Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2024

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) 17 June 2024 [1].

Narwhal[edit]

Also for easier reference:

Nominator(s): Wolverine XI (talk to me) 18:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. For the past 2 months I've been chipping in and rephrasing this article. I've recruited numerous users who provided useful tips. This is my third nomination, and I'm determined to get this article featured. I feel it's ready. Please provide your reviews below. Thank you, Wolverine XI (talk to me) 18:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (Oppose)[edit]

Just some random comments as I spot things. Looking at Special:Permalink/1226680372:

  • The rise of science towards the end of the 17th century led to a decreased belief in magic and alchemy. After it was determined that narwhal tusks were not effective antidotes, the practice of using them for this purpose was subsequently abandoned.[101]
    Are you sure you cited the right reference? None of this appears to be mentioned in the source.
    Used correct source
    I'm afraid I'm not seeing where refs 103 and 104 (refering to Special:Permalink/1227222689 now) support the specific claims in those sentences.
    Linked to purity, magic, healing, and power, unicorn horns were exceptional items in the early modern Wunderkammer, owed by the privileged few. from the 2019 source
    The progress of scientific knowledge, it is argued, led to the exposure of the unicorn as a creature of pure imagination, gladly relinquished by the naturalists in the age of reason. from the 2019 source
    The belief that narwhal tusks were true unicorn horns had decreased by the middle of the seventeenth century. from the 1954 source
    OK, I'm almost there. The only thing I'm still confused about is more the fault of the source's author than yours. Whe Spary says, "The progress of scientific knowledge, it is argued, led to the exposure ...", I can't figure out who's doing the arguing. But, let's call this one verified.
  • Narwhals are internationally protected and hunting one is illegal. However, Inuit are permitted to hunt narwhals for subsistence. Narwhals are very difficult to encroach and present challenging targets for hunters.[86]
    I'm not finding where the cited source supports this statement.
    Fixed
    The new source is "Anne M. Jensen, Glenn W. Sheehan, Stephen A. MacLean", which unfortunately: "Wikimedia Foundation does not subscribe to this content on ScienceDirect." Could you email me a scan of the appropriate pages, please?
    I got the document you sent me, thanks. Unfortunately, it does not support the statement. The relevant section is "B. Narwhal (Monodon monoceros), qilalugaq tuugaalik" (pp. 523-524) but that doesn't say anything about international protection, or the Inuit being allowed to hunt them for subsistence. Maybe the doc you sent me is the wrong edition? The page number and date don't match what's in the citation.
    Removed protection part, but I got the subsistence part from Inuit represent one extreme of the hunter-gatherer paradigm, almost exclusively hunting to thrive in one of Earth's harshest environments, the Arctic. Most Inuit hunting focuses on marine mammals.
    &
    The Inuit diet relied upon the meat and blubber from whales, seals and polar bears (Ursus maritimus)
    @RoySmith: Take a look at this video for context. I think that should be it. Anymore you'd like to check? Wolverine XI (talk to me) 08:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, I'm going to have to state my opposition to this nomination based on failing a source spot-check. No single one of the issues I've noted here, or even a group of them, would be enough to make me say that, but I can't escape the conclusion that I lack confidence that the article as a whole says what the sources say. In this particular instance, after several exchanges, the original text has been edited to remove a statement which (while almost certainly true) is not supported by the cited source, but in doing so, introduced another statement which this time is explicitly contradicted by the source: "For hundreds of years, Inuit people have hunted narwhals". The source says (p 521), "Inuit have hunted marine mammals ... for millennia." and again in the Conclusion (p 525), "Inuit and their ancestors have hunted marine mammals for thousands of years". As for the video, the goal here is to provide WP:RS for our readers, not to provide context for the reviewer. I appreciate that you've put in a lot of effort on this article, and I feel your pain. But from my own experience, I'm pretty sure that you're just burned out on this and just not seeing the problems with the sourcing. Three FACs and two PRs in 5 months is going to burn anybody out. Overall, I think this is generally well written and an important subject, but burnout is real. I think the best thing you can do at this point is to put it down for a few months and go work on other things, then come back later and take a fresh look. Go through it statement by statement and verify everything, but bite off little bits at a time so you don't just end up burning out again.
    *Sigh* @RoySmith and Vanamonde93: thanks for your help. But in the end, I'm just a broken young man who has no idea why he's putting himself through so much stress. If you look at my editing history, you'll see the most useless piece of shit on the platform. A user trying to drown his sorrows by doing something he deems important. Sorry if I'm getting emotional over this, but I'm just tired of the disappointment. I don't know what to do. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 21:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Duuuude calm down, at least you got vital articles to GA status. That is a significant achievement already. 48JCL TALK 22:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can appreciate that this is frustrating, but you needn't be down on yourself. The FA criteria are a high bar, especially so for a charismatic animal. The failure of a single nomination doesn't affect your worth as a person or an editor. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't failed yet. If I can check all the sources in the next 2 days, perhaps RoySmith can change his mind? I'll be starting now. