occurrence when strap rail was used in the 1800s. He says the terminology for such an event in a train accident is a "snakehead". Not sure this means any changes are needed to the article but I figured you'd find it interesting.
- I looked this up, thinking it might have made an interesting endnote. You can't cite Reed's book through Google Books, which of course doesn't mean you can't. However, in the process of looking for other mentions online, I came across this forum post, dated 1/26/21 04:35, which references a Railway Age article from 1900 which found these accidents to have been less common in the preceding century than believed, and faults first a Harper's article in the pre-Civil War era for creating a public hysteria about this, then the manufacturers of passenger cars for adroitly responding to this by putting steel plates below the floors of their cars but then furthering the hysteria by widely advertising that they did so.
the third rails were designed to break up in accidents and fail to the side
Should this be "fall"?
- The NTSB report uses "fail" a lot in the cited passage, but yes, "fall" makes more sense to readers here so I changed it.
- You write
But in this case, with only two exceptions, the third rail's 6-foot (2 m) sections had largely remained joined in larger sections averaging 39 feet (12 m) in length, weighing a ton (800 kg) each, as they accumulated in the first and second cars
but the NTSB report says "Of the 11 sections of third rail recovered, five were about 39 feet in length" which seems to me to suggest something different.
- I changed it to read as the report writes. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Post-accident official responses
- The second sentence here is very long, I suggest splitting it into two.
- Made three out of it
- Can the section about proposed closing be updated? It doesn't clearly indicate if the crossings were closed or not.
- (clutches forehead) I have regularly looked to see whether the town has publicly revisited this. I have found no evidence that it has ... perhaps the public opposition documented in the article and sources was enough to dissuade them from doing so. I sometimes feel like adding a "and it has not been discussed since then" but I don't think the absence of any sources for such discussion by itself is something we would consider a source for the absence of discussion.
- Why is Operation Lifesaver abbreviated as OLI (as opposed to OL)? This is not done in the NTSB report.
- Because they themselves use it. And our OLI page also includes Operation Lifesaver among its links. We should probably put that in the article, too. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Litigation
Most were from passengers injured or killed
Suggest adding something along the lines of "or their surviving relatives".
- Done.
Other
- There are two periods after the retrieval date for the external link, pretty sure there should only be one.
- That's about it for me. I'll do one more readthrough once you've responded to these comments and then I expect to be in support of promotion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Done! Looking forward to anything more you have to say. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Having read through the article again I don't have any further comments. Happy to support. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Done! Looking forward to anything more you have to say. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- While I've already supported, I will make one more suggestion: the images are very front-loaded right now, and the article would in my opinion be improved by better distributing them across the sections. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I try generally to place images near where they're most relevant to the accompanying text, which has (I think) necessarily resulted in this. However, looking further I think maybe the interior view of the burned railcar could be moved. Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Generalissima
[edit]Very solid prose throughout. I took the liberty of fixing a few citation orders.
- In the paragraph beginning The call was dropped, you should say "Brody" instead of "she" for the first mention of her.
- I went further. I changed it to "Alan's" per MOS:SAMESURNAME. Daniel Case (talk) 06:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- This also happens a couple times in the Driver's behavior.
- Again per MOS:SAMESURNAME, I used "Allan" and "Ellen". Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- According to MOS:EMPHASIS, use em tags when italicizing for emphasis, like when you emphasize any under "Design of third rails".
- I don't see any other problems. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good to me - Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
EG
[edit]I will leave some comments later. I'm not sure if I can formally !vote on the nomination since I seem to have the second-most edits to this article, but I guess I'll ask the FAC coords when we reach that point. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I will just state for the record that I have no objections to you taking part. Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Lead:
- Para 2: "the first car" - More specifically, the first train car (since "car" can be misconstrued here for "private vehicle").
- I went with "front car".
- Para 3: "Investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) focused on two issues in the accident: how the train passengers were killed, since that rarely occurs in grade crossing collisions; and why Brody went forward into the train's path." - I get why you used the semicolon; it may appear in lists with three or more items, where at least one item has a comma. However, it usually isn't used in lists with only two items. This would otherwise imply "and why Brody went forward into the train's path" is a standalone sentence, which it isn't. I suggest adding dashes, e.g. "how the train passengers were killed—since that rarely occurs in grade crossing collisions—and why Brody went forward into the train's path."
- Para 3: "town of Mount Pleasant, which maintains Commerce Street, Westchester County, the railroad, and the engineer" - Conversely, you can add semicolons here, e.g. "town of Mount Pleasant, which maintains Commerce Street; Westchester County; the railroad; and the engineer". This is because "which maintains Commerce Street" isn't a party to a lawsuit, but rather clarifying the town of Mount Pleasant's involvement in the lawsuit.
- All done. Daniel Case (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Background:
- Para 1: "At about 5:30 p.m. on February 3, 2015, 14 minutes after sunset" - I'd change to "...fourteen minutes after sunset" or reword this to put more distance between "2015" and "14" per MOS:NUMNOTES, which advises to "avoid awkward juxtapositions" such as this one.
- Para 1: "both lanes of the southbound Taconic and one northbound lane" - How about "both southbound lanes and one northbound lane of the Taconic"?
- Para 2: " Bombardier M7A electric multiple units" - This is a pretty severe case of WP:SEAOFBLUE; there are three links in a row without any indicator that these links are separate. I would either put distance between these links (e.g. four M7A electric multiple units made by Bombardier) or remove two of them. Actually I see TAOT has mentioned this above.
- Para 3: "Lakeview Avenue crossed the two tracks using a grade crossing" - The wording "crossed...using a grade crossing" seems slightly repetitive. Is there a way to reword this?
- I have addressed the first two; the latter were also pointed out by TAOT and I addressed them in response to his comments. And I want to thank you for refocusing my attention on this section, since looking at it while doing this brought to my attention not only a couple of minor copy errors but some awkwardness in the section as a whole (i.e., we mentioned Lakeview crossing "the tracks" well before we mentioned the train, and since we had said nothing about the line running parallel alongside the Taconic at that point a reader who, say, hasn't had the occasion in the years since the crash to go down to the site and walk around and take photographs, will have absolutely no understanding of this. Or, now, would have. Daniel Case (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- More tomorrow, probably. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Crash:
- Para 2, footnote [c]: In 2016, Alan agreed in a newspaper interview that she would have had to have driven over the Lakeview Avenue grade crossing to make the turn up Commerce Street and the accident site." - This seems to be missing a closing quotation mark.
- I think that might have been a typo I made putting the source in. Removed.
- Para 3: "Both Hope and Brody had stopped for a few seconds at the grade crossing" - I don't think "had" is necessary here, unless this is a continuation of what Hope said. This sentence uses the past perfect tense, but the rest of the paragraph (except for the sentence about Hope's recollection to investigators) is in the simple past tense.
- This might have been left over from an earlier version of the graf as, in response to TAOT's comments I rearranged this section of the narrative quite a bit. I am, as a result of having studied Russian and Polish very picky about the perfect aspect in English, so I would have used that for a reason. But you are correct in noting that it does not make sense here, so I took "had" out.
- Para 5: "He realized it was from a vehicle fouling the tracks, and immediately hit the emergency brakes and sounded the horn, earlier than he would have been required to take the latter action if the tracks appeared clear, in the hope that the vehicle would hear it and leave since he knew he could not stop the train in time" - This sentence is a bit convoluted, but as I understand it, Smalls hit the brakes, and he sounded the horn earlier than required. Regardless, I'd rephrase this, because "earlier than he would have been required to take the latter action if the tracks appeared clear" could probably throw off a reader.
- Yes, ZKang had also pointed this out, so I reworded it when working through his comments. Daniel Case (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not strictly necessary, but I just realized that a map and/or further clarification of the directions may be helpful here. From what I can recall, the train was traveling northbound from Grand Central, and the SUV was heading northeast (which would mean that the passenger side of the SUV was facing south/southeast). Also, as the article says, the train was on the western track, which means it was actually running on the left-hand side of the line. However, this isn't spelled out in the article, which could confuse readers unfamiliar with the topic.
- The map on Page 6 of the NTSB report looks like it would address this issue quite well. We could also add a bit to the photo cutline. Daniel Case (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Per discussions elsewhere here, I have added it. Daniel Case (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Collision:
- In this section (and elsewhere in the article), the word "car" seems to be used for both the SUV and the M7As. I would change each use of "car" in this section to clarify whether it's the SUV or the train car. For example:
- Para 1: "Then the car moved forward" - which refers to the SUV
- Para 3: "Passengers in the first car" - which refers to the first train car
- Clarified.
- Para 3: "One said that moments after being thrown into the next seat, he saw a section of rail go through the seat he had just been in" - Is this the third rail mentioned in paragraph 4?
- It is. And I checked to make sure that in the source, he said the third rail, which he did.
- Para 6: "Damage to a transition jumper isolated the rail on the east of the track, south of the intersection, from its counterpart west of the track and north of the intersection." - By "intersection" do you mean grade crossing?
- Yes. I may have been unconsciously been echoing the NTSB's language. Daniel Case (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- In this section (and elsewhere in the article), the word "car" seems to be used for both the SUV and the M7As. I would change each use of "car" in this section to clarify whether it's the SUV or the train car. For example:
- Rescue efforts:
- Para 1: "later it was reported" - I'd clarify that the NTSB reported this.
- Done.
- Victims:
- Para 3: "that exception was due to burns and other injuries" - Do the sources say who this passenger was?
- No, they don't. At least not the NTSB report. I can see them deciding they didn't need to publicly say who.
- Fair enough. I was wondering because, if we knew who this passenger was, we could have said "[Passenger's name] died from burns and other injuries" instead of using passive voice. Epicgenius (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, they don't. At least not the NTSB report. I can see them deciding they didn't need to publicly say who.
- Para 3: 'There were a total of six deaths and fifteen injuries" - Perhaps this sentence should be moved to the first paragraph instead, before the existing sentence, which already says there were six deaths.
- Did that.
- Para 4: "At that time, it was the deadliest passenger train crash" - I don't think "at that time" is needed, since "It was the deadliest passenger train crash in the United States since the 2009 Washington Metro train collision" already implies that the crash was the deadliest in six years.
- Good point. Changed.
- Aftermath:
- Para 1: "The lead car caught fire and was eventually destroyed." - The sources are from the days after the crash. Do you know what ultimately happened to the lead car (e.g. was it scrapped)?
- Nothing in the cited source says this ... the car was, as all the photos in the NTSB report suggest, pretty well gutted. So I would not be at all surprised if it was scrapped. But the sources don't say that it was (I get the feeling someone added something they just ... knew somewhere along the line), so I took that out.
- Para 2: "A crew of a hundred" - Minor pick, but personally I'd say "one hundred".
- I decided to use a figure. Daniel Case (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Social and cultural commentary:
- Para 4: "Tanenhaus saw the car's collision with a commuter train as another indicator of the way in which Westchester had left the contradictions between its past and present unresolved." - I wouldn't characterize this as a contradiction so much as a holdover from a past era, but that could just be me.
- Well, that usage is from the quoted text, where he talks about the "paradox" of Westchester, the way it still sells itself to people as offering a country life despite having grown increasingly suburbanized. Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- I did have a question about whether the brackets at the beginning of words were necessary, but apparently MOS:CONFORM allows it: "It is normally unnecessary to explicitly note changes in capitalization. However, for more precision, the altered letter may be put inside square brackets: "The" → "[t]he".
- I also noticed that most of this commentary is within a week of the accident. Is there any more-recent commentary?
- If there had been, I'm sure I would have found it by now. I do check regularly. Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- I see, and I wasn't trying to imply that you weren't being diligent - quite the opposite, as I wanted to confirm that there in fact really was nothing more recent. Yeah, it seems a bit strange that more recent commentary doesn't exist, though. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. No problem. Daniel Case (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- I see, and I wasn't trying to imply that you weren't being diligent - quite the opposite, as I wanted to confirm that there in fact really was nothing more recent. Yeah, it seems a bit strange that more recent commentary doesn't exist, though. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- If there had been, I'm sure I would have found it by now. I do check regularly. Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Theories and issues:
- Para 1: Can some of these quotes be paraphrased? I'm not sure that all three quotes are necessary, since we can just say in wikivoice that "grade-crossing accidents typically don't kill passengers on the train". The same goes for the rest of this section, actually; there are a lot of quotes that can be rephrased of summarized
- Trimmed them down.
- Para 2: "To facilitate this, the ends of the third rails adjacent to grade crossings have a slight upturn." - Is the implication that the ends of the third rails may have been jolted upward into the train cars as a result?
- Yes, that's the theory. I am guessing you think it needs to be stated more explicitly? Daniel Case (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Para 6: "While the crossing had undergone upgrades in recent years, including brighter lights and an additional sign warning passing drivers not to stop on the tracks, in 2009 another upgrade, which would have added a sign with flashing lights 100–200 feet (30–61 m) up the road west of the tracks was not installed." - Two things here.
- First, I think this can be split into two sentences for readability.
- Second, "in 2009 another upgrade ... was not installed" sounds strange. Usually, I'd say that upgrades weren't carried out, rather than that upgrades weren't installed (unless it's something like software). Also, do you know if the upgrade was proposed in 2009, canceled in 2009, or both?
- More soon. Sorry for the delays, things have been pretty hectic for me in real life lately. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry again. I promise to finish this over the weekend. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- No worries ... this holiday weekend isn't exactly giving me a lot of spare time, either. Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Picking up from this version of this article.Reports and conclusions:
- Para 1: "Two years after the accident, however, it had still not released its final report." - You mention in the second paragraph that the final report was mentioned in July 2017. Perhaps that detail could be mentioned earlier on?
- OK ... that took some rewording, which should have frankly been done back after that report had come out since there was originally more complaining about how long the report was taking. Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I notice that the word "car" is used in this section to refer both to railcars and to motor vehicles. Examples of the former include "They did not experience sufficient stress to break until the rail sections had already entered the car", while examples of the latter include "The investigators allowed, however, that their tests were done with the car's radio and heater off". I suggest clarifying each use of the word "car" to remove this ambiguity; this should probably be done throughout the article as well.
- Alright, did this throughout the article, everywhere where (as far as I can see) whether the train or the SUV was meant is intended. Daniel Case (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Driver's behavior:
- Para 3: "The investigators allowed, however, that their tests were done with the car's radio and heater off," - Are you using the word "allowed" to mean "conceded", or "permitted", here?
- Conceded. Do you think I should use that instead? In this context I don't see those two meanings being confused.
- Para 4: "Whether the train's lights were visible or not" - I'd remove "or not", as that is implied by the use of the word "whether".
- Done. Yes, an overly common redundant usage that I have sometimes myself warned tutees/students about.
- Para 5: "While prior to purchasing the used[13] ML350 two months earlier she had driven a Honda with a shifter in the more common position between the front seats, Alan told the NTSB that she had not told him of any problems using the column-mounted shifter, which he had also used when driving her car and found easy to get used to." - I would split the sentence into two, as this sentence is so long that it's verging on a garden-path sentence, especially the first half.
- Done
- Para 6: "Had she done so, it might have provided additional warning that a grade crossing was nearby." - Do we know if the NTSB investigated whether she was using a GPS on her phone or another device?
- I checked. There's no mention of the possibility (and at that time it's entirely possible, I think, that someone that age might not yet have started using a smartphone, which if so would moot that possibility).
- Para 7: Most of this paragraph is quotes. I would recommend paraphrasing at least one of the quotes.
- I got rid of one of the quotes entirely, as it was sort of redundant. But I do think it's important to read the NTSB's voice making its conclusion. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Traffic signal preemption:
- No issues here.
- Design of third rails:
- Para 2: "But in this case, with only two exceptions, the third rail's 6-foot (2 m) sections had largely remained joined in larger sections, five of the 11 recovered 39 feet (12 m) in length, weighing a ton (800 kg) each, as they accumulated in the first and second cars" - I recommend splitting this into two sentences as well, particularly after "largely remained joined in larger sections". In addition, the clause "five of the 11 recovered" seems like it may be missing a word, unless you're talking about five of the 11 sections that were recovered.
- Done (broke it up and added a word for clarity.
- Para 5, note [i]: "In addition to Metro-North and the LIRR, those are Amtrak, the SEPTA and the Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) trains between Manhattan and New Jersey" - If I'm not mistaken, the PATH does not have any grade crossings that are open to the public, while SEPTA uses overhead catenary exclusively. I think it would be better to clarify the note to say that the NTSB recommended that these systems be inspected. Currently, it reads like the note is saying that these systems use third rail and grade crossings.
- Done. SEPTA, as noted in the article, does use third rail on its subways, including the only other underrunning third rail on one line outside of Metro-North. But while I would want to check on PATH, I do believe you're right given how little those trains run at grade in developed areas. This error wouldn't surprise me, however, given that the report also mistakenly states that the LIRR also uses underrunning third rails. Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Fire:
- Para 3: "but the testing carried out after the accident showed this to be no longer the case" - Presumably because the standards were updated?
- The report doesn't say. It notes that flammability resistance can decrease over time as materials age and are exposed to environmental factors. I added another endnote to this effect. Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Concurrences:
- Para 1: " "I suspect some may have had the expectation that the NTSB would be able to explain with certainty why the driver of the SUV ended up on the tracks that fateful evening," Sumwalt began. But with Brody dead, that was impossible." - This could be summarized in one sentence. In fact, I don't think you even need a quote if you're just expressing the fact that no definite explanation for the car's presence on the tracks was readily available due to Brody's death.
- Fixed. Daniel Case (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Dissent:
- There are a lot of quotes in this section. Could they be summarized or paraphrased?
- Para 3 includes two sentences that end in question marks. I suggest rephrasing to make it clear that these were issues that Weener brought up.
- Addressed both of these. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I won't be able to finish the entire thing this weekend, but hopefully I will be done by Monday. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Post-accident official responses:
- The MTA's full name should be spelled out the first time it's used, and the acronym should be placed in parentheses afterward (i.e. "Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)"), per MOS:ACRO1STUSE.
- Proposed closure of crossing:
- Para 1: "to two within two miles (3.2 km) from four" - Two issues here.
- Am I correct in understanding that there would be two crossings in a 2-mile stretch of track, rather than the previous four?
- Yes.
- The numbers here are arranged weirdly. You list a quantity, a distance, and another quantity. I would put the quantities together, though this might require a little rewording, e.g. "This would reduce the number of grade crossings along the line from four—the most of any town in the county—to two within a two-mile stretch".
- I used that wording.
- Para 1: "high passenger train volume and speed, low road traffic volume, multiple tracks, a mere 82 feet (25 m) to a traffic signal, a poor approach angle (62°), poor visibility due to the substation, and the two fatal accidents in its history" - The clause "a mere 82 feet to a traffic signal" doesn't fit with the other terms in the list. Each term in the list is an adjective-plus-noun, except for this one, which is little more than a measurement. Perhaps this can be rephrased as "the mere 82-foot (25 m) distance to a traffic signal".
- Put that in too.
- Para 4: "Cleveland street crossing" - "Street" should be capitalized.
- Done.
- Para 1: "to two within two miles (3.2 km) from four" - Two issues here.
- MTA grade crossing safety campaign:
- Para 1: "went up in trains and at stations on the Metro-North, the LIRR, and the New York City Subway" - LIRR should also be spelled out on the first use.
- Done. I also did it where I had used it earlier in note i. Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Safety improvements to Commerce Street crossing:
- Para 2: "Alan Brody, a former conductor in his native South Africa," - Since Brody is already introduced earlier in the article, should the clause "a former conductor in his native South Africa," be moved up? If not, I think it may be better to change this to "Alan Brody, who had been a former conductor in his native South Africa," since otherwise it sounds like we're introducing him for the first time.
- I just took that out. It's not in either of the cited articles, and it probably reflects a time when we had some material from that Railway Age article by Brody that's in Further Reading now in the actual article where he does bring up his past experience.
- Para 2: "which would not have prevented the Valhalla accident anymore than the CCTV would" - This should be "any more". "Anymore" means "any longer"/"at present", but in this case "any more" isn't being used to refer to a time period (you could replace it with "any less" and it'd still make sense, which isn't the case if "anymore" really was meant).
- Fixed.
- I take it that there's no further news on these upgrades?
- More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Litigation:
- Para 1: "Most were from passengers injured or killed, or their surviving relatives, including the Brody family, all alleging negligence" - The Brodys weren't among the passengers or their families, so I'd just say "Most were from those injured or killed".
- Done.
- Para 1: "Metro North" - The proper name "Metro-North" is hyphenated.
- Done. I think someone else must have typed or retyped that.
- Para 1: "Smalls answered that he had been trained to use the horn first if the tracks were blocked at a crossing, and not immediately use the emergency brake until he was sure of what was blocking the tracks since that could cause a derailment and injure any standing passengers in the train" - I'd add a comma after "blocking the tracks".
- Done.
- Para 2: Perhaps this could be split into two sentences (after "as the train approached"). As it is, it's fairly long, and this entire paragraph is one sentence as a result.
- Done.
- Para 4: Out of curiosity, when was the suit filed? This may give some context as to why it took so long for the suit to go to trial.
- One of the articles about the verdict explains that most of the passengers' suits were consolidated into one sometime between the time they were filed (within the deadline, I'm sure), but as that's a fairly routine judicial move there does not seem to be any independent news coverage of that (I suppose it would be in the docket but I don't know if you could find that online, and where that might be if you could). Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case, these are the rest of my comments. Overall, though the article is fairly beefy, it's already in good shape, and many of these issues should be relatively easy to fix. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- All done! Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. I will support this FAC. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- All done! Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
RoySmith
[edit]I reviewed this at PR I probably won't do another full review, but I'm happy to report that most of the issues I raised at that time, particularly those about going into excessive detail, have been addressed. I mentioned at PR my concern that an overwhelming number of the sources were from local news media immediately after the crash. I see that's still largely true. On the other hand for an article like this, that may simply be unavoidable; if those are the sources that exist, that's what we've got to use. I took the liberty of uploading a new version of the rail image, with some exposure adjustments which bring out the detail better.
Comments by ZKang123
[edit]Would give this a look.
Lead:
- Six people were killed and 15 others injured, seven very seriously. – The addition of the fact of "seven very seriously" sounds rather unencyclopedic and awkward. Might suggest rewording to:
Six people were killed and 15 others injured, seven of whom sustained severe injuries.
- I went with "severely injured"
- The sentences beginning with The crash occurred after traffic... and At the grade crossing, a sport utility vehicle (SUV) are quite wordy and could be broken up. Specifically, the first sentence took me some time to understand, that traffic from a certain road were rerouted to local roads following an incident.
- I broke those up.
- Brody died when her vehicle was struck by the train; as her vehicle was pushed along the tracks it loosened more than 450 feet (140 m) of third rail, which broke into sections and went through the exterior of the train's front car, killing five passengers and starting a fire. – Also this sentence could be rewritten as
Brody died when the train struck her vehicle and pushed it on the tracks. The collision damaged over 450 feet (140 m) of the third rail, which led to a fire and caused the deaths of five additional passengers.
Or whichever else that retains the meaning.
- Made those changes.
- With em-dashes it's not necessary for spaces—unless you're using en-dash.
- Fixed. It used to be, and probably was at the time that this was written, that we didn't care whether you used the spaces or not as long you were consistent within an article. I see now that we've gotten off that fence.
- The board's 2017 final report found the driver of the SUV to be the cause of the accident. It found no defects with the vehicle, the crossing signals and associated traffic signal preemption, or the train engineer's performance. –
The board's 2017 final report determined the driver of the SUV to be the cause of the accident, after finding no issues with the train engineer's performance or no defects with the vehicle, the crossing signals and associated traffic signal preemption.
- Done.
- Remove the semi-colon and use a full-stop instead.
- Done.
- I think in some way the board findings could be further summarised; not all the details need to be there. Especially when earlier you said the damaged third rail also killed the passengers.
- I took that out.
- In 2024, a jury hearing one of the suits found the railroad and Brody liable for the accident. – I think "one of the suits" makes the sentence a bit confusing, and could be removed. I think the rewritten sentence
In 2024, a jury hearing found the railroad...
makes more sense.
- Until about 2020 or so, we had a separate section on all the suits. Since they were largely consolidated into one, I just made it "a jury found ..." Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Giving a glance of the article, I felt the article could see more cleanups in the wording and be less chunkier at certain parts; some tend to use more complex sentence structures. Maybe I will wait for the others to give a copyedit of the article before I continue looking over.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi ZKang123. It is highly unlikely that much copy editing will take place at this stage in a FAC. Indeed, as a coordinator I would be concerned if it were to. If you believe that the prose is not engaging and/or not of a professional standard (ie that it does not meet FA criteria 1a) then it may be easier to just oppose. Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is not to say that if ZKang is willing, as everyone else here has been and he has been previously, to provide specific examples, I would not be responsive. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi ZKang123. It is highly unlikely that much copy editing will take place at this stage in a FAC. Indeed, as a coordinator I would be concerned if it were to. If you believe that the prose is not engaging and/or not of a professional standard (ie that it does not meet FA criteria 1a) then it may be easier to just oppose. Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Continued:
- Investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) focused on two issues in the accident: how the train passengers were killed—since that rarely occurs in grade crossing collisions—and why Brody went forward into the train's path. – I might shorten to:
An investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) was called to look into how the train passengers were killed and why Brody went forward into the train's path.
I don't think saying the deaths are rare in such a collision is notable in the lead.
- Fair enough. I kept the beginning of the sentence because investigations by the NTSB are automatic in these cases; i.e. they're not "called".
- The board's 2017 final report determined the driver of the SUV to be the cause of the accident, after finding no issues with the train engineer's performance or no defects with the vehicle, the crossing signals and associated traffic signal preemption. –
The board's 2017 final report determined the driver of the SUV to be the cause of the accident, after finding no defects with the vehicle or crossing equipment, or issues with the train engineer's performance.
- Done.
- which at this point is closely paralleled on its west by the two tracks of Metro-North Railroad's Harlem Line –
where the highway closely parallels the two tracks of Metro-North Railroad's Harlem Line on its west.
- Yes, thanks. This was added somewhat hastily during some revisions earlier in this process. Thank you for suggesting improved wording.
- Lakeview .[5] – something seems to be deleted here.
- A bit of stray mess left over from those earlier revisions. Deleted.
- The next such crossing is Commerce Street, a lightly traveled local road to the north that intersects the tracks diagonally, also at grade. –
The next at-grade crossing is Commerce Street, a lightly traveled local road to the north that intersects the tracks diagonally.
- Done, although I used "grade crossing", as that's standard US English.
- It was an express train of eight cars,[9] formed by four paired electric multiple units (EMUs), all M7As made by Bombardier, bound for the Southeast station,[b] with Chappaqua its first scheduled stop. – This sentence should be further split up. Like
It was an express train of eight cars,[9] formed by four paired electric multiple units (EMUs) – all M7As manufactured by Bombardier. The train was bound for the Southeast station...
- Done
- with nine months as an engineer –
who had been an engineer for nine months
- Done
- She drove her 2011 Mercedes-Benz ML350 SUV south in order to meet a potential client for her bookkeeping business in Scarsdale, an appointment she had confirmed via text before leaving work, telling the client she had been running late and would be delayed. – Another chunky sentence, please split up.
- Thank you. This is why we do this sort of thing. I wrote it so it takes someone else's eyes to make me see just how much that needlessly sprawls. I also fixed some other places in the surrounding text in the process.
- It was earlier than he would have been required to take the latter action if the tracks appeared clear. – I don't understand this sentence.
- OK, this is in here primarily, but not exclusively, because when he blew the horn was an issue in the lawsuit. The point is that he technically didn't have to have blown it when he did, but, upon, seeing the car spoiling the tracks, went ahead and did it early. This is what he was trained to do, and that being so, the plaintiffs' lawyers argued, successfully at least for now, that the railroad was liable because if Smalls had hit the brake at that point instead of blowing the horn, the train could have stopped before hitting the SUV).
I am going to have to think for a bit about how better to word this—I agree as is it is not entirely clear.
- OK, I came up with adding ", earlier than he would have had the tracks been clear" to the end of the sentence. Daniel Case (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- OK, this is in here primarily, but not exclusively, because when he blew the horn was an issue in the lawsuit. The point is that he technically didn't have to have blown it when he did, but, upon, seeing the car spoiling the tracks, went ahead and did it early. This is what he was trained to do, and that being so, the plaintiffs' lawyers argued, successfully at least for now, that the railroad was liable because if Smalls had hit the brake at that point instead of blowing the horn, the train could have stopped before hitting the SUV).
- Then her car moved forward, 30 seconds after the gate had come down on her car, investigators determined later – why need to add "investigators determined later"? Is it exactly determining the duration?
- You're probably right that this is not necessary. I think I added it because no one was really watching at the time since there were other things on the most likely witnesses' minds, and thus the timing, suggesting Brody had had ample warning of the oncoming train from the gate coming down on her car, is important. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Shortened the sentence. Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- on the east of the track, south of the crossing –
on the eastbound track south of the crossing
. Similarly for the west of the track. I'm just trying to avoid too many commas here.
- Done.
- While the former lost power within eight seconds of the collision, circuit breakers that had detected the loss in power to the former restored it to the last four cars of the train, which remained in contact with that rail, until a manual override was sent from the office of Metro-North's power director at GCT a minute and a half afterwards – Also split this
- Done. Another one resulting from edits in response to earlier comments. Daniel Case (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- ZKang123 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies; was revising for an exam and then also have work. Continued:
- In a text Brody sent to confirm the appointment before leaving work, she had told the client she was running late. – This is worded a little awkwardly. Might rewrite to:
Before leaving work, she had told the client in a text/texted the client she was running late for their appointment.
- Done.
- During the call he gave her directions to Scarsdale, telling her to get off the Saw Mill River Parkway, her usual route south from Chappaqua, at the exit with the Taconic and follow it to the Bronx River Parkway. –
During the call, he gave her directions to Scarsdale, telling her to get off the Saw Mill River Parkway – her usual route south from Chappaqua – at the exit with the Taconic and follow it to the Bronx River Parkway.
- Done
- which would have allowed her to keep both hands on the wheel, but according to Alan... – split such that
on the wheel. According to Alan, however,...
- Done
- Alan did not believe she was familiar with the area through which she was driving[13][15] or with grade crossings. – for "with grade crossings", does it mean she's unfamiliar on how to navigate grade crossings or unfamiliar with where the grade crossings are in the area?
- I added "both" because he meant both.
- and took the detour for reasons unknown – actually how is it really unknown? LIke, isn't it because of the accident she has to reroute? Or is her choice of the reroute unusual that raised questions? Like is it out of the way to her intended destination?
- Took that phrase out ... I think if we picked that language up from the source, it was referring to why she went forward into the train's path later.
- Hope says Brody's SUV – you mean "said" given he would have given his testimony in the past
- Fixed. Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- In a text Brody sent to confirm the appointment before leaving work, she had told the client she was running late. – This is worded a little awkwardly. Might rewrite to:
- (I just realised I was rereading what I have reviewed and actually forgot where I had left off. Oops. But still, those are my concerns upon rereading)
- head of Association of Commuter Rail Employees, the labor union which represents Metro-North workers. – consider using an en/em dash instead of the comma
- This one I'm not as sure about. The phrase is in apposition to the one before it; I don't see what an em dash does there that a comma does not. Maybe it's an American English thing. But nothing in MOS:EMDASH supports this, as far as I can tell. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- The firefighters were, however, able to suppress the fire before it had seriously affected the second car. –
...before it could spread to the second car.
- Done.
- told The Journal News, Westchester County's main daily newspaper. – also consider an en/em-dash
- Again, per above, I've never used an em dash in this situation, and don't recall ever seeing it used in written American English much. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- But there were other exceptions to this pattern, such as the 2005 Glendale train crash in southern California, – another chunky sentence please split.
- Done.
- Unlike other American commuter-rail agencies that operate trains powered by third rails, which have a contact shoe on top of their third rail, Metro-North trains' contact shoes draw current from the bottom of the third rail during operation.. –
American commuter trains have their contact shoe above the third rail, but Metro-North trains' contact shoes draw current from the bottom of the third rail.
- Reworded.
- The railroad's under-running third rails are designed in order to –
This unique configuration prevents ice from...
- Tightened. I didn't include "unique" because as the article points out this is also used on one Philadelphia subway line, and this configuration is more common in Europe. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- as a consequence, they are much safer than the traditional over-running third rails – Is this the board's opinion or do other railway experts agree with this claim? Also would split this as a standalone sentence. "As a consequence" to "Consequently,..."
- I just took the "safer" claim out as the unnamed "railway expert" quoted in the source does not make that claim. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- The NTSB team theorized that the fire aboard the train might have been caused by gasoline from the SUV, ignited by a spark from the third rail, which had pierced the car's fuel tank,[60] and the force of impact. – Are you trying to say that the fire could be caused by both the SUV gasoline and the force of impact? Cos this part is rather verbose
- Took that last part out, because while that's sort of implied, it's not really stated, and none of the other things really would have happened without an impact, so it's really superfluous to make it a cause anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Some area residents suggested the crossing itself was the problem. –
Some residents in the area...
- Done, although I'm not sure what was causing enough confusion here to warrant additional wording.
- While the crossing had undergone upgrades in recent years, including brighter lights and an additional sign warning passing drivers not to stop on the tracks, in 2009 another upgrade, which would have added a sign with flashing lights 100–200 feet (30–61 m) up the road west of the tracks was not installed. – Again, split this up.
- Done.
- Several weeks after the accident, the design of the ML350's gear shift lever, a small paddle that protrudes from the steering column, rather than the usual large lever between the seats, was suggested as a possible cause of the accident. – Could be reworded as:
Several weeks after the accident, it was suggested that the design of the ML350's gear shift lever could have caused the incident. The gear shift lever was a small paddle that protrudes from the steering column, rather than the usual large lever between the seats.
- Done, although I found a different way of splitting it up to avoid saying "gear shift lever" twice. Daniel Case (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
At this point I'm inclined to oppose based on 1a given a great deal of copyedits I have to point out. My principle for FACs is to try avoid writing very complex sentence structures, and I felt at times I have to struggle reading through as the various explanations (some rather technical in nature) are shoehorned into the prose. Or trying to wrap too many facts into one sentence, which can be confusing and harder to keep track. I might pass this up to GOCE for further clean-up of this article.
