Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2023

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 28 June 2023 [1].

David McMillan (smuggler)

[edit]
Nominator(s): WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 07:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the only person to ever escape from Klong Prem Central Prison in Thailand

thank you for your input, i am happy to add to this article and expand out various points, however this would only be possible by paraphrasing what David McMillan has written in his books (as online articles are scarce). If i write more content, and cite pages of specific books as ref's, would that be acceptable or will they be deleted ? i notice some parts of this article regarding his activities in Pakistan have been deleted since i last read it .... thanks again WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend a) reading the FA criteria and b) getting involved in some FAC assessing while or before improving the article and re-nominating it. Meanwhile I am archiving it.
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) 27 June 2023 [2].

Paradise Airlines Flight 901A

[edit]
Nominator(s): RecycledPixels (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Airlines Flight 901A is about an airline flight from Oakland to South Lake Tahoe that never reached its destination. The article describes the flight, the aircraft, and the aftermath of the investigations that were launched when the aircraft crashed into a mountain.

After its initial expansion, the article appeared on the WP front page's Did You Know? section? It received a GA review by The Rambling Man. Since then, I've poked around from time to time refining some of the prose, but at this point, I feel that it's ready to appear on the main page in the Featured Article slot. Do you? RecycledPixels (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Anti-icing_system.JPG needs a source for the data presented
  • File:Lockheed_Model_749A_Constellation_silhouette.jpg: on what basis is this believed to be CC-licensed? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added the alt tags. I suspect the CC licensing tag was a mistake on the part of the Wikipedia Commons uploader, because they originally uploaded the image with the CC tag, then amended the image a minute later with the PD tag. I don't do much editing on Commons, so I don't know if it's appropriate to just assume it was a mistake and remove the CC tag, leaving the PD tag or not, so I haven't done anything about it. The original uploader hasn't been active on commons since 2021. Looking for clarification about the source of the icing diagram; are you just looking for a source that would state that the leading edges of the wings have anti-icing systems on it, or are you looking for something specific to this image? RecycledPixels (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A source that could be used to confirm the accuracy of the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When looking up the reference, I actually came across a picture that better depicts what I was trying to show with the photo, so I replaced the photo altogether, and added the reference. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet

[edit]

Glanced over this article a couple of times while it was hanging around FAC, and noticed it's had very little attention so far. Saving a header to review soon. Vaticidalprophet 00:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
[edit]
  • "An investigation concluded that the primary cause of the accident was the pilot's decision to attempt a visual landing approach in adverse weather": This is a very bloodless description. Can you describe the weather conditions more in-depth? The body of the article discusses clouds and snow, but never quite gets to a portrait clear to a general reader of what things actually looked like that day until the aftermath. ("Snow showers" and "heavy snowfall" don't sound the same to a general/non-technical reader.)
    I have reworded that section. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The airline involved, Paradise Airlines" is a pleonasm. You also have Paradise redlinked thrice. Redlinks are good to call out when there might be a notable nonexistent article, but because they don't lead to extant articles yet, they don't have the navigation benefit of links that justifies using them multiple times. Do you expect this to be bluelinked soon? Otherwise, it's probably worth dropping them to just the one here.
    I have slightly reworded that section and have removed the link in the lead, but I think it should be linked per WP:REPEATLINK. This issue has come up in another FAC in the past, see comments by Gerald Waldo Luis at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pan_Am_Flight_7/archive1, in about the middle of the collapsed section.
  • The intrastate airline concept isn't introduced until relatively far in the article. An airline doing 100% of its business on such a short route sounds unusual from a modern perspective, so it might be worth clarifying earlier why these were a thing.
    I agree, and it's even more interesting than that. At the time, the airline industry was highly regulated, with the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) dictating how many flights there would be within a certain period of time between two locations, which airline would fly them, and how much each seat would cost. If an airline wanted to add service to an additional destination, they had to ask the CAB for permission, and asking them for permission was a years-long process for the CAB to give an answer. It was very difficult for a new company to enter a market because competitive pricing for seats in order to build up traffic was nonexistent. The exception to the CAB's rule was that it was only able to regulate airlines that engaged in at least some interstate commerce, leaving a hole for airlines that solely flew within one state. California was large enough that some intrastate airlines were able to thrive between Northern and Southern California, but Paradise Airlines established routes between the San Francisco Bay area and South Lake Tahoe, California. By the letter of the rule, the flights were entirely within the State of California, but the CAB argued that since a vast majority of the passengers on the flight were actually bound for the Nevada casinos just across the border, the flights were actually interstate flights because it the passengers' intended destination was in another state. At the time of this accident, it was looking like the CAB was about to win this battle, but the crash and the FAA shutdown made the matter moot. It's an interesting story worth diving into further, but it belongs in the article about the airline, not this accident. The only real mention I have of the issue was when Paradise Airlines tried to use the "you can't regulate me, we're an intrastate airline" line with the FAA, which failed. I didn't mention any of the other squabbles with the CAB since they were not a factor in this crash. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely understandable why you wouldn't go in all the depth in this article -- it does sound due to me to just have a short mention in the lead about intrastate airlines being common at the time, though. Nothing that'll hold things up, but as someone who isn't especially a plane-aficiando, that did stand out to me as unusual and not something I had context for. (I did really enjoy this elaboration!) Vaticidalprophet 01:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Vaticidalprophet 08:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accident
[edit]
  • "Other witnesses heard a low flying plane" -- this seems a little more readable as "low-flying", I think (minor point).
    Fixed. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole witness-reports paragraph seems WP:PROSELINE-y. This may be difficult to avoid. However, it does result in a lot of uncontextualized different 'witnesses' being mentioned and the reader trying to keep track of them. Is it necessary that all of these reports specifically open by mentioning that they were made by different witnesses, as opposed to opening with something like "various witness reports around the time of the crash" and assuming the reader can follow along from there?
    I've taken a stab at rewriting that paragraph. I think what I was aiming for when I wrote it that way was that investigators had to work with witnesses who each saw just a snippet of the last minutes of the flight; nobody saw the whole think. But I agree that that type of detail is just distracting and not essential to the article. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the time was the second worst single-plane accident in United States history" -- do we have an article to link here on what the then-worst was?
    I've linked it. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath and grounding
[edit]
  • "A second helicopter landed at the site and confirmed that the wreckage was from the missing flight and that there were no survivors" is a run-on sentence.
    I've split it into two. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the days following the suspension, he also said that he believed that the FAA's "over-restrictive rules" about flying in adverse weather conditions was to blame for the accident" (wow, that takes cojones). Is 'also' necessary here? It's a little bit of a pleonasm, and you can get across the same idea if necessary by simplifying 'also said' to 'added'.
    Done. And I agree about the attitude. I've tried researching what happened to the owner after the airline went under but haven't had a lot of success. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your last paragraph is incredibly long, and has a natural splitting point around "In a later part of the hearing". Keep in mind the majority of Wikipedia's readers navigate on phones -- I opened this on mobile and had a hard time getting through the wall of text. Even on my laptop, it's a big block of text.
    Split.

That should be all my comments -- there wasn't anything that stood out to me in the later sections. This was a fascinating article -- a gripping story with no details spared about the mismanagement of the airline. I'm looking forward to supporting. Vaticidalprophet 01:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback, I think I've taken care of all the issues you brought up, let me know if you see anything else. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! Happy to support this excellent article for promotion. Vaticidalprophet 05:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS

[edit]

Review to come. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • This might be standard practice for articles about specific flights (I'm honestly not sure), but a link that displays "San Jose, California" but links to an article about a specific airport, even in the clear context of a flight, still seems a bit EGG-y to me; IMO this would be better just naming the airport instead of the city or giving both.
    I've changed it to the names of the airports. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accident

  • Same note as above with "San Jose" and "Lake Tahoe"
    I've changed it to the names of the airports. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "PST" to Pacific Time Zone at first mention
    Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "predicted poor flight conditions for aircraft" → this reads as being a little redundant; is there anything other than aircraft that would be using the flight conditions?
    I suppose it would be more accurate to say that the weather service predicts the weather, not necessarily the flight conditions. The dispatcher decides whether or not that weather would allow flights. I've reworded that sentence to make it less confusing. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "near the crest of a ridge on Genoa Peak, Nevada" → reads more naturally as "on Genoa Peak in Nevada"
    It wasn't really at the peak, so I reworded it to "struck the ground at the crest of a ridge near Genoa Peak, Nevada". Sound better? RecycledPixels (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "aircraft was flying almost level at the time" → this doesn't necessarily require a change, but just for my comprehension: does "level" here mean "parallel to the ground"?
    Not necessarily the ground, since it was a mountainous area and the ground was sloping upward at the point of impact, but more maintaining a certain altitude, not climbing or descending. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

Airline grounded

  • "FAA regional Director Joseph Tippets" → if "Regional Director" is his title, both words should be capitalized in this case
    Fixed. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That argument proved unpersuasive, and once the hearing commenced, attention was first focused on the company dispatcher that had approved the flight despite the poor weather conditions" → I don't think either of these commas are necessary
    I've rephrased it to make it less of a jumble. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "limited fluency" seems like an oxymoron; is there a better way to describe this?
    That was the phrase used in the source. It's never really clear how bad his English was. Could he understand well but not communicate well? Or the other way around? Was it just a heavy accent? I've tried to clean it up by rephrasing it as but I've reworded it to "He was not very fluent with the English language" to eliminate the "limited fluency" oxymoron and not drift into speculation and original research. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he had written in a minus sign" → this may not be totally necessary but I think linking minus sign could be helpful since it's a visual symbol
    Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft

Passengers and crew

Investigation

  • Does George R. Baker have a title or any position of consequence, or is he just important because he was the guy that headed the CAB investigation?
    No, he's just a guy. I think an earlier draft that I had of this article attributed a quote to him, which is why I named him, but that no longer seems to exist, so I've taken his name out of the article. He is not the same person as George P. Baker (dean of Harvard Business School) who also worked for the CAB, but there could be a relation (just a guess on my part). RecycledPixels (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "between June 2 and 5" → I think this is better as "from June 2 to 5" or "from June 2–5"
    Done. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments above, I'll take another read-through once these are addressed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS, thank you for the suggestions. Take a look at the changes and see if you have any other suggestions or need further clarifications. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This has been open for over four weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am sorry, but this one has timed out and I am archiving it. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.
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) 26 June 2023 [4].

Igor Stravinsky

[edit]
Nominator(s): MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Rite of Spring, The Firebird, Petrushka, L'Histoire du soldat, Threni... all iconic works by Igor Stravinsky, one of the most important composers of the 20th century. His approach to rhythm in The Rite revolutionized modernist music, influencing composers like Aaron Copland. Stravinsky was named one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century by Time, and the "Sacrificial Dance" from The Rite was included on the Voyager Golden Records. This article was promoted to GA on March 10, and I put it up for peer review soon after. Excited for everyone's comments! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

I'm going to oppose at this point simply due to the number of issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Thank you for your image review, I'll admit the images were the (hopefully) one thing I completely forgot to check. I've fixed most of the issues, but have some comments/questions to some. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to add a general comment at this point that will hopefully clarify some points above: creation date and publication date are not the same. If you want to include a tag saying something was published by X date, we need to be able to identify a publication before X. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, I've made a number of changes since your previous comment. I have a few questions above, but other than that, I think I've addressed everything. Also, I added a number of images to compensate for the removed ones. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:Nikolai-Tcherepnin.jpg: source link is dead. If the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Why specifically is this believed to be PD?
  • File:Nijinsky_Diaghilev_Benois_Stravinsky_Beausoleil_c1912.jpg: where is this believed to have been published before 1928? Ditto File:Rimsky-Korsakov_by_Repin.jpg, File:Lyadov_by_Repin.jpg, File:Igor_Stravinski_6_slika_1915_žak_emil_blanš.jpg, File:Robert_Delaunay_-_Portrait_of_Stravinsky.tif. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed these four images as part of a discussion below: Rimsky-Korsakov by Repin.jpg, Nikolai-Tcherepnin.jpg, Lyadov by Repin.jpg, and Claude Debussy atelier Nadar.jpg. Though, I still very much appreciate your review of the images. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I'm having trouble figuring out what to do, and I'd like to clarify some things (I apologize for my lack of understanding in advance). I added the "published before 1928 in the US" tag to a number of images, which was evidently not the right tag since I now have to prove publication. But, this is where I encounter an issue: I do not know if an image was published, and if it was, I do not know when/where.
Take this painting: File:Robert Delaunay - Portrait of Stravinsky.tif. It was painted in 1918 and is now in the New Art Gallery Walsall. I have no idea how to figure out the publication info of this. If I'm not mistaken, a public exhibition constitutes publication, but there's no exhibition history listed in the reference. Secondly, even if there was info on exhibition and it was first exhibited in, say, 2017, how does that work? Delaunay died in 1941, so why does publication still matter for this painting?
On the other hand, take this photo: File:Nijinsky Diaghilev Benois Stravinsky Beausoleil c1912.jpg. The source is a 1971 book about Nijinsky, and it was the original source listed when this FAC was opened. I don't know when the photographer died, nor do I know if it was ever published prior to this book.
Furthermore, I'm confused as to how I should tag File:Bakst Diaghilev.jpg. I don't know if it was ever published, and after immense research, I'm quite confident it wasn't. In this case, do I tag it with c:Template:PD-US-unpublished? If not, I can't verify the "published before 1928" tag, so what do I do? As you said, we can't assume it was never published in the US, but how do you prove that something didn't happen?
These are just three examples that summarize my main confusions. If we can't keep these, I'll essentially have removed 90% of the images on this article from when I opened the FAC. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Taking the last one first: as you say you can't prove a negative, so if you are reasonably confident it was never published, I'd suggest going with the unpublished tag. For cases where the image was published but you're not sure of when it was first published, go with the earliest publication you can identify, again to the reasonably-confident bar, and tag accordingly. (In terms of what counts as publication, take a look at commons:Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US). In all cases you're going to need to tag based on what you can prove, so if for example you don't know when a photographer died (and the image is recent enough you can't be certain it's out of range), you can't use a life+70 tag. And for images hosted on Commons, we need tags reflecting status in both country of origin and the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, I've cut File:Nijinsky_Diaghilev_Benois_Stravinsky_Beausoleil_c1912.jpg. Fixed tagging on File:Igor_Stravinski_6_slika_1915_žak_emil_blanš.jpg and File:Robert_Delaunay_-_Portrait_of_Stravinsky.tif and File:Bakst_Diaghilev.jpg. I think this addresses everything- please let me know if there's anything else. If there is anything else, would you mind putting it below this comment? Makes it easier for me to keep track of. Thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Portrait_de_Picasso,_1908_(background_retouched).jpg has a dead source link and is missing information on pre-1928 publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Cut from article. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Airship
why is there practically zero biographical information in the lead? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This (the lead) is probably the article's biggest defect as stands, besides image licensing. I would recommend looking at other composer articles and shortening the lead quite a bit. Claude Debussy, Ned Rorem and Hector Berlioz are different approaches you could look at. Aza24 (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 and @Aza24, I've edited the lead to try to reflect the general style of your suggested articles. The idea I followed was: first paragraph = name, citizenship, known for what; second paragraph = start of his musical career and rise to fame; third paragraph = more talking about his musical compositions and styles; fourth paragraph = reception, influence, death. Does this make sense, or is there a different structure I should follow? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put it this way MyCatIsAChonk, if the only biographical information I, a complete music noob, can get from the lead are: 1) his birth/death dates, 2) the years he gained citizenship of countries and 3) what he died of, I think you might need to do a bit of refocusing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29, I've added some more to the second and fourth paragraphs. Thoughts? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aza24