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 06:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What you are suggesting seems unwise. As I said earlier, rushing to get this done quickly isn't going to be productive. RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wolverine, that is a sure-fire way to further frustration and burnout. I have been where you are, and taking a break is, in my view, the best way to eventually making this a productive and even enjoyable exercise. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, I'll just work on Komodo dragon, dingo and dhole. And also on the short-faced bear and American lion. After I'm done with those articles I'll come back here. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 19:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith: What now? Should I withdraw and come back? Wolverine XI (talk to me) 15:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to defer to the @FAC coordinators: on this. RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are substantial issues registered in an oppose, withdrawing and working on it off the nominations page is probably the best path forward. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The narwhal was one of many species originally described by Carl Linnaeus in his 1758 Systema Naturae.[5]
    I'm having trouble with this. The citation says "p. 824", but I think what that really means is that there's 824 pages in the book. The URL links to page 56, which, while I can't read the Latin, doesn't appear to be about Narwhals. Also, not clear what "originally" means in this context.
    There are 828 pages and narwhals are at page 824 but that page is not available, so I'll link to page 822. "Originally" means his the first to describe them.
    I think I've got the page numbering confusion sorted out. When the drop-down menu says, for example, "827 : 823", that's "physical : logical" pages. The physical page numbers refer to the PDF file; the logical page numbers refer to what's printed on the original pages. To make things even more confusing, when I download the PDF, they add an additional "Terms and Conditions" page to the beginning of the PDF, so the physical and logical pages get out of sync by one more. We should certainly be referring to the logical page numbers in our citations. So, I think we're talking about logical page 824 (which doesn't have a page number printed on it but comes after 823). It's titled "Emendanda", which Google Translate says means "To be corrected". Am I at least looking at the right page?
    Wrong page, sorry. After some digging I found it to be on page 75. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 18:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Verified. RoySmith (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, it does, yes. And a plagiarism check. If you felt able to oblige that would be most helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is that creaking I hear my arm being twisted? RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling 10 d 101 (i.e. sorted(choices(range(1, 102), k=10)) gives [17, 35, 36, 44, 50, 65, 69, 70, 71, 79] RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 2020 phylogenetic study based on genome sequencing suggested that, around 4.98 million years ago (mya), the narwhal split from the beluga whale.[17]
    Verified
  • The purpose of the narwhal tusk is debated. Some biologists suggest that narwhals use their tusks in fights, while others argue that their tusks may be of use in breaking sea ice or in finding food. There is a scientific consensus that tusks are secondary sexual characteristics which indicate social status.[35]
    Partially verified. I see where the source talks about using the tusk for fighting, and sexual dimorphism. Perhaps I'm just missing it, but the only mentions I see of feeding are for beaked whales. And I see no mention of breaking sea ice anywhere.
    Rm part about breaking see ice. As for feeding, see the part that says It is possible that males are better able to stir up benthic prey with their tusks
    OK, that works. As a stylistic issue, I suggest that you be more specific than "some biologists", i.e: "Joe Scientist suggests that..."
  • The tusk is a highly innervated sensory organ with millions of nerve endings that connect seawater stimuli to the brain, allowing the narwhal to sense temperature variability in its surroundings.[36][37][38]
    Verified, but based on 37, you could also talk about detecting pressure changes and particle gradients. On the other hand, for a scientific article like this, it's preferable to stick to the scientific literature (ref 36) and avoid popular press (refs 37 and 38) if you can.
    • Done
  • The narwhal is found predominantly in the Atlantic and Russian areas of the Arctic Ocean. Individuals are commonly recorded in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago,[43][44]
    Partially verified. Ref 34 talks about the population in the Russian area. I can only get at the abstract of ref 33, but I can see that it talks about the population in the North Atlantic. However, it's a bit of WP:SYNTH to take these two sources and combine them to say they are found predominantly in those areas. For all we know, these two papers are talking about two specific populations, but there's another (much larger) population that lives in the South Pacific. No, I don't think that's the case, but without a source for found predominantly, I don't think you can say that.
      • Rm word, but there's no population in the South Pacific, at least from what I can see.
        • No, I don't imagine there is; that was a (deliberately) absurd example. But my point is that if you have a RS that says "this happens in place X" and another which says "this happens in place Y", it's SYNTH to say "this happens predominantly in places X and Y" because those two sources said nothing about other places it might be happening.
  • When in their wintering waters, narwhals make some of the deepest dives recorded for marine mammals, diving to at least 800 m (2,620 ft) over 15 times per day, with many dives reaching 1,500 m (4,920 ft). Dives to these depths last around 25 minutes.[50] Dive times can also vary in depth, based on season and local variation between environments. For example, in the Baffin Bay wintering grounds, narwhals tend to dive deep within the precipitous coasts, typically south of Baffin Bay. This suggests differences in habitat structure, prey availability, or genetic adaptations between subpopulations. In the northern wintering grounds, narwhals do not dive as deep as the southern population, in spite of greater water depths in these areas. This is mainly attributed to prey being concentrated nearer to the surface, which causes narwhals to subsequently alter their foraging strategies.[50]