My added thoughts is also to add a map of Brody's route before the incident, because not everyone reading the article are from NYC nor familiar with the area. And also a photograph of the contact shoe below the third rail.--ZKang123 (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I actually don't have a problem with these requests ... the holiday period is over and I have time again to work on this when I'm not doing admin patrol work. And as I told TaoT I can get a picture or video of the underrunning shoe (might even try that this weekend). A route map? It's in the NTSB report (based on Google Maps, but we can always overlay a route on an OSM cap). Daniel Case (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's not just about the requests. As Gog said, if I have to point out a lot of these edits, you edit, then I reread and still don't find it satisfactory, someone else also points out these issues, and then it continues on in a loop. The FAC stage shouldn't really be where we suggest thorough copyedits to keep this up to a readable professional standard.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Gog said that you can't just point out general issues, and I said that I'm willing to respond to your specific points. If you don't feel that anything I do in response could possibly even begin to address your concerns, then we're both better off if you don't express them and just leave things where they are. Daniel Case (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't recall saying that. Any chance of the diff to jog my memory? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- To me that's the gist of this comment. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see how you can read what you have into what I wrote. If you have, my apologies for not being clear enough. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think the point is to avoid a WP:FIXLOOP, which is what I am sensing here: a reviewer gives examples of loose wording, which are then fixed, but it doesn't mean the entire article is 'fixed' - that may be something which is best done away from FAC, rather than draining reviewer time and goodwill. - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it's not like I haven't done end-to-end proofreads/copy edits several times before this. And I do appreciate many of the changes he's suggested—like a lot of people, I have a tendency to write unwieldy sentences, and thanks to this a lot of them have been broken up. Daniel Case (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- To me that's the gist of this comment. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't recall saying that. Any chance of the diff to jog my memory? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Gog said that you can't just point out general issues, and I said that I'm willing to respond to your specific points. If you don't feel that anything I do in response could possibly even begin to address your concerns, then we're both better off if you don't express them and just leave things where they are. Daniel Case (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Source review: pass
[edit]To follow. - SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Spot checks
- Spot checks not not done. If a coord wants them done, please ping me.
- Hi SchroCat. Spot checks and a plagiarism check are needed, so if you felt up to doing them that would be most helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Gog, No problems: leave it with me. - SchroCat (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi SchroCat. Spot checks and a plagiarism check are needed, so if you felt up to doing them that would be most helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Formatting
- You need to select a capitalisation scheme and stick to it. At the moment you've got a mix of sentence case and title case;
- Do we have something in the MOS on which might be preferable? I generally just stick with whatever the source used as long as it's not all caps.
This will take some time ...
- The MOS is flexible on the point, as long as it's consistent throughout, so your choice! (and no rush in getting it sorted - whenever you're ready, just ping me) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- OK, @SchroCat:, this is done now Daniel Case (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Do we have something in the MOS on which might be preferable? I generally just stick with whatever the source used as long as it's not all caps.
- FNs 28, 28, 34, 60, 63, 66, 67, 71-73 and 75-79 need to be "pp." not "p."
- Working on this ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- OK ... now this is done. Moving to the footnote cases ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sources
- All the sources used are reliable, according to our guidelines;
- A little heavy on local news sources, but that's to be expected for events like this;
- Some superficial searches did not show up any better or missing sources, so it looks like there has been a good review of all available literature
That's my lot. Just a bit of tidying up to do on the formatting side. - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Source review is a pass. - SchroCat (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose from Gog the Mild
[edit]Recusing to review. I intend to spot check 2 or 3 sections, or parts of, with a view to agreeing with or not the oppose on 1a.
- "near Valhalla, New York, United States." Remove "United States", a reader will know where New York is. You would do better clarifying that it is not New York city.
- "Six people were killed and 15 others injured". Delete "others".
- "Six people were killed and 15 others injured, seven severely." See MOS:NUMNOTES "Comparable values near one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently".
- "It is the deadliest crash in Metro-North's history". This needs an as of when to future proof it.
- "which killed nine passengers and injured 80". See above.
This is a lot of points for the first short paragraph of the lead of a FAC which has already had a lot of attention paid to the prose and MoS. I'll pick something else at random and see if it improves.
- "the design of the rails themselves did". Do we need "themselves"? What else might they be?
- "designed to experience controlled failure during a similar accident." Maybe "experience" → 'ensure' or similar.
- "Design of third rails" section: a good explanation of a complex topic.
- "So the board thus concluded". Remove either "So" or "thus".
- "So the board thus concluded that had caused the accident". This doesn't make sense. Has it lost some words?
- "Weener added." Delete, we know this is Weener's opinion.
- "more so than what Brody believed." Delete "so".
- "Were the federal standards the markings and signs conformed to strong enough?" Maybe "strong enough" → 'effective' or similar.
- "Were drivers adequately educated that the barriers were designed to break if they needed to get out of a crossing in a hurry, or that they should continue forward with greater speed from the crossing in that situation rather than back up, much as they are trained to do when a green light turns yellow as they enter an intersection?" Over-long sentence alert.
- Section "NTSB member statements": adequately summarised.
- "Most were from passengers injured or killed". I am unsure how US law works, but maybe 'Most were from passengers injured or on behalf of those killed'.
Enough. A lot of good work has gone into this and the basis is looking very solid, but it is not - as a whole - up to FAC standard re either 1a or 2. If the article had just arrived at FAC and I was the first reviewer I might be inclined to be generous to a first-timer and review the whole article as above. However, it has already had more work on the basics than an FAC should need - I assume on a similar basis of generosity - to get it to a level which, frankly, is a little below that at which I would expect an article to be nominated at FAC. So I am reluctantly going to oppose promotion, while encouraging the nominator to stay with it, work on the article and come back to FAC.
I note that this has gone through GoCE and a PR. Another PR with a request for a good kicking on the prose and MoS front may help. The nominator has also carried out 27 FAC reviews, which is great and should help their knowledge of the FAC requirements, although only 4 of them are in the past 3 years. Maybe do a further 8 or 10 FAC reviews? I would suggest also following all of the other reviews for any nomination you review. Note what each comment by a reviewer is and what response or change it elicits from the nominator, then consider whether anything similar applies to your article. Being seen being helpful around FAC may also prompt experienced editors to visit your article at PR if you boldly ask them. In addition, I have an immediately pre-nom checklist - here - parts of which may apply to your article(s). Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, seven weeks have passed and we aren't heading in the right direction. With the prose concerns raised above, I believe it is best worked on away from the pressure of FAC. I'm archiving this, noting that the usual two-week wait before another nomination will apply. FrB.TG (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 December 2024 [14].
- Nominator(s): Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
This article is about the history of Christianity. Every section has been revised. "Those who dare to engage in work that is broad-ranging enough to be categorized, perhaps, as world history, do so with fear that their work may be castigated for lacking specialist knowledge or be lampooned as a random collection of trivial generalizations." (Hyun Jin Kim, The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, page 2) I willingly face these fears, again, because every criticism received improves an article that is of utmost importance and should be among Wikipedia's best. Please help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Airship
[edit]Holy mother of MOS:OVERSECTION! 109 section headings for the prose is a bit much, my friend. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- No kidding, and it's not just the sections but the prose length... (t · c) buidhe 03:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I see what you're saying, but I am wondering if it's avoidable. Is there another article on Wikipedia covering 2000 years of history of much of the world impacting art, culture, economics, politics and religion that I could read to get a better idea of how to cut that down? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- ~~ AirshipJungleman29 The Cambridge History has 274 sections. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- The Cambridge History also has something like three million words, according to a back-of-the-envelope calculation, not thirteen thousand. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, and I think I read them all. Boiling down 3 million to 14,000 involved leaving a lot out completely, covering some things inadequately, and still ending up with a very long article. Two commenters below are negative because they think there should be more content. Can you think of a way to summarize 3 million words - that the authors say still isn't everything - that doesn't end up as long as this one? I am happy to cut whatever you suggest. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- The Cambridge History also has something like three million words, according to a back-of-the-envelope calculation, not thirteen thousand. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- History of philosophy might be a useful comparison. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the recommendation. It's an excellent article with a little under 12,000 words and a third of the sections this one has, but it only covers one topic. This article has many connected topics. I entirely left out most philosophy and theology so I could include some discussion of the intersection with politics, economics, art, and culture that seemed like turning points in history. What more should be left out? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- ~~ AirshipJungleman29 I am struggling with this. I tried to focus on main points and leave out extraneous detail, but there are just so frigging many main points! I didn't expect this to pass again, but I am here to get the kind of quality help that can get it passed eventually. It's already been peer-reviewed twice, and GA-reviewed, and FA reviewed before as well. I am trying to incorporate everything everyone says, including you, but I am really struggling to make it shorter. Help. Please help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- ~~ AirshipJungleman29 The Cambridge History has 274 sections. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I have some time tonight, so let's go through a few sections and see what you can work on. Starting from the beginning.
- Thank you! I'm so glad you're here! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Early Christianity begins" three words into the prose and there are already two problems. Why is "Early Christianity" bolded? The comment points to WP:R#PLA, but that is nonsensical. People searching "Early Christianity" will go to the article Early Christianity. ???? Then, why are we in the present tense? These are basic errors that we really shouldn't have to go through at FAC, and mean that reviewers won't even bother to address more complex issues.
- I don't know! It was always that way, and I just left it. Pretty stupid on my part. Fixed now. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure." If there's a historical consensus, you don't have to state it. What's wrong with "Jesus was a historical figure"? You can combine it with another sentence if you think it's short.
- There is a historical consensus amongst scholars, yet there is also a group called mythicists who stir up controversy. I didn't want it to read like my opinion. I changed it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Though if you combine it, it shouldn't be with any of "His crucifixion is well attested. He was a complex figure, whom many see as a sage, a holy man, a prophet, a seer, or a visionary" because there isn't much need for either of these sentences in their current form. If you keep one, it should be the first, but you could simply say "Jesus and his crucifixion are historically attested."
- "Jesus saw his identity and mission, and that of his followers, in light of the coming kingdom of God and the prophetic tradition of Israel" this sounds good and academic but what does it actually mean? It links "Jesus", "identity and mission", "followers", "kingdom of God", and "prophetic tradition of Israel" without really saying anything about any of them.
- It does! It is connected to the previous sentence. Jesus has been reinterpreted as a sage, etc, instead of a messiah, for about 200 years now. It is only right to acknowledge all the views with the last one the most current. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I took it out anyway. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- "His followers believed he was the Son of God, the Christ, a title in Greek for the Hebrew term mashiach (Messiah) meaning 'the anointed one', who had been raised from the dead and exalted by God." aaaaarrgh! we have no time to wander about with etymologies and the like! stay on topic! What did his followers believe? He was the Son of God/Christ who was raised from the dead and ... the uneducated reader is wondering what the hell "exalted by God" means. Find a way to explain it simply in five words or less.
- "As Frances Young has written, "The incarnation is what turns Jesus into the foundation of Christianity"." Really? That's great! Now, what the hell is an incarnation when it's at home?
- Well, I did something! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- "The Christian church established these as its founding doctrines, with baptism and the celebration of the Eucharist meal (Jesus's Last Supper) as its two primary rituals." Notwithstanding that we're not really sure what "these" means (see last couple of points), this is a good sentence. The mention of the Last Supper does however remind you that the events of his life have received no more than a vague handwave. If we scroll down we find that Constantine's activities are described in greater detail than Jesus's.
- Yes, but that's on purpose. One of the ongoing controversies is over whether or not Jesus intended to start a new church. Since this is a history of that church, that means Jesus himself is almost a nominal figure. Worshipping Him may be seen as central, but what he did or said isn't central to the aftermath. I would really rather not go down the theological rabbit-hole of more about Jesus. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Christianity initially emerged in the Roman province of Judea during the first-century" why? see absence of details on Jesus's activities.
- Surely I don't have to explain why, I just have to note that it happened. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- "It was both impacted by and impacted the geographical, cultural and socio-economic context in which it first developed" This is the case with nearly everything in human history.
- So true. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- "In the Roman Empire around the ancient Mediterranean, elites (2–5 % of the population) controlled the means of economic production, had a virtual monopoly on literacy, and most of the political power. Life for peasants was not easy, and hunger was common. 'Religion' in this context did not exist separately from politics or the family household. Very interesting context, as you would expect from a chapter on "The Mediterranean Context of Early Christianity". Can you guess what I'm going to say next?
- The following paragraph ... I mean, where to start, Jen. You have 127 words with four citations at the end, WP:V through the floor.You throw in a host of ecclesiastical words that you haven't come close to introducing meaningfully. Reminder, this is a broad-context article. You should be writing WP:ONEDOWN—in this case for primary school level. I have no clue what "Any liturgical role would still have been linked to the substantial character of the eucharistic meal" is supposed to mean!Some sentences are quite far away from yielding anything even vaguely in the realm of explanation ("The owner of the house was patron and host. Voluntary associations known as collegia served as a model." What does patron and host mean? What's a "voluntary association"/collegia? How is it a model for the owner of the house?)
I'm not going to oppose, because this nomination is not going to pass, but I'm sorry to say that this honestly seems worse than the last time I saw it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- You're right of course. I fall into jargon too easily. I will work on simplifying it. I know it isn't going to pass, but comments like yours really do help. You are wonderful and I am grateful and glad to know you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- ~~ AirshipJungleman29 Holy mother of indeed! Your edits have totally blown me away. In the time it took you to do all of that, I did that one paragraph mentioned above. I put it back and I hope you approve because it is the only mention of the early house church and the origins of the bishops' influence, which seems important - but then it all seems important to me, and that's obviously part of my problem - so if you think it should go, I will re-remove it. Lord above, I don't even know what to say. You're amazing. I wish I could think like you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Buidhe
[edit]While the work that's gone into the article is commendable, I don't feel like most of my concerns from the last FAC were addressed in a satisfactory way. For example:
- "Global religion" that I queried turns out to be direct quote, so thanks for following the source, but I'm still wondering whether it's one person's opinion or a widely held view (or do other scholars use this terminology at all?)
- The "Challenges" section is untenable, because it rests on an implicit POV of what Christianity is and what challenges it. For example, most Pentecostals would probably disagree that they are outside the Christian mainstream or a "challenge" to christianity. I think this section has to be fundamentally rethought of and split apart with any information to be kept split out to other areas just generally talking about developments.
- Prose needs work—too many quotations in some areas, I found a few grammar errors elsewhere. (t · c) buidhe 03:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry buidhe, I did think I had addressed your concerns in this last rewrite.
- Scholars do use the term "Global":
Daughrity, Dyron B. The changing world of Christianity: the global history of a borderless religion. Peter Lang, 2010
andJenkins, Philip. "The next Christendom: The coming of global Christianity." Religious Educator: Perspectives on the Restored Gospel 8.3 (2007): 28
andMortensen, Viggo. "What is happening to global Christianity?." Dialog 43.1 (2004): 20-27
are a few examples. - Pentecostals do not disagree that they are outside the Christian mainstream. They always have been, have always seen themselves that way, and tend to think of themselves as challenging the establishment accordingly. This article by a Pentecostal refers to Pentecostalism as being on the "extreme periphery":
Foster, William D. "Leadership from the extreme periphery to the mainstream? A reflection on the critical journey and how traditioning might offer a Pentecostal denomination a rediscovery of ancient paths." Journal of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity (2024): 1-25
In this article:Freeman, Dena. "The Pentecostal ethic and the spirit of development." Pentecostalism and development: Churches, NGOs and social change in Africa. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2012. 1-38
Pentecostalism is compared with mainstream Christianity with the claim that it challenges traditional power structures better than mainstream Christianity. They are indeed on the edge, and at the forefront, and their theology presents some powerful challenges to the traditional Reformation views found in most mainstream denominations:Gelpi, Donald L. "The theological challenge of charismatic spirituality." Pneuma 14.1 (1992): 185-197.
- The section can easily be changed to developments if you prefer, but that heading will apply to almost everything, which would seem to add to confusion in my mind.
- Please point out any grammar errors. I have been using Grammerly throughout, in addition to my "Brief English Handbook". This is written in British English rather than American - could that be the problem? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- buidhe Please come back when you can. I think I addressed these. Hogfarm suggested moving Pentecostals to Diversity, which I thought you would agree with, so I did. I genuinely appreciate your input. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Scholars do use the term "Global":
Comments by Johnbod
[edit]- I can't see myself reviewing all 293,778 bytes! It's faaarrr too long. Would a split before the Reformation help?
- Inevitably, with a subject this large, much of the coverage is pretty skimpy, but the section on "Art" in "Early Middle Ages (476–842)" is downright rubbish. The first of the two paras is:
- Dedicated monks merged the Germanic practice of painting small objects and the classical tradition of fine metalwork to create "illuminated" psalters, collections of the Psalms, the gospels, and copies of the Bible. First using geometric designs, foliage, mythical animals, and biblical characters, the illustrations became more realistic in the Carolingian Renaissance.[1]
- - yes, no links at all, where there should be several.
- "the Germanic practice of painting small objects and the classical tradition of fine metalwork" is completely the wrong way round. It should say something like: "illuminated manuscripts merged Late Antique traditions of book illustration with Germanic and Celtic decorative styles expressed in metalwork, and no doubt more perishable media." The rest of it isn't good either. The sequence of illuminated books produced developed from Gospel Books (early) through psalters, Bibles (mostly Romanesque), then books of hours (C14th on). In the period the section says it covers it was nearly all gospel books. The reference is very unspecialized too.
- Dedicated monks merged the Germanic practice of painting small objects and the classical tradition of fine metalwork to create "illuminated" psalters, collections of the Psalms, the gospels, and copies of the Bible. First using geometric designs, foliage, mythical animals, and biblical characters, the illustrations became more realistic in the Carolingian Renaissance.[1]
- ^ Matthews & Platt 1998, pp. 202–203.
- Fixed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- The next para is about Byzantine iconoclasm, but fails to link to our long article on exactly that. When the coverage is necessarily very brief, it is especially important to use links to our more detailed articles.
- In the same section, do we have much evidence of liturgical plays this early?
- Answered below. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- The para on the Investiture Controversy also doesn't link to that very full article (nor use that standard term).
- Fixed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- You say "The cult of chivalry evolved between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries and ... Our article, more conventionally, begins "Chivalry, or the chivalric language, is an informal and varying code of conduct developed in Europe between 1170 and 1220..." By the 15th century it was hanging on in some courts, but arguably not a strong force.
- Changed to early thirteenth reflecting the 1220 date. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- The pictures are rather odd. Too many Victorian illustrations, and many in odd locations compared to the chronology.
- There's a section called "Late Antique art and literature (c.350-500)" but it actually has nothing on what was arguably the formative period of Christian art, nor links to our articles. Just a bit on the pagan revival.
- Added two sentences. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- In all these arts areas, links to articles on specific works, in which Wikipedia is very rich, help to diffuse the vague fog of generalizations hanging around the article.
- I think a lot of further work is needed. Johnbod (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Johnbod I am really interested in your comments. It isn't necessary for every commenter to read everything. You're fine.
- On illumination, I changed it - loosely - to what you said, but I need a citation for it. I have rechecked a half dozen sources and can find support for the adoption of classical styles early, but not the rest of what you said. Do you have a source?
- Just about any specialized source will say this, but I'll pull out a couple for you. Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed.
- Van Engen speaks of mystery plays being used before the Carolingian era on page 549 here: [15]
- Fixed.
- The latter date of 1220 is the thirteenth century, and our article says it lasted into the fifteenth century with a revival in the fourteenth, so the statement is not incorrect. It can be more exact if you prefer.
- Images are certainly movable and removable. Which ones don't you like?
- Late Antique Art & Lit has five paragraphs. What would you like to see added? People here are already complaining about this article's length.
- Including me. I don't think it has a chance of being FA without drastic shortening, and a split must be the best route. Johnbod (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- What exactly do you mean by "a lot of work"? Adding links is easily done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Raising the question of why it hasn't been done already, when it is part of the FA criteria? The fact that you wrote paras on illuminated manuscripts, the Investiture Controversy and Byzantine iconoclasm without linking to any of them suggests to me you aren't very familiar with WP's extensive medieval content, in which case adding links properly will be a lot of work. Johnbod (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are right, I am not familiar with WP's medieval content. This is such an extensive topic that I am not an expert in all its aspects. I am here at least partly because I need collaboration from someone who is. Your comments have already helped, so thank you.
- There were extensive links in every section, and peer review objected and removed them because there were so many in the "See Also" section. I can put back whatever you suggest. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have added links to each art section. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am adding back all main links, but it's 2 in the morning and I have to get up at 7 so I will finish tomorrow. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Main article and see also links have been added back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Johnbod I know it's long. What kind of split would you recommend? It would leave Wikipedia with no parent article on this topic. Would that be a good thing? I will cooperate if that's the consensus. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I said at the top ("Would a split before the Reformation help?") the start of the Reformation would seem to be the obvious place. Otherwise you would have to follow User:Biz below, & condense what you have here by probably at least 50%. I don't agree with this, and can't imagine such a further condensed version would pass FAC. The article is already at or beyond the maximum level of summary to meet the "comprehensive" criterion imo. You could perhaps split it 3 or more ways. In fact there is already Christianity in the modern era (terrible title, not the original one) which "concerns the Christian religion from the beginning of the 15th century to the end of World War II", and Christianity in the Middle Ages ("from the fall of the Western Roman Empire (c. 476)" to 1500). It's arguable this here is a WP:FORK of them, though I think the authorship is very different. Both have pretty different coverage to here! Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Johnbod I added two sentences to Late Antique art. Does that work? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Better, certainly. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Johnbod I am really interested in your comments. It isn't necessary for every commenter to read everything. You're fine.
HF
[edit]Some stray thoughts here, rather than a comprehensive view
- "By the eighteenth-century, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), followed by Methodists, Presbyterians and Baptists, began to campaign, write, and spread pamphlets against the trade and slavery itself" - I think the claim needs to be softened here as there was substantial opposition to abolitionism in some of these denominations, see for instance the Southern Baptists and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South
- I find it very hard to believe that seven sentences regarding the Native American boarding schools is due weight for this topic when discussing the history of Christianity as a whole
- "By 2025, Pentecostals are expected to constitute one-third of the nearly three billion Christians worldwide making it the largest branch of Protestantism and the fastest-growing religious movement in global Christianity" - I'm not a fan of the sourcing here - the sources are from 2006 and 2014. Surely there are better numbers regarding
- Why is Pentecostalism discussed in a challenges section, alongside authoritarian persecution and secularization?
I don't think this article is quite there yet; the last several hundred years of history in here feels much more like a collection of assorted facts in an almost WP:PROSELINE feel, compounded by the use of tiny sections. Hog Farm Talk 16:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hog Farm Thank you so much for this.
- Fixed, I hope.
- It is one of the topics that is no doubt inadequately covered. However, I considered leaving it out entirely. It was a Federal program, not a specifically Christian one, and could, therefore, be seen as peripheral to Christian History. I am waffling on this one. What do you suggest?
- I'll look.
- Pentecostalism is a challenge to traditional mainstream reformation-based Christianity in both its theology and practices, particularly in the development of the Prosperity gospel.
- I don't disagree. What sections do you think should be combined? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd leave out the Native American boarding schools material entirely. In the vast sweep of all of the history of Christianity, this isn't really a factor at all. It's certain excessive weight to give it the current amount of coverage, and I really don't think this is significant to the history of Christianity as a whole. Hog Farm Talk 19:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Thank you, that is extremely helpful. I didn't expect this to pass again, but I was hoping for the kind of quality input I am getting here that would help it get there eventually. Thank you, thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wouldn't the information about Pentecostals seem to belong better in the Diversity and Commonality section? That section is more about various differing views within the Church, as is Pentecostalism, while the challenges section is focused on external pressures on the Church. The current grouping can be read to almost exclude Pentecostalism from Christendom. Hog Farm Talk 19:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, sure. Done. Thank you again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wouldn't the information about Pentecostals seem to belong better in the Diversity and Commonality section? That section is more about various differing views within the Church, as is Pentecostalism, while the challenges section is focused on external pressures on the Church. The current grouping can be read to almost exclude Pentecostalism from Christendom. Hog Farm Talk 19:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Thank you, that is extremely helpful. I didn't expect this to pass again, but I was hoping for the kind of quality input I am getting here that would help it get there eventually. Thank you, thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd leave out the Native American boarding schools material entirely. In the vast sweep of all of the history of Christianity, this isn't really a factor at all. It's certain excessive weight to give it the current amount of coverage, and I really don't think this is significant to the history of Christianity as a whole. Hog Farm Talk 19:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am not having any luck so far finding more recent numbers for Pentecostals. I'm still looking. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Biz feedback
[edit]I think the editor proposing this article has done a great job. That said, I don't think a satisfactory review can be achieved unless someone validates the sources as that's where the real issues that matter come out. Absent of doing that and of the topics I know well, I think there is a lot of detail that could be condensed without losing the overall narrative. In the spirit of giving actionable feedback, here are some initial thoughts to help improve the article.
- length: it's 13,790 readable prose size. Getting it down 3k words puts this at best in class standard. I think this is achievable.
- Biz Thank you so much for taking the time and showing up here. Cutting this that much is not something I know how to do. If you do, please do so. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)\
- The two sections between 313 and 842 consists of 4, 569 words and could be one section. One idea is making Christianity as the Roman state religion as the main article, which could collapse 1/2-2/3 of these many headings as well. There is no need to distinguish Byzantium's Christian history as different until Western Europe forms, so it could be "Roman state" and "other" for that time period.
- As I've said, to do a proper review, the sources need to be read and this is not something I have capacity to do now. You just need someone detached from the content to reduce, and if's not another editor, an LLM is perfectly suited for use cases like this to help inspire. As this is meant to be a broad narrative you don't need to explain things and can just link. By making the content more dense with a simpler narrative, you make the history more accessible. Word count and number of sources per sentence are a good way to measure your progress on this. Biz (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Biz Thank you so much for taking the time and showing up here. Cutting this that much is not something I know how to do. If you do, please do so. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)\
- Polytheism: I don't think this section is needed for this article. Bits of it can be used but it should be 1-2 sentences. It comes across as justifying Christianity and that is not needed.
- I followed the Cambridge History of Christianity to identify major topics for each era and polytheism is necessary in this time period. This represents a big shift in scholarship as well and leaving it out would be problematic. That said, much of it can be moved to a note, but it's too central to be omitted entirely. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Theodosian Law Code: as above, not relevant to this topic. At least in the way it's written.
- Again, people will look for this and will consider tghis section incomplete without it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- A lot of sentences are single-sourced, which reflects how this article could be condensed further. There are a lot of facts being shared that could be summarised into a theme that ultimately communicate one idea per paragraph. While there is nothing wrong with single source sentences, we want FA's to have more than one source to show strong evidence. Doing this also acts as a filter of what to include (ie, if only one source covers it, is it really necessary?)
- Multiple sources isn't actually an FA requirement. If you could give me an example of what you mean about one idea per paragraph, (which I think is there), maybe I could figure out how to make this more concise.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- For example, this paragraph:
The New Testament canon was eventually settled based on common usage. By the fourth-century, unanimity was reached in the Latin Church on which texts should be included. A list of accepted books was established by the Council of Rome in 382, followed by those of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397. For Christians, these became the New Testament, and the Hebrew Scriptures became the Old Testament. By the fifth-century, the Eastern Churches, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation—and thus had come into harmony with the canon
- Without reading the sources, this could be said with a lot less words. This detail belongs in other articles, like New Testament. By writing it like this: Over a period of two centuries during the 4-5th centuries, the New Testament canon was eventually settled.
- ...you still communicate the essential point for the narrative and can also remove a heading. By including all those sources, a reader can find out the detail and by linking to other articles they can also read detail as well but for the person wanting a general narrative that's all that matters. The call out of Latin church is also not appropriate, as at that time it was all considered the one church, so avoiding the detail eliminates NPOV issues like this.
- Now this is not answering your request of one idea per paragraph -- rather, it's one paragraph reduced to one sentence. But with a paragraph, let's say it's 3+ sentences. There needs to be a sentence that communicates the core idea ("New Testament was settled"). There can be 1 or more sentences which expand on the idea. In this case, I don't think you need more but you could expand on the point about how old testment and new became a point of difference with Judaism which supports the main point. Finally, there needs to be a sentence which links to the next paragraph. In this case, the first sentence of the next paragraph or similar like "Despite this collaboration between the churches, differences starting emerging". With those three sentences, you communicate a core idea of Christianity and let different topics flow in this case the churches worked together on things and then they didn't, a major sub-narrative of this entire article.
- Here's an example replacement:
Over two centuries in the 4th and 5th centuries, the New Testament canon was settled, formalising Christian scripture. This process distinguished Christian texts from the Hebrew Scriptures, which became known as the Old Testament. However, despite cooperation among churches, differences began to emerge.
- Doing this reduces words (91 to 50), reduces headings (two: New Testament Canon + East and West), captures the subtleties without explicitly sayiing it (ie, differences with the Book of Revelation, debates with the churches) and creates more flow. Biz (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay I copied it and replaced what was there. Someone will gripe about it I have no doubt, but for a few minutes it's more concise. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The article employs both a time-narrative and theme-narrative which I like. But there are some themes that span periods and might be better to put them as their own section as they are disjointed (ie, east and west has a complex history the first 1000 years). I'm sure there are other themes as large as this but it would changing the article so the history has a lighter and more general narrative (with many less sections) and more specific narratives on major issues that span multiple eras.
- I tried organizing by theme, but there is almost no continuity from one era to the next. What could be followed from one era to the next - missions, Papal development, interactions with the state, the Eastern churches - are about it, and they are there in their time frame. Uf you think taking them out would shorten anything, I can try it, but that's a major rewrite and an unusual approach to history. I did originally have a separate section on the East, but that left the rest of the article so heavily western that I just didn't like it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think the high level time periods could be Jesus to Dicoletian; Constantine to Pope Gregory I or Charlamagne which denotes the start of western Christianity. Run two parallel histories of west and east until Martin Luther where protestantism gets added as a third theme.
- Periodization has been determined by scholars. I'm stuck with it. I tried changing it once and got reamed for it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is more a reflection of the scholarship but the article is narrated as western Christianity's history, and in the second millennia, protestant history. It certainly make a solid attempt to give balanced coverage (and the lead does that well), but it comes across as token but more could be done. For example
For Eastern Orthodox church leaders, the French Revolution meant Enlightenment ideas were too dangerous to embrace
could be expanded. More could be written about the Rum Millet, where the Orthodox church was forced to operate under for 500 years. The Russian effort in freeing Orthodox Christians under Ottoman control, the Greek enlightenment rejecting the church (and the conflict itself), and the eventual Greek revolution that threw off the Ottoman porte. There is no mention of the Crimean war which started due to a dispute over a church in the Holy Land and had the East and West battle, a modern culmination of the east and west divide. There is no mention of palamism, a major feature with Orthodoxy and which was gradually adopted over several centuries. The evolution and development of Orthodox churches that run independently in each nation, and related the recent schism within the Orthodox Church due to Ukraine and Russia's conflicts with the west. The attempts at ecumenism with Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Going back my point about themes, this is like a history within the history and Eastern Christianity deserves its own section, especially after 1453 where it runs independently.- There is less source material on the East. This asks for more, and more can always be said, but cutting down content at the same time is not something I am good at. Palamism is not mentioned because no theology is mentioned, just as no philosophy is mentioned. It's an omission Ii agree. The Crimean war could be added, but then so could some others. Adding. Not subtracting. Argh. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think more could be done covering the western church's cannon and its development, which led to its major contribution to modern legal systems
- Yes, more could be done. Should it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Some of the sources are not of a quality that I think are FA level. For example, Kolbana who writes in the Cambridge history is excellent, but Lorenzetti who wrote a good history of the Filioque on study.com is not at the same standard and degrades the status the article could have
- This is true. Lorenzetti is not at the same level as Kolbaba. But she is one of three references on one sentence, and the other two are Kolbaba and Meyendorff, so does it really matter? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have disagreed with much of this, but I don't want you to think I'm ungrateful. This isn't going to succeed no matter what I do here, but I was hoping for some substantive criticism, and you tried to do just that for me, and I thank you. And if you can help make it shorter, please do! I am not good at that. Thanx again for showing up for me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Biz (talk) 09:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Borsoka: oppose
[edit]- When reading the article my main concern was, that it is not a coherent text, but a collection of small articles without any visible connection between them, each bearing a section title. For instance, section "Early Christian art" refers to early church fathers without any reference to them in previous sections, section "Augustine and the Jews (395–398)" refers to Augustine's rejection of violence against Jews although in previous sections we are informed about Jesus's and his disciplines' Jewish background, the spread of Christianity in the Jewish diaspora, etc.
- Borsoka I always appreciate your comments. Thank you. That doesn't mean I always understand them. If I understand correctly, you are saying there is too little explanation, but adding more content doesn't seem like a viable choice here, so how about if I change fathers to leaders? It means the same thing and doesn't require explaining. As for Augustine, I hoped the opening sentence -
Jews and Christians were both religious minorities, claiming the same inheritance, competing in a direct and sometimes violent clash.
was adequate to set the stage. What do you say? A single coherent narrative isn't really possible. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)- You obviously do not understand what I mean: there is no explanation for the rift between the two religions.
- But there is! The section "Gentile Christianity" covers it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was wrong in this respect. However, I maintain that the "articles within the article" structure does not help readers to understand how Christianity developed through millenia. Borsoka (talk) 06:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- What would? How can so many disparate events and people and trends be tied together? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is an editor's task. Borsoka (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was wrong in this respect. However, I maintain that the "articles within the article" structure does not help readers to understand how Christianity developed through millenia. Borsoka (talk) 06:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- But there is! The section "Gentile Christianity" covers it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- You obviously do not understand what I mean: there is no explanation for the rift between the two religions.
- Borsoka I always appreciate your comments. Thank you. That doesn't mean I always understand them. If I understand correctly, you are saying there is too little explanation, but adding more content doesn't seem like a viable choice here, so how about if I change fathers to leaders? It means the same thing and doesn't require explaining. As for Augustine, I hoped the opening sentence -
- The article should be primarily based on general works about the universal history of Christianity. Instead, the article is verified by dozens (nearly a hundred) works on specific aspects of Christian history, theology, etc. This approach indicates me that the nominator is struggling to present their own interpretation of the history of Christianity.