[edit]

Going off the above, there are still a lot of issues in the lead

  • I don't think it makes sense to call him a pianist, he is not known as one and never actively performed on one throughout his life. He is not called such by Grove either for example
  • Attributing his importance in modernist music entirely to "rhythm" is at best very misleading and at worst incorrect. His usage of modal techniques, innovative orchestration decisions, polytonality (!), effect on Dance music etc. is hugely important to his influence
  • The marriages are rather irrelevant to Stravinsky's importance
  • the "Stravinsky's reception was mixed [...]" is hugely misleading. With Schoenberg, Stravinsky bolstered the entire Western Classical music world into a new era, so to say that all "composers" disliked his music is simply incorrect (this is implied by "composers and academics of the time disliked the avant-garde nature of his music"). He had many supporters in his lifetime, and there were probably very few critics who would entirely dismiss his first three ballets. The later works were more controversial (though eventually accepted after his lifetime, but still never played as much). Saying "reception is mixed" also makes him sound like a movie, there should be more nuance here
  • I would include some more examples than just Copland and Glass (Craft should not be there at all and his influence on conductors is too comparatively irrelevant to include), particularly some who are not American. Examples include Bartok, Boulez, Ligeti, etc. Also remember that his neoclassicism influenced Les Six, Kurt Weill and others... That being said we don't want to overload the lead with examples.
  • More thoughts later... might have to be later next week. Aza24 (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24, I've made a number of changes to the lead and tried to address your comments, though I'm unsure about whether I did considering my previous lack of success. Look forward to your comments! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aza24, is there more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely, will try to get to it today or tomorrow. Aza24 (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ling

[edit]

Comments by CurryTime7-24

[edit]
Question about Vera's surname
[edit]
  • Posted this question on the talk page, but it probably is relevant here too. Is there any reason why Vera Stravinsky is referred to as "De Bosset" throughout the article, even in sections covering periods when she was married with IS? Walsh refers to her first as "Vera Sudeykina" then later simply as "Vera". Next to my desk is a book entitled The Salon Album of Vera Sudeikin-Stravinsky; its book information page says that its subject is "Stravinsky, Vera". Anecdotal, but my recollection is that she is typically referred to as "Vera Stravinsky", "Vera Sudeikina", or "Vera Sudeikin". Her name was legally one of the latter two when IS met her. I think he even referred to her by that surname initially in his letters. According to WP:COMMONNAME, if any of those names are more often used to "De Bosset", then the article ought to be amended to reflect that. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CurryTime7-24, thanks for bringing this up. This point was brought up in the PR (the article used to refer to her as just "Vera") and I used de Bosset since that what her article uses. But, you raise a good point regarding her commonly used name. I've replaced instances of her name prior to marrying Igor with "Vera Sudeikin" (as to clear any confusion reading whether Stravinsky actually had an affair with Serge Sudeikin) and instances of her name after marriage with 'Vera Stravinsky" or just "the Stravinskys" if both of them were the subjects. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Russian period
[edit]
  • The recent addition of four images relating to influences upon Stravinsky during his "Russian period" seems a bit like WP:SYNTH. Taruskin's comments are not about the period, but only refer specifically to the first act of The Nightingale ("The musical idiom of the first act adheres closely to what Asaf'yev called the 'modest, rationalized impressionism' of the early 20th-century St. Petersburg school ... there is little in the exuberantly decorative score that cannot be associated with the idiom of such older Rimsky-Korsakov pupils as Anatoly Lyadov and especially Nikolay Tcherepnin"), which he completed years before the "Russian period" designated by Noble and Bartók. Moreover, the influences mentioned for that period aren't borne out in the music or discourse about it. I know that Walsh and Craft have mentioned R-K, Mussorgsky, and Scriabin as being important influences during this period, at least at its outset, which IS later downplayed. Also, the section's final paragraph should be moved to the beginning of the section that follows. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CurryTime7-24, I've cut the multiple image box; I added it because it felt odd with no image, and wanted to put some images of Stravinsky's influences, but I see the issue in doing these specific individuals. Also, to clarify, The Nightingale was completed during the Russian period; Stravinsky began work in 1908, putting it down to work on other things and finishing it in 1914 (a year after the period began, 1913). The paragraph has been moved. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree; the section could use a relevant image.
    A couple of issues here. First, citing Taruskin's comments here as confirming what is written in the article are, again, WP:SYNTH. This is important to note because, secondly, there seems to be confusion as to what the "Russian period" is exactly. Are we referring to the period between the Symphony in E-flat and The Firebird when IS lived in Russia (and composed Act I of The Nightingale), or the one that idiosyncratically evoked Russian folklore roughly between Petrushka and Mavra? If the latter, how to account for the overlap with the neoclassical period? If the former, why do most of the remarks in that section deal with works composed well after IS' international breakthrough? Taruskin's comments would be true enough if referring to the former period, but they are very misleading if the latter. Is there really much Lyadov and Tcherepnin in Zvezdoliki, Svadebka, and the Three Pieces for Clarinet?
    By the way, you've been doing splendid work improving this article. I've been taking notes, so to speak, for another project I hope to start with some help here next month. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CurryTime7-24, the Russian period is definitely the period between The Rite of Spring and Pulcinella, which is where the header years (1913-1920) were gotten from. My primary understanding of this came from Bartok's comments in Stravinsky in Pictures and Documents and Stravinsky's entry in the Grove dictionary, the latter of which says the period mostly took place during his time in Switzerland. I used The Nightingale as a particular example since it's one of the essential Russian period works, but I do see how the crossover between times is confusing. I've cut the statement and added some about style, let me know what you think. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The passage is better, but the reference to The Nightingale is still confusing: its relation to this period is not explained. Take a look at the Walsh article in The Grove. His section title for this period, based on chronology and place, rather than stylistic attributes—"Exile in Switzerland, 1914–20"—better sums up the period. At the same time IS was exploring Russian mythology and folklore, he was also briefly under the spell of Schoenberg (Three Japanese Lyrics), and was beginning to pivot towards the neoclassicism that would define his work beginning in the 1920s (The Soldier's Tale, the pieces for piano four-hands). More importantly, as the lead for Walsh's article makes clear, "he never lost contact with his Russian origins and, even after he ceased to compose with recognizably Russian materials or in a perceptibly Slavonic idiom, his music maintained an unbroken continuity of technique and thought." Craft noted the Russianness of his music as late as the Requiem Canticles. Grouping discussions of his music by style, rather than by time and place, unintentionally pigeonholes a composer who, perhaps of all composers, was the most difficult to pigeonhole. As Walsh also says, "to some extent the mobile geography of his life is reflected in his work, with its complex patterns of influence and allusion." Even the grouping of thirty years' work under "Neoclassical period" is a little misleading as it does not adequately convey the difference between the neoclassical music he composed in France vs. the United States. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CurryTime7-24, I understand most of what you're saying and have made some adjustments. But, I'm not sure what you want me to change regarding your last sentence- are you suggesting the structure of "Music" be rewritten? The idea of Stravinsky's musical periods is accepted by a number of scholars, and the specific labelling in Stravinsky's entry in the Grove Dictionary of Music is what led me to structure the section as such. Additionally, (in my opinion) the headers are not implying Stravinsky was never influenced by Russian culture after that period, they're merely categorizing his works into artistic movements particularly prevalent in his works of that time. Nonetheless, I add the Walsh's quote ("he never lost contact with his Russian origins...") under "Russian period" as a disclaimer of sorts- keep in mind I don't have access to the Grove article, so I'm trusting it's under that section. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as the reference to Act I of The Nightingale is removed, then the section is OK. Thank you very much for your edits. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More CurryTime7-24 comments
[edit]
  • "Stravinsky befriended Robert Craft, who became his personal assistant": "Personal assistant" makes it seem like Craft was basically just Stravinsky's go-fer. He was a lot more than that. Jay S. Harrison, music editor of the New York Herald Tribune, described him as Stravinsky's "closest friend, confidant, amanuensis, spokesman, and fellow conductor"; Walsh goes so far as to say "alter ego". The term "amanuensis" is the one typically used to refer to Craft's work, but it would be very helpful if his role in Stravinsky's American career were briefly expanded on and an image included.
    • Added a more specific description, thank you for the quote. I don't think there's a good place for an image, since the TIME cover and photo of Stravinsky in 1962 are already there; besides, Commons has no clear photos of Stravinsky with Craft (as far as I can find). MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great work. Just one more quibble. Craft is referred to earlier in the article as IS' "student". He never was; I believe the only person who ever was an acknowledged student of Stravinsky was some obscure German composer whose name escapes me at the moment. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised there isn't anything mentioned in the article about Stravinsky's anti-Semitism, which both Craft and Walsh acknowledged.
  • There is hardly anything mentioned about Stravinsky's American music and how he adapted his style to cater to tastes in his adopted country. This needs to be expanded. It would also help to explain how this music in some ways is distinct from the music of his French period. H. Colin Slim's Stravinsky in the Americas: Transatlantic Tours and Domestic Excursions from Wartime Los Angeles (1925–1945) would be an invaluable source for this.
    • I'm having trouble figuring out what exactly to add. I read the introduction to that book, and while it does contain very good information about the public's disregard for Stravinsky, I can't synthesize much about how he adapted to fit America's tastes. The only thing I can glean is the involvement in film scores, and that's already discussed in the article under "Early US years, 1939–1945". What specifically do you think should be expanded upon? Sorry if it seems like I'm asking you write the text for em, this is a new subject I haven't investigated much, and text synthesis isn't exactly my best ability. If you could just give me some guidance, I would be very grateful- thanks for all your comments throughout the FAC. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Basically, whereas Stravinsky wielded great or total aesthetic autonomy for music that he composed for European patrons, the music he composed on commission in the United States often resulted from his willingness to compromise or meet American tastes, particularly with respect to popular music. Consider the Circus Polka, Ebony Concerto, Scènes de ballet, even the Symphony in Three Movements. Walsh and Slim both go into detail about how concerned Stravinsky was with earning a livelihood in his early years in the United States and how this affected his musical output. It was this concern that was one of the motivating factors in his 1947 revisions of Petrushka and The Rite of Spring. If you want me to contribute, I can, but also don't want to step on your toes as you're doing excellent work here. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re. Final years and death
[edit]
  • Is there a reason why his concert in Miami is notable enough to mention?
  • The section could use a brief mention of Stravinsky's declining faculties as a performer, which resulted in such frequent cancellations that engagements to conduct dropped sharply in 1967. This and doctor's orders prohibiting him from traveling via plane were the main reasons for the end of his career as a conductor.
  • The passage about the 1967 Toronto concert should make clear that Stravinsky had no idea it would be his last. Walsh writes that Stravinsky had been billed to appear as conductor as late as May 1968 in Berkeley.
  • Stravinsky's final attempt at composition, the "Two Sketches for a Sonata", ought to be mentioned. Craft, for one, felt they were in a complete enough state to be considered part of Stravinsky's canon.

That's all for now. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CurryTime7-24: Thank you very much for your comments. I've left responses above, implementing most changes, and have some questions for you. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Russian period
[edit]
  • The recent addition of four images relating to influences upon Stravinsky during his "Russian period" seems a bit like WP:SYNTH. Taruskin's comments are not about the period, but only refer specifically to the first act of The Nightingale ("The musical idiom of the first act adheres closely to what Asaf'yev called the 'modest, rationalized impressionism' of the early 20th-century St. Petersburg school ... there is little in the exuberantly decorative score that cannot be associated with the idiom of such older Rimsky-Korsakov pupils as Anatoly Lyadov and especially Nikolay Tcherepnin"), which he completed years before the "Russian period" designated by Noble and Bartók. Moreover, the influences mentioned for that period aren't borne out in the music or discourse about it. I know that Walsh and Craft have mentioned R-K, Mussorgsky, and Scriabin as being important influences during this period, at least at its outset, which IS later downplayed. Also, the section's final paragraph should be moved to the beginning of the section that follows. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CurryTime7-24, I've cut the multiple image box; I added it because it felt odd with no image, and wanted to put some images of Stravinsky's influences, but I see the issue in doing these specific individuals. Also, to clarify, The Nightingale was completed during the Russian period; Stravinsky began work in 1908, putting it down to work on other things and finishing it in 1914 (a year after the period began, 1913). The paragraph has been moved. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree; the section could use a relevant image.
    A couple of issues here. First, citing Taruskin's comments here as confirming what is written in the article are, again, WP:SYNTH. This is important to note because, secondly, there seems to be confusion as to what the "Russian period" is exactly. Are we referring to the period between the Symphony in E-flat and The Firebird when IS lived in Russia (and composed Act I of The Nightingale), or the one that idiosyncratically evoked Russian folklore roughly between Petrushka and Mavra? If the latter, how to account for the overlap with the neoclassical period? If the former, why do most of the remarks in that section deal with works composed well after IS' international breakthrough? Taruskin's comments would be true enough if referring to the former period, but they are very misleading if the latter. Is there really much Lyadov and Tcherepnin in Zvezdoliki, Svadebka, and the Three Pieces for Clarinet?
    By the way, you've been doing splendid work improving this article. I've been taking notes, so to speak, for another project I hope to start with some help here next month. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CurryTime7-24, the Russian period is definitely the period between The Rite of Spring and Pulcinella, which is where the header years (1913-1920) were gotten from. My primary understanding of this came from Bartok's comments in Stravinsky in Pictures and Documents and Stravinsky's entry in the Grove dictionary, the latter of which says the period mostly took place during his time in Switzerland. I used The Nightingale as a particular example since it's one of the essential Russian period works, but I do see how the crossover between times is confusing. I've cut the statement and added some about style, let me know what you think. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The passage is better, but the reference to The Nightingale is still confusing: its relation to this period is not explained. Take a look at the Walsh article in The Grove. His section title for this period, based on chronology and place, rather than stylistic attributes—"Exile in Switzerland, 1914–20"—better sums up the period. At the same time IS was exploring Russian mythology and folklore, he was also briefly under the spell of Schoenberg (Three Japanese Lyrics), and was beginning to pivot towards the neoclassicism that would define his work beginning in the 1920s (The Soldier's Tale, the pieces for piano four-hands). More importantly, as the lead for Walsh's article makes clear, "he never lost contact with his Russian origins and, even after he ceased to compose with recognizably Russian materials or in a perceptibly Slavonic idiom, his music maintained an unbroken continuity of technique and thought." Craft noted the Russianness of his music as late as the Requiem Canticles. Grouping discussions of his music by style, rather than by time and place, unintentionally pigeonholes a composer who, perhaps of all composers, was the most difficult to pigeonhole. As Walsh also says, "to some extent the mobile geography of his life is reflected in his work, with its complex patterns of influence and allusion." Even the grouping of thirty years' work under "Neoclassical period" is a little misleading as it does not adequately convey the difference between the neoclassical music he composed in France vs. the United States. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CurryTime7-24, I understand most of what you're saying and have made some adjustments. But, I'm not sure what you want me to change regarding your last sentence- are you suggesting the structure of "Music" be rewritten? The idea of Stravinsky's musical periods is accepted by a number of scholars, and the specific labelling in Stravinsky's entry in the Grove Dictionary of Music is what led me to structure the section as such. Additionally, (in my opinion) the headers are not implying Stravinsky was never influenced by Russian culture after that period, they're merely categorizing his works into artistic movements particularly prevalent in his works of that time. Nonetheless, I add the Walsh's quote ("he never lost contact with his Russian origins...") under "Russian period" as a disclaimer of sorts- keep in mind I don't have access to the Grove article, so I'm trusting it's under that section. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as the reference to Act I of The Nightingale is removed, then the section is OK. Thank you very much for your edits. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose from Wretchskull

[edit]

Very happy to see this article on FAC!

Lede

  • Remove the ref in the infobox image caption. Image descriptions and details are not sourced in prose but in the original Commons source. Igor Stravinsky LOC 32392u.jpg is featured and contains all things necessary.
  • His legacy in the 4th paragraph still needs some work. Some opinions on whether or not his works live up to the rite shouldn't even be there, as I highly doubt that this is the consensus among musicologists, so I would remove that opening clause altogether.
  • Again regarding the previous point, early reactions to his works, such as the one in the 2nd paragraph, are good inclusions, but to synthesize that with his legacy and insinuate it as a mixed reception in the 4th is incorrect. He is widely regarded as one of the greatest and most important composers and this is maintained by scholarly consensus. These inclusions can be amended and kept in the body but not in the lede, where firm consensus of his standing should be highlighted, free from minority opinions.

Early life, 1882–1901

  • Why is Tchaikovsky not linked? I noticed that you only link the second mention of some people and musical jargon in the Music section. I understand that this is a more fitting section, but the first mentions in prose must be linked. Either only link the first mention or link both the first in the biography and the second in the Music section. Also, I would probably write the persons' full names at least once in the article.
  • "Stravinsky composed Funeral Song, Op. 5, which was performed once" - add "in 1908".

Education and first compositions, 1901–1909

Ballets for Diaghilev and international fame, 1909–1920

Life in France, 1920–1939

  • Along with 1926, this section basically skips 1929-1933. Is Stravinsky living in Voreppe really the only thing authors are fixated on? No works? No important conversations? No deals? Why not mention his Violin Concerto, and the fact that he revised a bunch of works in this period? Just food for thought.

Last major works, 1945–1966

@MyCatIsAChonk: After a relatively quick read, I'm a little worried about the leaps the article makes in biographical details here and there. Still optimistic! I'll continue the review tomorrow. Wretchskull (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wretchskull: Thank you very much for your review, and I apologize for the late response, the image licensing issues have taken a great deal of time! I'll get to the bio details and lead issues soon, thank you for pointing those out. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Continuing the review: Music

  • Perhaps add a quick explanation on how his music is categorized and divided? Explain how/why they are, and briefly mention the characteristics of each section, such as: "student works" being a product of his early influences, "the three ballets" showing deviation from his conservative musical atmosphere, and then a word on the three periods-categorization, where his mature style formed and evolved.
  • Consider informing about influences or themes that are present or recurring throughout his output and not restricted to a period.
  • This whole section uses a few too many quotes IMO. I would reword lengthy ones (details below).

Student works, 1898–1907

First three ballets, 1910–1913

Russian period, 1913–1920

  • Link nursery rhyme.
  • I have mixed feelings about the last sentence of this section. It uses a rather lengthy quote when it can easily be paraphrased, but more importantly, the whole sentence is technically WP:OR. You made it seem like Walsh was specifically describing Pulcinella; it was about his oeuvre as a whole. Kill two birds with one stone and reword the whole sentence to: "According to Walsh, Stravinsky's music was always influenced by his Russian roots, and despite their decreased use in his output, he maintained continuous musical innovation."

Neoclassical period, 1920–1951

I'll continue the review in a few hours. Wretchskull (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wretchskull, I believe I've addressed all your comments. I think I need a bit more help on the lead- I'm having a hard time summarizing his legacy past the basic "was one of the greatest composers etc etc". There were a lot of dissenters to his music in his time, which is represented in the body, but scholars' views have certainly changed today. I made some changes, let me know what you think. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't sweat it! It's looking good now. Wretchskull (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

Personality

  • Contains some good information, especially the first section, but as a whole, I'm torn on whether or not this section is necessary (details below).

Inspirations and collaborators

  • If there's more info, I would definitely consider expanding this section with details on specific literary and musical influences (plus authors, etc.), perhaps even making them separate subsections.

Political stances

  • "Towards the end of his life, at Craft's behest, Stravinsky made a return visit to his native country and composed a cantata in Hebrew, travelling to Israel for its performance." What does this have to do with his political stances? Otherwise, relocate it to the life section.
  • As a whole, I'm unsure if this entire section is even WP:DUE. Are his political stances well-covered and discussed in sources? Is it really pivotal in terms of his music and influence? A politics section on someone like Shostakovich would be more appropriate, and even there I would hesitate, but Stravinsky..?

Religion

  • Definitely influential in his musical output, but this seems to only highlight when he was/wasn't religious. I would strongly consider deleting this section entirely and move important details to his biography. Perhaps you could instead make this one of the musical influences in the first section. Please also see "General" below.
  • In summary, I personally would rename "Personality" to "Influences", and simply make separate subsections on them, such as "Musical", "Literary", and "Religious". The latter two subsections of the current "Personality" section look undue to me and are better to include in the biography. You can check out other FA musical bios if you want inspiration.

Reception

  • I don't think the first paragraph is the best way to introduce readers to Stravinsky's reception as a whole; it seems like one on The Rite. The third paragraph looks more fitting IMO. Otherwise, use anything that summarizes his works as a whole. Write a different one if you're not satisfied, but I'd amend and third paragraph a bit and order it first.
  • "There were reports of fistfights in the audience and the need for a police presence during the second act. The real extent of the tumult is open to debate and the reports may be apocryphal." These two sentences are due for the article about the composition, less so the composer. Remove them and merge the rest with the final paragraph.

Legacy

  • I think this is the best place to create a paragraph with the scholarly consensus of Stravinsky's footprint in music. I.e. as among the greatest and most important composers of the 20th century, mentioning his most important innovations, and people he influenced the most.
  • "The Rite of Spring (1913) is notable for its relentless use of ostinati, for example in the eighth-note ostinato on strings accented by eight horns in the section "Augurs of Spring (Dances of the Young Girls)". The work also contains passages where several ostinati clash against one another." Remove both sentences altogether. This is again treading deep into WP:UNDUE; The Rite has its own separate article for such details.

Honours

Recordings and publications

Writings

@MyCatIsAChonk: That's enough of my nagging. Tomorrow I will take a quick look at the rest of the criteria, mostly regarding sourcing, copyright, and the state of the article before and after the rewrite. Wretchskull (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General

  • Prose, sections, and topic breadth seem to be exactly based on the article prior to the rewrite. Are you sure all written content before your revamp is the optimal wording for a summary of RS sources? Similar objections regarding the sections. I now feel more strongly regarding undue sections discussed above, particularly "Personality".
  • Article is neutral, stable, well-summarized, and well-structured, but I instinctively rebel against the "Reception" section, which seems like a stew of different piece criticisms. This exists on other bios but I think merging some prose with "Legacy" and deleting the reception is the way to go; maybe too extreme though... what do you think? I think I've clamored enough about "Personality".
  • All in all, I think it would be best to amend the above points and take inspiration from other FA biographies to see how they're structured (take a skim at Nielsen, Ravel, Debussy, and Holst). Of course, coverage is dictated by topic breadth in RS sources, and all bios are structured on a case to case basis.
  • Images look great. Nikkimaria has raised all necessary licensing objections.

References

  • AGF on sources and verifiability. I'm slightly uneasy regarding WP:OR; I hope the Walsh sentence was an isolated anomaly. If you feel other quotes or paraphrases contain false synthesis, please fix them. I noticed that some information on Stravinsky's style and periods often are covered by large page ranges in sources, which worries me of WP:SYNTH. All claims in the article need to be explicitly stated in sources.
  • I've fixed some citation formatting, but AGF on cited pages and ref formatting; I don't expect major flaws.
  • Earwig doesn't expose any copyvio.

External links

@MyCatIsAChonk: I was honestly bordering on opposing this nomination for now, but you work things out rather quickly! I'll give you some time to rectify everything and hopefully you won't have to deal with my quibbles anymore. Wretchskull (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wretchskull, thank you for your comments, I'm very grateful for the thoroughness or your review- this is the first very big revision I've done of an article, so I appreciate the guidance. I've made lots of changes to the sections: reception and legacy have been merged (as well as cutting some stuff that was previously in reception); cut personality and replaced it with influences; expanded upon literary and artistic influences; moved publications to writings; and fixed the ISBN issues. If there's anything you think should be changed, I'm happy to do so.
Side question: You wrote , "I'm slightly uneasy regarding WP:OR; I hope the Walsh sentence was an isolated anomaly. If you feel other quotes or paraphrases contain false synthesis, please fix them." To clarify, what Walsh sentence are you referring to? I think I've fixed all OR issues. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MyCatIsAChonk: By the Walsh sentence I was referring to his quote about Stravinsky never abandoning his Russian roots in his music. My complaint is that many of these musical analyses present in the article are covered by very large page ranges, which tells me that the examples may not be explicitly stated by the authors (otherwise they would be covered by 1-2 pages) but are rather based on WP:SYNTH, i.e. combining different sentences to come to a conclusion.
Regardless, and please do not take any of this personally, I will have to oppose this nomination. Upon long reflection on this article (and other quality article contributions of yours), I'm realizing that the root of all problems are caused by the article being virtually unchanged from before the rewrite. Apart from some paragraphs, it seems that the whole overhaul was really more of "adding references" rather than a "rewrite"; the sections are unchanged, prose is almost the same, topic breadth and details are more or less unaltered, and the references still largely rely on three authors: Walsh, White, and Taruskin. No offense to you, but I don't think this article was sufficiently researched prior to the quality article nominations. I ask again: is the current prose and topic breadth truly the best possible summary of RS sources, even though it was the exact same prior to the overhaul? I question much of the article's content upon a second read after this finding. Also, for a composer as well-researched as Stravisnky, I expected dozens of other extremely crucial books to be widely used. It's not just for ref-variety, but also important biographical details, analyses, and above all, a measure of topic breadth while dictating what is WP:DUE to include.
I suggest that you withdraw this nomination, start familiarizing yourself with FA bios, read important academic books on WP:TWL, and try to question the existing content by rewriting it with a fine comb on prose and a thorough look in books. Please don't be discouraged by this review; I'd be happy to help out with whatever time I get. Wretchskull (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wretchskull and MyCatIsAChonk: Would you consider temporarily withholding your opposition if I helped out with this article? I have in my personal library a number of sources which are not cited here and could be useful in closing up any potential shortcomings. If so, I could start work on Tuesday (PDT). —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CurryTime7-24: A FAC is supposed to simply be quick, minor patch-ups for an article that is close to being finished. This one has been significantly overhauled and is now in need of—for the most part—a top-to-bottom rewrite while including many other books. After reaching GA, almost everything was unchanged apart from sourcing, which in itself is problematic. Happy to help after this closes, but I'll say that I do not at all see a horizon for this article being a GA, let alone a FA. Wretchskull (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see then. The nomination has been withdrawn. Thank you for your very thorough review and help throughout this process. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda

[edit]

I was there in the peer review, but will read once more over the next days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read most of life, and found that you adopted may of my PR comments. Just it-picking:

Lead

Early life

Education

Ballets

US

to be continued --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: I've addressed your comments, with some questions above, specifically regarding the lead. Thank you very much for another review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re. the Requiem Canticles: I have never seen it referred to without the article preceding. Walsh refers to it invariably as "the Requiem Canticles" in the second volume of his Stravinsky bio (e.g. "Stravinsky had left for Europe in May with the Requiem Canticles almost, but not quite complete", p. 521). So did Craft, including in his late Down a Path of Wonder from 2006 (e.g. "I am responsible for the abbreviation of the text from Verdi's Requiem for the Requiem Canticles; the source was the contents page of the Eulenberg miniature score", p. 185). Ditto Leon Botstein in his essay that concludes Stravinsky and his World from 2013 (e.g. "Stravinsky’s meticulous habits in the process of composition, as understood by theorists and as evident in the manuscripts of The Rake’s Progress and the Requiem Canticles (to cite just two often reproduced examples), suggest that Nabokov and Stravinsky shared an innovative combinatorial genius", p. 331). —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hal

[edit]
  • "Latin, Greek, and Slavonic; and French, German, and his native Russian" -- What's the point of the semicolon?
  • "not all of which have survived" seems like it could be made more concise.
  • In only two instances, a references is not placed immediately after punctuation. I might eliminate those for consistency, as other sentences that are sourced with multiple references have their numbered citations clumped after the period/comma.

Those are my only nit-picks. Fantastic work. ~ HAL333 16:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333, I think I've addressed your comments, thank you for your review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've chewed this over for a while, and believe it would be best if the nominator withdrew this candidate to refine it a bit further. The sourcing looks great, but a think a second dive into the literature would improve this article. The prose isn't quite there, and the lead and some parts of the body should be rewritten. I also recommend then putting it through the Guild of Copy Editors. It's good work—biographies are the most difficult articles to write in my opinion—and it's 85-90% of the way there. ~ HAL333 03:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The nomination has been withdrawn. Thank you for your review. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination per requests from Wretchskull and Hal. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ping for @Gog the Mild. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Withdrawing nomination as requested. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.

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) 24 June 2023 [5].

Black Monday (1987)

[edit]
Nominator(s):  § Lingzhi (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One day in late 1987 I stood speechless in the waiting area of a major hospital. A doctor had just told me that my mother had only a 50/50 chance of surviving the day. [Spoiler: she lived, but lost her eyesight.] As he turned to leave, the room was silent. Doctors, nurses, and patients' family members were huddled in a tight ring under the TV set on the wall. Numbers were scrolling by on the screen. Their own problems were set aside as they watched an even larger crisis unfolding. It was Black Monday, 1987, the biggest stock market crash since 1929. The day still lives in the institutional memory of the Federal Reserve, the NYSE, and similar organizations in Japan, Germany, and other countries around the world. Its impact on popular culture is reflected in Black Monday (TV series). § Lingzhi (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Comment from Buidhe Note: Lingzhi has requested that I avoid doing a source review (or any review?) of this article, or any others of theirs at FAC. I am not planning to, and I hope that whoever does is appropriately thorough at reviewing the article and verifying sources.

  • Now after looking at this article, I cannot help but notice that some sources are missing ISBNs, DOIs, and/or other identifiers.
  • I am also confused by the article structure; there are subsections for five countries even though the crash affected—directly or indirectly—far more countries than that. Is there a reason these particular countries are picked for extensive elaboration, while others aren't mentioned at all?