- This seems both unfair and inaccurate. These are the general histories I used: I referenced The Cambridge History of Christianity 45 times, and The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity 6 times, the Early Christian World 12 times, both volumes, which I actually bought. I used The Oxford Encyclopedia of African Thought, A History of Spain, The History of the Renaissance World: From the Rediscovery of Aristotle to the Conquest of Constantinople, The Cambridge History of the Bible, A Concise History of the Catholic Church, The Cambridge Ancient History XIII: The Late Empire, A.D. 337–425., The rise of Western Christendom: triumph and diversity, A.D. 200–1000 (Third, revised ed.), History of the Later Roman Empire. Vol. 2: From the Death of Theodosius I to the Death of Justinian , The Mediterranean world in late Antiquity: AD 395–700. , Byzantine Christianity: A Very Brief History, The Early Christian Church. Vol. 1, The Northern Crusades, Handbook of Global Contemporary Christianity, The Cambridge History of Judaism, Volume 2: The Hellenistic Age., A History of Medieval Heresy and Inquisition, A Short Introduction to the History of Christianity, A History of Orthodox, Islamic, and Western Christian Political Values., The Encyclopedia of Christianity. Vol. 3., History of Religions, The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades, The Story of Christianity, Christianity in Ancient Rome: The First Three Centuries, A History of Byzantium (2nd ed.), Introducing Early Christianity: A Topical Survey of Its Life, Beliefs Practices, Christian Community in History. Vol. 1, Byzantium and the Crusades., The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought, The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians (Repr. ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Roman Law, A History of Christianity in Africa: From antiquity to the present, The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia — and How It Died., The Later Middle Ages, Medieval Civilization 400–1500, The Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America, A History of the Church in the Middle Ages , The Reformation: A History, A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years, The Routledge Companion to the Christian Church, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes , The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World, Europe in the High Middle Ages 1150–1300 (3rd ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity, A Short History of the Middle Ages. Vol. 1, The Wiley Blackwell Companion to World Christianity, History of the Christian Church, The Penguin History of the Church: Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages (Repr. ed.), The Routledge Handbook of East, Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500–1300, History of the Middle Ages 300–1500. , A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages (2nd ed.), Handbook of European History 1400-1600: Late Middle Ages, Renaissance and Reformation, The New Cambridge Medieval History. Vol. 5, c.1198–c.1300, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, The Routledge History of Medieval Christianity: 1050–1500 (Illustrated ed.), and finally The First Thousand Years: A Global History of Christianity. I used journal articles for specifics, to be sure of the latest scholarship, and to supplement these general histories. For you to say
This approach indicates me that the nominator is struggling to present their own interpretation of the history of Christianity.
is just wrong - and unkind.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)- For me, your list verifies my statement. The article is not based primarily on books specialised on the universal history of Christianity.
- Are these mythical references general or specialized? You've said both now. These are all books that either contain or fully focus on a general history of Christianity. You never admit when you're wrong. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, I have consequently say the same: the article should be based on specialised books on the universal history of Christianity. Borsoka (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right that the article should be based on good sources, and you are just as wrong in claiming that it isn't. There are about 200 references listed above that form the core of content. Some are "specialized books" in that they cover limited periods like the Middle Ages or Late Antiquity, and some are specialized in covering locations like Byzantium or Eastern Europe, and some are specialized on a topic such as law or Christian thought, but they all cover the history of Christianity. Several of the others are general histories with no specialization. What does "the universal history of Christianity" even mean? What is a "universal history"? Look at the titles listed above and please explain why they don't meet your standard because I obviously don't understand. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, I have consequently say the same: the article should be based on specialised books on the universal history of Christianity. Borsoka (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Are these mythical references general or specialized? You've said both now. These are all books that either contain or fully focus on a general history of Christianity. You never admit when you're wrong. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- For me, your list verifies my statement. The article is not based primarily on books specialised on the universal history of Christianity.
- This seems both unfair and inaccurate. These are the general histories I used: I referenced The Cambridge History of Christianity 45 times, and The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity 6 times, the Early Christian World 12 times, both volumes, which I actually bought. I used The Oxford Encyclopedia of African Thought, A History of Spain, The History of the Renaissance World: From the Rediscovery of Aristotle to the Conquest of Constantinople, The Cambridge History of the Bible, A Concise History of the Catholic Church, The Cambridge Ancient History XIII: The Late Empire, A.D. 337–425., The rise of Western Christendom: triumph and diversity, A.D. 200–1000 (Third, revised ed.), History of the Later Roman Empire. Vol. 2: From the Death of Theodosius I to the Death of Justinian , The Mediterranean world in late Antiquity: AD 395–700. , Byzantine Christianity: A Very Brief History, The Early Christian Church. Vol. 1, The Northern Crusades, Handbook of Global Contemporary Christianity, The Cambridge History of Judaism, Volume 2: The Hellenistic Age., A History of Medieval Heresy and Inquisition, A Short Introduction to the History of Christianity, A History of Orthodox, Islamic, and Western Christian Political Values., The Encyclopedia of Christianity. Vol. 3., History of Religions, The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades, The Story of Christianity, Christianity in Ancient Rome: The First Three Centuries, A History of Byzantium (2nd ed.), Introducing Early Christianity: A Topical Survey of Its Life, Beliefs Practices, Christian Community in History. Vol. 1, Byzantium and the Crusades., The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought, The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians (Repr. ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Roman Law, A History of Christianity in Africa: From antiquity to the present, The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia — and How It Died., The Later Middle Ages, Medieval Civilization 400–1500, The Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America, A History of the Church in the Middle Ages , The Reformation: A History, A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years, The Routledge Companion to the Christian Church, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes , The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World, Europe in the High Middle Ages 1150–1300 (3rd ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity, A Short History of the Middle Ages. Vol. 1, The Wiley Blackwell Companion to World Christianity, History of the Christian Church, The Penguin History of the Church: Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages (Repr. ed.), The Routledge Handbook of East, Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500–1300, History of the Middle Ages 300–1500. , A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages (2nd ed.), Handbook of European History 1400-1600: Late Middle Ages, Renaissance and Reformation, The New Cambridge Medieval History. Vol. 5, c.1198–c.1300, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, The Routledge History of Medieval Christianity: 1050–1500 (Illustrated ed.), and finally The First Thousand Years: A Global History of Christianity. I used journal articles for specifics, to be sure of the latest scholarship, and to supplement these general histories. For you to say
- Quite obviously debatable statements abound in the article: "In 397, Saint Ninian brought Christianity to Scotland.", a reference to the Christianisation of Romania in the early 11th century.
- You are mistaken. Ninian Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, I am not.
Ninian is a Christian saint, first mentioned in the 8th century as being an early missionary among the Pictish peoples of what is now Scotland.
He didn't live in the 11th century and he had nothing to do with Romania. I don't know what you are talking about. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)- I did not say that Ninian has anything to do with Romania. I referred to two highly dubious statements from the article. Borsoka (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Borsoka So you are saying that Ninian did not bring Christianity to the Picts and that Romania was not introduced to Christianity in the 11th century? There is debate about Ninian, but this statement is generally accepted. There are multiple theories about Romania. Christianity did probably first show up there with the Romans, but indications are that it died out. It didn't reappear till the Middle Ages after it was introduced to the Kievan Rus. There isn't room to go into all the nuances of every country. I went with the consensus view. More could be said. Should it? That's really the fair and reasonable question here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, I say, that in the 21th century no scholar says that X brought Christianity to anywhere, and anyone who writes of Romania in the 11th century is mistaken. Borsoka (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is kind of an out-there claim. I can only go with what the sources say.Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I do not have time to continue this discussion, especially because we had a very similarly time wasting conversation on the (over)use of the adjective "corrupt" during one of your previous FACs. You should read relevant literature before editing and discussing this article. Otherwise, you are only wasting your own and other editors' time. Again, abandon this article for a longer period and develop your understanding of Christian history by editing articles of much more limited scope. Borsoka (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I did not say that Ninian has anything to do with Romania. I referred to two highly dubious statements from the article. Borsoka (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, I am not.
- You are mistaken. Ninian Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- As during my last review, I suggest that the nominator should edit articles on shorter periods, before returning to this article. Borsoka (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- You and others did, but I don't really care about tucking multiple FA's under my belt. I care about this article. This article matters. I didn't realize how significant this topic was until I started reading the hundred histories listed above, but now I do know. This is one of the most important articles on history on Wikipedia, and everyone should be doing all they can to help improve it imo. We should be helping each other instead of making baseless accusations. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you whenever want to achieve this article's promotion you need to understand the details of the history of Christianity. We are all here to improve WP. That is why I do not edit articles about bridges, football teams, flowers, Buddhism, volcanoes, etc. Borsoka (talk) 05:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- You and others did, but I don't really care about tucking multiple FA's under my belt. I care about this article. This article matters. I didn't realize how significant this topic was until I started reading the hundred histories listed above, but now I do know. This is one of the most important articles on history on Wikipedia, and everyone should be doing all they can to help improve it imo. We should be helping each other instead of making baseless accusations. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 December 2024 [16].
- Nominator(s): XR228 (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
The Seattle Kraken are the second-newest team in the National Hockey League, having been founded in 2018 and playing their first game in 2021. Within their three seasons, they have fared not-so-decently, qualifying for the playoffs only once. I nominated this article for FA a couple months back, but it didn't get enough reviews, so I'm hoping we can avoid that this time. Thanks. XR228 (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- "The Kraken qualified for the Stanley Cup playoffs for the first time in 2023. The team faced off against the Colorado Avalanche in the first round." - could merge these two, rather perfunctory, sentences
- "ending their sophomore season" - I presume "sophomore" is an American English term for "second".......?
- "The previous season, Beniers scored" => "The previous season, Beniers scored"
- "The Kraken played their first home game at Climate Pledge Arena" - is Climate Pledge Arena the same facility as KeyArena? If so, I would clarify this.
- "He made his Kraken debut on October 13, notching a 4–1 victory" - not sure he personally notched the victory, I would imagine some other players helped a bit too ;-)
- "The team's record of 46–28–8" - is this W-D-L? W-L-D? Something else? I have seen a tooltip used to explain such records on similar articles.....
- "ultimately part of a 13-game point streak" - what's a "point streak"? Is there an appropriate link?
- "Vince Dunn (left) and Joey Daccord (right) during the 2024 Winter Classic." - this image caption isn't a sentence so doesn't need a full stop
- "The Coachella Valley Firebirds, the AHL affiliate of the Kraken" - write (and link) the name in full on first usage
- in the Season-by-season record section, T appears in the key but no such column exists in the table
- Under "Owners", I would merge the two single-sentence "paragraphs" into one
- That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude I have made the changes. As for Martin Jones, wins are typically counted as part of a goalie's stats in ice hockey, so normally when a team wins, it is also said that the goaltender won the game as well. XR228 (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- OK, that seems a bit weird but I will bow to how ice hockey does thing ;-) BTW the point about the "record of 46–28–8" still seems to be outstanding.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: In the paragraph before that, it talks about the Kraken's record of 27–49–6, so I added a note there. XR228 (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies for missing that there. Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: In the paragraph before that, it talks about the Kraken's record of 27–49–6, so I added a note there. XR228 (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- OK, that seems a bit weird but I will bow to how ice hockey does thing ;-) BTW the point about the "record of 46–28–8" still seems to be outstanding.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude I have made the changes. As for Martin Jones, wins are typically counted as part of a goalie's stats in ice hockey, so normally when a team wins, it is also said that the goaltender won the game as well. XR228 (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Nick-D
[edit]I'd like to offer the following comments
- The start of the 'Establishment' section is rather abrupt - the article would benefit from material here or as a separate section explaining the history of professional ice hockey in the region ahead of the team's establishment.
- "The team plays the Nirvana song "Lithium" after every Kraken goal at home" - this seems a rather odd choice, even though Nirvana are a local band. Can the rationale here be explained?
- The "Season-by-season record" section is unreferenced
- "32 was retired on October 23, 2021, immediately before the team played their first regular season home game, in recognition of the team being the 32nd to join the NHL and in honor of the 32,000 fans who placed deposits for tickets on the first possible day." - this is stated earlier in the article, almost word for word.
- While I appreciate that the article covers a fairly new sports team, it seems that it has been bulked up with minor issues and trivia that obviously wouldn't be included in articles on more established teams. This should be removed to help future proof the article, which needs to be a priority for FAs on ongoing topics. Some examples:
- " On July 13, 2022, the team signed goaltender Martin Jones to a one-year contract.[39] He made his Kraken debut on October 13, notching a 4–1 victory."
- "All fans holding tickets are given free transit passes to and from the arena, which is served by several bus routes and the Seattle Center Monorail."
- " At the team's first two home games, the Hyak's horn was not yet functional, so the team only played a recording of it"
- "The event was held under the banner of "Release the Kraken", a phrase popularized by the 1981 film Clash of the Titans and the 2010 remake"
- The second para of the 'Mascot' section could be cut. This seems like a concocted PR exercise.
- The 'broadcasting' section seems much too detailed - I doubt that many readers will care about most of this information, which includes unnecessary levels of detail on topics such as the radio stations that broadcast individual games and a single Covid case. This could be considerably condensed. Nick-D (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nick-D: I have made the changes. As for the "abruptness," the section is about the establishment of the team, and I don't feel that it's right to put information about other former teams there. XR228 (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- For a featured article, it's necessary. Stuff like this is the difference between a high quality article and a featured quality article. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nick-D: I've added a section about the history of ice hockey in Seattle. XR228 (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- A single paragraph that ends its coverage in 1975 and provides no information on what happened between then and 2017 (which is obviously quite a bit given that there was a process in 2017 that didn't just appear out of thin air) isn't at all sufficient to be frank. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Nick-D: I've added some stuff. XR228 (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Nick-D ? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Replied above Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- XR228 Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- My bad. I'll get to it shortly. XR228 (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- XR228 Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Replied above Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- A single paragraph that ends its coverage in 1975 and provides no information on what happened between then and 2017 (which is obviously quite a bit given that there was a process in 2017 that didn't just appear out of thin air) isn't at all sufficient to be frank. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Nick-D: I've added a section about the history of ice hockey in Seattle. XR228 (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- For a featured article, it's necessary. Stuff like this is the difference between a high quality article and a featured quality article. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Source review
[edit]Based on this version.
- Why the long quotes on citations 2 and 3?
- Inconsistency between using "NHL.com" and "National Hockey League" in the work parameter for links from NHL.com; the latter should probably not be used except for league announcements (and changed to publisher).
- Heavy reliance on NHL.com sources is a problem; more third-party sources would be appreciated.
- Inconsistency in marking The Athletic as a subscription-required or limited-access source; citation 69 omits it entirely.
- Citation 15 should use {{cite tweet}}, but ideally be replaced with something that isn't speculative; same goes for citation 16, as "reportedly" is an issue.
- Citation 28 should be consistent with other uses of NHL.com sources.
- Citation 57: SportsPro is not a high-quality source.
- Citation 76 is not consistent with other NHL.com source formatting.
- Citation 80: UniWatch is not a high-quality reliable source.
- Citation 81: The Seattle Times is unlinked; for consistency, all citations should either use links or omit them after the first use.
- Citation 82: USA Today needs to be added as the main source; For The Win is a subsection.
- Citation 83: Barstool Sports is not a reliable source.
- Citation 85: Pacific Northwest Sports is not a high-quality source.
- Citation 89: PSBJ should be marked as subscription required.
- Citation 100: Can this press release be replaced with something else? Either way, it is not correctly attributed, since PR Newswire is an aggregator.
- Citation 108 should be consistent with other AHL website citations.
- Citations 115, 116, 117: teams and organizations are publishers.
- Citation 119: TSN is not listed as work here unlike other uses.
- Citation 120: Is The Hockey Writers a high-quality source?
- Citation 112: The Sporting News should be linked.
- Citation 123: CNN/SI should be listed as a work, not a publisher.
Will conduct a spotcheck later, but at this point there are quite a few sources that need to be swapped out for higher-quality versions. SounderBruce 07:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- @SounderBruce: I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- A few items were not addressed, so I went ahead and made the formatting changes. The comment on The Athletic has not been resolved, nor has the inconsistency between using "NHL.com" and "National Hockey League". SounderBruce 04:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- @SounderBruce: I fixed the NHL.com part. All instances of The Athletic are marked as limited-access. XR228 (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- A few items were not addressed, so I went ahead and made the formatting changes. The comment on The Athletic has not been resolved, nor has the inconsistency between using "NHL.com" and "National Hockey League". SounderBruce 04:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Spotchecks based on this revision:
- Ref 4: Matches NYT source
- Side note, "due to their arena getting sold" should be replaced with "due to the sale of their arena".
- Ref 14: Matches NHL.com source
- Ref 31: Matches The Hockey News source
- Refs 43 and 44: Matches sources
- Ref 53: Matches NHL.com source
- Ref 66: Matches Kitsap Sun source
- Ref 71: NHL.com does not mention the Giant Pacific octopus nor its size and habitat.
- Ref 78: A little too close on the paraphrasing, especially "said to be a nephew of the Fremont Troll".
- Ref 87: Matches The Athletic source
- Ref 99: Should be marked as a press release, otherwise matches
- Ref 102: Should be marked as a press release, otherwise matches
- Ref 103: Should be marked as a press release, otherwise matches
- Refs 105 and 106: Access-date needs to match the "As of" date
- Ref 110: Matches NHL.com source; the extra use of Ref 15 isn't particularly needed here
- Ref 111: Does not mention the Kraken; a suitable replacement should be possible.
- Ref 119:
- In the league awards section, the ordering of the refs needs to be switched.
- Franchise records section needs an "as of" date and archived citations to be verifiable; ideally, these wouldn't be changed mid-season.
@XR228: There are some issues that need to be resolved before I can pass this source review. SounderBruce 01:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- Avoid sandwiching text between images
- Wordmark is missing alt text
- File:WCP-Uniform-SEA.png should include a source for the design - it doesn't seem to align with some of the example elsewhere in the article
- Images shouldn't have watermarks per WP:WATERMARK
- File:NHL_Seattle_logo.gif: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: I have made the changes. About the uniform image not having a source, what does that mean exactly? When I go to Wikimedia Commons, in the summary section, in the source row it says the user who made the design. If you could clarify that would be great. Thanks. XR228 (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- The user who made the image didn't invent the design, right? Does the team have a page on it? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: The team itself doesn't have a page about the jerseys. All NHL team jersey designs on Wikipedia are drawn digitally by someone, so I don't really think there's much we can do about it. XR228 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- The user who made the image didn't invent the design, right? Does the team have a page on it? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- They're drawn digitally by someone based on something, though, not out of their own head. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: If anything the drawing is based off pictures of players wearing the jersey, not, say, a graphic by the team. XR228 (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- They're drawn digitally by someone based on something, though, not out of their own head. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- But some images of players show a jersey with a different design? eg File:Gourde_warmups_2_23_(52708217163).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: That design is not one of the Kraken's current jerseys; the jersey Gourde is wearing in the photo was only used during certain games in 2022–23. The jerseys in the design that is there in the infobox are the ones the Kraken currently use. XR228 (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- But some images of players show a jersey with a different design? eg File:Gourde_warmups_2_23_(52708217163).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Coordinator comment
[edit]A month 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) 18:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but I am timing this out. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 December 2024 [17].
- Nominator(s): BernaBotto (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Featured on ptwiki, where I realized the translation to here, so I think it deserves to figure on the Main Page. BernaBotto (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I’m going to raise a procedural oppose here. You’ve made only one edit to the article, and have not raised the question of a run at FAC with any of the page’s other editors. This goes against the guidelines above (“
Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it
”. This is also what happened when you nominated Maxwell’s Silver Hammer yesterday. Maybe slow down on the nominations, develop an article properly and use peer review, as you were advised yesterday? @FAC coordinators: , please note. - SchroCat (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)- @SchroCat: I'm sorry, I'm really used to the ptwiki process, that the nomination is too fast. BernaBotto (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. It's also not a great look for a potential FA when the very first sentence contains two basic English grammar errors, viz "The 25th World Scout Jamboree was the 25th edition of the World Scout Jamboree, the biggest event on scout movement, that happens on each 4 years in a different country" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 December 2024 [18].
- Nominator(s): BernaBotto (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Hey! That's my first FAC here on enwiki, so sorry if i made any mistakes. I wrote this article on ptwiki and translated all the informations to here, I think is ready to figure on the main page. BernaBotto (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- Don't use fixed px size, see MOS:IMGSIZE
- Suggest adding alt text
- Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Unfortunately this is a mixture of some basic mistakes and some poor grammar. Although the basic mistakes can be fixed as part of FAC, I suggest you withdraw this and work on it before going through the peer review process before returning. A few examples (and these are only examples):
- "who commits murders with a hammer, with the dark lyrics": comma splice
- "the canadian band The Bells": it's a capital 'C' for Canadian and The Bells is a disambiguation page
- "canadian Adult": Capital C
- " comedian Steve Martin,[8] Frankie Laine also": comma splice
- "in early 1968, McCartney": First mention in the body, so the full name
- There is not one link in this first paragraph of this article. Rishikesh, Paul McCartney, The Beatles, The White Album, Alfred Jarry, BBC Radio, Radio Times, Many Years From Now, Royal Court Theatre, Sloane Square, Max Wall, Jane Asher, David Hockney, John Lennon, Ringo Starr, George Harrison and Get Back sessions are all available, but unused.
- Still in that first paragraph, "many of The Beatles' songs" should have a lower case 't'
- There is no formatting in the first paragraph, so: The White Album should be in italics, as should Ubu Cocu, Ubu Cuckolded, Radio Times Ubu Roi and King Ubu
- Why do you refer to the same album as The White Album and The Beatles - this will confuse those who don't know it has two names
- "The song's roots go back even further": Well why did you start in 1968, then introduce material from 1966? Chronological is normally the smoothest way to go
- There are way too many superfluous details in the paragraph. Do we really need to know McCartney was driving an Aston in '66? It didn't affect the 'birth' of the song. Neither did the fact that Hockney designed the sets for a play McCartney saw.
- 'Just as the name "Mitchell" may have morphed earlier into "Michelle"'; I have no idea what this is about. There is no reference to either Mitchell or Michelle in the rest of the article
- "Harrison had temporarily left the band on those Twickenham cinema day": I have no idea what a "Twickenham cinema day" is supposed to be
- This is all from the last para of the lead and the first para of the Background, and I haven't even started looking properly. Flicking down the page there are further problems that need addressing, but this is all going way outside what FAC is supposed to be for and into what PR should be dealing with. I strongly suggest you withdraw and work on this further. - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - going to have to agree, this is definitely not ready for FAC. Nominator has only made six edits to the article, which have actually made its quality worse rather than better -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- This clearly isn't moving towards a consensus to promote, so I am going to archive it for work to be done on it off-FAC. The usual two-week hiatus for nominating any article to FAC will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 December 2024 [19].
- Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
A haunting three-faced Celtic stone head dated to the 1st century AD, ie only a few hundred-odd years before written Irish history, yet it seems endlessly ancient and enigmatic. The article has received a number of skilled copyedits (by John especially), became a GA during the summer (after a review by Hog Farm) and recently went through an exhaustive and very rewarding peer review (mainly UndercoverClassicist). Ceoil (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
UC
[edit]Good to see this here: will review once a few others have been past, as I've already said my piece on the current version at PR. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
As promised -- I hope this lot is useful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Its use probably continued through the early Christian period into early modern celebrations of the Lughnasadh, a Gaelic pagan harvest festival.: We usually reckon "Early Modern" to be c. 1485 – c. 1688 or so in British history. Do I read rightly that it was used during that time period? Similarly, with "pagan": unless we're saying that a non-Christian community existed at that time, we need to say something more mealy-mouthed like "a harvest festival originally of pre-Christian origin" ("pagan" is something of a dirty word in Late Antique scholarship, since it would have meant nothing to the people whom it described, and lumps together a hugely heterogeneous religious world).
- Reworded as a "a pre-Christian harvest festival that continued into the modern period". In this instance pre-cristian means mythological kings or first peoples from c 1447—1407 BC. Ceoil (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Historians assume they were hidden during the Early Middle Ages: this doesn't seem to fit with the dates established by the previous comment.
- Addressed. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Almost a century later, it came to national attention in 1937 : do we need the almost a century later? Likewise, where it is usually on display: is that going to be a surprise to many readers?
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- a tricephalic skull cut off before the neck, with three faces.: not sure this is quite right. Tricephalic, strictly, means having three heads, and I don't think there's any indication that this skull would originally have had two siblings. If we simply mean "three-faced", it's tautological, as we say that a bit later.
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- a tricephalic skull cut off before the neck ... The head cuts off just below the chin: seems a bit repetitious (this is all within three lines on my screen).
- Trimmed. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- They are similar but not identical in form and their enigmatic, complex expressions: consider cutting but not identical, which is implied (outside mathematics) by similar.
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- All of the embossed eyes are wide and round yet closely-set and seem to stare at the viewer: this isn't quite grammatical. Easy fix first: the hyphen in closely-set needs to go (MOS:HYPHEN): we only hyphenate compounds when they're used in apposition with a noun (his close-set eyes), and the Wikipedia MoS doesn't hyphenate those with -ly verbs in any case. We also have a bit of a garden-path sentence here. Suggest either bracketing (yet closely set) or, probably better, taking a breath: yet closely-set, and they seem to stare at the viewer.
- Done as per your suggestion Ceoil (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Archaeologists disagree on whether it: restate the subject in a new paragraph.
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- The hole under its base suggests it may have been intended to be placed on top of a pedestal, likely on a tenon (a joint connecting two pieces of material): the "likely" is a bit misleading here, since the two parts are totally linked: if there was no tenon, the hole would have no relevance to whether it would be on top of a pedestal. Suggest something like The hole in its base suggests that it may have been intended to be connected via a tenon joint to the top of a pedestal. I think this would also remove the need for the long gloss on "tenon", which becomes obvious in context.
Most surviving iconic—that is, representational as opposed to abstract—prehistoric Irish sculptures: assuming that the date up to 100 CE is correct, would that be considered "prehistoric" in Ireland? It certainly wouldn't in Great Britain.Struck per Sawyer777 below, though perhaps it's worth a note to clarify that chronological boundary, as it goes so much later than it does in most other areas of European history? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)- Other tricephalic and bicephalic idols include the "Lustymore" figure in Caldragh Cemetery: is it still there?
- Yes, it originates from the nearby Lustymore Island, but was moved.[20] Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- In addition, the late-19th-century tendency to associate objects with a mythical or a late-19th-century Celtic Revival viewpoint: I'm not totally sure what this means, if I'm honest.
- lol. Removed. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- The archaeological evidence indicates that Corleck Hill ... was once known as "the pulse of Ireland": this surely comes from literary evidence rather than archaeological?
- Yes and changed. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- "drawn away ... [revealing] a cruciform shaped chamber ... the stones from the mound were used to build a dwelling house nearby, known locally as Corleck Ghost House.": this is quite a long quotation. Any reason not to paraphrase it? If nothing else, we could thereby remove the tautology of cruciform shaped (which should be hyphenated anyway).
- Yikes; paraphrased. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- a small contemporary spherical stone head from the nearby townlands of Corravilla, and the Corraghy Heads, also in the National Museum of Ireland.: given that the elements in this list are quite lengthy, a serial comma as indicated would be helpful. As we've already mentioned the Corraghy Heads, perhaps better not to gloss/introduce them here.
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- The number 'three' seems: from what I can see on Google Books, the overwhelming form is simply the number three seems.
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Triple-"mother-goddesses" : I don't think we want the first hyphen here, and probably not the second either. Hyphenating into quote marks is a bit of an odd look.
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Genii Cuucullati: This is Latin, so should be in a lang template. Can we translate it too?
- Its in Gaulish derived from Latin (maybe from 'genii loci but that's outside scope. Not sure we have a template for Gauilsh. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Is it not the other way around -- a Latin term that's got a Gaulish one hammered into it? Genii is a pretty distinctively/uniquely Latin word, and the morphology/inflection of Cuucullati (specifically, the -ati, "having-been-verbed" suffix) is definitely Latinate rather than Celtic. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- The Hooded Spirits article says "The name CucuIlātus is a derivative of Gaulish cucullos, meaning 'hood' (cf. bardo-cucullus 'bard's hood'), whose etymology remains uncertain. Cucullos is the source of Latin cucullus and Old French cogole (via the Latin feminine form cuculla; cf. modern cagoule). The Old Irish cochaIl ('monk's hood'), Cornish cugol, Breton cougoul, and Welsh kwcwIl are loanwords from Latin."
- I don't want to go too deep into this here, so have simplified the image caption as Early 3rd century AD depiction of the Hooded Spirits. Housesteads Roman Fort, Northumberland, England. Ceoil (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Works well. Incidentally, I read that as saying it's a Latin derivative, just like chivalrous is a derivative of the French chevalier, but is an English word rather than a French one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Its in Gaulish derived from Latin (maybe from 'genii loci but that's outside scope. Not sure we have a template for Gauilsh. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- as with the Boa Island figures: we haven't actually introduced these. Are they the same as (or a superset of) the Lustymore figure mentioned further up?
- Have clarified and corrected this.... two figure: the Dreenan Figure (also known as the Janus Stone) and the slightly less interesting Lustymore Man. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- From surviving artefacts, it can be assumed that both multi-headed (as with the Boa Island figures and the Corraghy Heads) or multi-faced idols were a common part of their iconography and represented all-knowing and all-seeing gods, symbolising the unity of the past, present and future, or in cosmological terms, the upper-world, the underworld and the middle-world.: this may not be your problem, per se, but there are two claims here, and one is much easier to wear than the other. I can accept "these objects were common" as an inference from "we find loads of these things", but I need a bit more convincing as to how we can tell anything about omniscient gods or a tripartite view of the cosmos.
- Who knows really, but they are in probability, and the sources go along that life. Have added the word "assumed". Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm still not sure we can join these ideas in the way we have, though I don't dispute that most scholars believe these things about Celtic religion. I've made a small edit here (including a grammar CE) which I think fixes the problem and I hope will be uncontroversial: it now reads From surviving artefacts, it can be assumed that both multi-headed (as with the "Dreenan" figure and the Corraghy Heads) or multi-faced idols were a common part of their iconography; they are assumed to have represented all-knowing and all-seeing gods, symbolising the unity of the past, present and future. Please do revert if that misses the point. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Who knows really, but they are in probability, and the sources go along that life. Have added the word "assumed". Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- The hole at the Corleck Head's base indicates that it was periodically attached to a larger structure: isn't this what we said earlier about a tenon, only now we seem to have promoted it to a certainty from being a conjecture the last time around?
- Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Three-headed altar thought to depict the god Lugus, found Reims, France in 1852: in Reims, surely? Comma after France per MOS:GEOCOMMA.
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Early 3rd century AD depiction of the Genii Cucullati.: needs an italicising lang template. This caption itself needs a full stop at the end, as it has one in the middle. The Boa Island one, however, needs its full stop removed.
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- The modern consensus, as articulated by Ross: I don't think we can really hold up a 60-year-old source as "the modern consensus". If someone else has endorsed Ross as still representing the communis opinio, fine, but we need to cite them as well.
- Source from 2013 added, but Ross' view is generally accepted. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Classical Greek and Roman sources mention that Celtic peoples practised headhunting and used the severed heads of their enemies as war trophies: I mean, yes, but they have all sorts of reasons for doing so -- the same sources mention that the Nile once flowed from west to east and that the Ethiopians value iron above gold. I think we need to be a bit more sophisticated here: we can still use this information, but we need to be alert to the sort of evidence we're actually dealing with, and the idea that this might not be a face-value factual observation.
- Yes, and this is exactly why have started Celtic stone idols - heavy, heavy lifting for an article on a single object. Will update shortly on progress. Ceoil (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- that is Celts living in Great Britain and Ireland: comma after is.
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Medieval Irish legends tell of severed heads coming back to life when they are placed on standing stones or pillars: unless the legends say that all heads do this, I would cut they are to make clear that we mean specific heads.
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- While the Roman and Insular accounts: what accounts are these? We haven't talked about Roman accounts yet (I assume you mean Caesar/Tacitus here?), and the only Insular narratives we've mentioned are mythical traditions, which are generally too fluid for the label "accounts".
- Getting to this. The source mentions Livy Book X, 26, 11. Ceoil (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- obviously this isn't my FAC, but re
assuming that the date up to 100 CE is correct, would that be considered "prehistoric" in Ireland? It certainly wouldn't in Great Britain.
- yes, the prehistoric period in Ireland is typically considered to last until the arrival of Christianity, and therefore literacy, in the 4th-5th centuries. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)- Ah -- very helpful, thank you. I've struck and amended accordingly. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi UC, excellent points, have them sized up re-sources but will take about a week to address all. The main problem is that there is no parent article for the group (Celtic stone heads), so the article is doing a lot of heavy lifting re context. Your comments are all on point, bear with me. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Ceoil, having a bit of free time I was about to review this. But I am wary of doing so until the changes you have in hand are complete. Once these are complete, if you ping me I'll try to find the time to give it a once over. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Gog, that would be great. I'm going to spin out some the article to a parent Celtic stone idols page, which will take some of the pressure off this article, which as I noted above and Jens below at times gets very general. It will reduce the article size by about 350 words, but make it more focused and tighter. Yes will ping when done. Ceoil (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- As an update, have created Celtic stone idols, and trimmed this article, will tonight be asking for UC and Gog to revisit once the full merge is complete. Ceoil (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Ceoil: Did you want me to take another look? UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- In cased missed....yes I do! Ceoil (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Ceoil: Now (eventually!) done: below. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- In cased missed....yes I do! Ceoil (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Ceoil: Did you want me to take another look? UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- As an update, have created Celtic stone idols, and trimmed this article, will tonight be asking for UC and Gog to revisit once the full merge is complete. Ceoil (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Gog, that would be great. I'm going to spin out some the article to a parent Celtic stone idols page, which will take some of the pressure off this article, which as I noted above and Jens below at times gets very general. It will reduce the article size by about 350 words, but make it more focused and tighter. Yes will ping when done. Ceoil (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks!!!! Some of these are from the two spin out articles...will be working through tonight :) Ceoil (talk) 10:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Ceoil, having a bit of free time I was about to review this. But I am wary of doing so until the changes you have in hand are complete. Once these are complete, if you ping me I'll try to find the time to give it a once over. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Second read
[edit]- In the lead, we have The three faces seem to depict an all-knowing, all-seeing god representing the unity of the past, present and future.: this is now rather stronger than we have in the body, where it's a general statement (and an assumption) about the artefact class as a whole The types are assumed to have represented all-knowing and all-seeing gods, symbolising the unity of the past, present and future.
- Have expanded on this with info from the Hill article. Ceoil (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- the Lughnasadh, a pre-Christian harvest festival that in Corleck continued into the modern period: I don't see this in the body.