I won't bother you any more(t · c) buidhe 04:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • It would be overkill to cover every country, so I chose a few that were instructive and/or representative. The crash started in Asia, moved to Europe, and then (famously) walloped the US. Japan and Hong Kong stand in for Asia; moreover they are both instructive. Japan's stock market and economy were among the least damaged through time, while Hong Kong experienced considerably worse damage. Hong Kong is also emblematic of some of the speculative nature of the stock bubble. New Zealand is instructive because its post-crash policies were the opposite of other countries', and it suffered significantly for that reason... Britain stands in for Europe. Why not West Germany? Oddly enough, I just couldn't find anything. I can tell you this: West Germany's economy was in far better shape than that of the US; the West Germans were famously phobic about inflation, and many people consider the verbal tiff between Baker and the Germans as the pinprick that burst the bubble. And the US because it is the US. § Lingzhi (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      While I certainly see how this organization would be useful for a research paper or similar, I don't see how covering certain countries and not others can meet the FA requirement to be comprehensive. One possibility would be to move "by country" to a different article and instead have a section for how the crash developed chronologically across major stock markets. I am inclined to oppose on this point. (t · c) buidhe 14:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am completely unsurprised. As it was earlier in another article, when you were adamant that a hurricane is not a storm, you have some form of perspective on reality. I ain't taking jack shit out of this article and moving it to another one. Please Oppose now, and be on about your own business, or strike. § Lingzhi (talk)
        • I'm not surprised either, and its one in a succession of early early opposes over a single issues (my way or the highway), from this coord who knows that the well is being tainted for later reviewers. As a possible solution (and was going to bring this up anyway (with less drama and taking toys away), should the sections be merged under a "contagion" type header. Ceoil (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe the article is comprehensive. There are different ways to consider or measure how the concept of "comprehensive" should be unpacked. There is not only one approach or paradigm for organization, with (therefore) only one definition of "comprehensive" (similar to the way that the character Sheldon Cooper on The Big Bang Theory would view this sort of question). That is, Buidhe's argument above is "approach==geographical; and (therefore) comprehensive==all countries, or none". But my method of organization is (as I mentioned) "all instructive cases". I believe I have included all instructive cases. Forex, removing New Zealand would really gut the point that supplying liquidity was the main antidote for the crash (or... actually... for the events immediately after the crash... but that's a fine point). And finally, info about all countries just does not exist. Those countries were not studied. Why weren't they studied? Umm, I would suggest they were not studied because their cases were not instructive, for various reasons. § Lingzhi (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It would be overkill to cover every country, so I chose a few that were instructive and/or representative - Is this not OR? — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 13:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Ixtal: No, I don't think so. Actually, 1) I didn't really choose them; they chose themselves. My search for sources chose them. What you see is what I found. More specifically, I started from the core and most authoritative sources on the subject, and worked my way outward to include places they discussed. My discussion very directly reflects the discussions in the central texts, 2) I never make a claim in the article that these sources are representative! 3) If you read WP:OR, I don't see anything there that resembles your line of reasoning, and 4) See Johnbod's comments below. § Lingzhi (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe that comprehensiveness requires a particular article organization, but it is more about ensuring that the coverage of each country is roughly proportional to the RS coverage (including non-English RS). Another reason that the article structure seems questionable to me is that it's leading to content in the lead that is not cited in the article; Malaysia, for example, is mentioned in the lead but not the body. (t · c) buidhe 00:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope. If you think I'm gonna dig up German-language sources for this topic, you are very sorely mistaken. In fact, if you think anyone needs to dig up German-language sources for this article, you are very sorely mistaken. Here is the take-home point: no German-language source is gonna say anything that is both significant and new when compared to the English-language sources. The English-language sources are extremely in-depth and cover the topic very thoroughly. They offer several different insights and explanations. Many of them were written by native speakers of German (or Japanese, or...). More importantly, if German sources had anything both significant and new to say, the English-language sources would find out and would quote them. Economics is a huge field. There are I-dunno-how-many-thousands of published economists. If a German paper caused a stir by saying something new, someone would translate it into English. Probably the authors themselves would wanna translate it into English, to further their careers with wider publication... As for Malaysia: 1) It's actually sometimes OK to put one or two things in the WP:LEAD which aren't in the article, and 2) if you think the Malaysian info is not that kind of info, then we can 2a) add a sentence about Malaysia to body text, or 2b) delete Malaysia from the Lead. The end of the story here is, you are grasping at straws, wasting everyone's time. You have no argument based on comprehensiveness. Oppose or strike, and be done with it. § Lingzhi (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just say that the German stock-market is generally notoriously stable, and therefore uninteresting to investors, with large holdings by banks and so on. Long lists of short sections covering a vast range of countries are generally a curse in WP, & without looking at the article yet their omission here seems absolutely right. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate, this section would be better organised under an overall, chronological "spread" or "contagion" main-header. The danger with the current structure is tack-on sub-headings such as "also in Liechtenstein"... Ceoil (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to run out the door now, but let me set your mind at ease: unless someone is editing to make a WP:POINT (for whatever personal reason), no one is gonna do that. This topic is not sexy at all. There are no fanboys. In fact, it's work to add a section to this article. Liquidity this, portfolio that, blah blah blah. It's work to add any real content... Look at how stable it has been, aside from my edits, over the years... § Lingzhi (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could be better served by cause -> effect, than the current structure which is just effect. Ceoil (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Ceoil: Problem is, nobody knows the causes. :-) Years ago when I started working on this, I totally followed the official reports which discounted the importance of Baker's remarks. But later, after investigating comments by Goldsztajn and reading about Japan and Asia, I have swung around to the belief that in my very humble opinion it was a powder keg that was destined to explode, and Baker threw the match. But I can't say that in the article. No one has proven anything. As I said earlier, in economics, everything affects everything. So in my opinion, all we can do is focus first on "effects" and then list some "possible causes". § Lingzhi (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil

[edit]
  • Lead: Should this be a note, or abbreviated In Australia and New Zealand the day is referred to as Black Tuesday because of the time zone difference from other English-speaking countries
  • Background: During a strong bull market, - driven by?
    • Haha, good question. As you may have gathered from scanning the article, economics (the queen of the social sciences) is quite often a field where every simple question has five or six complicated answers. That would be because everything affects everything else. But if you think it needs to be added (and it's actually not an unreasonable request), I can add a sentence or two. Will get on that. § Lingzhi (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • added a footnote about causes of extended bull market § Lingzhi (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background: The sentence beginning In late 1985 and early 1986 is uncited
  • Japan: distinctive institutional characteristics? - dont like either distinctive or characteristics
  • Overall very good. More later. Ceoil (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "see also" sect should be converted to a shot "depictions" or "in media" para. Ceoil (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have a concern about slippage re POV and judgmental language, eg still had not been settled, and later the Fed would be forced to raise interest rates yet again. Have edited these, but from a short scan of a large article, they do indicate a tone I am not usually comfortable with, regardless of affiliation. I suggest that this kind of editorial voice is removed as far as possible. I thi k you have all the hard work done in establishing facts, but need to better convery the sequence. Ceoil (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ceoil, I have not had time to read all of your edits. But "his negative news regarding the trade deficit created an anticipation that the Fed would be forced to raise interest rates yet again" is not PV, full stop. Every source says it was bad trade news, full stop. Sorry to say that I am growing a little concerned that you are removing useful explanatory text from the article. § Lingzhi (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • You wont offend me by reverting, although "yet again" could be better phrased. I'm *leaning support* here btw, so will stop editing directly and restrict to griping here (on minor points I have to say) Ceoil (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read through again last night and this morning, and made only trivial edits. The article is very informed and well sourced and clearly put, no small feat considering an earlier concern below was "too difficult in places" (which I never found). There has been a huge effort since my initial comments, and I find it flows much better now. Gripping. Support. Ceoil (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC) @Ceoil: Thank you very much, sir! § Lingzhi (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Femke

[edit]

Thanks for working on such an important topic! I don't have time for a full review, so will focus only on the lead.

  • It is too difficult in places. The third paragraph in particular has jargon that needs to be explained or omitted. Words like implied volatility, financial options and volatility smile shouldn't be in the lead without explanation for an article like this with an expected wide audience (WP:ONEDOWN/WP:EXPLAINLEAD)
  • I believe all indices in the infobox are US-specific? If so, is there a way to reduce that bias? Is the Federal Reserve the US federal reserve?
  • Opinions may differ, but I believe the first paragraph is a bit too numbers and statistics-heavy.
  • It seems to be missing the trigger / causes of the crash. That section hasn't been summarised in the lead. Femke (alt) (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Femke (alt) or Femke, thank you for your review. It's most helpful.

  • The third paragraph in the lead, about the volatility smile, is definitely inside baseball for economists anyway, so I relocated it to the Aftermath section. That single edit removes the lion's share of the offending jargon in the lead, IMHO. The only jargon-ish thing left might be market liquidity, but leaving it there might be educational, IMHO. Is that enough for you?
  • I would be quite happy deleting the entire infobox, but I have no desire to rekindle Ragnarok. But then if we start expanding its data snippets to include info from other countries... where does that process end? We run afoul of being accused of lack of comprehensiveness if we don't include everything. Would it be OK with you to include this sentence (roughly cribbed from body text): "Huge crash in stock prices in industrialized countries, starting in Asia, then spreading to Europe and the US"? Then to make room, we could delete one or two of the US-centric bullet points. Does that sound like a solution? [That sentence does look a little long for an infobox, but what can ya do...]
  • I dunno, I think numbers are pretty important to the article. It's all about quantities. I dunno if cutting out some numbers would be beneficial...
  • OK, since the volatility smile paragraph has been moved out of the lead, I can try to come up with a very, very, very brief summary of causes... or come to think of it, maybe not even a summary, just a list of the various subtopics of the causes section...? I made a new paragraph (second paragraph, now) in the Lead about possible causes.. it still has jargon, but gosh, I think the jargon is both unavoidable and educational... Does that sound OK?
  • Let me know what you think. Thanks. § Lingzhi (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brill. I had feared more jargon would enter when I asked for causes. I think Louvre Accord and portfolio hedging are the two that are definitely too difficult. The suggestion for the infobox is okay, but it may be difficult to read on small screens? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • —Femke, I've been thinking about this comment for a while. I don't see how we could delete those terms. This article is all about those terms. Instead of "Louvre accord" we could use "international monetary coordination" (perhaps), but is that really any easier? And I really don't know any synonym for portfolio hedging. The point is, this article is a challenging read, and there ain't no easy way to do a hard thing. § Lingzhi (talk)
        • international monetary coordination would be a good explanation of Louvre accord. For portfolio insurance hedging, you may want to get some inspiration at Britannica, they manage to avoid such jargon (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Black-Monday). No idea if they mention that concept in their article, as I have no idea what it is. I'm reading this article as somebody who has spent around a short amount of time on a research project on financial instability, which means I will likely have a better understanding of the topic than your typical reader. Many of our readers will not even understand words like 'monetary policy', 'market liquidity' and of course some of the jargon in the infobox which may disappear when you've globalised it (NYSE). I see that as jargon that can be mostly excused by the difficulty of the topic area, excluding maybe 25% of our readers. I guess 'portfolio insurance hedging' excludes around 90%. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

[edit]

I'll take a look over this shortly. (In the interests of full disclosure, note that the nominator asked if I would consider taking a look at this on my talk page, after I praised their script.) Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also deposited US $20 million in a Swiss bank acct, but we won't discuss that. § Lingzhi (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You must have forgotten to have given me the account details... nudge, nudge. Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No pages numbers for Bates and Seyhun for ref #1?
    • The abstract of Seyhun says "This paper shows that i) the Crash was a surprise to corporate insiders". I can provide the page of the abstract, if you wish. It was page 1363. Bates, strangely enough, suggests that a crash was expected from October 1986 to August 1987. And then a crash was not expected in the 2 months immediately prior to the actual crash. Again, this is from the abstract. The abstract is on page 1009. § Lingzhi (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No page number for ref #34, "Garcia 1989"?
    • Actually, this idea of "lender of last resort" is everywhere in the literature! I chose Garcia because the title of the article is actually "The lender of last resort in the wake of the crash". By that logic, the entire article, from first to last page, could be cited... However, I'm changing it to a source from a famous economist that has a strong quote... thanks! § Lingzhi (talk)
  • Ref #36 cites "Garcia 1989, p. 159.", but in the long reference, the page range is given as 151–155.
  • Consistently use xxx–yyy for page ranges, per MOS:NUMRANGE. At the moment, a mix of xxx–yyy and xxx–yy are used.
  • Also, be consistent whether to use "pp. xx & yy" or "pp. xx, yy" The latter seems to be more commonly used, so I'd switch all to that if I were you.
  • No page number for ref #75, "Hunt 2009"?
  • No page number for ref #88, "Rees 2007"?
  • Ref #102, no page numbers for either Leland?
  • Ref #112, no page numbers for King & Wadhwani 1990?
    • Again, the entire article is written to prove this point. The point is in the title, "Transmission of volatility between stock markets". I suppose I could cite p. 26, the conclusion. § Lingzhi (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #114, no page numbers for Goodhart 1988?
    • I cited Goodhart; the "contagion" thesis is most clearly stated and supported in another paper, [King, Mervyn A., and Sushil Wadhwani. "Transmission of volatility between stock markets." The Review of Financial Studies 3.1 (1990): 5-33.] That paper is already cited in this article; in fact it is cite 112 (discussed immediately above this), whereas this is 114... Goodhart's paper, which I cited here, actually deals with an issue that is closely related to and dovetails with "contagion", and it draws conclusions on that issue that are consistent with "contagion". However, where I became mildly confused here is that Goodhart spends a couple pages very approvingly summarizing King and Wadhwani, and repeats their conclusion. I somehow thought he was stating his own conclusions. Nope. So I will change this cite to King and Wadhwani, with page numbers. Thanks for pointing this out. § Lingzhi (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider providing archive links for some of the online-only sources.
  • Be consistent in the capitalisation of source titles. At the moment, some use title case and some use sentence case.
  • Typically you provided ISSNs or OCLCs for newspaper sources, but you haven't for "Hinden, Stan (July 23, 1989)".
  • "Forsyth, Randall W. (October 20, 2017)" should be marked as requiring subscription. – This could also do with the work being wikilinked and an ISSN or OCLC provided for consistency with other sources.
  • I think the article needs to mention Black Monday (TV series) in the prose for completeness, not just provide a See also link.
    • I disagree. Where we would put such text? Put it in the lede? No, someone will complain. Create an "In Popular Culture" section? No, an "In Popular Culture" section in this or any other article is warranted only when the "popular culture" topic notable in and of itself ( that is, the larger topic is notable in no small way because of its treatment in popular culture, such as Roswell or Area 51 or similar). I think the TV show is currently sitting precisely where it deserves to sit, and receiving precisely the amount of attention it deserves. § Lingzhi (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judging whether this article "is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" is difficult. There is a lot written on this subject, and quick searches on Google Books and JSTOR immediately bring up several sources not used in this article. But whether those sources add anything significant not already present in this article is hard to ascertain without a thorough reading of those sources, and a good understanding of this subject. What I can say is the article uses a variety of sources (although as is common for this site, predominantly US and generally English-language sources) from a range of good quality sources. I don't see any glaring omissions based on my searches and a brief review of sources which haven't been included.

Right, that wraps thing up for the moment, thanks to the spotchecks completed by Unlimitedlead (many thanks). Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check by Unlimitedlead- pass
[edit]

I will take this on later today. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Random spotcheck on citation 7: verified.
  • Hunt 2009 in citation 8 has no page number.
  • Random spotcheck on citation 12 verified, but the sentence is word-for-word with the citation.
  • Random spotcheck on citation 14: verified "October 16, the DJIA fell 108.35 points", but not "to close at 2,246.74 on record volume".
  • yes, the second half of this info seems to have been stranded from its original source during copy editing. Will repair. § Lingzhi (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Random spotcheck on citation 19: verified.
  • Random spotcheck on citation 25: verified.
  • Random spotcheck on citation 39: verified.
  • Random spotcheck on citation 51: somewhat; the source indirectly says it but to me, this does not cut it. This is inching a little too close to WP:NOR for my liking.
    • Wikipedia: " It was down 23% in two days, roughly the same percentage that the NYSE dropped on the day of the crash. Stocks then continued to fall, albeit at a less precipitous rate, until reaching a trough in mid-November at 36% below its pre-crash peak."
    • SOURCE Page 53 "That day the Dow Jones crashed 23%... In London the FTSE 100...making an aggregate fall of 23% over two days... the decline continued at a slower pace...in mid-November... a 36% retreat from its peak... in mid-July"
    • Wikipedia: " Stocks did not begin to recover until 1989."
    • SOURCE page 54 "But in 1989 there was a significant recovery" § Lingzhi (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Random spotcheck on citation 69: sure.
  • Random spotcheck on citation 72: again, quite iffy. The source does not directly back up the statement.
    • Wikipedia: "The finance industry was in a state of increasing optimism that approached euphoria"
    • SOURCE p. 72: The section heading on p. 72 is "Credit creation and euphoria". The text on same page says "... a spirit of optimism – in some cases amounting to hubris – pervaded the financial industry" § Lingzhi (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Random spotcheck on citation 123: sure.
  • Random spotcheck on citation 125: fail- the quote in the article is similar but not the same as what is quoted in this article.
    • Wikipedia: "international currency coordination of any kind, including a target zone, is not possible."
    • SOURCE: OH! Look at the references. Ito published two very slightly different versions of this article: an online one in 2015, and a print version in 2016. Unfortunately BOTH version are listed (one right underneath the other) in the WP article references. The online version has: "Third, the Ministry of Finance learned that any international currency coordination, such as a target zone, is not possible". That is what you saw... The print version has "Third, the Ministry of Finance learned that international currency coordination of any kind, including a target zone, is not possible". The resolution to this problem is to 1) delete the online version from the references (it is the upper one), and 2) change the year of that cite. § Lingzhi (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The spotcheck, while somewhat okay, has several cases of uncertainty or just plain misuse. Apologies, but I am considering marking this spot check as failed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC) @Unlimitedlead: Some comments above. § Lingzhi (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lingzhi.Renascence Alright, these responses are acceptable; my mistake for misunderstanding. The source spot check can pass, but I shall leave the deliberation of the FA status of the article to other editors. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to do this! I appreciate it... could you... maybe... put Pass in the section header of your comments... to make it a little more obvious? Sorry if this sounds stupid... § Lingzhi (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my bad. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we are directly using text from a public domain source without attribution that is still a problem. I am not seeing a PD-attribution tag (iPad editing from hotspot in car, perhaps I missed it) nor is there inline attribution, if I am looking at the right source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Copyright & Terms of Use for the GAO. It's very brief and clear. I believe this article complies with all its provisions. If you disagree, please let me know. Thanks for looking into this... § Lingzhi (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest checking with Diannaa or another one of our copyright experts on this: WP:PLAGIARISM says:
  • Plagiarism and copyright infringement are not the same thing.[6] Copyright infringement occurs when content is used in a way that violates a copyright holder's exclusive right. Giving credit does not mean the infringement has not occurred, so be careful not to quote so much of a non-free source that you violate the non-free content guideline.[7] Similarly, even though there is no copyright issue, public-domain content is plagiarized if used without acknowledging the source. For advice on how to avoid violating copyright on Wikipedia, see Copyright violation. For how to deal with copying material from free sources, such as public-domain sources, see below.
But she's the expert ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) @SandyGeorgia: Thanks for the help! § Lingzhi (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lingzhi, it's actually easy to add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{PD-notice}} after your citation. — Diannaa (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Diannaa Cool, thanks! § Lingzhi (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Or another option would be just to save everyone a lot of trouble by paraphrasing. Will do. :-) ... Here, try this: "The same bullish trend propelled market indices around the world over this period, as the nineteen largest enjoyed an average rise of 296%.{{sfn|General Accounting Office|1988|p=36}} § Lingzhi (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS matters

[edit]

Partial MOS review moved to talk; nothing of concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Thanks again to Harrias and SandyGeorgia for their kind attention and excellent input! § Lingzhi (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to have a look. Not yet a full review.

  • I can't seem to find where in the main article the expanded versions of some summary statements in the lead are. Could you point me to them with regards to:
" All of the twenty-three major world markets experienced a sharp decline in October 1987."
"When measured in United States dollars, eight markets declined by 20 to 29 percent, three by 30 to 39 percent (Malaysia, Mexico and New Zealand), and three by more than 40 percent (Hong Kong, Australia and Singapore)."
"The least affected was Austria (a fall of 11.4 percent) while the most affected was Hong Kong with a drop of 45.8 percent."
"Out of twenty-three major industrial countries, nineteen had a decline greater than 20 percent."
"Worldwide losses were estimated at US$1.71 trillion."
"The severity of the crash sparked fears of extended economic instability[6] or even a reprise of the Great Depression."
I was going to go on, but I can find very little of the lead which is a summary of the article. Could you help me out? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog. Thank you very much for your kind comments. I am, alas, in the very first day of final exams now, and have a stack of papers to grade. The stack will continue to grow until I slay it verily hip and thigh... I will try to reply as best as I can, in as timely manner as possible. I may be able to post a few remarks tonight or tomorrow. I will continue then after that, of course. Thank you for your time, trouble, and patience. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 11:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am not personally in any great rush, although @FAC coordinators: may be, given that the nomination has already been open for eight weeks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Back again, and thanks again. There are 3 paragraphs in the lede. The 2nd and 3rd, it seems to me, directly reflect/summarize body text. The first does not (if you don't count a footnote). I spent perhaps 5 or 6 minutes looking in article history for where that info may have been removed from body text, but was unable to find anything. It seems very possible that I added it to the lede but never to body text. The obvious answer here is to move the lede text to the "Crash" section, leaving behind a sentence or at most two to summarize what is currently in the lede. This is especially doable since I have cited the relevant text. Would that be acceptable? § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 11:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's up to you Ling. If you think it works, do it and I'll go through the lead again. Bear in mind that the new text in the main body may, or may not, need summarising itself in the revised lead. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) @Gog the Mild: Now I see why I did that, ages ago: because "The Crash" subsection is under the US section. So I had to create an "International" section just now for that little summary, with other nations falling below that. And to forestall "Oppose, doesn't cover every country" (see Buidhe, above), I really did spend months and months researching this, and the countries I have already discussed were the ones I found meaningful stuff for. I just now spent another 5 or 6 minutes looking on Google Scholar for "canada black monday 1987", and the results are not promising. If you wish, I can try searching for all 23 countries listed in the Roll article (the source of the "23 countries" text), but I am not hopeful... § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 12:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care Ling. But unless the text in the lead is a summary of text in the main article, per MOS:LEAD, there is no point in my going any further with the review. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild:It seems to me that it is. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 14:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Bear with me. I'll bump it to the top of my list of things to get round to. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No rush. I appreciate your time & trouble. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 15:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am away for a few days, plus I don't want to be picking up the same things as Dudley. So I shall wait until they have wrapped up and then continue. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "and a crisis of confidence in the dollar created by uncertainties regarding the viability of the international monetary policy coordination of the Louvre Accord". I had to read this two or three times and go to the link to make sense of it. I suggest a separate sentence such as "In February 1987 leading industrial countries had agreed the Louvre Accord to attempt to stabilise international money markets, but doubts about the viability of the accord led to a crisis of confidence in the dollar, providing another explanation for Black Monday."
  • "mportantly, however, the futures market opened on time across the board, with heavy selling." Why importantly? This needs explaining.
    • There was a major time gap between the reporting of different types of information... will clarify...
  • "a general increase in margin calls; after the market's plunge, these were about 10 times their average size" 10 times what? This is unclear. Also it is usual to spell out small numbers, ten not 10, although I am not sure whether there is an MOS on this.
    • I don't follow you. "ten times their average size" means ten times their average size.
  • I should have clarified. Grammatically, I would take this to mean that each margin call was ten times as large, but it seems more likely that you mean that the number of calls was ten times as large. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and three times greater than the highest previous morning variation call." Again unclear. What is a "morning variation call"?
    • In this context, margin call and variation call are synonymous. Changed to "levels"
  • "11 firms received margin calls from a single customer that exceeded that firm's adjusted net capital, sometimes by as much as two-to-one". A margin call is usually from a broker to an customer. Your wording implies that it was the other way round.
    • Ooops, the original text is "for a single customer" nice catch. changing the preposition
  • I would like to clarify this, although the wording in the article may not need changing. You have "received" and the source "had". This implies from a third party. Does it mean that the firm had guaranteed a loan to one customer for an amount which exceeded its assets? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • MoS requires numbers at the beginning of sentences to be spelled out (Eleven not 11). Dudley Miles (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In general, counterparty risk increased as the creditworthiness of counterparties and the value of collateral posted became highly uncertain" This is too technical for the general reader.
  • "which was then world's most heavily traded outside the U.S" the world's.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • hi sorry, am traveling, have only cell phone for maybe 2 days. Will have access to computer then... sorry.


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) 24 June 2023 [8].

Nonmetal (chemistry)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A nonmetal, like hydrogen or carbon, is a chemical element that is not a metal (such as aluminum or iron).

This is my sixth time at FAC for this article; attempt #5, when the article was then called "Nonmetal", was closed on September 26, 2022, some seven months ago.

A further copy edit was requested and this has now been completed by Dhtwiki, an uninvolved editor and a coordinator for the Guild of Copy Editors. The article had previously been copyedited in part by SandyGeorgia and John.

Pinging Reaper Eternal and Graham Beards, who were involved in FAC #5. I will also notify WP:ELEM and WP:CHEM.

Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right now Nonmetal redirects to this article and it was done without a discussion. How does this not violate WP:PRECISION? -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 12:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tx Guerillero. The redirect from "Nonmetal" --> "Nonmetal (chemistry)" occurred as a result of changing the name of the article. This happened as an outcome of discussions here, here and here. Concurrently I created new articles for Nonmetal (astrophysics) and Nonmetal (physics). --- Sandbh (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by UC

[edit]