- The body reads " From the early Christian period, it became a major site for the Lughnasadh, an ancient harvest festival celebrating the Celtic god Lugh, a warrior king and master craftsman of the Tuatha Dé Danann—one of the foundational Irish tribes in Irish mythology.[a][17] " Ceoil (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Right -- that's compatible with the idea that the festival continued into the modern period, but it doesn't explicitly say it (William the Conqueror ruled England from 1066, but that doesn't mean that he's still in charge). At any rate, I think we need a source somewhere for the fact that the festival continued into the modern period in Corleck (and only in Corleck)? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Have removed the "modern" claim as although true via trad accounts, it's irrelevant for here. I don't dwell on the Lughnasadh aspect too much, but Ross believes that many of these objects were buried / hidden twice; in the early-Christian period for whatever reason, but were found in the early Galeic period and used during the Galeic festivals..often (again) fixed on poles.... To quote Ross "groups of them used to be kept in secret places such as we have seen for the Corleck heads, or buried in some safe sport, often beside a sacred well. They were then uncovered and played their own singular role, for example the Lughnasadh festival, often they must have been set up on some sacred mound. [several examples follow]." If was a gambling man, like later artefacts (ie early medieval Insular brooches, crosiers or chalices, it was buried / hidden again during the Viking or Norman invasions, but no sources that I have seen goe there. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, she was speaking generally above about various heads (such as ...the Corleck heads...for example the Lughnasadh festival), but many sources are specific about Corleck and the Lughnasadh elsewhere. Ceoil (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Have removed the "modern" claim as although true via trad accounts, it's irrelevant for here. I don't dwell on the Lughnasadh aspect too much, but Ross believes that many of these objects were buried / hidden twice; in the early-Christian period for whatever reason, but were found in the early Galeic period and used during the Galeic festivals..often (again) fixed on poles.... To quote Ross "groups of them used to be kept in secret places such as we have seen for the Corleck heads, or buried in some safe sport, often beside a sacred well. They were then uncovered and played their own singular role, for example the Lughnasadh festival, often they must have been set up on some sacred mound. [several examples follow]." If was a gambling man, like later artefacts (ie early medieval Insular brooches, crosiers or chalices, it was buried / hidden again during the Viking or Norman invasions, but no sources that I have seen goe there. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Right -- that's compatible with the idea that the festival continued into the modern period, but it doesn't explicitly say it (William the Conqueror ruled England from 1066, but that doesn't mean that he's still in charge). At any rate, I think we need a source somewhere for the fact that the festival continued into the modern period in Corleck (and only in Corleck)? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- When rediscovered, the sculpture was regarded as an insignificant local curiosity and for decades was placed on a farm gatepost. It has been in the collection of the National Museum of Ireland in Dublin since 1937: I think we need something in the middle here about when and how people came to reconsider it as something worth looking at. The National Museum has plenty of things in its collection that are regarded as nothing special (endless thousands of potsherds, for example).
- The statement is now followed by "Its age and significance was realised in 1937 by the local historian Thomas J. Barron and the director of the National Museum of Ireland Adolf Mahr." Later we have "in a lecture to the Prehistoric Society that year, Mahr described the head as "certainly the most Gaulish looking sculpture of religious character ever found in Ireland".[11] He secured funding to acquire it for the museum". Ceoil (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- The Corleck Head was unearthed around 1855 by the local farmer James Longmore while looking for stones to build a farmhouse that became known colloquially as the "Corleck Ghost House": this reads as if he was intending for the farmhouse to become known as the Ghost House. Suggest "a farmhouse, later known colloquially as...".
- It became known as that due to the head. But reworded. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- On which, do we need the adjective local? Sounds to me like the sort of thing a journalist would put in without really thinking about it.
- ouch :) Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Archaeologists assumed the Corleck and Corraghy Heads once formed elements of a larger shrine: the past tense here implies that they no longer believe this.
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- after Longmore had sold the lease: sequence of tenses: cut the had here (and consider a comma before after).
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- He secured funding to acquire it for the museum: any idea of how much?
- Not that I've seen. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- How come Sliabh is translated as "Hill" the first time but "Highland" the second? We also have a "Three" in the second translation, but no Trí in the Gaelic.
- Its not worth getting into in this page, but planning an expansion on the Corleck Hill article. "Highland" removed. Ceoil (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your explanation may clarify, but if the word "three" isn't actually part of the Gaelic (but perhaps that "the Gods" in this context always means these three gods), we should have it in square brackets: "Hill of the [Three] Gods" -- to be clear that it's an editorial explanation rather than a direct translation. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- It reads as "Corleck Hill's Irish name is Sliabh na Trí nDée (the "Hill of the Three Gods")" Ceoil (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure about the capital on "Druidic", but will defer if a conscious decision.
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- When Barron asked him where the bowl was now, he said they had thrown it back "at once, fearing bad luck to have kept it: we're missing a close quote here. It's a lovely anecdote, though.
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- representational as opposed to abstract: consider wikilinks here (e.g. to abstract art).
- Mulled over this again, and going to leave it unlinked. The words iconic and aniconic have changed too many times over the centuries and seem to mean different things to different people. The article on Abstract art starts in 19th century Europe, and Aniconism is a different thing again. Ceoil (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- carved in the round (that is, fully three-dimensional without a side attached to a flat background) in low relief: I'm not sure this technically is low relief, since a relief is, by definition, not carved in the round, but rather projecting from a flat background. I think what you're getting at is that they're free-standing sculptures with relatively shallow carving?
- Agree and now reads..."The majority consist of human heads carved in the round (that is, free-standing without a side attached to a flat background) with relatively shallow carving to depict the faces" Ceoil (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- the Celtic scholar Anne Ross: was she a scholar of Celts, or a scholar who painted herself in woad?
- Now just a "scholar" but its was mostly of Celtic studies.. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- However, this view has been challenged by the writer John Billingsley, who points out that there was a folk art revival of stone head carvings in the early modern period.: what does he write? If it's anything other than academic history/archaeology (in which case, he needs an epithet to match), why are we giving his views equal weight to those of experts?
- Billingsle replaced with Ian Armit who is an academic, agrees, and is cited Ceoil (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- The two paragraphs of the "Dating" section seem to say the same thing twice: compare:
- Dating stone sculpture is difficult as techniques such as radiocarbon dating cannot be used. According to the Celtic scholar Anne Ross, the style of Corleck Head corresponds closely to other to other Iron Age anthropoid representations of the head [suggesting] a date in the late La Tène period". The Corleck Head is thus placed within this period based on stylistic similarities to contemporary works whose dating has been established
- Although many of the Ulster group of heads are believed to be pre-Christian, others have since been identified as either from the Early Middle Ages or examples of 17th- or 18th-century folk art. Thus modern archaeologists date such objects based on their resemblance to other known examples in the contemporary Northern European context.
- Have rewritten the flow of the section. Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is a relatively large example of the type, being 33 cm (13 in) high and 22.5 cm (8.9 in) at its widest point: can we give any sense of comparison with other examples to justify "relatively large"?
- The sources just say "large example", presumably because it is taller and wider than a typical human head (c. 22 cm x 18cm), and the others tend to be life-sized or smaller. 21:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Its faces are carved in low relief: I'm less upset with the use of low relief, but I think "shallowly" or similar is better.
- "Embossed" links to Repoussé and chasing, which isn't right: that's specifically a metalworking technique. I must admit I'm not sure what embossed means in the context of stonework: it normally means that the piece has somehow been stamped, but that's clearly not the case here.
- Replaced with "protruding", which yes is more correct. Ceoil (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- In 1972, the archaeologist Etienn Rynne described it: we need to restate the antecedent, as we had all sorts of new subjects in the preceding sentences.
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- with the exception of the c. 1000 – c. 400 BC Tandragee Idol from nearby County Armagh and the Ralaghan Idol, c. 1100 – c. 900 BC, found less than five miles east of Corleck Hill.: exceptions; there's two of them.
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Archaeological evidence suggests a complex and prosperous Iron Age society that assimilated many external cultural influences: honestly, this seems a bit woolly to me. More precisely, though: in Ireland, or just in Corleck?
- Clarified as Corleck. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Roman-period Celts: Two things: one, did the Roman period happen in Ireland? Two, to what extent was there such thing as a "Celt" in the Roman period (or before, but that's another story)? I would need a lot of convincing that pre-Roman ethnic identities still existed in any meaningful way in (say) C2nd Gaul or Britannia, notwithstanding some rather dodgy early-medievalist attempts to make them return, Lazarus-like, in the C5th.
- Re[phrased as to the Celtics. The phrase Roman period was only to set the period in a useful historical context for lay readers (i.e. the Roman occupation of England and Wales), and it is used by a lot of the sources. Ceoil (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- The hole at the Corleck Head's base indicates that it was periodically attached to a larger structure: we already talked about this a bit further up, but went in a slightly different direction. I'm not honestly seeing that this bit is really about its function, so would advise moving up to the previous section.
- Obviously that it was intended to be periodically mounted is about its function, so have moved claims in the description sect to the function sect. Ceoil (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm still not totally happy with letting the Greeks and Romans (Tacitus, really, I think) get an unquestioned bully pulpit to tell us all about the Celts. There are some major caveats here!
- Finally agree with the specific quibble, and have removed the statement, remembering that that the sources mention actual archaeological fonding of contemporary groups of skeletons without heads. To be added shortly. Ceoil (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
UndercoverClassicist, can you give another look pls. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Third read
[edit]- The archaeologist John Waddell believes the majority of the Iron Age stone idols were destroyed and then forgotten.: of which Iron Age stone idols? We have Archaeologists assume the Corleck and Corraghy Heads were intended as elements of a larger shrine a moment earlier, which allows the possibility that there were more idols, but doesn't actually say it. Do we mean "most idols made in Ireland" or "most of the idols that once existed at Corleck alongside these ones"? Either way, we need to be clear that the corpus in question actually existed first.
- Yes thorny. Have removed the claim. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- The loacal historian and folklorist Thomas J. Barron was the first to recognise the Corleck Head's age and significance: typo. I'd be happier if this was phrased in a more verifiable way: how do we know that nobody walked past it a few years earlier, made the same realisation, and forgot to write it down?
- Would prefer not to go down this pedantic route. The point is its was held in low regard until Barron, who that year contacted the Maher...the NMI director rather than a researcher, who took a large interest in it and the museum has had it on permanent, prominent display since. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- OK, so simply "the historian Thomas J. Barron recognised ...", "brought the head to national attention..." or similar?
- Would prefer not to go down this pedantic route. The point is its was held in low regard until Barron, who that year contacted the Maher...the NMI director rather than a researcher, who took a large interest in it and the museum has had it on permanent, prominent display since. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- But that's what it reads..."Barron contacted the National Museum of Ireland (NMI) in 1937, after which its director Adolf Mahr arranged the Corleck Head's permanent loan to the museum for study.[4][9]". Ceoil (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Through his initial research and interviews he found that: any reason not to shorten to "Barron found that..."?
- No. Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- The head cuts off just below the chin, giving it the appearance of being disembodied: I must admit that I don't really understand the importance of this. If "disembodied" just means "not attached to a body", isn't that just a restatement of what came before? On the other hand, if we're arguing that it looks disembodied (as in, never or no longer being associated with a body) rather than severed, I think we need better evidence, especially as we row in the other direction later on.
- It was a source trying to be colourful....agree not helpful here, so removed. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- their enigmatic, complex expressions: enigmatic I understand, but what does complex mean here? It usually has some idea of having lots of different interacting parts, but I'm not sure I see that any given facial expression can be more complex than another in that sense. Is this just hendiadys?
- It is totally hendiadys created by me when synthesising sources. But is no longer. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- the faces are clean-shaven and lack ears.: I wonder whether lack facial hair or ears would be better, since clearly nobody has actually gone and shaved the stone.
- Agree. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- a hole under its base: in its base, surely?
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- a degree of sophistication of craft absent in the often "vigorous and ... barbaric style": this seems not really to square with the idea we had earlier about it being "the most Gaulish-looking" sculpture of its kind found in Ireland. It sounds as though we're talking about an aesthetic reassessment, from seeing it as pretty rough to seeing it as unusually sophisticated. Is there anything to say about that?
- Not really appart from the various accolades over the last 80 years, though I get what you mean vs. is being said. Think minimalism - an understated level of detail leading to sophisticated and complex (!) facial expressions. I would defiantly appreciate some help with this. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- What I'm getting at here is that the artistic or aesthetic opinion on the head seems to have changed over time, as well as opinions as to its archaeological importance. Early viewers seemed to have viewed it as a bit primitive and "Gaulish-looking" (which surely meant "barbaric" at the time); later viewers seem to be doing the opposite, and describing it as relatively refined and sophisticated by comparison with "barbaric" artworks of the time. Can this change in appreciation be tracked in the sources? UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- It hasn't changed at all over time, remember its was only brought to national attention in the 30s, and is understudied. The only people who have advanced opinion are Barron, Maahr and Ross. Between Maher and Ross openionions on the broad sweep may have changed, which you are getting at. I'll remove the Maher quote accordingly. Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Although most are thought to origionate from between 300 BC and 100 AD: typo.
- Yikes. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- given techniques such as radiocarbon dating cannot be used.: my EngVar really needs given that, but is that the case in Irish English? Can't find a good example of "given [subordinate clause]" (rather than "given [noun phrase]", like "given the stormy weather and lack of food, this expedition is doomed.") on Google Books, but it's also not the easiest thing to search for. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would usually say "given..." rather than "given that...", but its not a matter of going to war over. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- According to Ross, similarities include its use of the Celtic ideal of what she describes as "sacred triplism": I think we've got this a little bit backwards. The similarity in question is obvious: it's got a feature or motif repeated in triplicate. The important and contentious bit of the "sacred triplism" is that she posits an explanation for this: that the (obvious) fact that all these representations use sets of three reflects a belief that triple nature is somehow sacred. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Im sorry but missing the point here, are you suggesting that they were producing secular three-faced heads at cultic sites in the 1st century AD? Ceoil (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm suggesting that we've phrased it as if it's somehow a matter of opinion that the idol has three heads -- as it's strikingly obvious, that bit doesn't really need an "according to Ross". However, we do need to be explicit that Ross argues from the three-headed nature of the idol towards a broader idea that triple-natured things were inherently sacred to the Celts. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Im sorry but missing the point here, are you suggesting that they were producing secular three-faced heads at cultic sites in the 1st century AD? Ceoil (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Have removed as the term "sacred triplism". Its not worth to me continuing this. Ceoil (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- have very similarly composed faces: what does this mean, exactly? Does it mean "three faces", or faces with similar expressions?
- Clarified as "faces with similar expressions". Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- This view has been challenged: I'm not sure what "this view" is -- we introduced a lot of ideas in the previous paragraph, and the last one was that other British examples look similar to the Corleck one. I assume that Ian Armit is saying that the Corleck Head is probably modern in date? If so, we need to work that into The Corleck head is one of the earliest known figurative stone sculptures found in Ireland, unless we're going to unequivocally reject Armit's idea, in which case we need to bring in some sources to do that.
- Hmm. Now rephrased as "The Iron Age dating....", however Armit was equivocal and his suggestion, which I'm not sure he fully believed, is very much a minority view. Ceoil (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Archaeological evidence suggests a complex and prosperous Iron Age society in Corleck that assimilated many external cultural influences, with the early forms of Celtic religion generally thought to have been introduced to Ireland around 400 BC: with the recent edits, this no longer quite hangs together.
- Good spot removed...again glad that the article remains narrow in scope and does not try and explain/defend larger claims. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- The number three seems to have been especially significant to the Celts.: I think this bit really needs to be with the "sacred triplism" discussion: either move this up or bring that down.
- Have regiged and brought down the few claims. Ceoil (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- the hooded figures known as Genii Cuucullati: as the Genii Cuucullati?
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- From surviving artefacts, it can be assumed that multi-headed (as with the "Dreenan" figure and the Corraghy Heads) and multi-faced idols (such as the Corleck Head) were a common part of Irish Celtic iconography: I think something is missing here. We can't infer from the artefacts themselves that the artefacts were common -- but we perhaps could from the number of surviving artefacts (knowing that most artefacts of any sort don't survive).
- Its an astute concern, but don't see the need to change here. I think its implied that the claim "multi-headed idols were a common part of Irish Celtic iconograph" is based on the ratio of that type of surviving artefacts vs the total. But of course there may have been a bias in those selected by hereditary keepers. Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- ps...another in my get to list is Hereditary keepers, which is especially fascinating wrt to Insular art metalwork, but haven't yet found a source that discusses it generally, beyond mention of specific examples of families/objects. Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- If it's implied, but not explicitly stated in the sources, we should make it explicit; if it's not explicitly stated in the sources, we can't imply it per WP:SYNTH. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your request still seems muddy, the ratio is implied by the statement "From surviving artefacts". I find this extremely nitpicky. Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- ps...another in my get to list is Hereditary keepers, which is especially fascinating wrt to Insular art metalwork, but haven't yet found a source that discusses it generally, beyond mention of specific examples of families/objects. Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- who are traditionally associated with Corleck Hill: traditionally covers a multitude of sins. Do we mean that modern tradition (dating to the C16th or something like that) associates them, or do we have reason to believe that people in the Iron Age did?
- Iron Age people; now clarified. 00:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- The Aghadowey pillar was carved from a tree trunk and had four heads, each with hair, that is today known only from a very simple 19th-century drawing. Not quite grammatical. Suggest that the best solution would be to make a full stop and then "It is today known...".
- Agree...Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Archaeologists speculate if the larger structure represented a phallus—a common Iron Age fertility symbol: either speculate that or speculate as to whether.
- Not sure of the difference...but done. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note D needs a full stop. In most style guides, all footnotes should have full stops, including references (you'll notice that the SFN template family add one automatically).
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- In the bibliography, Mackillop should come before Mahr, and Aldhouse-Green before Armit.
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- What's the logic behind the order of the three Kelly sources? Ditto the middle two Ross sources.
- Reverse chronology. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Denbighshire is a county, not a city: is that the best we can do for the place of publication of Ross 1998? From the Companies House record, John Jones was based in Ruthin.
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- ISBNs should be given as the form printed on the source itself. 13-digit ISBNs weren't issued until 2007, so sources like Waddell 1998 should have the 10-digit form found on them.
- As am using the republications with 13-digits, have used them...there may be differences in page numbers. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- If it's a republication (rather than a new edition), the practice is to cite it with the original details (date and ISBN): if it's a new edition, it is cited with the new date (and the original date in the relevant parameter, ideally) and the new ISBN. We're currently going halfway, "updating" the ISBNs but not the years. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a route I want to go down. Its seems overy fussy, time consuming, low value and distracting, and not once have I been asked for this before. Am very much regretting conceding to Jo Jo that would add issns so there would be blue and the end of each source; did suspect at the time that pedants would see an opportunity and push further. Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- The volume title for Rynne 1972 is in sentence case, not title case. Ditto Warner 2003.
- Done...I think...the titles were cut/paste from the publications. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Some books have a place of publication, others don't, even when it's not obvious from the publisher (e.g. Routledge).
- Updated and think ok now...the publications left that don't have those were its obvious. 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Winter 2000" and similar as a date/volume should be capitalised.
- Done...I think. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sometimes "volume" and "number" are abbreviated, sometimes they are not. Using a citation template would help with this and other nit-picky consistency issues.
- Cleaned up. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Some periodicals have ISSNs (which are good), others don't.
- I went with Jo-Jo comment that "Source formatting seems consistent, 'xcept for the lack of ids at Eamonn's second citation, Warner, Richard's and some of Anne Ross's"...ie add an ISSN if there isn't a JSTOR copy available. I can add, but not anxious to do that. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
UndercoverClassicist, again a pleasure to work through all these further points during an expert review, which are hens teeth in my areads of Wiki. Think I have them all but have above made a request re a degree of sophistication of craft absent in the often "vigorous and ... barbaric style"...not sure of the point you are making. Thank u once again. Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- This seems to be spiralling into circles of pedantry. Have met all demands as far as I agree; but not willing to go further regarding correctly reflecting the original 10 vs republished 13 ISBNs, having ISSNs for all articles...not just those not on JSTOR, etc...for reasons given above. A support or an appose pls at this stage otherwise we could go on for ever towards the perfect article.. Ceoil (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC
sawyer777
[edit]i've also already reviewed this at the PR, and said i'd support it at FAC once it got here. i stand by that; the prose & sourcing on this article is excellent (indeed i spot a couple of my textbooks). i've given it another look-over and have nothing new to contribute. i'll keep up with this FAC though in case anything comes up. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 14:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- thanks for your help and support over the last few months. Ceoil (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
caeciliusinhorto
[edit]Some prose nitpicks. I also did some hopefully uncontentious fixes myself in these edits.
- "The three faces may represent an all-knowing, all-seeing god representing the unity of the past, present and future or ancestral mother figures representing strength and fertility": is there a way of rewriting this sentence so as not to say "represent" quite so many times in close proximity?
- "Archaeologists do not believe it was intended as a prominent element of a larger structure ... This suggests that the larger structure may have represented a phallus" seems self-contradictory. Was it or was it not an element of a larger structure? (Or is the point that it was part of a larger structure but not a prominent part, in which case that is not at all clear currently?)
- "on Corleck Hill in townland of Drumeague": I would expect "in the townland" here: is the omission of the article intentional? I know some varieties of English omit the definite article in some contexts where Br.Eng. speakers include it...
- The second paragraph on §Discovery has three mentions of "Barron", but his full name and the link to his article is only given in the following section.
- "only a small number three-faces": I would expect either "three-faced" or "have three faces" here.
- "only around eight known prehistoric Nordic stone heads have been identified": are both "known" and "have been identified" necessary here? It seems to me they are giving the same information and you can cut "known".
- 'Strabo wrote that heads of noble enemies were embalmed in cedar oil and exhibited to strangers"': unmatched quotation mark. Either the opening one is missing or this can be deleted.
Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Caeciliusinhorto, all now addressed. Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Caeciliusinhorto, 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) 13:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reminder, Gog the Mild. I'm happy to support Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Jens
[edit]Very interesting.
- Although its origin cannot be known for certain, – I would say "never say never". Wouldn't "although its origin is not known for certain" be sufficient?
- a major religious centre during the late Iron Age that was a major site of celebration – no need to have "major" twice, I think.
- As with any stone artefact, its dating and cultural significance are difficult to establish. – I don't think that's true. As with the first issue, this is an absolute statement and I am sure there are exceptions. "As with many stone artefacts" maybe?
- They all have a broad and flat wedge-shaped nose and a thin, narrow, slit mouth. – "both" instead of "all"?
- One has heavy eyebrows; another has – "the other", as there are only two?
- is extremely difficult – do we loose anything if we remove "extremely" here?
- It may be not clear to readers what precisely "modern period" means; you should at least link it.
- More later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Jens, done to here except using "both", as there are three faces. Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Re: "As with many stone artefacts"....have found a source that goes into deeper discussion on the basis for the dating; will add shortly. Ceoil (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Jens, done to here except using "both", as there are three faces. Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- The head was found c. 1855 in the townland of Drumeague in County Cavan, Ireland, during the excavation of a large passage grave dated to c. 2500 BC. – This is stated as a non-controversial fact in the lead but has a "probable" in the body.
- Have removed "probable" form the lead. Ceoil (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- a mostly lost and stylistically very different janiform sculpture – but when the human head survives, then "mostly lost" seems like an overstatement?
- Not sure; the human head was [part of a larger structure, and only it survives. Ceoil (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- as are sculptures of the hooded figues know as – "known"
- Sorted. Ceoil (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- and would, in the words of Ross: "tie them to the necks – maybe a , instead of a : flows better here?
- Its a quote. Ceoil (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- I was wondering about the article structure. It seems that this article starts with the specifics on the head first, and then provides the background information and context later. Usually, we write Wikipedia articles the other way around? I am not sure if this is necessarily bad in this case though. However, I'm a bit concerned that the last section "Head cult" does not seem to have direct relevance to the Corleck Head, and the head is never mentioned there. Ending an article with a section that is not really about the topic makes me wonder if there could be some better structure. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Jens, done until the last point, which I agree with. Have done some restructuring overall as suggested, but would like to weave the Corleck head into the head cult sect as suggested, as sources mention it as a major (Irish) example of the artefact type. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Ceoil, re that last point, I was wondering if this article is ready for Jens to relook at yet? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Gog the Mild, I'll be taking another look tonight and will ping yourself, UC and Jens then. Ceoil (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Gog the Mild, can you Jens and UndercoverClassicist pls take another look, as have done a significant reorg of the structure and coverage per Jens. Ceoil (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Gog the Mild, I'll be taking another look tonight and will ping yourself, UC and Jens then. Ceoil (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Ceoil, re that last point, I was wondering if this article is ready for Jens to relook at yet? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Second look: The structure looks much better and more logical to me. However, I feel it still needs work:
- It is not apparent to me what structure the lead follows; the order in which the information is presented looks a bit random. The easiest would be to organise the lead the same way as the article.
- Yes good point, have regigged. Ceoil (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- One example regarding lead structure: its placing in the Late Iron Age is based on the iconography, which is similar to that of other northern European Celtic artefacts from that period – this is in the second sentence, but in the second paragraph, you have this: As with many stone artefacts, its dating and cultural significance are difficult to establish. This makes two sentences on dating, but in different paragraphs, and the second one does seem quite isolated without connection to the paragraph it is placed in.
- I would also have expected to find a little bit from the "Description" section in the lead, but the only fact it states is (if I don't miss something) that it has three faces.
- Now contains the claim "shows three relatively primitive faces, each with similar features including bossed eyes, thin and narrow mouths and enigmatic expressions." Ceoil (talk) 07:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am also unsure about the division of the "Discovery" section, with the distinct section "Corleck Hill". I am wondering if these should be partly combined, to discuss the information in logical order when it becomes relevant. At the moment, the first paragraph simply lacks the context that is only provided in the "Corleck Hill" section.
- Agree very much with this and have spun out Corleck Hill so the head article doesn't have to do such explaining...corresponding cut to the text and merging of sections to remove duplication per your concerns. To say, the broader subject is not well covered on wiki, so have had to create more than one other daughter or parent artice so that our Head article isn't explaining everything about the long and vague transition period between pre-christian and Roman-British religion and idolotary. Ceoil (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- An example: passage grave that was then under excavation – when reading this, I think of an archaeological excavation, or at least an excavation with the purpose of extracting the artefacts. But later, in the Corleck Hill section, the info is repeated (not ideal), and only here it becomes clear: The monuments were excavated during the 18th and 19th centuries to make way for farming land. This is really something I would have liked to learn earlier.
- You have this in the first paragraph: to build the farmhouse that became known colloquially as the "Corleck Ghost House", and this one in the last paragraph: to build a dwelling house nearby, known locally as the "Corleck Ghost House." – Again, all these repetitions tell me that the structure of the "Discovery" section is not ideal yet. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hvae added a teaser description I the lead as suggested, cant believe missed that opportunity! Ceoil (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- UC, Jens and Gog. I am getting hammered here as there is no easy-to-use temple to follow on previous FACs for such objects, and the suggestions
seem to be, at times, contradictory.Thanks Jens, but Gog & UC need Help! Ceoil (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)- Thanks for the changes! Ping me when ready and I will have a third look. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sound Jans, almost there!! 12:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- I had a look for comparable FAs: there aren't many on portable antiquities, but we do have a series on helmets, thanks to Usernameunique: Shorwell helmet, Pioneer Helmet and Benty Grange helmet, for example. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- UC, Jens and Gog. I am getting hammered here as there is no easy-to-use temple to follow on previous FACs for such objects, and the suggestions
Image review
[edit]- Suggest adding alt text
- File:JanusandLustymoreFigures_(cropped).jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Have swapped out the image. Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
SC
[edit]Comments to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- "As with many stone artefact" -> "As with many stone artefacts"
- "or ancestral mother figures symbolise strength and fertility": "symbolising"? I don't think the grammar works otherwise
- "today, it is on permanent display": I think "today" is verboten by the MOS, which would prefer "As at 2024" or similar
- MOS:ART also discourages "on permanent display", as things rarely are. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Has been reworded as "It has been in the collection of the National Museum of Ireland in Dublin since 1937, where it is usually on display". Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- MOS:ART also discourages "on permanent display", as things rarely are. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- "Boa Island. County Fermanagh": that should be a comma, I think
- "Age;[43][44] and was" -> "Age;[43][44] it was" or "Age,[43][44] and was" ('and' should only really go after a semi colon in a list, it replaces the coordinating conjunction when joining two sentences).
- Corleck hill was a major site: Capital 'h' on Hill?
- "Insular Celtic": I think this could do with a quick explanation of what it is, even if in a footnote; it's not a readily understandable term, even from the context. If not, then a piped link to Insular Celts, although this seems to focus only on the British and Irish celts and ignores the European ones
- That's exactly the point of "Insular" - their relationship to Continental "Celts" is the subject of much controversy. Insular art is also available for linking. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
That's my lot – an interesting article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Schro, all done for the last point as mentioned above. Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- OK I still think you need something to explain what is meant in the context of this article by "Insular Celtic": it pops out of nowhere and people unfamiliar with the concept will be completely confused by it. I'll add my support to the nom, but I do think something is needed to clarify this point to, say, a Californian, Cameroonian or Canadian who reads this when it's a TFA and has no idea what is meant by the term. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Have added a note to explain. Ceoil (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- OK I still think you need something to explain what is meant in the context of this article by "Insular Celtic": it pops out of nowhere and people unfamiliar with the concept will be completely confused by it. I'll add my support to the nom, but I do think something is needed to clarify this point to, say, a Californian, Cameroonian or Canadian who reads this when it's a TFA and has no idea what is meant by the term. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Support from Johnbod
[edit]- Looking good, after the PR. I may wait a while for changes after other comments above. Johnbod (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnbod are you still planning on reviewing the candidate? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but I won't be opposing, so if you are ready to promote, don't wait for me. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnbod are you still planning on reviewing the candidate? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've made some minor changes; let me know if you don't like. Interesting article, now nicely masticated by other reviewers.
- Is Triple deities worth a link, or See also?
- Nothing else.
Johnbod (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Dudley
[edit]- "its placing in the Early Iron Age is based on the iconography". It is not Early Iron Age. The Late Iron Age in Ireland is first to fifth centuries AD. See [21] and [22]. You say late iron age in the next paragraph.
- "where it is usually on display". You do not appear to have a source for "usually". I suggest deleting the comment.
- "The archaeologist John Waddell believes the majority of the contemporary stone idols were destroyed". Contemporary is ambiguous. When made or existing, and contemporary to what?
- "stone idols were destroyed and "then forgotten"". I do not think you need the quotes.
- "Sam, placed the Corleck head on a gatepost. He also uncovered" This appears to refer to Sam but presumable Barron is intended.
- "unlocalised multi-faced ivory pendant head". Unlocalized is the wrong word. It means not confined to a particular location rather than the location being unknown, which I assume is what you mean.
- Done as far as here. Ceoil (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- "The early forms of Celtic religion were introduced to Ireland around 400 BC." Other sources put it earlier. The article on the Tandragee Idol, which dates to 1000 to 500 BC, cites sources which describe it as a representation of a Celtic god.
- Ross 2010 claims that the older "Neolithic agriculturalist" gods began to be mixed with Celtic gods from around the 4th century BC. Have updated the Tandragee artice; the span there is around 1000-400BC, and is "though" to represent Nuada, the mythological king of the Tuatha Dé Danann (FFE. 1500 BC) Ceoil (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- It is usual when listing articles and book chapters as sources to give the page numbers, although I do not know whether it is a requirement.
- I could add but it would take a lot of time and have not done it in the past at FAC...the individual refs have page numbers and the source listing gives isbns, JSTOR refs or issns. The difficulty is time, for consistency if I do it for one have to do it for all, and that might stall the nom. Ceoil (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- A very interesting article. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for these, very helpful. All done now except for the last one. Ceoil (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Source review
[edit]What makes https://www.tuatha.ie/boa-island/, "Gentleman and Scholar: Thomas James Barron" and "Lanigan Wood, Helen. Images of Stone. Belfast: Blackstaff Press, 1976." high-quality reliable sources? Source formatting seems consistent, 'xcept for the lack of ids at Eamonn's second citation, Warner, Richard's and some of Anne Ross's. I wonder if anyone has access to the JSTOR reviews of "Ross, Anne. The Pagan Celts. Denbighshire: John Jones, 1998. ISBN 978-1-8710-8361-3" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Have emailed a copy of Bruce G. Trigger, "Reviewed Work: Pagan Celtic Britain: Studies in Iconography and Tradition by Anne Ross". https://www.jstor.org/stable/480435 Ceoil (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, for some reason I couldn't find it while searching on the JSTOR website. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- It was behind a paywall on some subscription levels. Will replace Tuatha and Barron in the next day or so. Lanigan Wood is probably ok; see her referenced in many of the other books, but will dig further. Ceoil (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, for some reason I couldn't find it while searching on the JSTOR website. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Have replaced Smyth, Tuatha and Lanigan Wood. ISSNs added for the sources without an ISBN or JSTOR id. Ceoil (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Jo-Jo, how is this one doing? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like it's moot now that it was withdrawn. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Jo-Jo, how is this one doing? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild
[edit]Recusing to review.
- What does "carved in the round" mean.
- Clarified as "fully three-dimensional without any side not attached to a flat background" Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, so now I am confused by the double negative "... without any side not attached ..." Is it possible to recast that with either no or one negatives? Or just go with a more positive description? "A fully three-dimensional carving that can be observed from every side" or similar.
- Typo re not, since removed. We have Theatre in the round but that doesn't seem helpful to link. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, In the round (disambiguation) has, as #2, "Freestanding sculpture, distinct from relief carving — see Statue" Johnbod (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given that in the round is not mentioned in the target article this link would be less than helpful to a reader and I would prefer that it not be used. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't suggesting it should be - but Sculpture#Types begins by explaining it, & I've changed the disam lk to that. That can be linked. Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given that in the round is not mentioned in the target article this link would be less than helpful to a reader and I would prefer that it not be used. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, In the round (disambiguation) has, as #2, "Freestanding sculpture, distinct from relief carving — see Statue" Johnbod (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Typo re not, since removed. We have Theatre in the round but that doesn't seem helpful to link. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, so now I am confused by the double negative "... without any side not attached ..." Is it possible to recast that with either no or one negatives? Or just go with a more positive description? "A fully three-dimensional carving that can be observed from every side" or similar.
- I an not sure about "bossed". Wiktionary has it meaning "to decorate with bosses; to emboss." Protruding?
- Have gone with linking to Repoussé and chasing and clarifying "that is raised") Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- "It shows three relatively primitive faces". Maybe 'primitively-carved faces' or similar to avoid ambiguity?
- Thinking about this as its not so much that the carving is primitave, more so the faces. Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- "The three faces seem to depict". I don't think you mean "seem", maybe 'have been conjectured as depicting' or similar?
- Done I think...have used "apparently" instead? Ceoil (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- It still says "seem" in the lead.
- "Corleck Hill was a major religious centre during the late Iron Age". Could you point out where this is in the main article.
- Ignore this, I found it
- "a relative of the Halls". Introduce them please.
- Done by moving the claim lower down. Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- "The literary evidence indicates that the hill was a significant Druidic (the priestly caste in ancient Celtic cultures) site of worship during the Iron Age, described as once being "the pulse of Ireland"." This is a busy sentence, and falls foul of the MoS on quotations. ("The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.) Maybe 'The literary evidence indicates that the hill was a significant Druidic site of worship during the Iron Age, such and such described it as once being "the pulse of Ireland". Druids were the priestly caste in ancient Celtic cultures.'?
- Re priestly cast yes. Re the "the pulse of Ireland", cannot find an origin for this, but its used often. Ive rephrased as "traditionally known as", but thinking of removing. Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I would go with 'and is known as once being "the pulse of Ireland"'
- Suggest moving note a from the lead to the first mention of Lughnasadh.
- Agree, done. Ceoil (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- "According to the Celtic scholar Anne Ross, the Corleck Head "correspond(s) closely to Celtic anthropoid ..." I can't find the closing quote marks. :-)
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Optional: introduce the "Ulster group of heads".
- "Romano-British (between 43 and 410 AD) and Gallo-Roman iconography." No dates for Gallo-Roman?
- Have given 1st c. BC to the 5th c. AD. User:UndercoverClassicist might have a more exact range. Ceoil (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds pretty reasonable to me. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- "have similarly drawn faces". "drawn"? As with a pencil?
- Similarly "described". Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- "were a common part of their iconography." Probably best to refer who "their" refers to.
- No clarifying as Irish Celts Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- "indicates that it was periodically attached to a larger structure". Why is it suggested that this was periodic, as opposed to permanent or as a one off?
- Excellent point. Because of the flat base and the purpose of such ceremonial objects in them days. Its explained better in another source vs Waddell; digging through. Ceoil (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Any more to come on this point? Gog the Mild (talk)
- No luck tralling the sources, but it might emerge again as work through the parent article. Ceoil (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Any more to come on this point? Gog the Mild (talk)
Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- See comment above in green.
- Are "the Corraghy Idols" the same thing as "the Corraghy Heads"?
- No...the Corraghy Idols is a grouping for both Corraghy and Corleck Heads. Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Genii Cuucullati". When italics are used for emphasis <em> templates should be used, not apostrophes. See MOS:ITAL.
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Archaeologists disagree on whether the Corleck Head was intended as a prominent element of a larger structure" and "The hole at the Corleck Head's base indicates that it was periodically attached to a larger structure". There seems to be a contradiction here.
- An older mid 20th-c source was used when the "disagree" claim was made...now removed. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Gog; your support means a lot and your incessant gripes and demands brought the page on immensely :) Ceoil (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Spotchecks by Lazman321
[edit]Will do spotchecks for sourcing and copyright later today here. Lazman321 (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I can email you pdfs or book screenshots on request. However, in the interests of not duplicating effort, the article already went through extensive sourcing/copyright testing during its GA review (noting that you intend to test 28 out of its 55 references, a depth of cross-examination and back and forth I'm not sure the effort needed of my time is worth it just to get an FA, and perhaps sets a standard/time sink that many other potential nominators would be uncomfortable with). Ceoil (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- @FAC coordinators: can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure a spotcheck is still required here for the FAC to pass. And as for the number of citations I'm checking, FAs are supposed to the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, and sourcing and copyright compliance are, in my opinion, two of the most vital parts of a great article. As such, I don't think this is a waste of time. If there's no further objection, I'll start soon. Lazman321 (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Spotchecks are never a waste of time. I usually do a couple or more whenever I do a source review. Editors prepared to do source checks are a scarce resource so they are only mandatory for first time nominators. That said, the more spotchecks we get across FAC, the more confident we can be that FAs are the best articles Wikipedia has to offer. So thank you for taking this on and happy spotchecking. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- @FAC coordinators: can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure a spotcheck is still required here for the FAC to pass. And as for the number of citations I'm checking, FAs are supposed to the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, and sourcing and copyright compliance are, in my opinion, two of the most vital parts of a great article. As such, I don't think this is a waste of time. If there's no further objection, I'll start soon. Lazman321 (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Obviously. Mu feeling is the at I'll never meet UCs changing standards, and now this, and so out. Ceoil (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of course go ahead. I look forward to replying to 28 checks on source integrity. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is getting too stringgent, withdrawing. Ceoil (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I recommend you reconsider. There does seem to be a forming consensus to pass this article. I'm just trying to help you solidify it. Lazman321 (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is getting too stringgent, withdrawing. Ceoil (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
@FAC coordinators: it appears this has been withdrawn. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up Nikkimaria. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. The review turned from helpful to impossible a few days ago, and I no longer want to engage. Ceoil (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way Ceoil, but thinking back to some of my FACs, I can certainly sympathise. I am processing the backroom "paperwork". Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Gog for being understanding as usual.
I can't take any more being so patronised and underminedand think I will switch instead to living with GA level. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Gog for being understanding as usual.
- I'm sorry you feel that way Ceoil, but thinking back to some of my FACs, I can certainly sympathise. I am processing the backroom "paperwork". Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 12 December 2024 [23].
- Nominator(s): Royiswariii Talk! 15:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
All's eyes on us! Cherry on Top is here on FA Nom!
Bini Cherry on Top is deserve to nominate on FA because of the hype and featuring on all social media. Not just on the Philippines, but Worldwide like MTV, Popcrave etc. The boom of popularity of this song or the rising of Bini is deserve to be FA.
Little Background to girl group: Bini (Formerly Star Hunt Academy Girls or SHA Girls) is a Filipino girl group formed in 2019 through ABS-CBN Star Hunt Academy (SHA). The group composed by eight members: Aiah, Colet, Maloi, Gwen (singer), Stacey, Mikha, Jhoanna, and Sheena.
Background to the song: Cherry on Top is a bubblegum pop and was released on July 11, 2024 through Star Music. This song was topped chart on iTunes Philippines and became top trending music video on YouTube. It is rare or let say have a recognition on other countries especially to U.S because Cherry on Top was featured on NBA and perfomed by Los Angeles Clippers during the halftime show (This is the game Toronto Raptors versus LA Clippers).
This is my first time to nominated on FA so I expect have a problems here and open for criticism, changes on the article or you have suggestions, i will appreciate that. I love Modern OPM songs and I am a Blooms, it might not a Conflict of Interest just because of biases on the girl group (Lol).
Again, I will appreciate all your feedbacks and I will entertain as much as I can. And if you not familliar on some sources you might check WP:TAMBAY/RS where the sources on the Philippines is here (not might completely here). Thanks! Royiswariii Talk! 15:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to oppose here. Aside from the very thin and short nature of the article, the prose isn't up to FA standard (short stubby sentences rarely are). I also can't see anywhere in the body that supports the opening paragraph's claim that "its lyrical theme includes confidence" – such an error is a huge red flag for me.Terms such as pagmamano, balikbayan box, walis tingting and pandesal all need at least an explanation in the footnotes as we have a global readership who won't have a clue what these are. There are also a few MOS blips along the way that need sorting out. - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, SchroCat
- "Terms such as pagmamano, balikbayan box, walis tingting and pandesal all need at least an explanation in the footnotes as we have a global readership who won't have a clue what these are."
- Done
- "There are also a few MOS blips along the way that need sorting out."
- Can you specify what type MOS need to sort out? I will change it. Royiswariii Talk! 10:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Heartfox
[edit]- "It was released on July 11, 2024, by Star Music" → can convert to active voice: "Star Music released it on July 11, 2024." (also, some info on the nature of the release would be helpful: promo single, single, a debut single, lead single, etc.?
- "and its lyrical theme includes confidence" → suggest converting this to a separate sentence and expanding on it. a "lyrical theme" is something, it doesn't really "include" something
- "with Bini members Colet and Maloi participating in the songwriting process" → this is confusing as we are previously told it was "Written by Boy Matthews and Gaby Ramirez". participation but not credited?
- "The song topped the iTunes Philippines Top Songs chart and became the top trending music video on YouTube, garnering two million views in less than 24 hours after its release." → Per WP:SINGLEVENDOR, we generally don't care about iTunes, especially as this song entered main Billboard charts for Philippines anyways. Ditto "culminating in topping Spotify's Daily Top Songs chart".
- "On November 17, 2023, Bini released" → we need to pretend readers are starting the article at the body, as the lead summarizes rather than introduces. Right now there is no description of what Bini is like there is in the lead.
- I find the background section lacking as it mostly focuses on past commercial successes rather than including a sense of artistry, vision, personal life, recording career, etc.
- The music video section generally doesn't come after the composition section.
Based on these examples, I would have to oppose right now. I would encourage revision of the article's prose and structure and hope to see it back at FAC in the future. Best, Heartfox (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, Heartfox!
- I will edit all your suggestions, I will address this: "with Bini members Colet and Maloi participating in the songwriting process" → this is confusing as we are previously told it was "Written by Boy Matthews and Gaby Ramirez". participation but not credited?
- Based on credits of Apple Music they didn't credit Maloi and Colet and I don't either know why Star Music didn't credit for that (I asked to myself too) But, maybe Maloi and Colet just a little contribute or on words they helped and not so huge contribute on the song. Royiswariii Talk! 00:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- "I find the background section lacking as it mostly focuses on past commercial successes rather than including a sense of artistry, vision, personal life, recording career, etc."
- How about we can add this Biniverse Concert tour? Since, Talaarawan (Diary) is at the same time as Salamin, Salamin (Mirror, Mirror), they announced during the conference of Talaarawan.
- "The music video section generally doesn't come after the composition section"
What do you mean?Done- "It was released on July 11, 2024, by Star Music" → can convert to active voice: "Star Music released it on July 11, 2024." (also, some info on the nature of the release would be helpful: promo single, single, a debut single, lead single, etc.?
- Done
- I convert this "Cherry on Top" is two minutes and 55 seconds long → "Cherry on Top" is two minutes and fifty-five seconds long. per MOS:NUM
- "The music video section generally doesn't come after the composition section."
- Done by Bloomagiliw
- "On November 17, 2023, Bini released" → we need to pretend readers are starting the article at the body, as the lead summarizes rather than introduces. Right now there is no description of what Bini is like there is in the lead.
- Done
- "The song topped the iTunes Philippines Top Songs chart and became the top trending music video on YouTube, garnering two million views in less than 24 hours after its release." → Per WP:SINGLEVENDOR, we generally don't care about iTunes, especially as this song entered main Billboard charts for Philippines anyways. Ditto "culminating in topping Spotify's Daily Top Songs chart".
- Done
- I will mention here AstrooKai, some of the questions I can't answer or just a misunderstanding. And huge contribute on this article. Royiswariii Talk! 01:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding Colet's and Maloi's participation: The two only participated in the song's brainstorming, but did not composed or produced any parts of the song the way a composer or a producer would do. I can't cite the reference for this since it was a video of them showing this that is only available on their website (a fan-exclusive access website to be specific). But someone uploaded that video on YT,[24] so I guess you guys can check that to confirm this.
- Note that this is only for clarification about the two members' participation, not for sourcing it to the article. Let me know if you guys have other questions. AstrooKai (Talk) 02:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just a reminder that graphics, such as the one for done, are not allowed for FACs per the FAC instructions so I would kindly ask you to remove them. Aoba47 (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Aoba47, I apologize, I removed it now. Royiswariii Talk! 17:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- No worries. It is an easy mistake to make. Thank you for promptly addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Aoba47, I apologize, I removed it now. Royiswariii Talk! 17:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just a reminder that graphics, such as the one for done, are not allowed for FACs per the FAC instructions so I would kindly ask you to remove them. Aoba47 (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Based on credits of Apple Music they didn't credit Maloi and Colet and I don't either know why Star Music didn't credit for that (I asked to myself too) But, maybe Maloi and Colet just a little contribute or on words they helped and not so huge contribute on the song. Royiswariii Talk! 00:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Based on the examples provided above and a short skim of the lead (e.g. there are grammar and spelling mistakes in "The lyrics highlights the unique personality traits of a person, focusing on how these qualities make them irresistibly captivating and impossible to get enough of."), it's clear that the article is not ready yet. The kind of work it needs is not not suitable here and is best done away from the pressure of FAC. I'm archiving this, noting that the usual two-week wait before another nomination will apply. FrB.TG (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 December 2024 [25].
- Nominator(s): Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 03:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
How can one snooze and miss the moment? SZA's "Snooze" was one of the top 20 biggest songs of last year and topped Spotify's list of greatest R&B songs of the streaming era. With all the critical acclaim, it's become clear that SZA has made it into the big leagues, continuing the legacies of acts like Destiny's Child, Solange, Erykah Badu, or Brandy.
Many thanks to the insightful @Arconning who provided the GAN review, as well as @Dxneo, @Dylan620, and @Medxvo for participating in the PR. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 03:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Arconning
[edit]- Would there be a better source for the Twitter source used? I personally think it's alright but are there any sites that could be used instead?
- Don't think so; can't find the same year-end chart on official websites
- The first two paragraphs of the "Music video" section could probably be merged.
- Looks fine to me as is, IMO. The first paragraph talks about the prelude, and the second is a brief overview of the video combined with BTS stuff.
- Non-Western acts who covered the song include Stacey and Mikha of the Filipina girl group Bini., would it be Filipino or Filipina as the wikilinked article describes the group as the former. Are there any other non-Western acts that have covered the song, if so that could probably be included to widen the scope on how the sentence is formed.
- I think either is okay. Korean artist Hwasa covered Snooze a while back, so there are definitely more non-Western acts that did covers. Annoyingly, however, I could not find a reliable source about that, so I stuck with mentioning the individual Bini members to get around the problem
- Optional: Could you add a picture of SZA during the SOS Tour?
- Could not find good SOS Tour photos, sorry; those were annoyingly in short supply. Her Glastonbury photos will have to do, but none of the ones on Flickr show the actual "Snooze" performance. Skips straight from "Kiss Me More" to "Kill Bill" even though "Snooze" is performed in between. Let me know if the image and caption satisfy these concerns.
@Arconning: Glad you could make it here. Responses above. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 06:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- @PSA Support - Good luck on the FAC! Arconning (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Ippantekina
[edit]This song was in my top 50 tracks on Spotify last year. SZA really knows how to capture an anxious attachment person's feelings and thoughts!
- ""Snooze" was sent to radio on April 25, 2023, and a four-track single was released on digital streaming platforms on August 25." I think the record label is worth mentioning here
- Any particular reason why?
- ""Snooze" was also the 17th-best-selling single of 2023" eh... being the 17th-best-selling single is not very lead-worthy imo (not to diminish its success though, because it was surely a hit)
- I agree that mentioning the exact figure is a bit excessive. Perhaps there is another way to indicate how it was a worldwide hit; simply saying it had significant commercial success feels like a motherhood statement. Maybe simplifying to just "one of the top-20 best-selling songs of 2023"? Although I feel like this is wordy.
- I think you should write out the urban chart as R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay per WP:NOPIPE
- Not sure I follow -- "urban radio chart" has fewer characters and syllables so the first bullet doesn't apply, and the specific phrase was used not to bypass a redirect but to convey the chart's purpose more intuitively than using the chart name itself, which allows the lead to be more accessible to people unfamiliar with record charts.
- "who play
asSZA's love interests" ?- Trimmed
- I think "Production" should come before "Composition"
- I have a preference for the status quo because the transition between sections is currently understandable and smooth. "Background" ends by saying "Snooze" is slow-paced and leans R&B, and the beginning of "composition" says the same; "production" then gives BTS info about the music and ends with a brief mention of the lyrics.
- "The turnaround time for their song was short" hmm do we know exactly how short it was?
- No exact time. Though considering that the producers (sans BLK) were all in the studio the same day and SZA completed the entire song in under an hour, I'd guess that time would be one day
- "The making of SOS involved, as SZA called it, several "palate cleanser" sessions," hmm why not something like "According to SZA, the making of SOS involved several "palate cleanser" sessions," to limit the use of commas which make the sentence read rather chopped?
- Good point
- "in November 2022, SZA revealed the album's title, and she announced that SOS would be released sometime next month" redundant imo
- I think this sentence is necessary as a build-up of sorts, so I tried to reword it to make it read less awkwardly beside the second one.
- ""Snooze"'s" I think this usage of the possessive is discouraged, maybe something like "the placement of "Snooze" "?
- Can you link to the relevant guideline that discourages this?
I've read up to "Critical reception". Ippantekina (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for stopping by @Ippantekina. I've been a fan since "All the Stars" and seeing her artistry and numbers grow has been crazy. Seeing your thoughts on SZA was delightful responses above. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 03:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hey @PSA:, apologies for my delayed response. I've read through the article again. It is informative, but I have to agree with other editors here that the prose is not up to the highest standard; some sentences are needlessly complex and read convoluted. I'm not confident in supporting this for promotion at this point, which is unfortunate because I know your capabilities are beyond this. Ippantekina (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Dylan620
[edit]I've been quite busy and short on sleep IRL the past couple days, but I'm going to revisit this article tonight and tomorrow, and should hopefully have more comments by tomorrow night. For now, a placeholder. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've had another run-through of the prose and can only detect one small issue: ...a promotion strategy she has consistently been doing to tease new music. This may be true presently, but how do we know for sure that she'll still be doing it five years from now, or even five months? Feel free to rebuke with justification, but I suggest tweaking this clause to prevent the risk of it getting dated down the line. Maybe something like "she had consistently been doing ... as of November 2024"? Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 03:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the second read-through, Dylan620. It is appreciated. I agree with your observation; I changed the tense to past perfect continuous, but I think the intended message is already conveyed without the "as of". Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 07:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @Dylan620 and @Ippantekina; it's been around a week since your last comments. Is there anything else you believe I should address? Thanks, Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 23:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- @PSA: I am pleased with your resolution of my comment, but MaranoFan's comments gave me pause because she did spot some things that I had overlooked. Your fixes in response to her comments look good to me; I am leaning towards supporting, but would prefer to hear back from MF first. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @Dylan620 and @Ippantekina; it's been around a week since your last comments. Is there anything else you believe I should address? Thanks, Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 23:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the second read-through, Dylan620. It is appreciated. I agree with your observation; I changed the tense to past perfect continuous, but I think the intended message is already conveyed without the "as of". Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 07:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
NØ
[edit]- I have to oppose this at the moment since the nominator keeps converting the full sentence "Credits are adapted from the liner notes of SOS." to the non-sentence "Credits adapted from the liner notes of SOS" with no good reason.
- Thank you for stopping by. I appreciate the constructive comments. However, I must say this particular comment gives me pause. Is there anything in the MOS or list of enwiki policies that favors the use of full sentences here instead of a fragment? As I have alluded to, other GAs and FAs on the SOS topic have passed with this writing style.
- My apologies, but I do not see how the previous phrasing is unencyclopedic and how your suggestion improves the quality of the article. Unless I am pointed to an explicit guideline somewhere instead of a nebulous "it does not look right", this ultimately just comes down to writing preferences.
- Further, while there are good comments below, I respectfully apologize when I say that citing this particular comment on something that is IMO inconsequential as enough reason to oppose is baffling. It comes as a big shock to an otherwise respected and prolific contributor here. Either way, it should be left to @FAC coordinators: to judge the merits. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 04:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Out of observation, the credits should also appear in the article body but are currently absent. This creates a weightage issue as the people whose role is selectively chosen to mention in the article body (SZA's participation in its studio sessions is given multiple sentences) have the importance of their role appear exaggerated, which is a 1d issue.
- I am unsure what the problem is. Based on all available reliable sources, it will actually be in line with Wikipedia policy that the producers and SZA will gain more weight/coverage in the article. RS that discuss the BTS of "Snooze" and SOS in general lean heavily towards the producers, SZA, and her management. This was not a problem in Ghost in the Machine (song) which arguably faced more scrutiny in its FAC. (Elias)
- The particular FAC you refer to is not sacrosanct. Most recently promoted music FAs, from Taylor Swift to Mariah Carey and the last Lady Gaga one, all include contributors to the song in the article prose. A YouTube upload of an interview SZA gave to a radio station and a podcast are cited as sources later in the article, so primary sources have been used elsewhere.--NØ 19:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am unsure what the problem is. Based on all available reliable sources, it will actually be in line with Wikipedia policy that the producers and SZA will gain more weight/coverage in the article. RS that discuss the BTS of "Snooze" and SOS in general lean heavily towards the producers, SZA, and her management. This was not a problem in Ghost in the Machine (song) which arguably faced more scrutiny in its FAC. (Elias)
- The writing is also complex, with an unnecessary amount of commas in several places where ideas could be presented in a simpler way, e.g. "BLK, in his words, took the 'traditional R&B route'", could just be "BLK said that he took the 'traditional R&B route'", "A frequent description of the song's sound is 'dreamy', as said by several music critics" could be "Several music critics described the song as 'dreamy'", "Upon finishing the demo, BLK sent his work to Leon Thomas III, who, along with Khris Riddick-Tynes, is a part of the production duo the Rascals", "Then, her degree of yearning is revealed to be one-sided, much to her dismay", etc. ---NØ 08:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Where I feel rewrites are warranted, I have done so, but where I feel like the prose is still readable either way, I have stuck to the status quo. I appreciate the preference for simpler sentences, but cohesiveness, variation, and smooth transitions matter too. I chose not to trim certain sentences if they made the paragraph's flow more staccato, disrupted its organization, or reduced the variety in sentence length. As said earlier, ultimately, it is a matter of writing preference. (Elias)
- Respectfully, featured articles are "considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer", and, as such, are supposed to reflect the highest quality of prose possible. This is not the venue for eccentric writing styles which make readers pause four times within one sentence to be accommodated.--NØ 19:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Where I feel rewrites are warranted, I have done so, but where I feel like the prose is still readable either way, I have stuck to the status quo. I appreciate the preference for simpler sentences, but cohesiveness, variation, and smooth transitions matter too. I chose not to trim certain sentences if they made the paragraph's flow more staccato, disrupted its organization, or reduced the variety in sentence length. As said earlier, ultimately, it is a matter of writing preference. (Elias)
- Some other examples of poor prose:
- "Justin Bieber features on an acoustic remix of 'Snooze', a month after he appeared on the song's music video." - The first portion of this construction is present tense, but it does not fit with the second part, as it has been more than a year since the video's release and we are not in the period a month post its release. Appearances are made "in" videos, not "on" them.
- There seemed to be a missing word. This, along with the typo, is fixed (Elias)
- "'Snooze' has received critical acclaim; critics often praised the instrumental" - The critical reception could have either surfaced in the past or it is currently happening, so this construction is poor as well.
- It is understandable that we be careful about tense consistency. The reviews already were published, so simple past was used, but the positive reception it brought has an enduring impact in the present, so present perfect was used. I split these clauses to avoid the awkwardness, but there are some places where tense changes are unavoidable, and we can't really do anything about it (Elias)
- "Several wrote positively about the song's 'dreamy' composition" - Regurgitating the almost virtually same line in the Composition section about the "dreamy" composition.
- My view is that it will be natural to repeat this. Given the context of each article section, the specific verbiage of regurgitating "almost virtually [the] same" is not a good summary of it. Mentioning the word in #Composition makes sense because we expect readers to get a more intuitive, layperson description of the song's sound than the less entry-level stuff like genre differences, instruments, technical terms like a "riff" etc. Seeing "dreamy" in #Critical reception again also makes sense because this same description was used by critics to justify why they thought "Snooze" was a good song (Elias)
- I am sure you can find a way to present it in a less repetitive way.--NØ 19:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- My view is that it will be natural to repeat this. Given the context of each article section, the specific verbiage of regurgitating "almost virtually [the] same" is not a good summary of it. Mentioning the word in #Composition makes sense because we expect readers to get a more intuitive, layperson description of the song's sound than the less entry-level stuff like genre differences, instruments, technical terms like a "riff" etc. Seeing "dreamy" in #Critical reception again also makes sense because this same description was used by critics to justify why they thought "Snooze" was a good song (Elias)
- "What resulted from her 'Snooze' session was a love song about an obsessive, passionate romance" - Not seeing any such thing in the Today source cited. It does not mention a "session" nor an "obsessive, passionate romance". Today does call the song "dreamy", but it is not cited as a source after the sentence in the article about critics who categorized it as such. Nothing about SZA wanting to "prove her love" (which is included as the lyrics' description in the lead) in it either. --NØ 17:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- To improve text-source integrity I added the Vibe (Best R&B Songs of 2023) source alongside the Today one. The latter actually says "willingness to go to great lengths for her significant other" which I think supports the fact well. Wrt "session", this is just a transitory phrase, and virtually every song is a product of a studio session so this is a quintessential WP:BLUE moment (Elias)
- The new source still does not support what you are inferring here. It says she tries to prove her "loyalty", not "love", which are indeed different things. In any case, why is a critical opinion plucked out and presented in a paragraph that is otherwise composed of quotes from the artist? I am not denying that the studio sessions resulted in the song, but why apply a transitory phrase to this individual critical opinion and lend extra legitimacy to it?--NØ 19:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- To improve text-source integrity I added the Vibe (Best R&B Songs of 2023) source alongside the Today one. The latter actually says "willingness to go to great lengths for her significant other" which I think supports the fact well. Wrt "session", this is just a transitory phrase, and virtually every song is a product of a studio session so this is a quintessential WP:BLUE moment (Elias)
- "Justin Bieber features on an acoustic remix of 'Snooze', a month after he appeared on the song's music video." - The first portion of this construction is present tense, but it does not fit with the second part, as it has been more than a year since the video's release and we are not in the period a month post its release. Appearances are made "in" videos, not "on" them.
As above, thank you for sharing your thoughts here MaranoFan. Responses above. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 04:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the prose has not been improved much at all, astoundingly, including the specific examples for which I even provided the verbatim wording they should be replaced with. The Production and Lyrics sections could be brought down to a tighter and more encyclopedic combined Music and Lyrics section with good use of summary style. Why is one article that talks about 13 different songs from the album (most of the others more than Snooze) presented with a whole paragraph? Tense issues still prevail, e.g. "'Snooze' demonstrates, as Larisha Paul writes for Rolling Stone". I mean, is Larisha still writing? My suggestion would be to submit it to the GOCE for help with simplification. Sorry but this is not one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community at the moment.--NØ 19:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Aoba47
[edit]Apologies in advance as I will not be able to do a full review for this FAC, but I do agree with one of MaranoFan's concerns above and I wanted to echo it here. The information from the "Credits" section should be included as prose in the article, in the same way as the information from the "Charts" section is included as prose in the article. Apologies for not catching this in the "Ghost in the Machine" FAC (as I did a review for that one without mentioning it), but everyone from the credits and personal should be discussed in the prose and not just limited to that one particular section. I just wanted to point this out as I did not see this in the other FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- @FAC coordinators: Any idea why the nominated page is a dab page? bizarre. SerialNumber54129 21:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- The article was recently moved from "Snooze (song)" to Snooze (SZA song), making the former a dab article. I don't see a prior discussion regarding this though. FrB.TG (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- H'mm. Well, thanks FrB.TG, that move seems to have (unnecessarily?!) confused things. SNAFU, much :) SerialNumber54129 23:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- I see no discussion either, and can't see the point of it in any case. Does anyone see any reason not to just move the page back? If someone still wants to move it they can discuss it after the FAC has closed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Good! I feel like it will disrupt the archiving bot after the discussion. I mean, will it use the {{AH}} on the dab talk or the actual article talk? dxneo (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- In the end it seems easier to move this page and make that consistent in related areas, so let's see how that goes. We'll now proceed with archiving, as it's clear that there's no consensus to promote at this stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Good! I feel like it will disrupt the archiving bot after the discussion. I mean, will it use the {{AH}} on the dab talk or the actual article talk? dxneo (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- I see no discussion either, and can't see the point of it in any case. Does anyone see any reason not to just move the page back? If someone still wants to move it they can discuss it after the FAC has closed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- H'mm. Well, thanks FrB.TG, that move seems to have (unnecessarily?!) confused things. SNAFU, much :) SerialNumber54129 23:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- The article was recently moved from "Snooze (song)" to Snooze (SZA song), making the former a dab article. I don't see a prior discussion regarding this though. FrB.TG (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Dxneo
[edit]Most of my concerns were addressed on peer review. The only problem is that the prose is somewhat slanted towards recentism. dxneo (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Heartfox
[edit]Oppose per 1a, 1d, 2b. I usually think variation is a good thing, but the current structure just doesn't work IMO. The separation of composition, production, and lyrics into different headings (not subheadings), and then including background information about the making of the album at the beginning of certain sections inhibits the flow, and makes the article hard to understand as a whole. The lyrics section also has one paragraph based on one source, which feels like undue weight. The lyrics section could probably have 2 paragraphs cut and work fine. Perhaps placing "production" before "composition" would also make the article flow better.
- The lead feels a bit long. For example, "It debuted at number 29 on the US Billboard Hot 100 in December 2022, staying on the chart for months as a non-single until it was officially promoted on radio" doesn't feel like a summary of the body, but a duplication of the body text.
- "The lyrics are about SZA's obsessive devotion to a love interest who does not reciprocate her intense feelings of yearning, despite her willingness to prove her love with violence." → There is a lot going on here, like seven ideas in one sentence. Maybe this can be pared down or split in two/simplified.
- ""Snooze" was sent to radio on April 25, 2023" → the phrase "sent to radio" does not make this sentence accessible to non-music industry people
- "Shown in the sample is the intro, where SZA does a vocal riff and some ad libs" → the caption doesn't read very professional
Heartfox (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sorry, but the prose isn’t quite up to scratch. It’s a good article, but the phrasing is idiosyncratic in places. These include the following, which are examples only, rather than an exhaustive analysis: ‘"Snooze" was sent to radio’; “well-acclaimed debut” (it’s either acclaimed or well-received, not a mash of both); ‘Critics throughout the years’; “SZA spoke in Ctrl” (and there was me thinking she sung! Anyway, do we need to know what she did on her previous album?); “as a demonstrative example” (what’s wrong with just ‘as an example’?); “SZA began writing all of the lyrics, finished within” (why change tense?). The lead is also over-long and over-detailed. These are all from the first part of the article. I’d suggest a polish and then PR before returning here again. - SchroCat (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 December 2024 [26].
- Nominator(s): DAP (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
What do you get when you conceive an Agatha Christie-inspired mystery with an all-star cast, led by a British actor playing a Southern accent that's too cartoonish to be accurate, but is kinda sexy anyways? If you guessed Knives Out, then you are quite the gambling person. This Rian Johnson-directed film follows a flamboyant private detective's (Daniel Craig) investigation of the death of a bestselling author (played by the late Christopher Plummer) in a story critiquing class and race in modern American society. Many thanks to LEvalyn for their GA review, Aoba47 for their peer review, and Baffle gab1978 for undertaking my copyedit request! DAP 💅 08:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
mujinga
[edit]partone
[edit]Hello DAP389, I moderately enjoyed this film when I watched it a while back. A few comments to get the ball rolling:
- In the plot section, I don't see why you aren't using surnames to refer to the people. I see a brief discussion at the peeer review about following the style of the film but surely the wikipedia naming convention would overrule that?
- Revised. I believe the film style is less confusing for readers since we have a cast of characters with the same surname but don't feel too strongly about keeping it as is. I kept Harlan's given name to avoid confusion with the other Thrombeys though.
- I wouldn't say that's done, there's still quite a lot of first name usgae eg Marta. Fran is tricky is she has no surname but she could also just be the housekeeper Mujinga (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Revised. I believe the film style is less confusing for readers since we have a cast of characters with the same surname but don't feel too strongly about keeping it as is. I kept Harlan's given name to avoid confusion with the other Thrombeys though.
- In the production section, you have 2xthat "Johnson planned to create a whodunit mystery that would be influenced by film adaptations of books by the detective-fiction writer Agatha Christie that he enjoyed as a child"
- Rephrased.
- "Johnson's greatest challenge was modernizing a genre studios deemed too antiquated for release" - suggest "His greatest challenge" reads better
- Done.
- "He embedded elements of the Knives Out story with his experience of coping with the intense culture war responses to The Last Jedi" - can you flesh this out a bit? i dont really understand what it's getting at
- Rephrased.
- What I'm missing here is that the source is saying that the experience of being trolled for directing the star wars film inspired johnson to invent a troll character for this film. Without that info it's hard to understand Mujinga (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Rephrased.
- "When Johnson showed a finished draft to friends, he recalled the response was cynical because his motivations were poorly understood" - is this meant to be summarising "When Johnson finished a first draft of Knives, an idea that had been germinating for a decade, and showed it to some of his friends, they were skeptical. “A few reactions were ‘We like this kind of movie, but why do you want to do this?’ That did give me pause,” he says. “But I felt like I knew deep down inside why I wanted to do it.”"? somehow the phrasing makes me think we are talking about the characters' motivations rather than Johnson's, maybe it can be rephrased?
- Done.
- I got as far as the casting section. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Appreciate the feedback @Mujinga:. Lemme know what you think. DAP 💅 05:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi DAP389 a couple of replies - I'd love to read the rest of the article and give a full review but this week is busy IRL, so it might take a me a while. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Continuing with the review, noting that there's still some discussion open above as well. Also I have a nomination open if you care to review it. Mujinga (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi DAP389 a couple of replies - I'd love to read the rest of the article and give a full review but this week is busy IRL, so it might take a me a while. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Appreciate the feedback @Mujinga:. Lemme know what you think. DAP 💅 05:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
part two
[edit]- "Filming for the project took approximately 38 days" - why approximately?
- "Knives Out was director of photography Steve Yedlin's fifth project with Rian Johnson. Yedlin and Johnson storyboarded their visual composition ideas before principal photography, which did not describe the onscreen universe in depth.[57] " - suggest Knives Out was director of photography Steve Yedlin's fifth project with Johnson. The pair storyboarded their visual composition ideas before principal photography, which did not describe the onscreen universe in depth.[57]
- "A double-camera setup was used with two operators, one a long-standing collaborator of Yedlin. Yedlin described the on-set environment as experimental and visually creative.[55]" - suggest A double-camera setup was used with two operators and Yedlin described the on-set environment as experimental and visually creative.[55] to avoid 2xYedlin
- just a comment - quite amazing to read about the amount of work behind the film
- "Nathan Johnson recorded the Knives Out score at Abbey Road Studios in London (pictured in 2021)." - in this picture caption Abbey Road Studios is linked, but in other pix there aren't links, so to be consistent I'd suggest removing the link
- "Knives Out has been read as work" - by who?