Saving a space. Not a chemist, so I'll mostly be commenting on prose, as well as clarity/accessibility from a (definite) non-expert's point of view. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • First read done. I realise that this is quite a big job; I'm not sure I'm going to be able to do a full review, but will make some comments aimed at improving clarity, readability and prose.
Thanks very much UndercoverClassicist. It may take me a little while to address your comments as I expect to have intermittent and unpredictable internet access for the next four days. I’ll see how I go. Sandbh (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts in responding to my comments. I'm going to hold off before voting, partly because I don't have the technical expertise to endorse the article's content, and partly because I've only been able to copy-edit part of the article so far. I'll keep an eye on this page; my perspective here might change as more reviews come in. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
[edit]
  • The article seems to be inconsistent as to when to write out numbers as words, and when as figures. For instance, we have " Generally, from 14 to 23 elements are recognized as nonmetals" and "Two nonmetals, hydrogen and helium, make up about 99 percent of ordinary matter in the observable universe by mass. Five nonmetallic elements...". I don't think the MOS has a strong opinion either way, but this should certainly be consistent within a sentence, generally be consistent within a passage, and as far as possible follow some logic across the article.
I follow an Australian style guide, which I don’t have access to right now and that I recall says numbers up to 109 written in figures and larger numbers are spelt out. I suspect I’ve followed this convention consistently but will check the article again. Sandbh (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article checked. I believe it follows the numbering convention consistently. --- Sandbh (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article breaks that rule in the lede, with "Generally, from 14 to 23 elements are recognized as nonmetals". We've also got MOS:NUM: Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7, and 32, but not ages were five, seven, and 32. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Headslap! Sorry!! I explained the rule the wrong way 'round. --- Sandbh (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's very idiosyncratic (does it seriously expect you to write out e.g.six million, forty-three thousand, two hundred and four in words?), and against MOS:NUM, which has the same rule as you described. Please don't take these comments as some kind of test: the idea is to improve the article to a point where reviewers can support, not to tick off all the comments. It's the improvement of the article and the final product that count, not having a response to the questions raised. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, single numbers appearing in text (one, two, three…nine) are written in words, larger numbers are written as figures e.g. 6,043,204. That is what I meant to say the first time. --- Sandbh (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and which of these borderline cases are counted as nonmetals varies on the classification criteria": not quite grammatical: according to the criteria used?
Changed to "depending on the classification criteria used." Sandbh (talk) 04:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Generally, from 14 to 23 elements are recognized as nonmetals.": this reads oddly. Do most people say that there are between 14 and 23, or do most sources have a specific intervening number in mind? We could either do something like "most chemists recognise between 14 and 23", or something like "14 elements are unanimously recognised as nonmetals, with a further 9 debated", or similar.
The subject sentence occurs at the end of the following paragraph:
"While the term non-metallic dates from as far back as 1566, there is no widely agreed precise definition of a nonmetal. Some elements have a marked mixture of metallic and nonmetallic properties, and which of these borderline cases are counted as nonmetals varies on the classification criteria. Generally, from 14 to 23 elements are recognized as nonmetals."
By itself I can see it could read oddly but, but the context is given by the preceding two sentences. Does that make what’s going on clearer? Sandbh (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definition and applicable elements
[edit]
  • Lots of technical terms here could/should be wikilinked.
I recall wiki-linking all first uses of technical terms; I’ll check again. Sandbh (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I may have missed some: just to clarify, it's normal practice in longer articles to link the first use in the lead and the first use in the body text. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I believe this section may be OK now in terms of its wlinks. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "property or properties" can be condensed to "properties" (and so on for similar phrases elsewhere)
It is written that way since most sources attempt to distinguish nonmetals using one property. This is elaborated in the distinguishing criteria section. Sandbh (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The decisions involved depend on which properties are regarded..." grammatically includes that possibility, but this one might be somewhat a matter of taste. "Any persons who enter the camp will be shot" doesn't mean that you're safe if walk in alone: the plural is understood to include the singular. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a wlinked footnote saying, "Metallic or nonmetallic character is usually taken to be indicated by one property rather than two or more properties." --- Sandbh (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citing an 1892 source seems odd for "there is no rigorous definition of a nonmetal", which is implicitly talking about present-day science. Three sources are cited separately here; elsewhere, they are bundled into a single footnote. Would suggest adopting the latter approach throughout.
The age of source does not necessarily affect its relevance. In this case the three citations are listed in reverse date order to show that the difficulty of defining what a nonmetal is dates back ca. 150 years. In other cases I recall it was not technically possible, in some instances, to have multiple citations bundled together. I’ll check that again. Sandbh (talk)
All the double or triple cites have now been bundled. --- Sandbh (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steudel: who/what is this, and why is their opinion being given such prominence in the article?
Steudel’s monograph is an updated translation of the 5th German edition of 2013, incorporating the literature up to Spring 2019. After five editions over four decades, there is no other comparable source. Sandbh (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent: attributed sources should always be briefly introduced, so make that clear in the text. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve added a footnote that explains the significance of Steudel. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (see e.g. Larrañaga et al): parenthetical citations shouldn't be used (see WP:PAREN); more generally, this reads like an address to the reader, which is strongly discouraged by MOS.
I’ve removed the parentheses and adjusted the "remove the address to reader" aspect. Sandbh (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We still have the noble gases helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon, as given by (for example) Larrañaga et al, which has all the problems of a parenthetical citation except the parentheses. Since you're claiming to cite something undisputed, the precise source of the information shouldn't feature in the text (since, in theory, any reliable source would say the same): it should simply be part of the footnoted citation. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed Larrañaga et al. and replaced it with the name of the monograph: Hawley’s Condensed Chemical Dictionary. I agree with you; any reliable source would say the same. The insight that Hawley’s provides is mentioned earlier in that any list of nonmetals is open to challenge, as the next sentence in the article illustrates with regard to carbon, phosphorus and selenium. --- Sandbh (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At other times they are counted as nonmetals in light of their nonmetallic chemistry": I'm not sure what "their nonmetallic chemistry" means here, given that their properties seem to be partly those of metals, partly those of nonmetals. Do you mean "the chemical properties they share with nonmetals" or similar?
The whole passage is:
"The elements commonly recognized as metalloids (boron; silicon and germanium; arsenic and antimony; and tellurium) are sometimes counted as an intermediate class between the metals and the nonmetals when the criteria used to distinguish between metals and nonmetals are inconclusive. At other times they are counted as nonmetals in light of their nonmetallic chemistry.
I suspect the sentence of concern is clear in the context of the preceding sentence but if not could you please let me know?
It's not, I'm afraid, at least not to me. I'd suggest expanding that sentence to be clearer about which nonmetallic characteristics you're talking about. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence now reads, "At other times they are counted as nonmetals in light of their predominately nonmetallic (weakly acidic) chemistry." --- Sandbh (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Astatine, the fifth halogen, is often ignored": I'm not sure you mean "ignored": sources don't forget it exists, they choose not to count it. More generally, why would Astatine's rarity and/or radioactivity count against its being a nonmetal?
The full sentence is:
"Astatine, the fifth halogen, is often ignored on account of its rarity and intense radioactivity;[17] theory and experimental evidence suggest it is a metal.[18]
It’s rarity and intense radioactivity make an assessment of its metallic or nonmetallic status quite difficult. Nobody has ever seen astatine, for example, since a visible quantity would immediately vaporise from the intense heat emitted by its radioactivity. While general sources don’t forget its existence they regularly ignore further consideration of its properties. Sandbh (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant: some explanation of that would help considerably. I'm still not sure that "ignored" is the right word; it suggest carelessness or arrogance, and so is arguably WP:EDITORIALISING contra WP:NPOV UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The citation for Bodner & Pardue says, "When the chemistry of these elements is discussed, hydrogen is separated from the others and astatine is ignored because it is radioactive." The citation for Cherim says, "Astatine is often ignored because of unavailability." --- Sandbh (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "their status has not been confirmed" seems to be crying out for an {{as of}}.
Done. Sandbh (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Z = 112: can this be explained for non-chemists?
Done. Sandbh (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
General properties
[edit]
  • I've never seen a hatnote like "Physical properties apply to elements in their most stable forms in ambient conditions": how does this usage compare with other Chemistry FAs?
Metalloid is an FA that uses a similar notes, here at the top of the Common applications section, and here at the top of the Elements commonly recognised as metalloids section. I’ve copy-edited the note in question. Sandbh (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation density in this section isn't great; in the first paragraph, for example, we have three sentences, bundle-cite to three pages of a text. It would be clearer, more verifiable and more reassuring to break down precisely where each claim comes from, or at least to bundle only by the claims on each page. The bundle-cite for the second paragraph would also benefit from the same treatment: telling readers that everything in this (not overly small) chunk of text is somewhere in seven pages of two different sources isn't ideal.
The first paragraph has two citations and two notes; in turn, the notes have seven citations.
The second paragraph has one bundle-cite of two citations: Herzfeld (1927), and Edwards (2000). The whole paragraph is a condensed summary of what Edwards says (in ten paragraphs, over ~2.5 pages), as part of a 29-page chapter in the book, The New Chemistry. I originally showed the cite as four pages but one of the pages has an historical picture which adds nothing to Edwards' explanation so I’ve trimmed that one page from the cite. He manages to spread out his explanation over the 2.5 pages hence my citation (now) refers to three pages. The first cite is to Herzfeld, as mentioned by Edwards, who first explained the microscopic electronic origins of the differences between metals and nonmetals. I have now switched the order of the cites in the bundle, since Herzfeld is there only because he is mentioned by Edwards. --- Sandbh (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid abbreviations like "e.g." in prose; use "for example", "such as" instead.
Done---Sandbh (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3D should be spelt out as "three-dimensional", similar to the above.
Done---Sandbh (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the third paragraph appears to be uncited, or at least it isn't clear what's cited to where.
I’ve rearranged the paragraph and added some further citations. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonmetallic elements are either shiny, colored, or colorless: isn't everything either coloured or colourless? And aren't some things both colourful and shiny?
No, everything is not either coloured or colourless. Only a few metals such as gold, for example, are coloured, the rest have a lustrous, shiny or “metallic” appearance. Among the nonmetals there are shiny nonmetals like graphite; coloured ones such as sulfur, and colourless ones like hydrogen. Sandbh (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For boron, graphitic carbon, silicon, black phosphorus, germanium, arsenic, selenium, antimony, tellurium, and iodine, their structures": clearer to rephrase subject-first: "The structures of boron, graphitic carbon ..."
Copy edited for consistency with the rest of the paragraph. Sandbh (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As further up, WL terms like "delocalised electrons", and consider explaining in text or a footnote if understanding them is crucial to the reader's comprehension of the text.
I've added "(free-moving)". --- Sandbh (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "colored nonmetals (sulfur, fluorine, chlorine, bromine) absorb some colours (wavelengths)": we've crossed the Atlantic in terms of WP:ENGVAR here.
I replaced all English spellings of colour with their US versions except for direct quotations. —-- Sandbh (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "transmit the complementary colours": what does this mean?
I've added "or opposite" and adjusted the following mention of chlorine to serve as an example. --- Sandbh (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For chlorine, its "familiar yellow-green colour...is due to a broad region of absorption in the violet and blue regions of the spectrum"": per WP:PLAGFORM (and usual practice on plagiarism), material quoted or closely paraphrased (as opposed to summarised) in the text also needs to be attributed in the text.
There is a citation to Elliot immediately following the quoted text. --- Sandbh (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; citation isn't enough here, there also needs to be attribution (e.g. "According to Elliot..."), per WP:PLAGFORM. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have followed the WP:PLAGFORM guidance and added an in-text attribution, since the quote encompasses nigh on a complete sentence. I did the same for one other such example I found upon checking the article (re "snowflakes"). --- Sandbh (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the colorless nonmetals (hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and the noble gases) their": this and similar examples need a comma after the brackets
Done, noting that sometimes the decision as to wether or not to add a comma seemed to be rather finely balanced. --- Sandbh (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine the sentence written without the brackets: "For the colorless nonmetals, (hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and the noble gases) their". UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "free moving" and similar need a hyphen when used as adjectives.
Done for free moving. --- Sandbh (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Plasticity occurs under limited circumstances only in carbon, phosphorus, sulfur, and selenium": are these the only nonmetals to show plasticity, or do these specific nonmetals only show plasticity in rare circumstances? More generally, I don't think this statement is actually cited anywhere.
Yes, the “only” means only in those nonmetals. The footnote immediately following lists in what forms these four show plasticity. --- Sandbh (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant: that should be clarified in the text. The citation does show that those four show plasticity; however, there's nothing cited to say that only those four do. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is very good. I removed the “only” and merged the footnote into the text, after some trimming of the main body text. It looks much better now, thanks. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography
[edit]
  • There's nothing technically wrong with the way that it's currently set up, but having such a colossal bibliography formatted entirely manually seems like asking for trouble in WP:DURABLE terms.
Hmm. WP does not, AFAIK, have a preferred style of citing/bibliography construction aside from deprecating parenthetical cites (nor do the FA criteria). The formatting of the bibliography e.g. in the case of journals and monographs is fairly self-evident. --- Sandbh (talk) 11:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed not, and so my comment that there's nothing technically wrong with it: this is an advisory comment. However, using (for example) {{cite book}} would make the article more durable (in other words, idiot-proof) for future editors. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve added a short html note to the front of the Bibliography section setting out a referencing style guide. --- Sandbh (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I dont like the title and scope

[edit]

Sandbh (principal author of this FA nom) and I have been around this issue previously: I like neither the title nor the scope of the article. It is written like a old-fashioned high school-level overview of a theme that does not exist in my world as an inorganic chemist. Fuddy-duddy. "Nonmetal" is a demarcation in some depictions of the Periodic Table about the properties of elements. IMHO, the topic should be expanded and relabeled to Main Group Chemistry, a vibrant area of inorganic chemistry. The cutting edge topics in main group chemistry are missing (or scattered throughout Wikipedia). But again, I have tried to debate this distinction previously with little traction from other editors but eliciting a robust defense (territoriality?) by Sandbh. I also am opinionated. The article looks nice, presents truths, and is well organized. Good luck with the FA. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Smokefoot: Thanks for your closing comment that, "the article looks nice, presents truths, and is well organized."
NB. Smokefoot and I had previously politely discussed the topic of Nonmetal (chemistry) here. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging as well @Double sharp, YBG, Dirac66, Doncram, Michael D. Turnbull, Petergans, Mirokado, ComplexRational, CactiStaccingCrane, Guerillero, and SandyGeorgia: all of whom have previously reviewed the article. All are invited to comment, but none are obligated. I would've included DePiep but for him being site-banned. --- Sandbh (talk) 02:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for the ping, Sandbh; I wish I could help, especially considering all the time I put in to this article last year, but real life has not been kind to me of late, and I am struggling to keep up with health issues on the homefront and barely keeping up on Wikipedia. So sorry :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also thanks for the ping. I will be happy to look at this starting 6 June or thereabouts, but cannot do much before then. -- Mirokado (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Materialscientist and Nick-D who commented during FAC nomination #2. Are you able to comment on this nomination(?); there's no obligation. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging buidhe, Hog Farm and ComplexRational who commented during FAC nomination #1. Are you able to comment on this nomination(?); there's no obligation. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild: I seem to have run out of prospective reviewers. Is it OK to ask for help at the FAC talk page? --- Sandbh (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think your previous pings may have malfunctioned; square brackets yield piped links, not pings. Perhaps asking on their user talk pages would work better? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Or should that be “d’oh” I see. Good thing I asked and will try again. —- Sandbh (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Materialscientist and Nick-D: who commented during FAC nomination #2. Are you able to comment on this nomination(?); there's no obligation. Thank you --- Sandbh (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Doncram

[edit]

Responding to ping. This will not be a complete review. I just read the lede and some more.

  • As I recall about this topic, the term is not one in general use. My impression is that it is an artifact of the early days when people were trying to make sense of the elements and compounds and tried "metal" vs. "non-metal" as a classification, as part of a way of understanding. The lede speaks as if this is a modern thing, however. I believe it must be explained this is a framework once believed to be helpful, and then what its current status is (either not regarded as helpful by anyone, or regarded helpful by some (whom?) for some reasons to be explained in the body of the article.
  • As I recall from before, perhaps the most salient thing about this topic is that there is NOT general agreement about what defines non-metals, what elements are included or not. The lede states that, but then goes on to speak as if there exists objective criteria:

    The superheavy elements copernicium (element 112), flerovium (114), and oganesson (118) may turn out to be nonmetals. As of April 2023 their status has not been confirmed.

This begs the question of who will make the determination and on what basis. And if there is a basis, then why are non-metals not really definable?
  • I do appreciate the box at the top right showing a portion of the periodic table of elements, identifying non-metals vs. metalloids. And the inclusion of the recognizable small version of a complete periodic table at the bottom. In my past comments, I believe I was adamant that graphical presentation like this, up front, was needed. Thank you for that.
I am sorry not to be more helpful, but the first two items I just mentioned undermine my ability to see this as featured-ready. I do hope this is helpful nonetheless. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 02:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Please discount my opinion greatly. I have no relevant expertise at all, and i sort of wish i never butted in (though i vaguely recall maybe i was invited somehow) at all. I originally thot my "outsider" perspective would be helpful but i think it was not. In fact i feel for my own peace of mind i shouldn't have commented here. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 03:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, please do not worry on this point. In so far as we can the FAC coordinators require a non-specialist's input and support on technical articles. We are writing an encyclopedia and it is always nice to know that such articles are not merely informing those who are already informed. So you have provided a valuable service. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Doncram. Thanks for your comments and your "outsider" (as you put it) perspective.

  • AFAIK, the term nonmetal remains in relatively popular use. For example, the Royal Society of Chemistry's English Chemistry Curriculum Map for KS4 (Years 10 and 11) says, "Trends in the periodic table; Explain the reactivity and general properties as related to the atomic structure of groups 1, 7 and 0; between metals and non-metals."
Closer to home, a search of American Chemical Society journals for the terms "non(-)metal/s", yielded the following numbers of hits over the periods shown:
Period Hits
2018-2023 3,519
2012-2017 2,077
2006-2011 1,812
2000-2005 713
  • Copernicium (element 112) may turn out to be an insulator and flerovium (114) and oganesson (118) may turn out to be semiconductors, rather than metals, due to relativistic effects. Bulk quantities of these elements have not been synthesized so all we can go on is theory and inference. Since there are no semiconducting or insulating metals the classification decisions for these superheavy elements should be relatively straightforward.
The semiconducting or insulating status of an element is not always helpful in determining nonmetallic status. So, carbon as graphite—which is as good a nonmetal as any—is a semimetal (in the physics sense of the term) along its planes but a semiconductor in a direction vertical to its planes.

Would you be in a position to review your ability to see this article as featured-ready? Thank you, --- Sandbh (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Mike Turnbull

[edit]

As I said in an earlier review, it is inherently difficult to write an article about a topic that is defined by what it is not: not-a-metal, especially when there are clear edge cases. Nevertheless, as an organic chemist, virtually all the compounds I care about are made from combinations of these elements and together they represent the overwhelming majority of known compounds. The term "nonmetal" may indeed be falling out of fashion, as Smokefoot suggests but, given that Wikipedia has such an article I think it is reasonable to evaluate it by the usual FA criteria. On that basis, I support its promotion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards

[edit]

These sentences in the Lead "Most nonmetals have biological, technological or domestic applications". "Nearly all nonmetals have individual uses in medicine, pharmaceuticals, lighting, lasers, and household items" are also true for metals. The article still doesn't come across as authoritative. I can't see how our readers will gain an understanding of what a nonmetal is (if indeed such a thing exists) when even the authors seem unsure. Graham Beards (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graham.
Re the uses of nonmetals I have adjusted the subject paragraph in the Lead to read:
"The distinctive properties of nonmetallic elements allow for specific applications that often cannot be fulfilled by metallic elements alone. Living organisms are composed almost entirely of the nonmetals hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen. Nonmetallic elements are important to industries ranging from electronics and energy storage to agriculture and chemical production."
I have likewise adjusted the corresponding section in the main body of the article.
Re the authoritativeness of the article, chemistry has all sorts of fuzzy definitions. For example, there is the IUPAC definition of a hydrogen bond. Rather than a black or white categorisation, the definition provides that the greater the number of criteria satisfied, the more reliable is the characterisation.
The situation with regard to what is a nonmetal is no different.
The lead paragraph of the section Definition and applicable elements seeks to accommodate this situation as follows:
"A nonmetal is a chemical element that, in the broadest sense of the term, has a relatively low density and high electronegativity.[7] More generally they are deemed to lack a preponderance of metallic properties such as luster or shininess; the capacity to be flattened into a sheet or drawn into a wire; good thermal and electrical conductivity; and the capacity to form a basic (rather than acidic) oxide.[8] Since there is no rigorous definition of a nonmetal,[9] some variation exists among sources as to which elements are classified as such. The decisions involved depend on which property or properties are regarded as most indicative of nonmetallic or metallic character."
Do my foregoing responses address your concerns? --- Sandbh (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. Graham Beards (talk) 09:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Graham Beards, 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) 19:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would feel uncomfortable seeing this article on the Main Page as TFA. It does not give me the impression that the concept of a "nonmetal" is anything more than a vague, and an ill-defined one. Despite reading it, I am still left wondering if indeed they exist! Since you asked, I oppose promotion. Sorry Sandbh. Graham Beards (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your oppose is OK by me Graham Beards, for the following reasons:
1. I understand that FAC opposes are judged based on the merits attached to the oppose rather than the oppose itself.
2. Chemistry is full of fuzzy definitions.
3. The article notes that there is no rigorous definition of a nonmetal; that some variation exists among sources as to which elements are classified as such; and that the decisions involved depend on which property or properties are regarded as most indicative of nonmetallic or metallic character.
4. As Michael D. Turnbull (an organic chemist) observed, virtually all the compounds they care about are made from combinations of nonmetals; and it is inherently difficult to write an article about a topic that is defined by what it is not: not-a-metal, especially when there are clear edge cases. Nevertheless, and here it is me who is resuming the narrative, whole books have been written about nonmetals, the most recent of which was an updated (2020) English version of the German 5th edition on nonmetals of 2013, incorporating the literature up to Spring 2019.
5. As Mike further noted, combinations of nonmetals represent the overwhelming majority of known compounds.
6. Any chemistry textbook will refer to the concepts of metals and nonmetals, and their differences. Yes, some fuzziness occurs in the frontier territory where the metals meet the nonmetals, and the article captures this, consistent with literature and the nature of chemistry. --- thank you, Sandbh (talk) 07:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing if the article is of FA standard and I don't think it is. I also think there are problems with the title, (do chemists have a unique concept of a metal that material scientists don't share?) and current scope of the article. I find the noisy table confuses me more than it informs me. The article just doesn't come across as an "example of our best work". Sorry. Graham Beards (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado

[edit]
  • §Unclassified nonmetals: "In periodic-table terms, a geographic analogy..." There is a stray double quote mark at the end of the paragraph. Is there a missing opening quote mark (in which case embedded quotes should be single) or can it be removed?
  • §Cost: "Based on the available literature as of April 2023, while the cited costs of most nonmetals are less than the $US0.74 per gram cost of silver,[ref] boron, phosphorus, germanium, xenon, and radon (notionally) are exceptions:" The lack of distinction of silver as not part of the rest of the list makes it a bit difficult to parse this on first reading. I suggest two sentences, for example: "Based on the available literature as of April 2023, the cited costs of most nonmetals are less than the $US0.74 per gram cost of silver.[ref] Boron, phosphorus, germanium, xenon, and radon (notionally) are exceptions:"

I have read through to the Uses section and will continue later.---- Mirokado (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mirokado. I have removed the stray double quote mark, and split the long costs sentence into two, as you suggested. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No further comments after reading through the rest of the article. It gives a good overview of the various aspects of not-being-a-metal. It is a pleasure to support. -- Mirokado (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Given the comments by UndercoverClassicist and Graham and in spite of the supports the nomination has garnered, it seems that a consensus to promote is not going to form. So, with regret, I am archiving this. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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) 21 June 2023 [9].

Cross of Saint James

[edit]
Nominator(s): --evrik (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the heraldic badge name after the apostle James and used throughout Spain and Portugal. --evrik (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you @Nikkimaria: for the image review. I went ahead and removed the fixed px size and added alt text. I looked at WP:NOTGALLERY. First, I added the images at the suggestion of the GA reviewer. Looking at the four points listed there, I think the first three don't apply. As for the fourth, all the images have accompanying text, they are all referenced in one way for another in the text to illustrate the content. All the images are from the commons.
I fixed File:Principe_de_Asturias.jpg, File:Saintjamesconquistador.JPG and File:Quevedo_(copia_de_Velázquez).jpg. Not sure how to fix File:Coat_of_Arms_of_La_Rioja_(Spain).svg. Suggestions? --evrik (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They all have captions, but I wouldn't agree they all have corresponding text in the article. WP:IG outlines in some more detail considerations on when galleries are or are not appropriate.
When was the CoA first published? Also, when and where was File:Principe_de_Asturias.jpg first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The CoA? According to Coat of arms of La Rioja, it looks like 1957. I can swap that out for File:Cruz de Santiago - Clavijo.jpg or File:Escudo de Santiago de Compostela.svg
As for File:Principe_de_Asturias.jpg, both the artist and subject died in 1937 ... but After having gone down through the rabbit hole, no answer as to publication date. Looking at List_of_works_by_Philip_de_László, I can't find that for any of his works. I can swap the image with this one: File:Frans Pourbus d. Ä. 005.jpg which was painted in the 16th century.
I have looked at WP:IG, and read this.

Generally, a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text. A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made.

I can expand this section to add more descriptive text. I didn't initially because it was already said elsewhere. Thanks for your insights. --evrik (talk)

Oppose from Unlimitedlead

[edit]

Unfortunately, I do not believe this article fulfills the FA standards, and possibly not the GA standards either. As Nikkimaria pointed out, the article is mainly just a gallery of images, and there is very little information on the Cross of Saint James itself. Additionally, there are several sourcing issues, including but not limited to: the usage of a Bible passage as a citation, improper formatting of further reading sources, and the usage of antiquated sources. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the input. I disagree that Nikkimaria said this was an image gallery. She asked about it, and I have answered that above. The Bible is referenced where it describes the manner of the saints death. I sourced it as best I could. Of the 13 different language versions of this subject, this is the largest and most complete. In fact, the French article seems to be a copy/paste translate from a few days ago. I'm always looking for better sourcing, if you have any suggestions, please pass them along. --evrik (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Airship

[edit]

There will always be questions about comprehensiveness with an article as short as this. Having had a good look around relevant sources, I think it's probably just about fine in that respect; one or two citation could even be removed (no need to cite a Bible passage if it's stated in a WP:RS)! I would however echo the image concerns above—absolutely none of the images in the gallery section "add to the reader's understanding of the subject", and all of them "cause unbalance to the article [with] similar or repetitive images". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • SN43129: I'm extremely sympathetic Unlimitedlead's oppose. While there are no strict length requirements (but then, WP:FA? only has eleven requirements of anykind; everything else you see here is frankly custom and practice), WP:GVF makes it pretty clear that the criteria for FAs is basically that of GAs but writ large. Supersized in quality; but also, presumably, in quantity. At the moment, our lowest-length FA is Miss Meyers, at 680 words; this article is ~20% less than that. As a GA, it only has to be "Broad in its coverage"; as a FA it has to "stay... focused on the main topic". I do not see that happening here, and it is ambiguous as to what the "main topic" is. Heraldry? A cake? The crusades? At the end of the day, we have to follow the reliable sources. If RS have not covered a subject, however niche, then we cannot. We cannot write the RSs for them. If, in future, the topic is picked up in (high-quality) RSs, we can (and should) follow suit. But until then, we cannot write an article without the sources, and we certainly can't write a featured article without multiple high-quality ones. Also, AirshipJungleman29 makes excellent points per the gallery. SN54129 18:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    100% agreed. My nominal reasons for opposing this nomination were the trivial matters above, but my underlying attitude towards this article are exactly what SN expressed concerns about. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coord note -- based on the above I think we need to archive this and work on improvements outside the pressures of the FAC system; I'd strongly recommend a Peer Review as well before any future nomination here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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) 20 June 2023 [10].

2022 Tour Championship

[edit]
Nominator(s): User:HurricaneHiggins, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2022 edition of the Tour Championship. The event takes the best eight players and puts them against each other for a massive prize over long frames just before the World Snooker Championship. Neil Robertson won six frames in a row in the final to win <the event for a second time. This is a part of the Featured Topic on the Tour Championship as all prior events are FA. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a good article. I think the overall description of the 2022 Tour Championship went well. In particular, it is good to deal with details about the schedule, venue, and participants of the event. In addition, I think the reliability of the article has been increased by using accurate sources.--CHO woohyuck (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Sorry been not too well. I shall see if I can drum up interest. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but this one has been a bit of a non-starter so will archive shortly. Given the relative lack of commentary I'm prepared to waive the usual two-week pause before a re-nom but it sounds like a break might be in order anyway, and why not? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "was the third and final event in the 2021–22 Cazoo Cup series, first introduced in the 2018–19 snooker season" - the 2021-22 series wasn't introduced in 2018-19. Suggest "was the third and final event in the 2021–22 edition of the Cazoo Cup, a [competition/tournament/concept/some other appropriate word] first introduced in the 2018–19 snooker season"
  • "guaranteeing that he would win the Cazoo Cup, regardless of the outcome of the final, having won the Players Championship and been runner-up in the World Grand Prix, the other two Cazoo Series events" - are the Cazoo Cup and the Cazoo Series the same thing?
  • "O'Sullivan became the first player to make five century breaks in two consecutive matches" - maybe "O'Sullivan became the first player to make five century breaks in each of two consecutive matches" so it doesn't sound like you are saying he made a total five centuries across the two matches
  • Think that's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: I thought a ping might be helpful.--NØ 19:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, was taking a mental health break. I am back, shall take a look at the above comments shortly. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review - pass

[edit]
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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 19 June 2023 [11].

All My Hits: Todos Mis Éxitos Vol. 2

[edit]
Nominator(s): – jona ✉ 23:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the second volume of Selena's hits. The article has since been expanded through sources retrieved from WP:REX and I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. Thanks – jona ✉ 23:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose on text. The lead uses seems comprised of flowery language that goes into wp:PEACOCK territory, as well as using too many words just for the sake of it. I’ll give a more specific breakdown in the morning of the issues I see. - SchroCat (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. I did some modifications to texts that I believed might be considered to be peacockish. Let me know if I missed anything, hopefully, the mods took care of this issue. Thanks – jona ✉ 00:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead & IB
  • "released posthumously on February 29, 2000": Unsourced. At no point in this article body is the release date mentioned or cited (I don't count the announcement of "Leap Day 2000" as valid: announcements get shifted, historical release dates don't). That's a huge red flag. Even by the end of the article a reader has no idea whether this was a release into one small market, a region one or a global one. I would expect to see something about release information somewhere, but having it unsourced in the opening line and IB is not the way to go.
  • "Selena persisted as": 'persisted as': Although I speak BrEng, I'm not sure this is right in AmEng either and should be better expressed
  • "surpassing the sales of living musicians with her releases." I know you're said it's a posthumous release in 2000, but we have no idea of when she died (this point is slightly pernickety, but either just a few words of context are needed, or 'surpassing the sales of all other artists on the label')
  • "Vol. 2 encompasses 16 songs": it doesn't "encompass" them, is contains or comprises of them
  • "Subsequent to Selena's death": What's wrong with "After"?
  • "critical acclaim from music critics, who lauded the": reaching for the sick bag here. 'critical acclaim' is one of the most overused phrases in Wiki's popular culture output. Do you have a secondary source which backs up the claim? Not a few (primary source) reviews who go overboard with praise, but a secondary source that examines all the reviews and comes to that judgement? (I see the one professional rating from the The Encyclopedia of Popular Music only rates it as 3/5 stars, so I'm thinking probably not. Ditto "lauded". That's fan-speak, not encyclopaedic wording.
  • "Vol. 2 procured a nomination": procured?

That's just the lead and I have gone lightly on it too. I could have been more critical about it, but for two paragraphs, I think that's enough to show that this shouldn't be at FAC until it's re-written from top to bottom. However, a quick skim through the rest shows the same sorts of problems also show up there. Background – no need for the pull quote, that should be in the body with come context. In too many points words are erroneously selected, which either jars or leaves this reader wondering whether this is an encyclopaedic entry or a puff piece: "eclipsing the sales of contemporaneous musicians", "pendant adorned with an image of Selena" There's a quote in the Background section: "buying frenzy". I can't see that phrase anywhere in the online copy, and that's a real problem for me. My Oppose stands, based solely on the text. - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

The article only has one image, and I believe it has the appropriate licensing, attribution, and usage. ALT text is there too. This passes the image review. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 17 June 2023 [12].

Johannes van Damme

[edit]
Nominator(s): WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first European to be executed in modern day Singapore, who claimed he was tricked into carrying a bag with hidden drugs but research showed he was caught up in an international DEA sting WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal. Stubby, one-line paragraphs, unsourced material, lead too short, clearly lacks comprehensiveness. I'm afraid it's currently in breach of most of the FAC criteria. Revise and resubmit, please. Although the subject has got potential. Perhaps a FAC mentor might be a good idea? Ask at WT:FAC. Conversely, there may not be much point: with all the notices on your page and your inability to stop uploading tangential and poor quality copyright-violating photos, etc., you may not be here for much longer. Best of luck! SN54129 09:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16 June 2023 [13].