- "it was designed to provoke all moviegoers to contemplate" - possibly this is a US-eng / Br-eng thing, but i'd expect contemplate to have an object
- "Knives Out makes literal class struggle by framing Harlan's death as an explicit tale of good versus evil, and Cabrera emerges as the hero because of her humanity" - feel this needs expanding becuase I don't see the "literal class struggle" here, good versus evil is a different thing
- "Professor Eugene Nulman gave a Marxist interpretation of Knives Out" - Nulman appears to be an associate professor, which is not a professor in academic terminology. Maybe it's better to call them a sociologist or say in their book Coronavirus Capitalism Goes to the Cinema ...? Side comment - that's a pretty funny interpretation of the film! [Edit] Actually I'd say an entire paragraph is too much on Nulman's analysis.
- " In his essay for " - is this not a book chapter? Also who is Michael Blouin?
- " The film begins in a traditional whodunit format " - i notice whodunit is linked in the lead but not in the body
- "The film then headlined the 14th Fantastic Fest in Austin, Texas as the closing film, then" 2xthen
- "Advertisements for the film mostly intrigued men but showed strong appeal from women of all ages." - says who? This doesn't seem very encyclopedic
- "Johnson unveiled a set of colorful, brooding character posters, each with the tagline: "Nothing brings a family together like murder".[88] Johnson also recorded an interactive audio commentary to entice repeated business.[89]" - here and elsewhere I find it distracting that the subject of the previous sentence is named again, so I'd suggest Johnson unveiled a set of colorful, brooding character posters, each with the tagline: "Nothing brings a family together like murder".[88] He also recorded an interactive audio commentary to entice repeated business.[89]
- "and France (third) at $1.5 million from 437 theaters" - what is third referring to?
- "Film critics had high regard for director Rian's comic treatment of a traditional detective story" - here and elsewhere I'm confused by the use of the first name rather than the surname (although I can see sometimes it's necessary eg the bit with Johnson and his cousin)
- "the actor noted for emanating "infectious enjoyment" onscreen" - i'd suggest praised for noted, and the direct quote needs inline attribution
- ", whose portrayal was described as "superb" and "wonderful"," - described by who?
- "On the review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes, " - i doon't know if there's a "right way" to do this, but I'd prefer an "as of" date since surely the rotten tomatoes score is changing over time
- accolades list - since this is already quite a long article, perhaps it's worth spinning off the accolades to its own page?
- "after a controversial one week platform theatrical rollout the previous November" - why was it controversial? i feel like that's worth adding
- looking at lead last:
- too many Johnsons, some could be "he", as elsehwere
- "Police rule Harlan's death a suicide but Blanc suspects foul play," - here like elsewhere Thrombey for Harlan is more encyclopedic
- "Knives Out was nominated for" - prob better to say what it won rather than what it was nominated for?
- There we are some more comments, happy to discuss on anything Mujinga (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Coordinator note
[edit]This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next four or five days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but after almost four weeks and with little sign of a consensus to promote forming I am going to time this out and archive it. I will insert below my boilerplate on attracting reviewers, which may be of some use. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Reviewers are more happy to review articles from people whose name they see on other reviews (although I should say there is definitely no quid pro quo system on FAC). Reviewers are a scarce resource at FAC, unfortunately, and the more you put into the process, the more you are likely to get out. Personally, when browsing the list for an article to review, I am more likely to select one by an editor whom I recognise as a frequent reviewer. Critically reviewing other people's work may also have a beneficial impact on your own writing and your understanding of the FAC process.
Sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers helps. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article. Sometimes one struggles to get reviews because potential reviewers have read the article and decided that it requires too much work to get up to FA standard. I am not saying this is the case here - I have not read the article - just noting a frequent issue.
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 December 2024 [27].
- Nominator(s): Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Nigeria's Independence Day, known colloquially as October First, is observed annually on 1 October to commemorate the country's independence from British rule in 1960. It marks the end of colonial governance and the establishment of Nigeria as a sovereign republic.
Disclosure: I plan on making sure this article appears on the main page as today's featured article for 1 October 2025 (I guess it's better to reserve the spot earlier :-)). So, I am literally ready to do any reasonable work suggested of any editor :) Thank you in advance of your comments and assistance. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- Alt text shouldn't be identical to caption - it should supplement the caption for those unable to see the image
- I did some fixes to the alts, can you check and see if they're okay? thanks! --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- They're still pretty much the same as the captions - Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Alternative_text_for_images#How_to_write_alternative_text has some guidance that might be helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria Can't I just write
|alt=refer to caption
since I cannot see how the alt text will not resemble the caption? If you do not think this is okay, then please suggest exactly how I can write the alt by using one of the images as an example. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)- For example, for File:Nigerian_Day_Independence_,_NYC_-_2018.jpg, an alt could be "A group of girls wave Nigerian flags on a street corner"; you could add details about their attire, the woman, or the stalls in the background if you felt that was important. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria Thank you so much, this helped a lot. I have now fixed the alt texts. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- For example, for File:Nigerian_Day_Independence_,_NYC_-_2018.jpg, an alt could be "A group of girls wave Nigerian flags on a street corner"; you could add details about their attire, the woman, or the stalls in the background if you felt that was important. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria Can't I just write
- They're still pretty much the same as the captions - Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Alternative_text_for_images#How_to_write_alternative_text has some guidance that might be helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- I did some fixes to the alts, can you check and see if they're okay? thanks! --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- File:National_Pageant_1st_October_1960.jpg: where is this licensing coming from? Ditto File:Jaja-Wachuku,_Abubakar_Tafawa_Balewa_and_Princess_Alexandra_of_kent_on_Nigeria_s_Independence_Day_October_1,_1960.jpg, File:The_Prime_Minister,_Sir_Abubakar_Tafawa_Balewa_on_Independence_Day,_October_1,_1960.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: These images are in the public domain because they're photographic works and 50 years have passed since their publication. c:Template:PD-Nigeria. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- These aren't tagged as PD-Nigeria, but as CC0 - if that's not correct the tagging should be changed, and for PD-Nigeria they'll also need a US tag and info on first publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I have tagged the images. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- You've changed the tagging to PD-Nigeria, but as noted you'll also need to add US tags and info on first publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria While checking for the US tags, I saw quite a handful. Can you point me to the exact one I should tag them with, please? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you can identify where and when each was first published, the Hirtle chart will do exactly that. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria Great! That helped. I am using c:Template:PD-1996. The template only makes provision for putting the country code or name (NG in this case), but does not provide a parameter for first publication date. How can I put that? should I use the
|reason=
parameter to just mention the first publication date? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)- You can add publication details to the Source field in the image description. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria Great! Thank you so much for your guidance. I have not effected all corrections to the images. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing any publication details on these images? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria Whoops, in my comment above, I meant "I have now effected". I have added the first publication dates, appropriate PD tags, etc. These were what you requested if I'm not mistaken? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- In addition to the tagging change, we also need to know where and when these were published. I see dates, but not the where atm. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria I added publication place to the information templates now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- In addition to the tagging change, we also need to know where and when these were published. I see dates, but not the where atm. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria Whoops, in my comment above, I meant "I have now effected". I have added the first publication dates, appropriate PD tags, etc. These were what you requested if I'm not mistaken? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing any publication details on these images? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria Great! Thank you so much for your guidance. I have not effected all corrections to the images. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- You can add publication details to the Source field in the image description. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria Great! That helped. I am using c:Template:PD-1996. The template only makes provision for putting the country code or name (NG in this case), but does not provide a parameter for first publication date. How can I put that? should I use the
- If you can identify where and when each was first published, the Hirtle chart will do exactly that. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria While checking for the US tags, I saw quite a handful. Can you point me to the exact one I should tag them with, please? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- You've changed the tagging to PD-Nigeria, but as noted you'll also need to add US tags and info on first publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I have tagged the images. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- These aren't tagged as PD-Nigeria, but as CC0 - if that's not correct the tagging should be changed, and for PD-Nigeria they'll also need a US tag and info on first publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: These images are in the public domain because they're photographic works and 50 years have passed since their publication. c:Template:PD-Nigeria. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Can you be a bit more specific? If someone wanted to verify the date and place of publication, where could that be done? Is there a specific publication that can be cited? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria this is the point. These images are in the National Library of Nigeria, you literally can’t find anything about their publication details online, the few details I could find from the Library are the date and place (I could be more specific by using Lagos, Nigeria). Even the Library does not know the original authors, or rather they couldn’t identify the original authors. So, yeah. The best I can do now is add Lagos to the publication date. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Is there an online record for these images on the library site? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria Yes, I found for two
- National Pageant: https://nigeriareposit.nln.gov.ng/items/18603459-3eaa-41fc-8f1d-21fc8b607547
- Balewa and co in balcony: https://nigeriareposit.nln.gov.ng/items/0ac3bce7-2b0c-46b0-828f-f53f0182750f
- I am yet to see the one he was waving. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria Done. I have linked the two, added Abuja, Nigeria as publication place (at least per the Library). The third image does not appear to be in their website so I did not link that one. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Is there an online record for these images on the library site? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria this is the point. These images are in the National Library of Nigeria, you literally can’t find anything about their publication details online, the few details I could find from the Library are the date and place (I could be more specific by using Lagos, Nigeria). Even the Library does not know the original authors, or rather they couldn’t identify the original authors. So, yeah. The best I can do now is add Lagos to the publication date. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Can you be a bit more specific? If someone wanted to verify the date and place of publication, where could that be done? Is there a specific publication that can be cited? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Is it known that the date is publication rather than creation? I don't see that specified on the site. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria While it is just "Date" that is there, on the website there's a way to "Browse Resources", one way is by "Author", another is by "Title", another is by "Issue Date". This tells me that the "Date" there for these images are the "issue date" which is very likely the same as the publication date of the images and not the creation date, even though I think they are both the same date. I mean, if you ask me, the creation and publication date is the same thing, especially for these images. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria Please, would you look at this now? I have done what were suggested. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate on why you think the creation and publication date would be the same for these images? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria So, let’s say today’s Independence Day and we’re doing a national celebration. There would be photographs taken, these photographs taken would be sent to the media for publications?… highlighting what is happening or happened on this day. This is something that is normal. As a Nigerian, I know FOR SURE that these images were published that same day they were taken. I don’t know how else to explain this. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate on why you think the creation and publication date would be the same for these images? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria Please, would you look at this now? I have done what were suggested. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria While it is just "Date" that is there, on the website there's a way to "Browse Resources", one way is by "Author", another is by "Title", another is by "Issue Date". This tells me that the "Date" there for these images are the "issue date" which is very likely the same as the publication date of the images and not the creation date, even though I think they are both the same date. I mean, if you ask me, the creation and publication date is the same thing, especially for these images. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Is it known that the date is publication rather than creation? I don't see that specified on the site. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but that doesn't mean that every photograph taken on that day will end up in a publication - a photographer might take dozens of images and only publish one or two. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria okay, what do you suggest at this point? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Have these images been published anywhere else? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria I could not find the pageant and the one Balewa was waving anywhere else online, at least from my search, but I found the balcony one has some hits in Google here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Have these images been published anywhere else? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria okay, what do you suggest at this point? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but that doesn't mean that every photograph taken on that day will end up in a publication - a photographer might take dozens of images and only publish one or two. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria What that means is that Legit.ng want aware of the original source, the image was actually submitted to them by a writer, who also wasn’t aware of the original source of the image, hence, UGC (user generated content). This doesn’t mean the image in itself was a user generated image. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Looking through more of those results, it seems that there are a variety of attributions provided - for example, this suggests LIFE. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria has image contributor? Yes. That doesn’t necessarily mean they own the image, that can’t possibly be the case at all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria I might just be wrong. LIFE happened to have listed Shutterstock as one of the platforms one could search for their images. Even though I could not find the image at Google Books archive, etc. Please let me know if you find any other thing useful. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria Indeed, this photo of them standing in a balcony was from Time's LIFE see here. It was photographed by Mark Kaufmann. In fact, it seems he photographed Nigeria's independence throughout, at least from this search. I couldn't find exactly the other images, for example the one for national pageant and when balewa was waving. Can we assume now that the other photographs were also taken by Mark Kaufmann, and it is from this LIFE's series? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria has image contributor? Yes. That doesn’t necessarily mean they own the image, that can’t possibly be the case at all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Looking through more of those results, it seems that there are a variety of attributions provided - for example, this suggests LIFE. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Potentially, although according to this that would mean most are unpublished. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria This is interesting as I just saw that. Looking at c:Template:PD-US-unpublished, the images do not satisfy any of the criteria there, do they? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, if indeed they were never published - it's possible a publication might be found by doing more sifting through those web results (or the article's sources). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria So, at this point I do not know what to do, haha. By "publication might be found in web results", do you mean any publisher? Like another newspaper or website that isn't affiliated with the LIFE? How does that work? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, if indeed they were never published - it's possible a publication might be found by doing more sifting through those web results (or the article's sources). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria This is interesting as I just saw that. Looking at c:Template:PD-US-unpublished, the images do not satisfy any of the criteria there, do they? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Potentially, although according to this that would mean most are unpublished. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- The problem you're running into is that if these were not published before 2003, they don't meet the requirements to be tagged as PD-unpublished. But if they were published before 2003, you might have other tagging options to work with - for example, if you find the image in an older source, or in a newer source that credits a publication you can track down. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria What about the publication from the National Library? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria per the above ^^ Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- The problem you're running into is that if these were not published before 2003, they don't meet the requirements to be tagged as PD-unpublished. But if they were published before 2003, you might have other tagging options to work with - for example, if you find the image in an older source, or in a newer source that credits a publication you can track down. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- If these were indeed LIFE images, it would be highly unusual for them to be first published in Nigeria. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria So what now? Should I remove these images? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- If these were indeed LIFE images, it would be highly unusual for them to be first published in Nigeria. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- If it's possible to find out anything more definitive on publication, that would be the first choice. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria I am not clear about what publication we are looking at here, I need to be clear so that we don't keep going back and forth on something that is probably non-existent. By publication, you mean a newspaper, book, website or journal that later published these pictures as part of their own work? I do not seem to comprehend this whole publication thingy. What are the criteria we're looking at that would make the publication a considerable one? etc. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- If it's possible to find out anything more definitive on publication, that would be the first choice. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Some options: newspaper or magazine published around the time of the actual events; a book or journal reproducing the work with permission; failing that, something more recent with a credit that provides more info to go on. You could even try contacting the library to see if they have any more details than what's online, now that you're thinking these are LIFE images. If in your opinion there's not been any publication, then you'll probably need to look at removing the images unless you can make a case for non-free use. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria I am not sure the publication is something that happened, at least, before the timeframe. I’d give another try of doing searches, if not, I’d be inclined to remove the images, it’ll will only be a waste of my time so far, lol. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria Did not find anything useful from my end. Did you find anything useful or got any useful update for me? If not, I guess I'd just remove the images now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria Pinging again for feedback. It’d be greatly appreciated. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't able to find anything. I suspect that if these were published contemporaneously, they'd be findable in print sources on the topic, but I don't have access to verify that unfortunately. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria Yeah, I have removed the images now. Thank you so much so far. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria Hi there. Please can you indicate whether you support this nomination based on image review or not? :-) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Image reviews are usually just a pass or not, and this one's a pass! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria hehe, thank you so much for your guide throughout. You have helped me sharpen my "finding images skills". Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Image reviews are usually just a pass or not, and this one's a pass! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria Hi there. Please can you indicate whether you support this nomination based on image review or not? :-) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria Yeah, I have removed the images now. Thank you so much so far. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't able to find anything. I suspect that if these were published contemporaneously, they'd be findable in print sources on the topic, but I don't have access to verify that unfortunately. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria I am not sure the publication is something that happened, at least, before the timeframe. I’d give another try of doing searches, if not, I’d be inclined to remove the images, it’ll will only be a waste of my time so far, lol. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Some options: newspaper or magazine published around the time of the actual events; a book or journal reproducing the work with permission; failing that, something more recent with a credit that provides more info to go on. You could even try contacting the library to see if they have any more details than what's online, now that you're thinking these are LIFE images. If in your opinion there's not been any publication, then you'll probably need to look at removing the images unless you can make a case for non-free use. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
UC
[edit]Always good to see a nomination for an article that pushes Wikipedia's interests and coverages a little wider, and looking at its history, it has clearly improved dramatically in the last ten days or so.
- There are a few sentences here which seem a bit "woolly" to me: when you think carefully about them, they're either saying something trivial or not really saying a whole lot. Some examples:
- The day ... holds historical significance as the culmination of efforts for self-governance after decades of colonial rule, coming immediately after the sentence where we say the holiday commemorates independence from Britain.
- marking Nigeria's entry into the international community as an independent state (again, we've just said that it was the day that Nigeria became independent, and this is the same thing in more words)
- Over the years, Independence Day has continued to reflect Nigeria's political and social changes.: either needs fleshing out or cutting: the day hasn't, but perhaps the way it has been celebrated has.
- The amalgamation of the Northern and Southern protectorates in 1914 was a key event in Nigeria's political history: why not just keep it to a factual statement that Nigeria was created by merging the two protectorates in 1914? If it was a key event for reasons above and beyond the obvious, we can say so, but I'm not sure it was.
- The annual Independence Day celebrations offer an opportunity to reflect on the nation's history since 1960.
- A lot of the lead seems to discuss Nigerian independence and its post-independence history, rather than the subject of the article itself: see this lengthy section: Since independence, Nigeria has faced challenges, including political instability, civil conflict, and military coups. The Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970), also known as the Biafran War, was a significant conflict that had lasting effects on the nation's development. Despite these challenges, Nigeria has grown in regional and international influence. As Africa's most populous nation and one of its largest economies, Nigeria plays a prominent role in both regional and global affairs.
- Some of the language reads as promotional -- see for instance:
- more inclusive activities that embrace Nigeria's cultural diversity
- Despite these challenges, Nigeria has grown in regional and international influence.
- Independence was achieved through negotiations with Britain, contrasting with other African nations that attained independence through conflict.
- traditional dances, cultural displays, and parades highlighted Nigeria's diverse ethnic heritage
- Balewa acknowledged the nation's diversity and honoured the efforts of Nigerian nationalists whose determination had made independence possible
- The event also resonated across the African continent, symbolising Nigeria's entry into the growing list of newly independent states during the decolonisation wave
- I fixed this one from the Independence in 1960 section. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- More generally, the article needs a bit of a look for the "small stuff" like MoS and grammar: see for instance:
- Is "October First" routinely double-capitalised in Nigerian English?
- I take this as a noun, hence I am capitalising it because nouns are usually capitalised. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Proper nouns are usually capitalised, but dates don't generally count as proper nouns. From a Google Books search, it looks as though Nigerian writers generally do use both capitals when referring to the holiday, rather than simply the date, so this is fine on either count. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- I take this as a noun, hence I am capitalising it because nouns are usually capitalised. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think the "liturgical color" parameter in the infobox is quite right: that term has a particular Christian meaning.
- I removed this parameter. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- The independence ceremony on 1 October 1960, was attended by international representatives: no comma needed here.
- This was part of what I worked on, so we no longer have this statement; it is now Independence Day celebrations included an official ceremony in Lagos attended by Nigerian leaders and international representatives. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- with Secretary-General messages noting Nigeria's contributions: this isn't idiomatic English: better phrased as a straightforward sentence that Secretaries-General have issued messages (etc).
- I worked on the entire section but particularly we now have with Secretaries-General issuing messages that commend Nigeria's contributions to. Is this okay?
- Nigeria had been a British colony for more than sixty years: we don't actually put a start date on this, either here or in the article, but should. I appreciate it's a bit complicated, but there are known dates when the first bits of Nigeria came under British colonies, and when the last bits of Nigeria ceased to be independent, and neither of these are 1914.
- I removed this entirely. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Is "October First" routinely double-capitalised in Nigerian English?
I'm going to stop there for now -- this is not an exhaustive list, but the broad points raised seem to run throughout the article, and I think it would be best to give you the chance to work on them before coming back to it. I note that it doesn't seem to have been nominated as a Good Article or been to Peer Review, and wonder if those might be good ports of call before an FAC run? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist Thank you so much for the comments, I will work on these now and let you know when I am done. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist I have worked on the lead significantly especially based on your comments. You might want to take a look at it while I will reply to your other comments inline based on status. Thank you again. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- I can see changes, but am not sure that the balance has really shifted on the issues I raised, particularly regarding promotional tone. I'm going to oppose for now: it's not that it's a bad article (it's very far from that), but on the basis that I think the work needed to make it an FA would be best started elsewhere (in particular, one or several of Peer Review, a thorough Good Article Nomination, or the Guild of Copyeditors). I do sympathise, as editing your own writing for tone is not an easy business. Very much open to revisiting that vote if I am wrong and things change significantly, perhaps after a few more reviews. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist Ah, I was actually already working on a rewrite based on your comments, only to see this. I have incorporated my rewrite into the article, please you might want to check them out. They were especially based on the concerns your brought up above. I do not see the need of taking this through Peer review or GoCE when I am in the guild and I am a copyeditor myself. Although, I somehow agree that copyediting your own writing for tone can be hard. But please take a look, thanks again! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- OK -- I had misunderstood, in that case. I've just given it another re-read, and I don't see anything that I would like to change in my comments at this time. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist Ah, I was actually already working on a rewrite based on your comments, only to see this. I have incorporated my rewrite into the article, please you might want to check them out. They were especially based on the concerns your brought up above. I do not see the need of taking this through Peer review or GoCE when I am in the guild and I am a copyeditor myself. Although, I somehow agree that copyediting your own writing for tone can be hard. But please take a look, thanks again! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- I can see changes, but am not sure that the balance has really shifted on the issues I raised, particularly regarding promotional tone. I'm going to oppose for now: it's not that it's a bad article (it's very far from that), but on the basis that I think the work needed to make it an FA would be best started elsewhere (in particular, one or several of Peer Review, a thorough Good Article Nomination, or the Guild of Copyeditors). I do sympathise, as editing your own writing for tone is not an easy business. Very much open to revisiting that vote if I am wrong and things change significantly, perhaps after a few more reviews. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
RB
[edit]Thank you for this nomination VWF. I will be doing a source text–entry statement integrity. Which means I will be verifying each statement against each source cited. If I am unable to access any source, I will ask you to send it to me, most likely, privately. From top to bottom, here are few:
- Colonial era and path to independence
- Nigeria's road to independence was marked by British colonisation and the rise of nationalist movements seeking greater autonomy and representation. is cited to Falola & Heaton 2008 pp=154–155. While the source text verifies the rise of nationalist movements seeking autonomy and a cohesive national government, it does not explicitly support the complete context of "British colonisation" marking the road to independence. Something like this would be better, Nigeria's journey toward independence involved nationalist efforts, marked by the establishment of regional self-governance under the Lyttleton Constitution and the unification of diverse regional parties to form a national government.
- British interests in resources, trade, and imperial expansion drove the colonization of Nigeria in the late 19th century. By 1914, the British administration merged the Northern and Southern protectorates with the Colony of Lagos to form Nigeria. While the unification spurred economic activities, it introduced centralized governance to diverse cultural groups, often leading to political tensions. is cited to Simwa 2020. The source supports the claim that British territorial expansion began with Lagos. It also confirms that the unification of the Northern and Southern Protectorates with Lagos occurred in 1914, forming what is now modern Nigeria. But, there is no specific mention in the source about "British interests in trade and imperial expansion" as the primary drivers of colonization efforts, nor does it provide direct evidence about the impact of centralized governance on economic activities and regional dynamics post-unification. Suggestion: British colonial involvement in Nigeria began with the annexation of Lagos in 1861, marking the start of direct influence over the region. In 1914, the British administration unified the Northern and Southern protectorates along with the Colony of Lagos, officially forming modern Nigeria. This unification laid the foundation for a centralized administrative structure across diverse regions.
- In the early 20th century, Nigerian intellectuals and leaders, including Herbert Macaulay and Nnamdi Azikiwe, promoted political consciousness and questioned colonial policies. cited to Falola & Heaton 2008 p=140. Since the source text mainly emphasizes Herbert Macaulay's early role in Nigerian nationalist movements and his impact in Lagos, I suggest In the early 20th century, Herbert Macaulay and his followers in Lagos laid the groundwork for Nigerian nationalism, advocating for constitutional rights and increased political representation under colonial rule.
- The establishment of the Nigerian Youth Movement (NYM) in the 1930s marked a call for increased political representation. cited to Falola & Heaton 2008 p=141. This checks out as the source correct supports this, but a slight adjustment could enhance clarity by including the NYM's original focus and subsequent expansion, like this The Nigerian Youth Movement (NYM), established in the 1930s, initially focused on educational reforms but quickly grew into a call for increased political representation and pan-Nigerian nationalism.
- By the 1940s, the drive for independence had intensified, resulting in constitutional changes like the Richards Constitution of 1946, which allowed for limited Nigerian participation in governance. cited to Falola & Heaton 2008, p. 148 and Tignor 1998, p. 207. This checks out because both sources provide evidence that, by the 1940s, Nigeria's nationalist movement and desire for independence had gained momentum, and constitutional reforms were part of a response to this growing political consciousness. My suggestion By the 1940s, Nigeria's nationalist movement had intensified, leading to constitutional changes like the Richards Constitution of 1947, which expanded Nigerian representation in governance and introduced regional assemblies for the first time.
I'd leave you with this for now. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for these, RB. I have done the above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Vanderwaalforces, please, see more below. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- As nationalist pressure grew, the British implemented further reforms, including the Macpherson Constitution of 1951, which extended legislative representation, cited to Tignor 1998, p. 228; Falola & Heaton 2008, p. 152., and and the Lyttleton Constitution of 1954, which established a federal system. cited to Falola & Heaton 2008, p. 153. Falola & Heaton confirm that this constitution allowed Nigerian ministers and representatives from different regions, expanding the political structure to better include Nigerian voices in governance. Tignor also confirms that the Macpherson Constitution "magnified African electoral powers". Falola & Heaton p. 153 clearly states that the Lyttleton Constitution established Nigeria as a federation, with Lagos as a federal territory. This supports the second part of the statement. Suggested rephrasing for full verifiability; As nationalist pressure grew, the British implemented further reforms, including the Macpherson Constitution of 1951, which introduced regional assemblies and increased Nigerian representation in a central legislature. (Tignor 1998, p. 228; Falola & Heaton 2008, p. 152) The Lyttleton Constitution of 1954 established Nigeria as a federation, with Lagos designated as a federal territory. (Falola & Heaton 2008, p. 153)
- Despite these steps, Nigerian leaders continued to demand full autonomy. Political organizations such as the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC), the Action Group (AG), and the Northern People's Congress (NPC) emerged, representing various regional and ethnic interests. cited to Falola & Heaton 2008, pp. 144–145, 254. and Tignor 1998, pp. 235, 262–263. The text is largely verified concerning the NCNC and AG's emergence as political organizations representing regional interests, as detailed in both Falola & Heaton (pp. 144-145, 254) and Tignor (pp. 235, 262-263). However, there is no direct mention of the Northern People's Congress (NPC) in the provided pages, nor explicit references to continued demands for full autonomy. Suggested rephrasing is Despite colonial attempts at reform, Nigerian leaders pursued further autonomy. The National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC) under Nnamdi Azikiwe became prominent in advocating for a pan-Nigerian identity, while the Action Group (AG) and other emerging groups began representing distinct regional and ethnic interests.
- Leaders like Obafemi Awolowo, Ahmadu Bello, and Azikiwe played notable roles in advocating for self-governance. The source does support parts of the statement but omits specific mention of "self-governance." Instead, it mentions that these leaders "began to organize to pressure the colonial government for greater representation for Nigerians in their own governance and for an eventual end to colonial rule in Nigeria." This indicates a movement towards nationalist goals and independence rather than the specific term "self-governance". Suggestion, Leaders like Obafemi Awolowo, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, and Azikiwe led nationalist movements, advocating for greater representation of Nigerians in governance and pushing for eventual independence from British rule.
- Following extended negotiations, the British agreed to Nigeria's independence. → Following significant negotiations and diplomatic efforts, the British agreed to grant Nigeria independence. This phrasing more closely aligns with the source by describing the process as significant without implying any direct cause-effect relationship beyond what is mentioned in Simwa 2020.
- Several constitutional conferences were held in London and Lagos, where regional leaders deliberated on governance structures for the future nation. → Nigeria's independence movement was characterized by numerous constitutional discussions and conferences, beginning as early as the 1940s. Regional leaders, both from the South and North, engaged in deliberations with British officials on the governance structures for Nigeria's future. This revision aligns better with the content from both Simwa and Okoro, who describe the historical context and the contributions of key nationalists in advocating for Nigeria's self-governance.
- In 1959, Nigeria held its first general election, where the NPC won a majority and formed a coalition government, with Abubakar Tafawa Balewa as Prime Minister. This coalition set Nigeria on its path to full independence, achieved on 1 October 1960. → In 1959, Nigeria held a federal election in which the NPC won the largest number of seats. A coalition government was formed between the NPC and NCNC, with Abubakar Tafawa Balewa as Prime Minister. This coalition led to Nigeria's independence on 1 October 1960, with Balewa addressing the nation on this historic day. The original statement is correctly verified but could be refined for precise accuracy. The sources emphasize the NPC-NCNC coalition as a necessary step toward independence rather than as setting "Nigeria on its path to full independence."
Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Reading Beans Done. Thanks! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Vanderwaalforces, check below. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 16:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Independence in 1960
- The formal declaration of Nigerian independence on 1 October 1960 marked the end of British colonial rule and the establishment of Nigeria's self-governance. Ceremonies in Lagos included dignitaries from around the world who observed the transition of power. The article statement is partly verified. There is no explicit mention of dignitaries from around the world attending ceremonies in Lagos in Falola & Heaton (2008, p. 156), but Shuaibu 2023 verifies that, so put Falola & Heaton at the end of "self-governance" and put Shuaibu 2023 at the end of "transition of power".
- done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Princess Alexandra of Kent, representing Queen Elizabeth II, presented the constitutional documents that ended British authority, concluding years of negotiations driven by Nigerian nationalist movements. While both sources (Balewa 2020 and Shuaibu 2023) confirm Princess Alexandra's role in delivering constitutional instruments as a symbol of independence, neither explicitly attributes her presence to "concluding years of negotiations driven by Nigerian nationalist movements." So let's omit that and we would now have Princess Alexandra of Kent, representing Queen Elizabeth II, presented the constitutional documents that ended British authority.
- done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- During the ceremony, Nigeria's new green and white flag was raised, replacing the Union Jack to signal the nation's new sovereignty. verified
- Public spaces were adorned for the occasion, and events included traditional dances, cultural displays, and parades celebrating Nigeria's ethnic diversity. verified
- In his speech, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa focused on themes of unity, national development, and responsibility, expressing hope for the country's future as a cohesive and independent nation. He acknowledged the diverse backgrounds of Nigeria's people and praised the efforts of nationalists who had worked toward independence. → In his Independence Day speech, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa expressed "joy and pride" at Nigeria's new status as an "independent sovereign nation" and acknowledged the "selfless labours" of those who had contributed to the nation's progress. He described the journey to independence as "purposefully and peacefully planned with full and open consultation" and emphasised the "great task" of responsibly representing Nigeria on the "world stage". Balewa also paid tribute to various contributors, including British officials and local figures, thanking them "for your devoted service, which helped build Nigeria into a nation". He expressed gratitude to Queen Elizabeth II and the Commonwealth, concluding with a declaration: "I open a new chapter in the history of Nigeria, and of the Commonwealth, and indeed of the world".
- done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Following independence, Nigeria joined the United Nations and the British Commonwealth, formalising its position in global affairs. cited to Weaver (1961, pp. 146, 153, 157). The cited pages from Weaver indeed discuss Nigeria's entry into the British Commonwealth and the United Nations, as well as the implications of these memberships. But they do not directly state that these memberships "formalised [Nigeria’s] position in global affairs." Instead, Weaver's text elaborates on the specific benefits, opportunities, and challenges Nigeria faced within these organizations, as well as the country's strategic position within the Commonwealth as part of a non-aligned, Afro-Asian bloc. The source emphasizes economic and strategic advantages for Nigeria but does not summarize the memberships as a formalization of its global position. → Following independence, Nigeria joined the United Nations and the British Commonwealth, gaining economic and strategic advantages, as well as the opportunity to engage with other nations on issues of global significance.
- done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- As one of the largest African nations to gain independence at the time, Nigeria's status was notable among other newly independent countries during the period of decolonisation in Africa. → On October 1, 1960, Nigeria became a fully sovereign state, marking a significant moment in Africa's decolonization process, as one of the continent's most populous nations achieved independence. Falola & Heaton (2008, p. 156) does describe Nigeria's independence and highlights its significance. However, it does not directly mention Nigeria's "notable status" among other newly independent nations in Africa. Instead, it focuses on the events leading to independence, the roles of Tafawa Balewa and Nnamdi Azikiwe, and some of the challenges facing Nigeria at the time, such as regionalism and ethnic divisions.
- done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 16:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Done, thanks! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- We’re almost there. Please, see below. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 00:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Post-independence era
- In the years after independence, Nigeria faced challenges in building stable governance structures and addressing economic and social disparities. → Independence Day in Nigeria serves as an occasion for reflection on the nation's progress, with government broadcasts reviewing achievements, challenges, and future aspirations annually. This revision aligns more directly with the content in Simwa 2020 and Olaniyan 2016 p. 105, focusing on Independence Day's role in reflecting on the nation's journey rather than explicitly detailing post-independence governance and economic challenges.
- done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- The federal system, adapted from the colonial model, aimed to support regional autonomy but also underscored significant ethnic tensions among major groups, particularly the Hausa, Yoruba, and Igbo, who were competing for political power. The Al Jazeera source does not explicitly mention that Nigeria's federal system was adapted from the colonial model to support regional autonomy. It does discuss Nigeria's three-part division under colonial rule and highlights regional divisions, but it does not directly link these divisions to the goal of supporting autonomy. It also does discuss the ethnic divisions and power struggles among the Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba, and Igbo. It describes how tribalism and ethnic divisions were pronounced at independence, including how ethnic groups vied for political dominance, leading to military intervention and civil conflict. Suggested rephrase is Upon gaining independence, Nigeria's federal structure divided the country into three main regions dominated by the Hausa, Yoruba, and Igbo.