Eiji Tsuburaya

[edit]
Nominator(s): Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Due to his globally renowned creations on film (e.g. Godzilla) and television (e.g. Ultraman) which still often reappear onscreen, special effects director Eiji Tsuburaya (1901-1970) has become one of the most influential individuals in film history; I desire to make this page an FA article so people can recognize his achievements in time to celebrate the 122 anniversary of his birthday on July 7! (like the popularity the Wikipedia page got when Google made a doodle of his monsters in 2015). I've been working on Tsuburaya's page for a long time now, and it has had a peer review and has been promoted to GA status already this year. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination

[edit]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Eiji_Tsuburaya.jpg needs a tag for US status. Ditto File:Eiji_Tsuburaya_and_Yamata_no_Orochi.jpg, File:Eiji_Tsuburaya,_Charlton_Heston,_and_Sanezumi_Fujimoto.png, File:Behind_the_Scenes_of_Mothra_1961.jpg, File:Tsuburaya_family_and_Tetsuo_Kinjō.jpg, File:Eiji_Tsuburaya_Manda.jpg, File:Behind_the_Scenes_of_None_but_the_Brave_1965.jpg, File:Eiji_Tsuburaya_and_Kōji_Furuhata.jpg, File:Eiji_and_Godzilla.jpg, File:Eiji_Tsuburaya_and_Ultraman.jpg, File:Eiji_and_Ishiro.jpg
I've added {{PD-1996|country=Japan}} to all of them. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 4:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
That tagging will not work in all cases. For example, File:Eiji_Tsuburaya_and_Yamata_no_Orochi.jpg has a tag indicating it is PD in Japan because it was published more than 50 years ago. Assuming it was published on the given date of 1959, that would have its Japanese copyright expiring in 2009 - after the URAA date. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Eiji_Tsuburaya_Signature.svg appears to be creative enough to warrant copyright protection
  • File:Eiji_and_Sei_Tsuburaya.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Eiji_Tsuburaya_with_comrades.jpg, File:Inoshiro_Honda_and_Godzilla.jpg, File:Filming_of_Invisible_Man_(1954).jpg, File:Eiji_Tsuburaya_and_crew_working_on_Godzilla_(1954).jpg
File:Eiji_and_Sei_Tsuburaya.jpg and File:Eiji_Tsuburaya_with_comrades.jpg are from the 2007 and 2014 editions of Eiji Tsuburaya: Master of Monsters but falls under {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} and the others were photographed prior to 1957 but were found in publications later than that date. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 4:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Eiji Tsubaraya was from an American publisher - if those were indeed the first publication of those images it is unlikely they are PD in the US. The others are missing information on first publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've found a few pics in a Western publication from 1964 and thus can assume that they in the public domain in the U.S. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Invisible_Man_reveals_himself_-_The_Invisible_Man_Appears.gif is not a photograph - the oldphoto tag does not apply
I didn't really know what else to tag it; any suggestions? Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 4:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Was this work also released in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its a gif from the original 1949 Japanese trailer that was uploaded to YouTube two years ago by Arrow Video. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Eiji_Tsuburaya's_Gravepost.jpg needs a tag for the original work
Done. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 4:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Does not appear to be done? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Idk what else to tag it apart from CC BY-SA 3.0 which it already has. Any suggestions? Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Eiji_Tsuburaya_Museum.jpg is incorrectly tagged and needs a stronger FUR
Corrected for future reduction by bot. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 4:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Still needs a stronger FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of issues here I'm going to oppose on images at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria and Eiga-Kevin2: I'm so sorry for missing out on these problems in my original GA review: I'm still not that good at reviewing images, so I must have failed to check tags properly... Oltrepier (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I feel like this has defeated me as well, I'm also sorry I didn't correctly tag these pics; I just used the most common tags that have been used on Commons and here due to lots of images having these tags for years and barely commenting on them until now. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering replacing almost all the images on the page, I've started with the infobox pic which I replaced with an image that was published in the U.S. via the Associated Press in 1961. Also, I found File:Eiji and Sei Tsuburaya.jpg seems to fall under {{PD-US-unpublished}} which should allow it to stay on the page. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've hidden the images that have an uncertain copyright status in the U.S., for now, to discuss them in the future and added new images that are in the Public Domain in the U.S. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 16 June 2023 [14].

Tokyo Mirage Sessions ♯FE

[edit]
Nominator(s): Therealgamer1234 (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a role playing game that has become famous around the world, I believe it has all the elements that make it a featured article, although I am new and want experience with wikipedia, this article it a great way to start, I want more experienced editors to take a look at it and see if it truly does meet elements of featured article criteria, let's make it quick so that it can be featured in June 24, 2023, the aniversary date of its international release! Therealgamer1234 (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Therealgamer1234, welcome. A couple things you should be aware of: first off, it's very unlikely that this will be featured by June 24. This process does take a bit of time, especially when edits are needed. Second, part of the process is that if you're not one of the significant contributors to the article, you should consult with them before nomination - I see that you posted to their talk pages after you nominated. Finally, getting an article featured requires some pretty in-depth understanding of Wikipedia's manual of style, image licensing, citation practices, and more. I'd suggest getting your feet wet outside of FAC before nominating an article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, I think the editors that I have summoned do have pretty in-depth understanding of the manual of style, so they can finish what I have started! Let's make this article awesome and featured! I think this article is perfect on its own! Miracles can happen! :) --Therealgamer1234 (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's turn this [15] into TMSFE! --Therealgamer1234 (talk) 04:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Therealgamer1234: even if a TFA had not already been picked for June 24 (which it has) there is literally zero chance of this article getting to FA status before then (only nine days away), so I would not focus on that. Look at some of the nominations near the bottom of the FAC page - they have been open for six or seven weeks and still not promoted. It's completely unrealistic to think that an article can get to FA in nine days -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This reply is to say, in response to the message on my talk page from the nominator so this can be on record, that I've zero interest in helping to bring this article to FA, and feel I should oppose on grounds similar to the last FAC: not many contributions from the nominator. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not relevant here, but the history of the nominator is a little odd. Nominated an article at FAC with only their second ever edit, only created their account today but knew how to find the TFA queue, and within 16 minutes of creating an account posted on their user page "Throughout my time on Wikipedia, I have made numerous contributions to various articles". I suppose they could previously have edited as an IP but it just looks a bit fishy...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Therealgamer1234:@ChrisTheDude:, well we can expidite the FAC process to make it quick (to be done in less than 9 days), and my userpage was written by ChatGPT, sorry about that. In addition, the plot's 5 paragraphs are well cited!
(P.S: If somebody else can improve this article to FA, I'll be welcome for that!)--Therealgamer1234 (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the plot's 5 paragraphs are well cited! - there is literally not a single citation in the plot section. I hope this doesn't come across as rude or condescending, as it's not meant to, but are you familiar with what citing means? If not, I'd suggest you spend a lot of time familiarising yourself with WP before jumping right into nominating articles for FA..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citing a plot usually isn't necessary, per WP:PLOTCITE. Panini! • 🥪 18:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my point (possibly quite badly made) was not that citations were needed, but that Therealgamer1234 was saying that the section was "well cited" when it didn't contain any citations at all, leading me to question if they understood what citing actually meant..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Unlimitedlead

[edit]

While I do find all the aforementioned details about the nominator suspicious, I am afraid I have to oppose this nomination, not on the grounds that were mentioned above, but because the Plot section consists of five, large paragraphs that are all unreferenced. I suggest that the nominator first take the article to PR and get some more knowledge of Wikipedia's workings before returning to FA. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further inspection of the article's talk page, I see that the now globally-locked User:Yoichi Tachibana previously took this article to PR, giving the same reasoning as this user has for nominating the article. I am aware that FA is probably not the place for these theories, but any chance that this user is a sockpuppet? Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unlimitedlead Probably just Coincidence. --Therealgamer1234 (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Aoba47

[edit]

Looking through Special:Contributions/Therealgamer1234, they have not made a single edit to the main article. They have seemingly not consulted with any of the article's major contributors on a potential FAC. Their expected time frame is unrealistic as FACs are kept active for at least two weeks (i.e. 14 days) from my experience. Rushing a FAC is never a good look.

The "Plot" section does need a citation as the game serves the primary source for that; see Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward as an example. I think the bigger issues are the nominator's lack of contributions to the article. I think the sockpuppet aspect deserves more discussion and should not just be completely dismissed as without merit or just a coincidence. But either way, this FAC is not appropriately done. Aoba47 (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - personally I'd be quite surprised if a FAC was closed in anything less than a month these days. BTW I presume you meant to write that the "Plot" section does not need a citation....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: done that. Therealgamer1234 (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for the message and apologies for my typo. I did mean that the "Plot" section does not need citations. I agree that FACs usually take longer. I was more so saying that I think even under the most ideal conditions (i.e. a FAC getting a lot of commentary and support), that coordinators would not even consider promoting it until after at least two weeks or so. I would say that a month is the time frame nominators should more so expect if that makes sense. Apologies again. Just having a weird headache today so having trouble focusing. Aoba47 (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from KGRAMR

[edit]

Sorry but no, i have to oppose this FA nomination. While i have done some GA nominations so far, i can understand the amount of work it takes to make into said status, but FA is a whole different can of worms and is more strict than the GA nominations. The user nominating the article is not a significant contributor of the article, which can be evidenced by the page's history section. Also, trying to make it an FA prior to the game's sixth anniversary of its international release seems ill advised, like just for the sake of being featured on Wikipedia's main page. Those are my reasonings... Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from TAOT

[edit]

ProtoDrake is the one who's done the work here, while the nominator has made only a single edit to the article. With ProtoDrake in opposition, I have no choice but to oppose on principle, and doubly so because this nomination is drive-by. FAC is an involved process and the nominator must be very familiar with the subject and the sources in the article. The nom here has essentially no mainspace participation and therefore has no business nominating anything. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 9 June 2023 [16].

United States Space Force

[edit]
Nominator(s): Garuda28 (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the United States Space Force, a U.S. military branch. Garuda28 (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 June 2023 [17].

The Scientist (song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Luckich (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely one of the greatest songs of all time. And the article is wonderful; please see it and if there are mistakes I will solve them. Luckich (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luckich, I absolutely agree this is the best song from the best album of its era. Are you familiar enough with the FA criteria and the article and its sources to address any comments? Reviewers often have queries about an article's comprehensiveness. Have you compared it to other FAs about songs? Paint It Black is the most similar I can think of but we have dozens (hundreds?) of FAs on songs. You don't seem to have made many edits to the article to prepare it for FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • To piggyback off the comments from @HJ Mitchell:, according to the page statistics, the nominator has made six edits to the article and is not one of the main contributors to the article. Have you tried reaching out to any of the article's primary contributors to see how they would feel about a potential FAC?
  • That being said, I do notice some issues with the article on a superficial glance. It is unusual to cite the release date and genre in the infobox when that information should be in the article itself with the appropriate citations. The Bleeping Computer report is only in the lead and not in the article, which is inappropriate as the lead should be an overview of the article and not have original information outside of that. The caption for the audio sample does not provide a strong enough reason for including a piece of non-free media. I also think it is jarring that the actual article starts off with (Lead singer Chris Martin wrote...) without introducing the actual band Coldplay first, which is not brought up by name until the "Release" section. There is a citation needed tag in the "Release" section and an original research tag in the "Other versions" section. These are examples of issues that should have been addressed prior to a FAC.
  • Again, this is just from looking at it fairly quickly, but if I notice these kinds of errors, then I do not think it is ready for a FAC. Have you considered putting this article through the peer review process instead? I think it would benefit from that prior to a FAC. I hope these comments do not come across as rude or overwhelming. I am always happy to see a song article in the FAC space and to see a new face in the process so I hope this does not discourage you from working on the article further. I just do not think this article is ready. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Hi Luckich, based on the points raised above (as well as some statements missing citations or being tagged as needing clarification) I expect to archive this shortly and would advise working with other editors of the article on any future nomination. One thing I am curious about though is how you created this nomination -- the edit history of the article talk page doesn't indicate you used {{subst:FAC}} per the FAC instructions... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I assume it was simply done by copying an existing nom page and putting in this article's name, I can't think of anything else. Anyway, FTR, to help FACbot do its thing when I archive this I've dummied up the FAC template at the top of the article's talk page and we'll see how we go... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 June 2023 [18].

Billy Strachan

[edit]
Nominator(s): The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the drawing board I suppose :(
The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Strachan was a pioneer of Black civil rights in Britain, a leading anti-colonial activist, and the founder of one of Britain's first black newspapers. He is most famous for surviving 33 bombing missions for the Royal Air Force during WWII, when the average life expectancy was 7 missions.

This is my first ever time nominating a potential Featured Article. I have been editing Wikipedia for over three years and I believe this constitutes an example of my highest quality work.

The peer review for this article was very recently completed and archived.

-The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe
  • I think the prose needs editing for WP:IMPARTIAL
  • Frosty's Ramblings (reprinted from the Morning Star and Caribbean Labour Solidarity what makes these high quality WP:RS?
  • There are image licensing issues. All images need {{PD-US}} rationale (t · c) buidhe 14:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you give me an example of how the prose could be changed?
    • The Morning Star in my opinion is one of the most reliable newspapers in Britain, especially when it comes to topics of mid-20th century British issues. However user 'Mujinga' in the peer review noted that Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources had downgraded the Morning Star as a source in 2019. I had meant to phase it its use, which I have done so through an edit on the Billy Strachan wiki I made a few minutes ago. Caribbean Labour Solidarity on the other hand are the publishers of Billy Strachan's biography by David Horsely. Every citation in the article was added by myself and I can attest that the biography published by Caribbean Labour Solidarity is the highest quality and most detailed piece of research ever written on Billy Strachan's life.
    • That could be an issue, nobody ever brought this to my attention before. I was not aware that {{PD-US}} rationale was necessary for FA status. ~~~~
    The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a couple things that I noticed right away: "leading communist" does not appear to be sourced, "the average life expectancy for an RAF crew was seven operations"—the survival rate depends a lot on what aircraft type they are flying and in what theater they are in. I don't know exactly what the source says, but a lot of these figures are based on questionable statistical assumptions for a constant loss rate. In the body this is called "an impressive achievement", which is not for Wikipedia to decide.
    Parts of the article seem excessively based on Strachan's own recollections, it might be a better approach to stick more closely to facts that it is possible to verify and cross reference.
    All images are required to be PD-US and should have a license tag indicating so. (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a shame, if I had known PD-US was necessary then I would never have nominated the article. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a requirement for all articles and images on Commons. Our servers are based in the US so following US copyright law is essential. See wp:public domain (t · c) buidhe 21:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ling

[edit]
  • I'm tempted to say that the refs are in a really muddled state, but maybe this is a style I'm unfamiliar with? I dunno. This is not a style I personally would go along with, even if I make some leeway to accept styles that are not necessarily to my liking... what I mean is... I certainly can accept styles I don't necessarily like, but this one seems to be a bit of an outlier (?) I'm willing to admit that I may be wrong. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 15:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    During the peer review process another editor added shortened versions of the citations when a source is used more than once. It is especially noticeable for Horsley, David Horsley's book Billy Strachan 1921–1988. I do not know if there is a name for this style but the other editors who read through my work appeared to like it so I left it as is. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? What? Kidnapped by the USA??? I'm not saying it's not possible; every government in the world is tinged with some degree of evil (and the more righteous they claim to be, the more you should look askance at them)... but I would need a string of four or five very extremely high-quality sources for an assertion that bold. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 12:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Horsley, David (2019) is Pamphlet published by Caribbean Labour Solidarity. It is cited more than 120 times in this article... What makes this WP:RS? § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 15:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards

[edit]

I have made a few small edits [19]. You need to check the figure legends. Those containing a finite verb should end with a period. I am concerned about the short paragraphs; some of which are only one sentence long. This spoils the flow of the prose, which is generally of a high standard. Graham Beards (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, I noticed the recent edits you made and I am very grateful :) The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on sourcing grounds

  • I see no reason to beleive that anything published by Caribbean Labour Solidarity is a high quality RS per our standards. The passages cited to Horsley 2019 make it sound like a hagiography with a severe POV issue
  • Same with Manifesto Press Cooperative Limited
  • African Stories in Hull and East Yorkshire looks like a SPS to me
  • https://www.history.co.uk/ is not an RS
  • Sourcing style is inconsistent
  • 11 and 17 go to the same place
  • Is the Morning Star an RS?
  • The Frosty's Ramblings reprint looks like an ELNEVER issue
  • Ramharack 2023 is missing important items
  • Why is a blog at the University of London an RS?
  • Marx Memorial Library seems like a suspect publisher
  • Billy Strachan#Historical archives does not read an encyclopedic

--In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 16:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- the nominator did the right thing going to Peer Review before coming here but I think the above indicates that there is still quite a way to go before the article is ready; I'm going to archive the nom so improvements can take place outside the pressures of the FAC process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/June_2023&oldid=1162335908"