- done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- These divisions contributed to political instability and a series of military coups, beginning with the January 1966 coup and leading to the Nigerian Civil War from 1967 to 1970. → These divisions contributed to political instability and the January 1966 coup which later escalated into the Nigerian Civil War from 1967 to 1970.
- done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Following the civil war, the government focused on national reconstruction. Yakubu Gowon, who assumed power after the January 1966 coup, introduced a three-year national development plan, with initiatives intended to address economic disparities and encourage national unity. His 1970 Independence Day address, shortly after the war's end, emphasized peace and the need for national rebuilding. The statement is only partially verified by the text from Ugo (2017). While the source indeed references Yakubu Gowon's emphasis on national unity, peace, and the need for development, it does not explicitly state a "three-year national development plan" or mention "initiatives to address economic disparities." Furthermore, the source text presents a set of five national objectives in a broader, more aspirational sense rather than concrete initiatives targeting economic disparities. Suggested rephrase, Following the civil war, the government focused on national reconstruction. Yakubu Gowon, who assumed power after the January 1966 coup, introduced a National Development Plan with objectives to foster unity, strengthen the economy, and create equal opportunities for all citizens. In his 1970 Independence Day address, shortly after the war's end, Gowon emphasized peace and the importance of building a "united, strong, and self-reliant nation" as part of Nigeria's future direction.
- done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- In the 1970s, Nigeria became increasingly involved in regional affairs, supporting various African independence movements. cited to Tignor (1998, p. 268.) does not verify this statement. But I found a source your might consider using to backup this statement;
<ref>{{sfn|Nagar|Paterson|2012|p=8}} "During the 1960s and 1970s, Nigeria took a leading role in supporting black liberation movements in Southern Africa, including the African National Congress (ANC).</ref>
. Full citation* {{cite techreport | last=Nagar | first=Dawn | last2=Paterson | first2=Mark | title=The Eagle and the Springbok: Strengthening the Nigeria/South Africa Relationship | year=2012 | jstor=resrep05152.6 | url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep05152.6 | access-date=8 November 2024}}
.- Thank you, I used
{{harvnb}}
because it works best. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, I used
- The country's oil boom brought economic opportunities but also introduced challenges such as corruption and inflation, issues that would persist in the following decades. The Al Jazeera source mentions that while Nigeria's oil wealth increased government revenue and showed potential for prosperity, this was marred by extensive corruption and economic mismanagement, which kept much of the population in poverty. However, the source does not explicitly mention inflation as a consequence of the oil boom, nor does it directly attribute the emergence of economic "opportunities" solely to the oil boom. Suggested rephrase, The country's oil wealth increased government revenues, but widespread corruption and mismanagement kept most Nigerians impoverished, issues that continued in the following decades.
- done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- These challenges contributed to political instability, resulting in additional periods of military rule, including under Ibrahim Babangida, whose administration initiated limited democratic reforms. Olaniyan (2016, p. 104) focuses on the genre of Independence Day broadcasts in Nigeria, analyzing them from a linguistic perspective, specifically through Babangida's speeches, as a genre of political discourse. It does mention Babangida's regime as a significant period for transitioning to democracy in Nigeria, but it does not directly state that his administration "initiated limited democratic reforms" or connect his regime's significance specifically to challenges contributing to political instability and military rule. Suggested rephrase, These challenges contributed to political instability, which continued through various military regimes. Under Ibrahim Babangida, a significant focus was placed on political discourse, as reflected in his Independence Day broadcasts, which symbolized the period’s role in transitioning toward democracy.
- done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Independence Day remains a significant annual event, with leaders often using the occasion to address themes of unity and national development. The day provides an opportunity for reflecting on Nigeria's progress and the ongoing efforts to achieve stability and cohesion. → Independence Day is celebrated annually as a reminder of Nigeria's journey to freedom, marked by events that foster unity and national pride. It is an occasion for Nigerians to reflect on their shared heritage and express hope for the country's future. This revised statement more accurately mirrors the source's emphasis on unity, pride, and celebration without introducing themes not present in the text.
- done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 00:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Done, thank you! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Let’s move on. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 14:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- National celebration events
- Independence Day in Nigeria includes events that highlight the nation's history, unity, and cultural heritage. The statement is only partially verified by the sources. While both sources imply a historical focus, only the parades and ceremonial events in Toromade et al. indirectly relate to unity and national pride. However, neither explicitly mentions "cultural heritage." Suggested rephrase, Independence Day in Nigeria features events that commemorate the nation's history and promote a sense of unity through nationwide celebrations.
- The primary celebrations take place in Abuja, with officials, military personnel, and citizens in attendance. Central to the observance is a military parade displaying the capabilities of Nigeria's armed forces, followed by cultural performances that feature traditional dance and music from various ethnic groups, underscoring the country's cultural diversity." cited to Shuaibu 2023. Suggested rephrase to remove Abuja because we don't have that in the source, A central feature of Nigeria's Independence Day celebrations is a military parade with soldiers marching and military bands performing. Additionally, cultural performances featuring traditional dance and music occur across the country.
- The ceremonial raising of the Nigerian flag is conducted to represent national sovereignty. Suggested rephrasing, As part of Nigeria's Independence Day celebrations, a ceremonial raising of the Nigerian flag takes place, accompanied by other festivities.
- The President of Nigeria also delivers a national address that addresses recent achievements, current issues, and goals for the future. Suggested rephrasing, The President of Nigeria also delivers a national address as part of the Independence Day celebrations.
- This speech, broadcast nationwide, often focuses on themes of unity and development, marking the significance of independence in Nigeria's national identity. Suggested rephrasing, This speech, broadcast nationwide, often reflects on challenges facing the nation, such as economic recession and security concerns, and outlines goals for governance and economic stability.
Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 14:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Done, thanks! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Local celebrations occur across Nigeria, with communities organising gatherings and events. remove this sentence, we have this already in the first paragraph of this section.
- Schools hold activities like essay contests and debates on Nigerian history, aiming to foster awareness among young people. this is currently unverifiable even though it is true. For the sake of verifiability, I suggest rephrasing to In Oyo State, an essay competition was organized for primary and secondary school pupils as part of Independence Day celebrations, encouraging students to engage with current challenges in Nigeria, such as insecurity in the 21st century. and cited to
{{sfn|Babalola|2019}}
. Full citation* {{cite web | last=Babalola | first=Ademola | title=Independence: Oyo organises essay competition | website=[[The Punch]] | date=26 September 2019| url=https://punchng.com/independence-oyo-organises-essay-competition/ | access-date=10 November 2024}}
- Traditional meals, such as jollof rice and plantains, are commonly shared during these gatherings. verified.
- In Lagos, streets and public spaces are decorated in Nigeria's national colours, and events such as concerts and public festivals draw crowds from different regions. Suggest rephrasing to In Lagos, Independence Day is celebrated with events such as military parades and cultural performances, showcasing Nigeria's heritage and drawing large crowds.
- Fireworks displays in several cities are a common way to conclude the day, representing optimism for Nigeria's future. verified.
Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Reading Beans Done, thanks! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Regional and global celebrations
- The Nigerian diaspora also observes Independence Day, particularly in countries with large Nigerian communities, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and several African nations. Remove "several African nations" here so that we now have The Nigerian diaspora also observes Independence Day, particularly in countries with large Nigerian communities, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada.
- In the United Kingdom, an annual parade in London brings together Nigerians dressed in traditional attire, with celebrations that include music, dance, and cultural displays, often concluding at Trafalgar Square. The source text from The Sun Nigeria 2022 describes a rally in London organized by Nigerians in the UK for Nigeria's 62nd Independence Anniversary, with a focus on supporting Peter Obi's presidential campaign. There is mention of a march through central London, including Trafalgar Square, but no details about traditional attire, cultural celebrations, music, or dance. Suggested rephrase, In the United Kingdom, Nigerians gathered in London to mark Nigeria’s 62nd Independence Anniversary with a march through central London, including stops at Trafalgar Square, the Nigerian High Commission, and 10 Downing Street.
- In New York City, Independence Day celebrations have occurred annually since 1991, featuring parades and cultural presentations. verified. But suggested rephrase, In New York City, Nigerians have celebrated Independence Day annually since 1991 with a large parade and cultural presentations, including music, food, and dance, making it the largest Nigerian gathering outside of Nigeria. This rephrasing clarifies the event's scope and reflects the cultural aspects more accurately, as described in the source.
- In Canada, the Province of Manitoba officially recognises Nigerian Independence Day, hosting yearly events that celebrate Nigerian culture and acknowledge the contributions of Nigerian communities within the province. The statement is partially verified but needs adjustments for complete accuracy. The source confirms that the Province of Manitoba introduced a bill to formally recognize Nigerian Independence Day, but it does not state that Manitoba "officially recognises" it yet (as it's still a proposed bill). Additionally, while the source mentions celebrating Nigerian culture and contributions, there is no indication of established annual events as implied by "yearly events." Suggested rephrase, In Canada, the Province of Manitoba introduced a bill in 2024 to formally recognise Nigerian Independence Day, aiming to celebrate Nigerian culture and acknowledge the contributions of Nigerian communities within the province.
- Global recognition and statements
- Nigeria's Independence Day often receives international recognition, with messages released by world leaders on 1 October. U.S. Presidents have traditionally extended congratulations to Nigeria, often highlighting democratic values and cooperative relations between the two nations. In 2023, Joe Biden acknowledged Nigeria's significant role in Africa and affirmed a commitment to ongoing collaboration on mutual priorities, including security, democracy, and economic growth. verified.
- The United Nations has also marked Nigeria's Independence Day, with Secretaries-General issuing statements that recognise Nigeria's contributions to peacekeeping and its influence in regional stability. The statement, as written, is not fully verified by the provided source texts from Weaver (1961). The source discusses Nigeria's role in international relations through its membership in the United Nations and the Commonwealth, and it recognizes Nigeria's potential influence in global affairs alongside other Afro-Asian nations. However, it does not specifically mention the UN marking Nigerian Independence Day or issuing statements by Secretaries-General recognizing Nigeria's contributions to peacekeeping and regional stability. Suggested rephrase, Following independence, Nigeria joined the United Nations and the Commonwealth, participating in international affairs alongside other Afro-Asian nations.
- Leaders from the United Kingdom, frequently acknowledging Nigeria's historical ties and membership within the Commonwealth of Nations, have expressed support on this day. remove this statement entirely.
- We can now merge both subsections (Regional and global celebrations, and Global recognition and statements) into a single subsection called Global celebrations and international recognition.
Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 15:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Reading Beans Done, thank you. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Notable speeches and statements
- All contents of this section verified, so this checks out.
- 1992 C-130 crash
- verified.
- Political tensions and social challenges
- Please remove the first paragraph because it isn't directly relate to the Independence Day.
- On 1 October 2010, Nigeria's 50th Independence anniversary was disrupted by twin bombings at Eagle Square in Abuja, where official celebrations were being held. The attack resulted in casualties and was claimed by the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, which cited grievances with government policies in the Niger Delta. The incident highlighted security concerns and affected the tone of the jubilee celebrations, leading to increased security measures at public events in subsequent years. verified, but I suggest you remove "leading to increased security measures at public events in subsequent years" as it is not directly mentioned in the source.
- Economic challenges have also impacted Independence Day messages and public sentiment. During the economic recession of 2016, President Muhammadu Buhari addressed the nation, acknowledging the difficulties facing Nigerians and encouraging resilience. Independence Day speeches have increasingly become platforms for addressing significant economic and social issues, reflecting the challenges facing Nigerians. verified.
This should be all with the source-text integrity. I am happy you've been able work on my suggestions so far. Please ping me when you sort these out. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 04:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Reading Beans Done, thank you. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Support — looks good to me. Good work. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 22:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Ibjaja055
[edit]- Support with the following reasons:
1. Well-Written:
The prose is engaging, clear, and professional. The language is precise, and complex historical developments are explained in an accessible manner. Transitions are smooth, making the narrative easy to follow for readers with varying familiarity with Nigerian history.
2. Comprehensive:
The article covers all key aspects of Nigeria’s Independence Day, including its historical context, celebrations, global impact, and associated speeches. It details the colonial era, Nigeria’s path to independence, and ongoing commemorations. Each section provides necessary context, with major facts and events well-integrated, leaving no significant gaps in the narrative.
3. Well-Researched:
This is a thoroughly researched article, reflecting a balanced survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable, with reliable sources, such as primary speeches, historical accounts, and news reports. Citations are appropriately used throughout, supporting claims and ensuring accuracy in details about independence and subsequent celebrations.
4. Neutral:
The article maintains a neutral tone, presenting information objectively without any evident bias. It gives fair coverage to all perspectives, including government narratives, the significance of independence for Nigerians, and international viewpoints, without favoring any particular stance.
5. Stable:
There is no evidence of ongoing edit conflicts or instability within the content. The article appears well-established, with content changes likely limited to routine updates rather than edit wars or major revisions.
6. Copyright Compliance and Plagiarism-Free:
The article complies with Wikipedia’s copyright policy. It shows no signs of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing, and all information is rephrased accurately from sources, ensuring originality and integrity. When I ran it through plagiarism detector, the result was 23.1 percent which is violation unlikely
7. Style Guidelines:
Lead: The article has a concise and informative lead section that effectively introduces the topic and prepares readers for the detailed sections.
Structure: It follows a logical and balanced structure, with section headings that are clear, hierarchical, and easy to navigate.
Citations: Inline citations are consistently formatted, contributing to the article’s credibility. The references are clear, using footnotes and maintaining consistency.
8. Media:
The article includes well-chosen images in each heading with appropriate captions which also enhance the reader’s understanding of Nigeria’s Independence Day celebrations. All media appear to have acceptable copyright statuses, in line with Wikipedia’s policies. Three out of the five images used are in the public domain and the other two are listed under CC by SA 2.0 and 3.0.
9. Length: The article remains focused, avoiding unnecessary detail. It effectively uses a summary style to cover events without overwhelming the reader, maintaining a balance that allows depth without excessive elaboration. Ibjaja055 (talk)
Coordinator note
[edit]Please note the bit of the FAC instructions starting "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 ..." Thanks Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Support from Crisco 1492
[edit]- Nigeria's Independence Day, often called October First, is a public holiday in Nigeria observed on 1 October each year. - What's the point of repeating Nigeria twice in the same sentence? Overall, I am seeing quite a few repetitions of the word... some reworking of sentences may help.
- Per MOS:BTW, we should link words on their first occurrence. The link to Nigeria doesn't meet this guidelines, and some others may not either.
- File:National Pageant 1st October 1960.jpg - We have a caption of our own. I'd crop out the embedded caption
- File:Jaja-Wachuku, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa and Princess Alexandra of kent on Nigeria s Independence Day October 1, 1960.jpg - We have a caption of our own. I'd crop out the embedded caption
- Abubakar Tafawa Balewa - I'd mention "Prime Minister" or another position to show why his feedback was important
- nixed. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- In Oyo State, an essay competition was organised for primary and secondary school pupils as part of Independence Day celebrations, encouraging students to engage with current challenges in Nigeria, such as insecurity in the 21st century. - Is this a regular occurrence? Do other states not do this?
- Crisco 1492: Yes, it appears to be a regular occurrence in Oyo: 2019, 2023, 2021, etc.
- It also seem to happen in other states but most likely not a regular occurrence-ish. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm seeing some overlinking in the international celebrations section
- File:The Prime Minister, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa on Independence Day, October 1, 1960.jpg - - We have a caption of our own. I'd crop out the embedded caption
- Notable speeches and statements - A lot of these paragraphs are small and could be merged
- The attack resulted in casualties - How many?
- done. Eight people, added to the section. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Overall, quite tight. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492 Thanks for your comment, I have started addressing them. Please what do you mean by "Abubakar Tafawa Balewa - I'd mention "Prime Minister" or another position"? where should I mention Prime Minister? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- On his first mention, the reader doesn't have any context as to why his remarks matter. He is identified later in the article, but not at first mention. Hence I'd use "Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa" or something similar at the first mention. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492 So, the first mention of him was at Leaders like Obafemi Awolowo, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, and Azikiwe led nationalist movements... the third paragraph of the Colonial era... section, do you think it would be logical to mention that here? Because at this point, he was not prime minister yet, but on the second mention at the fourth paragraph A coalition government was formed between the NPC and NCNC, with Abubakar Tafawa Balewa as Prime Minister the fact was established. Although, in the lead he also appeared there but logically he was still not PM yet in that sentence. What do you think? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, nix that. With the extra link (I think he's linked three times in four paragraphs) I had assumed that his first mention was in #Independence in 1960. The overlinking could use work. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Crisco 1492 thank you, I fixed the OLINK with Balewa and some others. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Also noting that I have fixed other things
except the images which I will have to do in Wikimedia Commons, I am being limited because I am unable to overwrite existing files. I have requested help though.I have now cropped them all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492 So, the first mention of him was at Leaders like Obafemi Awolowo, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, and Azikiwe led nationalist movements... the third paragraph of the Colonial era... section, do you think it would be logical to mention that here? Because at this point, he was not prime minister yet, but on the second mention at the fourth paragraph A coalition government was formed between the NPC and NCNC, with Abubakar Tafawa Balewa as Prime Minister the fact was established. Although, in the lead he also appeared there but logically he was still not PM yet in that sentence. What do you think? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- On his first mention, the reader doesn't have any context as to why his remarks matter. He is identified later in the article, but not at first mention. Hence I'd use "Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa" or something similar at the first mention. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Supporting on prose... not being familiar with Nigeria, I can't speak to comprehensiveness, but this reads really well and gives a good understanding of the subject and its context. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Airship
[edit]As always, these are suggestions, not demands. Feel free to refuse with justification. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Lead
- "on 1 October each year...marks the anniversary...on 1 October 1960. On this date... I feel like all these references to one anniversary date could be streamlined into one.
- Last sentence of first paragraph seems out of place; would suggest moving it to the "history" part of the lead.
- Speaking of, there seems to be undue emphasis on the historical background in the lead. The focus should be on the public holiday—the subject of the article—so I don't really get why three lengthy sentences need to be devoted to forty-five years.
- If you don't want to do that, "a colonial move that shaped the country's territorial and administrative framework" should definitely be cut nevertheless—it adds nothing.
- "Since its inception, Nigeria's Independence Day has been marked by official ceremonies, cultural events, and public displays of national pride. Parades, traditional dances, and flag-raising ceremonies occur across the country, with the primary celebration historically held in Nigeria's capital." This is essentially a list of six things with a full stop in the middle to give the impression that they're not just words for the sake of it.
- "Nigeria's Independence Day celebrations extend beyond its borders, with Nigerian communities abroad organising commemorative events that honour their heritage." You can cut everything before the comma as redundant.
- " Over time, Independence Day has become a symbol for both Nigerians and their global partners, serving as an enduring reminder of the country's journey to self-governance and its role within the international community." everything in this sentence is duplicated elsewhere in the lead. It can be cut entirely.
- Historical background
- "Nigeria's journey toward independence involved nationalist efforts, marked by the establishment of regional self-governance under the Lyttleton Constitution and the unification of diverse regional parties to form a national government." this "introductory sentence" is unnecessary and can be cut.
- "marking the start of direct influence over the region" again redundant.
- "forming modern Nigeria. This unification laid the foundation for a centralised administrative structure" everything between the full stop and "a" can be cut.
- "advocating for greater representation of Nigerians in governance" this can surely be cut, as the important thing here is the push to independence?
- "Following significant negotiations and diplomatic efforts, the British agreed to grant Nigeria independence" this is unnecessary verbiage at the expense of useful information. when? where? who?
- "Nigeria's independence movement was characterised by numerous constitutional discussions and conferences, beginning as early as the 1940s. Regional leaders, both from the South and North, engaged in deliberations with British officials on the governance structures for Nigeria's future" most of this has just been covered in the past two paragraphs, you don't need to say it again; you should be focusing (as really the entire section should) on the push towards independence.
- "with Balewa addressing the nation on this historic day" unnecessary
- "The formal declaration of Nigerian independence on 1 October 1960 marked the end of British colonial rule and the establishment of Nigeria's self-governance." yes, that's what independence means
- "gaining economic and strategic advantages, as well as the opportunity to engage with other nations on issues of global significance" more unnecessary verbiage at the expense of useful information such as dates or mechanisms.
- "On October 1, 1960, Nigeria became a fully sovereign state, marking a significant moment in Africa's decolonisation process, as one of the continent's most populous nations achieved independence" I mean, seriously, what is the purpose of this sentence other than having words for the sake of words?
I'll stop there for now, but I would highly recommend going through WP:REDEX and implementing its advice on the rest of the article as well as the above. At present, it is far too wordy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 See my edit to the lead and my edit to the historical background section and tell me whether I am doing well or not before I continue with the remaining sections of the article. PS: I had to remove the entirety of "Post-independence era" subsection of this section based on your comments. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Too far. If you are covering information in the body, it should be summarised in the lead (WP:LEAD). The key is to summarise the important parts. It's good that you had a look at the post-independence era subsection: I would have thought merging the important points with other sections such as "Significance and observance" would have been better than outright deletion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Two things; by "too far", you mean? And for the lead, I intend to work on the lead again after I finish doing the necessary removals throughout the body, so that I can adequately summarise the main points. WDYT? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 courtesy ping. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- "Too far" meaning too much cutting, especially in the lead. The method of making the article more concise is up to you—if you intend to readd information to the lead later, that's your call. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 So, things I did include doing the trimming throughout the remaining sections, but minimally this time. I then merged the removed Post-independence era subsection with the Significance and observance section selectively. I also added few details to the lead. You might want to give another look at it now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Better. Let's continue.
- @AirshipJungleman29 So, things I did include doing the trimming throughout the remaining sections, but minimally this time. I then merged the removed Post-independence era subsection with the Significance and observance section selectively. I also added few details to the lead. You might want to give another look at it now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- "Too far" meaning too much cutting, especially in the lead. The method of making the article more concise is up to you—if you intend to readd information to the lead later, that's your call. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Too far. If you are covering information in the body, it should be summarised in the lead (WP:LEAD). The key is to summarise the important parts. It's good that you had a look at the post-independence era subsection: I would have thought merging the important points with other sections such as "Significance and observance" would have been better than outright deletion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you have a section titled "Notable speeches and statements", everything within should have some reference to secondary sources which confirm that the speeches wre notable. "Tafawa Balewa's 1960 speech" and most of "Yakubu Gowon's 1970 speech" are sourced to transcripts of the speech itself.
- Also, the citations need a look at. Why is the 1960 transcript titled "Balewa 2020"? Why is the 1970 transcipt titled "Ugo 2017"?
- Details on Balewa's speech are split between "Independence in 1960" and the dedicated subsection.
- I would recommend combining the "Notable speeches and statements" and the "Historical challenges" sections into one section titled "post-independence history" or something. Let me know your thoughts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 Primary sources are not prohibited, are they? Balewa's speech is definitely inherently notable because we're looking at the first Independence Day speech here. Gowon's speech is also definitely a notable one because it was after the war, I intentionally didn't put up, for example, 1962 or 1961 speeches.
- That is original research—you are defining what is a notable speech. There should be secondary sources talking about the relevant ones if they are truly notable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 The speech where the prime minister of Nigeria declared the country independent is not inherently a notable part of the Independence Day celebration? I don't think arguing about OR here is something I would be interested in. So, what do you want me to do with these speeches section if I cannot or should not use the speech transcripts (primary sources) on them, please? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- "The speech where the prime minister of Nigeria declared the country independent is not inherently a notable part of the Independence Day celebration?" If it has not received coverage in reliable sources, then no. The speeches section should only describe the speeches which reliable sources have given prominence to. See the first sentence of WP:WEIGHT. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 Should I then remove this entire section? (I have zero problems with that) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Although, Ibrahim Babangida's 1985–1993 broadcasts were well covered, at least from the sources I cited. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 And just by the way, these speeches one way or the other have been covered in several source, that is just a fact. a cursory search would prove that to you. But I am not opposed to using primary sources in an article, which is why I chose to use the transcript. If that is a problem, then please tell me what to do, because I have no idea what I should do now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you have reliable secondary source that discuss the speeches, summarise what they say. It seems like we're going around in circles on a fairly straightforward topic. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 This is all done. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Are Buhari's 2016 speech or Tinubu's 2023 speech discussed in secondary sources which attest to their importance to be "selected"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 Buhari, I am inclined to remove. Tinubu, yes, at least from the source cited. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am unable to access the Tinubu source; can you provide a quotation here? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 Sure, I got access via TWL.
- Meanwhile, on the occasion of Nigeria's 63 Independence, President Bola Tinubu in his live broadcast on Sunday promised to rebuild a Nigeria where hunger, poverty and hardship are pushed into the shadows of an ever fading past. He advised that the reform may be painful, noting that it is what greatness and the future require. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn't appear to be discussion, but rather just acknowledgement that the speech was made. I'd expect that you could find similar summaries made about every Independence Day speech, no? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 Both should be removed then. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 I removed it. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 Hi there. Whenever you are free, wanna give a final look from your end or something and possibly your final say? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn't appear to be discussion, but rather just acknowledgement that the speech was made. I'd expect that you could find similar summaries made about every Independence Day speech, no? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am unable to access the Tinubu source; can you provide a quotation here? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 Buhari, I am inclined to remove. Tinubu, yes, at least from the source cited. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Are Buhari's 2016 speech or Tinubu's 2023 speech discussed in secondary sources which attest to their importance to be "selected"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 This is all done. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you have reliable secondary source that discuss the speeches, summarise what they say. It seems like we're going around in circles on a fairly straightforward topic. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- "The speech where the prime minister of Nigeria declared the country independent is not inherently a notable part of the Independence Day celebration?" If it has not received coverage in reliable sources, then no. The speeches section should only describe the speeches which reliable sources have given prominence to. See the first sentence of WP:WEIGHT. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 The speech where the prime minister of Nigeria declared the country independent is not inherently a notable part of the Independence Day celebration? I don't think arguing about OR here is something I would be interested in. So, what do you want me to do with these speeches section if I cannot or should not use the speech transcripts (primary sources) on them, please? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- That is original research—you are defining what is a notable speech. There should be secondary sources talking about the relevant ones if they are truly notable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- The citations, actually, I think the error is in the Balewa 2020. Since we use bylines and the byline from the source is TheCable, I should probably remove the bylines entirely. Or do you suggest I make Ugo 2017 to become Gowon 2017, using Yakubu Gowon as the byline instead?
- The Balewa speech was part of the happenings on Independence Day in 1960 which is why there's a brief mention of it there, but well detailed in the dedicated section.
- Is there a problem exactly with why these two sections should be merged? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 Primary sources are not prohibited, are they? Balewa's speech is definitely inherently notable because we're looking at the first Independence Day speech here. Gowon's speech is also definitely a notable one because it was after the war, I intentionally didn't put up, for example, 1962 or 1961 speeches.
- Support after considerable improvement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Comments by FrB.TG
[edit]Recusing to review.
- "These celebrations highlight Nigeria's rich ethnic diversity and foster a sense of national pride." This may subtly lean towards a non-neutral point of view because phrases like "rich ethnic diversity" and "foster a sense of national pride" imply a positive judgment about the celebrations without attributing these perspectives to a source. This is phrased better in the body ("...reflecting the nation's ethnic diversity").
- done. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Political parties like the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC), led by Nnamdi Azikiwe, and the Action Group (AG), led by Obafemi Awolowo, emerged, representing regional and ethnic interests while advocating for independence." The repetition of "led by" in quick succession makes the sentence feel redundant and clunky.
- done. Changed the first instance "led by" to "under the leadership of" to reduce repetition while maintaining clarity.--Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Traditional dances, music performances, and displays of ethnic heritage further highlight Nigeria's cultural diversity." Same problem here; phrases like "highlight Nigeria's cultural diversity" might imply a positive judgment. While it's not overtly biased, it would be more neutral if phrased factually or attributed to a source.
- done. I removed this sentence.--Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- "He avoided vindictiveness" - this implies a subjective judgment of Gowon's leadership style and should either be attributed to a source or rephrased to focus on verifiable actions.
- done. I changed to simply "He stated that".--Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
The prose itself is not bad but there's some promotional tone in the language as highlighted above. FrB.TG (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- @FrB.TG Thanks for the comments, I fixed all already. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good.
Support. FrB.TG (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good.
Apologies for my indecisiveness but after reading the article one more time, I found further neutrality issues that force me to switch to oppose on 1d criterion. There are quite a few statements here that are presented as generalized and oversimplified facts when they might not reflect everyone's experience.
- "Highlighting the nation's ethnic diversity": I know I initially said it was phrased well but this could imply a positive judgment about how well Independence Day reflects cultural diversity. Rephrasing to something more descriptive, such as "showcasing Nigeria's ethnic heritage," would make it more neutral.
- "Fireworks displays, held in major cities, often conclude the day, symbolising optimism for the nation's future." Something being a symbol for something is usually a matter of interpretation, and everybody interprets things differently so we can't state that in Wikipedia's voice as if it were a fact. Proper attribution needed (something like "... which according to xyz symbolises...").
- "Delivered with a formal tone, these broadcasts sought to frame the military government's policies as necessary for Nigeria's eventual progress." The interpretation of Babangida's speeches might be contested, as some critics could argue that the policies had other motives or consequences. Maybe everyone unanimously agreed on this but my point is that this is just a matter of opinion and cannot be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Also, the sentence structure creates ambiguity. The phrase "delivered with a formal tone" appears to modify "these broadcasts," suggesting that the broadcasts themselves were delivered with a formal tone, which is awkward since broadcasts can't deliver tone — the speaker can.
- "Heightened national security concerns and marred what was intended to be a milestone celebration": While the facts about the bombings are clear, the interpretation of the event as "marring" the celebration introduces a subjective assessment. FrB.TG (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Kavyansh
[edit]- In the first sentence, "British rule" is linked to a page which redirects to "British Raj" in India, having no mention of British rule in Nigeria. Is that an appropriate link? I guess, a better one would be Nigeria#British colonization.
- "This milestone marked the end of" — "It marked the end of" would convey the same message in less words being moere&nbps;... I should say, neutral; I'm assuming its implicitly understood by the reader that independence of a nation is indeed a big deal to be a "milestone", we don't necesarily have to specify it being one.
- "The day also provides a platform for reflecting on the nation's achievements, challenges, and aspirations since gaining independence." — This is something which is ofcourse true and I'd see in a newspaper or a magazine, but doesn't belong to an encyclopedia. Can we be more neutral?
- "Global leaders often extend congratulatory messages, recognising Nigeria's contributions to regional stability and global diplomacy." — This is again a very prototypical template sentence, just replace "Nigeria" with any given nation and it'll still hold true. Do we really need to specify this in the lead (or in the article at all?)
- "The Nigerian Youth Movement (NYM)" — Since we haven't repeated it ever in the article, whats ths use for explicitly specifying the abbreviation (unless its of immense cultural importance)? Same goes for NCNC, AG, NPC?
- "won the most seats" — vague. What does most mean? a majority? or did it become the single largest party without the majority? The latter seems more likely, given the fact that a coalition government was formed.
- "Nigeria officially gained independence on 1 October 1960" — When did it "unofficially" gained independence? In other words, is specifying "officially" adding any value?
- Within the span of some 6 lines, we have the complete name of "Abubakar Tafawa Balewa" mentionned twice, and linked on both the instances!
- "with Abubakar Tafawa Balewa as Prime Minister" vs "Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa" — per MOS:JOBTITLE, at one of these two instances, the capitalization has to go.
- "of the armed forces and often accompanied" — and is often accompanied
- "The ceremonial raising of the Nigerian flag" — Flag was linked just some lines ago. Why MOS:DUPLINK?
- "The President of Nigeria" — MOS:JOBTITLE
- "The President of Nigeria delivers a televised address to the nation, reflecting on Nigeria's achievements, challenges, and aspirations." — Which part of the source [28]. supports this assertion? It is a strange sentence; is it a contemporary manifestation or an annual occourance since 1960, like the Queen's Christmas message? And is the president compelled to talk on "reflecting on Nigeria's achievements, challenges, and aspirations", or is it something usually observed in these sort of addresses?
- "early post-independence era" — do we have the exact year or the decade?
- "For instance, in Oyo State, school essay competitions engage students in addressing modern challenges such as insecurity, fostering awareness and civic responsibility." — Thats not what the source says. Isn't that an overgeneralization from an isolated incident? Did it ever happen before or after 2019?
I'll stop here. This is a short article, but can be a FA if it meets the criteria. I've gotten articles shorter than this to be FAs (this and this). The prose, however, isn't upto mark. I'd repeat what someone said to me a few years ago which perfectly summarizes my stance on this article: "there is no reason for such a short article to not have polished prose (it's neither highly technical nor long, so should not be that hard to work on, and that work should be done before bringing a nomination to FAC)." Moreover, there are various instances of borderline WP:NPOV issues, some of which I have mentionned above. It is said in the lead that it is also called "October First", but it has never been specified in the remaining of the article, neither having any citation. Everything in lead should be in the article. (MOS:LEAD) Other basic issues include instances like "In 2023, Joe Biden commended"; despite linking him, it should be specified who Biden is (the American president). These are just isolated examples, I haven't even read the complete article. Accordingly, primarily based upon criterias 1a and 1d, I am leaning towards opposing the article. I'm willing to revisit the article, provided the article is completely checked for any instances of borderline NPOV and MOS issues alongside a source to text inegrity check, as I've noticed some issues which I've specified above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- After five weeks the nomination has seen a lot of comments, the article has had a lot of changes, and we still seem some way from a consensus to promote. There seems to be more work needed than the FAC process is intended for and so I am going to archive this. I suggest working off-FAC to incorporate the points raised by the opposing reviewers, ideally with their continuing input. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 6 December 2024 [29].
- Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
This is my second nomination of the article, about an MRT station which remained closed even when the line opened. After some lobbying by residents, MPs and grassroots leaders to open the station, including a rare form of public protest by putting up "white elephant" cardboard cutouts, the station was eventually opened. Previously there were concerns raised about the wording and phrases of certain portions of the article, and I had put it up to the GOCE for a copyedit. As the semester ends, I also have more time to work on any potential issues that might arises during the FAC review process. ZKang123 (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
750h
[edit]Will review. Feel free to refuse my suggestions with justification
- lead
- Sengkang Central with Compassvale Bow, and serves remove the comma
- Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- commercial-and-residential development. ==> "commercial and residential development.", unless there's a reason the hyphens are there
- Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- In August 2005, during a visit by youth minister Vivian Balakrishnan visit to Punggol South ==> "In August 2005, during a visit by youth minister Vivian Balakrishnan to Punggol South"
- Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- After the Land Transport Authority re-evaluated its feasibility, Buangkok station opened
- Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- history
- stations announced the communications minister ==> "stations announced by the communications minister"
- Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Lee said at the ceremony Buangkok station ==> "Lee said at the ceremony that Buangkok station"
- Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- announcement of transport-fare rises. hyphen is unrequired
- Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Tee-shirts bearing the words hyphen isn't required
- Done. Wrote t-shirts.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- No-one, including the girls ==> "No one, including the girls"
- Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- details
- which has the station code of NE15 remove "of"
- I think I shall keep it.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- two entrances that serving the surrounding HDB flat ==> "two entrances that serve the surrounding HDB flat" or "two entrances that serve as the surrounding HDB flat"
- The former.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- accommodate at least 7,500 people, and to withstand remove the comma
- Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Through the colorful embellishments, Leow intended "colorful" ==> "colourful" in Singaporean English
- Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the article @ZKang123:. I have an active candidacy if you'd like to take a look. Best, 750h+ 15:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi 750h+, 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) 22:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oops sorry. Happy to support now. 750h+ 23:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Coordinator note
[edit]This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next four or five days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose from Gog the Mild
[edit]Recusing to review.
- Note 1 needs a full stop and a cite.
- Query - which dictionary should I cite for the idiomic expression? Merriam-Webster or Oxford?--ZKang123 (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am assuming the article is written in BrEng, so would go with Oxford. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Leong: titles should be in title case.
- Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Buangkok MRT station is an underground Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station on the North East Line (NEL) in Singapore." Mass rapid transit is - I think - being used here generically and not specifically to refer to the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit system. So it should not have - IMO - upper case initials nor the link it does.
- Actually it's following a convention like Oxford Circus tube station, to introduce that the station is on the Singapore MRT network.
- "the intersection of Sengkang Central with Compassvale Bow". What are they?
- Roads. Would saying "the road intersection" be clearer?
- Can what the station serves be in one sentence?
- Combined
- What purpose does "currently" serve?
- ...someone must have tried to fluff the lead and add some of those adverbs.
- "The station was first announced in March 1996" is not grammatical. Do you mean something like 'Plans to build the station were first announced in March 1996'?
- Well, the line was first planned in 1984 and the stations were finalised in March 1996. In truth, I don't really see the problem with the statement.
- "The station was first announced in March 1996 and construction began the following April." Does "the following April" mean April 1996 or April 1997?
- April 1997
- "during a government minister Vivian Balakrishnan to Punggol South". What?
- government minister visit
- "eight cardboard white elephants were notably put up in a rare public demonstration". Delete "notably".
- "eight white cardboard elephants were notably put up in a rare public demonstration." Putting up a cardboard elephant is not a demonstration. ('a rare display of public dissatisfaction with the government' or similar perhaps?)
- "a grassroots leader being sternly warned". By whom?
- The police.
- "sternly warned after a police investigation into the incident. After the Land Transport Authority re-evaluated". Is it possible to avoid "after" twice in eight words?
- Reworded.
- "re-evaluated the station's feasibility". Feasible = 'Able to be done in practice.' I don't think feasibility is the word you want here.
- We still call it a feasibility review here. "The LTA can complete its feasibility review only 'in a few months time'" from source.
- "Buangkok station is a designated Civil Defence shelter". Civil defence is being used generically here, so link to civil defence and lose the initial caps.
- It's linked to the SCDF because they oversee the CD shelters.
- "Buangkok station eventually opened a few months later". Delete "eventually".
- Done.
- "After the Land Transport Authority re-evaluated the station's feasibility, Buangkok station eventually opened a few months later on 15 January 2006." Delete "After"; maybe tweak to give 'The Land Transport Authority re-evaluated the station's feasibility and it opened a few months later on 15 January 2006.' or similar.
- Reworded
- "White Teflon sheets cover the station's two entrances." Is there a reason for this?
- As in the design? It's not clear why, but it has been highlighted as a distinctive feature compared to the other NEL stations that generally use glass in their station entrance design.
- The last three paragraphs of the lead consist of only eight sentences. I am not a fan of this splintering of the prose.
- Rewrote the paragraphs. I admit it expanded to three when I was asked to elaborate more on the white elephant incident.
- "by local artist". This is in the lead - which is a summary of the main article - but not the main article.
- I'm unsure how "local artist" ended up in the lead. Deleted.
This is a lot of issues for a lead. While some points are minor, many are not. It gives me cause for concern as to whether the prose issues highlighted in the last FAC persist. I will pick a section or so from the main article and see if that has similar problems. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The lead problems have been rectified.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
"Artwork" section
- Art-in-Transit is linked in the lead but not the article.
- "The artwork consists of two image stripes". What is an image stripe?
- "The artwork consists of two image stripes that are displayed across the staircase voids". Delete "that are".
- "providing a contrast with black-and-white photographs". I don't understand: are the photographs part of the embellishment or are they already present?
- The section seems to include two descriptions of the artwork. One starting "The artwork consists of ...", the other "fusing art and photography in this commission. The work's 80 vitreous enamel panels were ..." Could they be amalgamated.
- "a photograph of the soldier on parade". "the" → 'a'. Or, possibly, → 'the photograph of a soldier on parade'.
- "National Service". Why the upper case initial letters?
- " "rite of passage into adulthood" " This needs at least briefly contextualising, introducing or explaining.
- "The enlarged photographs resulted in ..." Enlargement has not been previously mentioned, so you can't start with "The".
Sadly the issues seem to persist here and so I have to oppose promotion; there are more and deeper issues than can reasonably be expected to be dealt with at FAC. ZKang123 is an experienced FAC nominator so I am unsure what is going wrong here or what to suggest to remedy it. Possibly a PR, calling in some of the many editors whose FAC nominations they have reviewed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
EG
[edit]I will leave comments here, hopefully to prevent this nomination from being archived. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Coord note
[edit]Three weeks into the review, I don't see consensus to promote being achieved anytime soon, so I'm going to archive and echo Gog's suggestion of PR before a re-nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 December 2024 [30].
- Nominator(s): Christian (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
This article is about one of American singer Madonna's most iconic and known songs, "La Isla Bonita". Having nominated this article previously, and having read the comments left by other users, I went source by source, making sure everything mentioned is properly cited. Christian (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Review from Hurricanehink
[edit]Support. As a musician familiar with this song, I figured I'd review it, due to having an FAC of my own.
- She also said: "[Pat and I] both think that we were Latin in another life [...] [because] Latin rhythms often dominate our uptempo compositions". - seeing as previously Pat was introduced as Patrick Leonard, perhaps the name should be Patrick here for consistency, especially since it's in a bracket.Done
- Did you fix this? It still says She also said: "[Pat and I] both think that we were Latin in another life ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- What about this? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thoughts on this? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- "In 2014, while working on her thirteenth studio album Rebel Heart (2015) with producer Diplo, Madonna recorded a dubplate of "La Isla Bonita" with new lyrics that referenced trio Major Lazer.[15] This version premiered in March 2015 on BBC Radio 1Xtra." - I had to look up what a dubplate is... seems like this version is for vinyl release, right? I think a lot more people are aware of vinyl records. Either way, it sounds like it's a new recorded version, correct? If so, are the new lyrics in the form of a new verse, or is it just new vocals? This part comes out of left field and I'm not sure what to make of it. Shouldn't the dubplate version also be included under "Track listing and formats"?
- Done I aditionally changed the mention to the Composition and Lyrics section
- Should this get a mention under "Track listing and formats"? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't found any sources mentioning a release that merits being under the forementioned section, just YouTube and SoundCloud links.
- Isn't digital release a format? It just seems odd this version of the song isn't included in this section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- It is not on itunes/spotify/amazon music; like I mentioned, it is only available on YouTube and soundcloud, and there are many links, and none from an official source.
- Yea but Youtube and Soundcloud both cound as release format, don't they? Also, it seems like the remix version is available from the Madonna channel, which is considered the official Madonna channel on YouTube, having almost all of her stuff. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- The dubplate Diplo Remix is not included on neither Madonna or Diplo's official YouTube Channel.
- Yea but Youtube and Soundcloud both cound as release format, don't they? Also, it seems like the remix version is available from the Madonna channel, which is considered the official Madonna channel on YouTube, having almost all of her stuff. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- It is not on itunes/spotify/amazon music; like I mentioned, it is only available on YouTube and soundcloud, and there are many links, and none from an official source.
- Isn't digital release a format? It just seems odd this version of the song isn't included in this section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- "The song is set in the key of C♯ minor, with Madonna's voice spanning between G3 to C5." - because of the key signature, those notes should be G#3 and C#5. I appreciate you including this information, however.
- Done
- If you're going to be linking to the notes though, it should be linked to G# and C#, not G and C respectively. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not a complaint, but I also really appreciated the balanced reviews of the song, plus its place in Latin music history in the US.
- "and became the most requested video in the channel's history for a record-breaking 20 consecutive weeks." - was that for TRL? How did people request the video on MTV pre-internet? This was a bit before my time.
- That's how/what the source mentions, that it was the most requested. I tried looking for sources that specify how it was requested (my guess is that people usually phoned the channels) but didn't find any valid sources.
- Yea I see this repeated in a lot of sources, but I don't see any clarification. No huge deal. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- "As of 2018, it is one of her most viewed music videos on YouTube." - what about 6 years later? Or I'm guessing you might not have an updated source, no biggie if that's the case.
- "La Isla Bonita" has been included on eight of Madonna's concert tours: Who's That Girl (1987), the Girlie Show (1993), Drowned World (2001), Confessions (2006), Sticky & Sweet (2008–2009), Rebel Heart (2015–2016), Madame X (2019–2020), and Celebration (2023–2024). On the first one, she wore a Spanish cabaret dress, and was joined by her backup singers Niki Haris, Donna De Lory, and Debra Parson. - just doing a random spotcheck here, but the references here are from 1987 and 1988, so how could those references cite the rest of the tours? Perhaps a source for the songs from Madonna's concert tours? Or otherwise a grouped citation?
- I could cite the tour's program, which mentions the vocalists; it does not, however, specify their participation on the performance.
- Then perhaps just a lumped citation for each tour? Similar to how you have the note saying "attributed to multiple references". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- What about this one? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Hurricanehink:! Just checking back! I quite personally like how this section looks/is structured; lumping citations for each tour, I believe would causeemore notes than necessary.--Christian (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't mind how the section is structured, but there isn't a citation that proves "La Isla Bonita" has been included on eight of Madonna's concert tours. It's implied that the song's appearance is in refs 103 and 104, but that's not the case. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
All in all a great read, and I'm shocked no one else has commented yet! Let me know if you have any questions about these comments. Cheers - ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your great comments @Hurricanehink:--Christian (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Few replies. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Let me see if how I've left it works @Hurricanehink:--Christian (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Just checking how you're doing about my last few comments? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Chrishm21 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Hurricanehink:! Just got back home from a trip so I hadn't got the chance to log in. I have included the citations that mention the song's inclusion on the mentioned concert tours. Let me know--Christian (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Chrishm21 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Just checking how you're doing about my last few comments? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Let me see if how I've left it works @Hurricanehink:--Christian (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Few replies. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Happy to support now. I just fixed the one comment on my own, the one about linking Patrick Leonard, and changing the quote from [Pat and I] to [Patrick and I]. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Coordinator note
[edit]As per the instructions at the top of WP:FAC, please refrain from using graphics like {{done}} as they slow down the page load time. FrB.TG (talk) 08:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next five or six days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Image review
[edit]- File:Madonna_-_La_Isla_Bonita.ogg needs a more substantial FUR, particularly purpose of use
- The FUR for File:La_Isla_Bonits_screenshot.jpg indicates that it is replaceable - if that's the case, why do we need a non-free image? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Nikkimaria:! Thank you for your comments; both files are meant to showcase the mentioning of the San Pedro line, and Madonna's Flamenco dancer character from the video--Christian (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- In both cases the rationale should be elaborated in the FUR template on the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Nikkimaria:! Let me know if how I've mentioned on the image talk page is correct.--Christian (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't quite follow the change you've made on the second - is it replaceable, or is it necessary to illustrate what you've said it's illustrating? And I'm not seeing any changes on the first? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Is is replaceable, but I mentioned why this particular screenshot was used. If it were to be replaced, it should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Same for the audio file; I explained the purpose on the section it's used. Let me if it works @Nikkimaria:! Christian (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't quite follow the change you've made on the second - is it replaceable, or is it necessary to illustrate what you've said it's illustrating? And I'm not seeing any changes on the first? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Nikkimaria:! Let me know if how I've mentioned on the image talk page is correct.--Christian (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- In both cases the rationale should be elaborated in the FUR template on the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support, following corrections. Vera (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Apoxyomenus
[edit]- Hi, article overall looks good at first glance. Here are some points from a quick view,
- The Massachusetts Daily Collegian | It is a student-newspaper, and not sure if is enough reliable to use it.
- Charts: West Germany (GfK) (weekly) vs West Germany (Official German Charts), you should use one only. Or GFK or Official German Charts to keep consistensy. The same goes to Iceland (RÚV) while in ref's parameter RÚV is italicized. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- All fixed. Let me know @Apoxyomenus Christian (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Good! Article looks fine to me. Support nomination. Cheers --Apoxyomenus (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- All fixed. Let me know @Apoxyomenus Christian (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Source review & spot-check
[edit]Some sources throw a "CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes)" error. There are a number of sources saying Billboard or Music & Media but linking https://www.worldradiohistory.com/ and should explain this, and Billboard needs no ISSN. What make https://chrisbungostudios.com/, http://www.chartsinfrance.net/Alizee/news-66412.html, https://www.logotv.com/news/bdtywh/madonnas-55-best-videos-in-honor-of-her-55th-birthday and https://infodisc.fr/Chanson_Certifications.php reliable sources? Does Los 40 need italics or other formatting? Wondering if "Chow, Victoria (2004). Madonna. Metro Media Publishers. ISBN 1-904756-12-3." is a reliable source, and AllMusic. "Consumption and Spirituality" is unused. Google Books needs no archive links. Does "Madonna: The Rolling Stone Files" not have an author? Spot-check of this version:
- 1 Need a quote for 1985.I also think not all of the content is on these two pages.
- Page 40 of Madonna: A Biography by Madonna [Mentions the Virgin tour and the year 1985, and flows into '...Madonna was already into her next project that fall, writing and recording for her third studio album, True Blue'
- I think the only part missing is "with whom she had worked on her previous album Like a Virgin (1984)" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- The forementioned Mary Cross source also mentions Bray: She brought back Stephen Bray and hired a new songwriter... I have added two new sources that mentions Bray's input on both Like a Virgin and True Blue.
- I think the only part missing is "with whom she had worked on her previous album Like a Virgin (1984)" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- 2 Does not say that the victory tour was in 1984
- Per Victory Tour article.
- I think it's better to omit the year, then. We can't rely on other Wikipedia articles as sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've added a source too back up the year of the tour @Jo-Jo Eumerus:.
- I think it's better to omit the year, then. We can't rely on other Wikipedia articles as sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- 42 Does not mention Ed Schrodt.
- Ed Schrodt reviews 'La Isla Bonita' on Slant Magazine's ranking, ref. 43
- Where does it say "Ed"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's Paul Schrodt, my bad. Again, in the article; the first songs have the name and lastname of the author who's reviewing them (Sal Cinquemani, Eric Henderson, Paul Schrodt and so on) In the case of 'La Isla Bonita' (no. 15 on the ranking), it clearly lists Schrodt as the last name of the reviewer Schrodt = Paul Schrodt
- Where does it say "Ed"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- 56 Where is "On March 21, 1987" and "and one of the most added songs on radio stations"
- Lean on Me' hits no. 1 for the 2nd time, by Paul Grein; ['Madonna's 'La Isla Bonita' is the new top entry on this week's Hot 100], dated March 21, 1987
- Does that date really reference the debut, rather than the publication of the article? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've added an additional source
- Still not getting it. Perhaps a quote would help. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but what is it you don't get? It's clearly in ref 56 (The week of March 21, 1987) in the original unarchived link, number 49, it says the word 'New' next to the song's title. La Isla Bonita entered the chart, was a new addition to the chart... in the week of March 21, 1987 Same for ref 57 ('Lean on Me'); 'La Isla Bonita' is the top new entry on this week's Hot 100 at No. 49; the issue belongs to the week of March 21, 1987, therefore indicating the song entered the Hot 100 chart in the week of March 21, 1987. I did deleted the 'most added to radio stations' part, as nowhere in the sources does it mention that.
- The radio thing was the problem. If it's gone, this one's resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but what is it you don't get? It's clearly in ref 56 (The week of March 21, 1987) in the original unarchived link, number 49, it says the word 'New' next to the song's title. La Isla Bonita entered the chart, was a new addition to the chart... in the week of March 21, 1987 Same for ref 57 ('Lean on Me'); 'La Isla Bonita' is the top new entry on this week's Hot 100 at No. 49; the issue belongs to the week of March 21, 1987, therefore indicating the song entered the Hot 100 chart in the week of March 21, 1987. I did deleted the 'most added to radio stations' part, as nowhere in the sources does it mention that.
- Still not getting it. Perhaps a quote would help. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've added an additional source
- Does that date really reference the debut, rather than the publication of the article? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- 66 This should be flagged so that it shows the archived link. It's not on place 58?
- Sources taken from chart template.
- 76 OK
- 77 OK
- 82 OK
- 85 Need a quote or something.
- 108 Need a quote or something.
- Cite AV Media
- 109 Need a quote or something.
- Cite AV Media
- 'fraid that the photo is too small to make out the date. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Of which one? @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Are the others OK?--Christian (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- The Italy one. Also, if the whirlpool image is the Japan one, it doesn't mention either the date or the place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've added web sources for all releases @Jo-Jo Eumerus: --Christian (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- The Italy one. Also, if the whirlpool image is the Japan one, it doesn't mention either the date or the place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Of which one? @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Are the others OK?--Christian (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- 'fraid that the photo is too small to make out the date. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- 111 Need a quote or something from 110.
- Got the sailors part at least. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Got 110, supports the rest, is the page number 74-75 correct?
- Got the sailors part at least. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- 154 Need a quote or something.
- Not sure what this source supports. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- It supports the Hasselhoff cover; the screenshot to the book is included on the google drive I shared with you @Jo-Jo Eumerus: --Christian (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- 158 Even accessing both sources, I don't get everything.
- The AllMusic link -which by the way is a perfectly valid source used on multiple music-related articles- is that of the Mexican tour edition of Alizee's album; in the tracklisting section, it clearly mentions 'La Isla Bonita'
- I remember that for a while, AllMusic was considered to be WP:USERGENERATED which is why I always wonder. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- 162 This says nothing about leaks or anything untoward.
- Native Spanish speaker here; ['la web de fans de la cantante, Breatheheavy, acaba de sacar a la luz = The singer's fansite, Breateheavey, leaked online']
- 175 What does this support?
- My bad, it supports the Super Mix Green RSD Exclusive 2019 release
- 178 Where is "Flanders"?
- Flanders, the dutch-speaking northern portion of Belgium; per chart-template configuration it shows up like that
- I worry that this is a bit WP:SYNTH Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's how the chart template is programmed, so I don't see an isse. (See the forementioned featured articles)
- What chart template? If it's on Wikipedia, it might need fixing. Same for the one below. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm using the Template:Single chart#Non-Billboard charts
- What chart template? If it's on Wikipedia, it might need fixing. Same for the one below. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's how the chart template is programmed, so I don't see an isse. (See the forementioned featured articles)
- I worry that this is a bit WP:SYNTH Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
* 186 Need someone who can read Japanese to verify.
196 OK- 205 Pretty sure this source doesn't say "30000 exactly".
- It doesn't mention the number, but it does mention the single was certified gold; 30000 was the amount of copies a single needes to sell/ship to be certified gold here in Spain
- OK, but in that case it should say "at least 30000" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Again, per chart-template configuration it cannot be written/pointed out like that.
- I don't think the chart-template configuration justifies writing it out like that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- See forementioned featured articles I've linked before. If you believe it should be specified differently, a discussion should be created in the template page.
- I don't think the chart-template configuration justifies writing it out like that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Again, per chart-template configuration it cannot be written/pointed out like that.
- OK, but in that case it should say "at least 30000" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Bit many source/text disagreements if this article needs to be watched for fabricated content (per FrB.TG's note at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've left some comments. I must digress a little and ask if it's really necessary to add quotes for the Harvard citations. I've looked into other featured articles and never once did I encounter this. I look forward to your answer @Jo-Jo Eumerus:--Christian (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant quotes or screenshots or photos here (not in the article) so that I can verify the content. For spotchecks I generally want to see everything for myself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- You want screenshots/photos... of the sources? @Jo-Jo Eumerus:--Christian (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. The relevant pages, at least. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have posted a link to the Mary Cross (in fact, the most relevant book sources are linked on the 'Literary sources' section) , and found a new one for the Spain chart position -I was not able to access the Salaverri book. For the Cite AV media ones, shall I post the link to the releases sleeves? Let me know if it works. @Jo-Jo Eumerus:--Christian (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- The usual ways is by either uploading a screenshot or photo to Google Drive and posting a link here, or by emailing them to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Will get back to you with the other sources in a bit @Jo-Jo Eumerus:--Christian (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- OK. Keep in mind that I'll be busy updating my own articles in these weeks, so I might not respond immediately. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- New comments @Jo-Jo Eumerus:--Christian (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sent you an email @Jo-Jo Eumerus:.--Christian (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Got it, but I must note that Google Books links are personalized and don't work for everybody. The one you sent to me doesn't work for me, for example. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- -email! @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Christian (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like it requires a password. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Let me know if it works now @Jo-Jo Eumerus: --Christian (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus:! How are you? can you please let me know which sources need to be verified? I'll be out of home this weekend, but will get back on Monday --Christian (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, had computer problems and was working on other Wikipedia articles, so I now lost track a bit. I think I've handled the things you sent me in that Drive? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus:! Sorry for the long reply; let me know if all your comments have been addressed. Christian (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, had computer problems and was working on other Wikipedia articles, so I now lost track a bit. I think I've handled the things you sent me in that Drive? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus:! How are you? can you please let me know which sources need to be verified? I'll be out of home this weekend, but will get back on Monday --Christian (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Let me know if it works now @Jo-Jo Eumerus: --Christian (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like it requires a password. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- -email! @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Christian (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Got it, but I must note that Google Books links are personalized and don't work for everybody. The one you sent to me doesn't work for me, for example. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sent you an email @Jo-Jo Eumerus:.--Christian (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- New comments @Jo-Jo Eumerus:--Christian (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- OK. Keep in mind that I'll be busy updating my own articles in these weeks, so I might not respond immediately. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Will get back to you with the other sources in a bit @Jo-Jo Eumerus:--Christian (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- The usual ways is by either uploading a screenshot or photo to Google Drive and posting a link here, or by emailing them to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have posted a link to the Mary Cross (in fact, the most relevant book sources are linked on the 'Literary sources' section) , and found a new one for the Spain chart position -I was not able to access the Salaverri book. For the Cite AV media ones, shall I post the link to the releases sleeves? Let me know if it works. @Jo-Jo Eumerus:--Christian (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. The relevant pages, at least. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've left some comments. I must digress a little and ask if it's really necessary to add quotes for the Harvard citations. I've looked into other featured articles and never once did I encounter this. I look forward to your answer @Jo-Jo Eumerus:--Christian (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus:! See my comments :) --Christian (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
I've struck out a point, but there are several sources that still need checking 85, 108 and 186. Regarding 205 and 178, I am not sure if to ask for a fix here or on the talk pages; I don't work on these templates. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus:! I have removed the Who's That Girl: Live in Japan mention (and source; 106), as well as the Salaverri one (85), leaving only the one that mentions the song reaching top-eight in Spain Christian (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- That leaves only 186; perhaps WP:TRANSLATE has some help? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus:! I have fixed the Japanese source (186); I was easily able to access it using Google translate. Let me know--Christian (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- To me it says 38? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, the article has been updated with that information (the song reached 38 in Japan on 1987, not 95) --Christian (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- To me it says 38? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus:! I have fixed the Japanese source (186); I was easily able to access it using Google translate. Let me know--Christian (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- That leaves only 186; perhaps WP:TRANSLATE has some help? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Heartfox
[edit]Apologies for the late comments, but I am confused by the structure of the critical reception section.
- "Upon release, "La Isla Bonita" was met with generally positive reviews from music critics and authors" opens the first paragraph, but then the majority of the paragraph actually includes retrospective reviews.
- Likewise, there is a retrospective paragraph with general commentary (not just a list of rankings), but retrospective reviews are already used throughout the section so this feels a bit selective.
- I'm also struggling with the second paragraph. There are different sentences about Latin influences, production, and Madonna's vocals, but there is not a theme about this given to readers. It seems like it is supposed to include more specific praise other than the generally positive comments in the previous paragraph, but it still feels wanting? A more effective structure might be a paragraph for each of these aspects, and then go into positive/negative comments there, rather than grouping everything into positive/mixed paragraphs.
- A review is attributed to the Kentucky New Era, but a search on Newspapers.com shows it was actually written by David Bauder of the Associated Press. Likewise, a review is attributed to Ryan Murphy of The Spokesman-Review, but this was actually written by Ryan Murphy of the Miami Herald and then syndicated to The Spokesman-Review. This type of thing leads me to believe there is not much research that has gone on in WP:TWL databases. Not saying you're going to get paragraphs worth of new information, but it doesn't feel like this article meets 1c "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". To only have 3 contemporaneous reviews of the song doesn't feel right; there is more available with a little more research.
- Likewise, a 2016 book chapter by Cambridge University Press (https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316663837.016) includes many pages about the music video, yet this seemingly very useful source is not cited in the article. This is on the first page of Google Scholar, so I'm not sure why it is overlooked.
I will have to oppose at this time per 1a, 1c. Heartfox (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Chrishm21 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry. My trip took a little longer than expected. I'm dealing with some work issues but was able to log in and do some editing. I have corrected the introduction paragraph in the Critical Reception section, in a way that so as to encompass initial and retrospective reviews. Regarding the praise for the song's Latin , the mentioned sources only make emphasis on the "exotic" influence. I think it would be redundant. I have added specified the reviews towards the production and Madonna's vocals. Let me know if it's OK
- Chrishm21 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I have no access to newspapers.com or the Cambridge university website -Not that it's relevant to the subject, but I didn't attend college and therefore can't access through an university- Also, just like newspapers.com, I crated an account but I see it has a cost; right now my wallet doesn't allow me to invest on something like this. Besides, the sources are all properly quoted from the google books sources, so I really don't see the issue. If there's a way to view the ones you mentioned without having to pay, let me know.
Looking forward to your comments! @Heartfox:--Christian (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I linked WP:TWL above; a lot of research can be done for free using these databases. Other paywalled sources can also be requested at WP:RX. But this is something that should be done outside of the FAC process. Heartfox (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Heartfox:! Question: Is it necessary to use The Wikipedia Library for an article to be FA approved? I looked into it and some of the book sources (and web sources) are already present on the article.--Christian (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, but when you're dealing with a song from 1986 there is going to be more content that is not freely available online. Heartfox (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Heartfox:! If I may, there are many featured articles of songs from the 80s (and before) that don't use half the amount of sources I'm using here (ie. "Angel of Death (Slayer song)", "Nothing to My Name", "Touch Me I'm Sick", "Watching the River Flow", among others) I believe the sources I've included here cover all aspects of "La Isla Bonita" in a way that's more than enough. As time and Madonna's career go on, there'll be many more books and articles written that'll mention new information that's not here, and when they do, I'll nbe the first one to add them. I'll continue looking for more information in sources, both on the Wikipedia Library and outside of it. But as of now, I believe, source-wise, this article meets all the necessary criteria for a FA status. Christian (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I said before, there are only three contemporaneous reviews of the song cited in the article even though there are many more available on TWL databases. Citing three does not reflect "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" of the contemporaneous reviews. Reviews continue to be attributed incorrectly (Kentucky New Era, Spokesman-Review) because the original articles available on Newspapers.com by different publications are not cited. Cambridge University Press chapter is available on TWL but there is still no argument for why it is omitted. Heartfox (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Heartfox:! Like I previously mentioned, I have no access to Newspaper.com or The Campbridge University Press chapter; I'm not gonna spend 125Eur ($47USD for Cambridge and $79USD for Newspapers) I have no way to be certain regarding the Newspaper.com source--Christian (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Chris. Time saver: Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library → What we do → Database access. You have a plenty of databases later through The Wikipedia Library for free: Newspaperarchive articles, ProQuest or Ebscohost once you have the accesibility by that way. Also, some of the books requested above, you can do a search through Archive.org, for example, if the book is available. Or find another alternative source. Time saver, in minutes/hours or a single-day you can solve requests as such. My best regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Heartfox:! Like I previously mentioned, I have no access to Newspaper.com or The Campbridge University Press chapter; I'm not gonna spend 125Eur ($47USD for Cambridge and $79USD for Newspapers) I have no way to be certain regarding the Newspaper.com source--Christian (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I said before, there are only three contemporaneous reviews of the song cited in the article even though there are many more available on TWL databases. Citing three does not reflect "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" of the contemporaneous reviews. Reviews continue to be attributed incorrectly (Kentucky New Era, Spokesman-Review) because the original articles available on Newspapers.com by different publications are not cited. Cambridge University Press chapter is available on TWL but there is still no argument for why it is omitted. Heartfox (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Heartfox:! If I may, there are many featured articles of songs from the 80s (and before) that don't use half the amount of sources I'm using here (ie. "Angel of Death (Slayer song)", "Nothing to My Name", "Touch Me I'm Sick", "Watching the River Flow", among others) I believe the sources I've included here cover all aspects of "La Isla Bonita" in a way that's more than enough. As time and Madonna's career go on, there'll be many more books and articles written that'll mention new information that's not here, and when they do, I'll nbe the first one to add them. I'll continue looking for more information in sources, both on the Wikipedia Library and outside of it. But as of now, I believe, source-wise, this article meets all the necessary criteria for a FA status. Christian (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, but when you're dealing with a song from 1986 there is going to be more content that is not freely available online. Heartfox (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Heartfox:! Question: Is it necessary to use The Wikipedia Library for an article to be FA approved? I looked into it and some of the book sources (and web sources) are already present on the article.--Christian (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- This has been here for a while and seems some way from a consensus to promote, so I am going to archive it. I suggest working on the areas flagged up off-FAC, possibly with the reviewer who raised them. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 2 December 2024 [31].
- Nominator(s): Min968 (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
This article is about the Hongxi Emperor, the fourth emperor of the Ming dynasty. I have tried to improve this article as well as the articles related to the Ming dynasty. Min968 (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
This article is quite well-written, but I'm surprised by the relative paucity of sources for a topic like this. I did some source digging and found some stuff that may be helpful. Additionally, since this is your first time at FAC, I would recommend running things through WP:GAN first; it's not a strict requirement, but it's especially useful to get some eyes on an article before going to FAC.
- Soulliere, Ellen. 2016. “The Writing and Rewriting of History: Imperial Women and the Succession in Ming China, 1368–1457.” Ming Studies 2016 (73): 2–29. doi:10.1080/0147037X.2016.1142177.
- Talks about his wife and their marriage a fair bit which could be good context.
- Fletcher, Joseph F. "China and Central Asia, 1368-1884." In The Chinese world order: Traditional China's foreign relations. Harvard University Press, 1968.
- Pages 216-217 specifically talk a bit about his foreign policy. And in the notes it also mentions his rule in decreeing an end to Zheng He's expeditions, which is also talked about in the source you include in Further Reading.
- Hucker, Charles O. "CHU Kao-chih". pgs 388–340, Dictionary of Ming Biography, Association for Asian Studies. 1976.
- A fairly broad, albeit a bit old, biography by Hucker. The Dictionary of Ming Biography in general mentions him a lot in various contexts (just be sure to search for "Chu Kao-chih"). Cited here is also Hucker's 1966 The censorial system of Ming China, which mentions the Hongxi Emperor on pages 112-113.
I won't support or oppose here; its well written, but in my mind fails to exhaustively utilize the available sources. This would almost certainly pass with flying colors at GAN at this stage, however. Just giving some options! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose from Airship
[edit]This article has potential, but poor prose quality is letting the side down currently. A few points to look at:
- Firstly, there are basic grammar/syntax errors. In the first sentence there is an obvious mistake: "...was the fourth emperor of the Ming dynasty, reigned from 1424 to 1425." There are sentences with confusing pronouns, as at the start of the "Crown prince" subsection", and occasions where subject-verb relations get confused, like "none of the emperors actually wanted to go back. Despite this, they remained the dominant group in the Ming government..."
- Then, you have duplication, of which there are many instances. A quick selection: the lead mentions his lasting influence twice; the "Hereditary prince" subsection mentions his brothers' interest in military pursuits twice; the "Domestic and foreign policy" section mentions the end of the long-distance voyages twice. "Reforms" has the tautology "significant preponderance".
- You also have occasions where the prose doesn't quite ring well with the source, or other parts of the article. The lead says "He ensured that his eldest son received a top-notch education rooted in Confucian principles." The "top-notch" nature of the education is not mentioned in the body, nor its "rooting in Confucian principles". In "Reforms", the second paragraph begins "Confucian morality was emphasized during this time", but then goes on to discuss seemingly unrelated matters. A look at the source reveals that the article has indeed elided important information, producing a classic non sequitur. Although much of the article relies on Chan 1988, an objectionable amount of the actual detail of that chapter is omitted in favour of superficial descriptions.
- Finally, the general air of the prose is rather clunky, and sometimes weirdly promotional. For example, "the noble sport of archery" is not something that should be said in wikivoice. "The emperor worked closely with the Grand Secretaries and ministers, encouraging them to openly discuss matters in meetings. Decisions were made through collective discussion, resulting in the cancellation of the Yongle Emperor's unpopular programs." sounds like it's from an advertising brochure.
I don't want to enter a WP:FIXLOOP, so I'll stop there. I'd suggest putting this through WP:GAN first, especially for a first-time nomination. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Serial
[edit]Unfortunately I must also oppose, per 1C. The entire family section is unsourced. I agree that the prose, while WP:FA? no longer requires it to gbe refreshingly brilliant, etc., still needs to be a certain standard. Suggest Peer review or a WP:FAC mentor; the GA suggestion is also excellent. Paging @FAC coordinators: wrt pile-on opposes. SerialNumber54129 23:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Coord note
[edit]I think the reviewers have covered all the potential next steps. Pls note the minimum 2-week break between now and any future FAC nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 03:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.