    Partially verified. I see where it says Narwhals make deeper dives in the winter than they do in the summer, but I don't see where they are compared to other marine mammals. I can't verify "diving to at least 800 m (2,620 ft) over 15 times per day"; that seems at odds with the data in Table 3. I'm also confused by the statement "In the northern wintering grounds, narwhals do not dive as deep as the southern population" which seems at odds with what was said earlier. There's a lot of information cited to this one reference and it's a 12 page paper, so I'm having trouble finding it all. Perhaps you could walk me though where each sentence in the paragraph is backed up by something in the paper?
    As a minor nit, the two citations to ref 50 can be combined into a single citation at the end of the paragraph.
    For the first sentence, see Upon examination of models for pooled whales on the 2 wintering grounds, a clear focus of dives to >800 m was found on the southern wintering ground (16 dives d^-1, SE 1.6 on page 276
    On the same page see for northern and southern Baffin Bay In the northern wintering ground, the largest proportion of time was spent between 200 and 400 m (over 3.5 h, SE 0.5), with a steep decline towards deeper depths, where on average, whales spent slightly over 0.7 h (SE 0.1)>800 m. In contrast, on the southern wintering ground, whales spent over 3 h d^-1 (SD 0.1) at depths >800 and it goes on but this is the important bit
    For the third sentence, see page 276; it was not collected from one sentence.
    For the prey see The vertical distribution of narwhal prey in the water column influences feeding behavior and dive tactics.
    and Thus, to a certain extent, narwhal movements, diving and site fidelity may reflect behavioral traits that have proved successful over centuries or larger time scales, although not necessarily optimal in each year. The marked consistency in annual movement patterns and seasonal habitat selection between sub-populations suggests a learned behavior, probably maternally directed and evolutionarily driven.
    OK, I'm seeing most of that (in what's now ref 51 of Special:Permalink/1227227354). I still don't see where it talks about "deepest dives recorded for marine mammals".
    Used source that says As one of the deepest-diving cetaceans, narwhals may exceed 1500 m
    You're talking about "Paradoxical escape responses by narwhals (Monodon monoceros)". The source says "deepest-diving cetaceans", but you turned that into "deepest-diving marine mammals" You need to say what the source says. "Marine mammal" is apparently an informal term which includes more than just the cetaceans.
    Fixed
  • The narwhal vocal repertoire is similar to that of the beluga whale. They have comparable whistle frequency ranges, whistle duration and repetition rates of pulse calls, though beluga whistles are thought to have a higher frequency range and more diversified whistle contours.[65]
    Partially verified. The relevant section seems to be on p 457 ("Similarities in beluga and narwhal echolocation clicks"), but I'm not seeing where the specific claims in this sentence regarding frequency, duration, and repetition rates are supported. Could you walk me through the details?
    The paper is specifically about the differences in vocalizations. I say they are similar because the aforementioned section and the paper in general implies exactly that. There's no specific sentence where the statement can attributed, rather it's a summarization of the entire paper. Also, the data in the tables back up the statements. No biologist in their right mind will publish a paper on the differences in vocalizations between an elephant and a chipmunk. I hope you see what I'm trying to say.
    The problem is, what you're describing is exactly what WP:SYNTH says you can't do: do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. We're not looking for what sources imply. We're looking for what sources say.
    Rephrased per The primary differences between beluga and narwhal clicks are in frequency content and rhythmic patterns of the inter-click intervals.
  • Major predators are polar bears, which typically wait at breathing holes for young narwhals.[20][69]
    Partially verify. Both sources say that polar bears prey on Narwhal, but calling them a "major" predator is not justified by the sources, which use words like "occasionally" and "rarely". The bit about "typically wait at breathing holes" is an exaggeration from "have been observed" and "in one particular event".
    Edited
  • Orcas group together to overwhelm and surround narwhal pods[70]
    Partially verify. The source talks about most of this, but it's not clear if it's talking about one orca attacking a bunch of narwhal, or if it's a group of orca working together. It's entirely possible I just missed that part, so please point me to the right place if I have.
    It's clearly talking about pods
    If it was clear, I wouldn't have asked :-) I did a careful read of the entire source and found "Many interviewees described the cooperative nature of killer whale attack" and "the smaller killer whales would come close to the shore to grab a narwhal and then head back out into deeper water, where the larger killer whales stayed." I also found https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/facts/orca/ which says "Orcas hunt in deadly pods". I apologize for harping on this point, but we need to be saying exactly what our sources say.
  • killing up to dozens of narwhals in a single attack.[71]
    Partially verified. All I can access is the 3 minute teaser video and that only talks about a pod of narwhal, but nothing about "dozens"
    Rephrased
  • As narwhals grow, bioaccumulation of heavy metals take place.[79]
    Verified

Summarizing, there's a couple of citations that I can't verify at all, and for most of the rest I was unable to verify every detail. So there's some work to be done here. This is the first time I've done a spot-check, so I don't know where this should go from here.

Note that this was just looking at verifying that facts asserted in the article were supported by the cited source. I didn't look at any of the source formatting stuff; I'll leave that for somebody else. I wasn't specifically looking for plagiarism, but from what I saw, I don't have any concerns there. I found one passage that could be construed to be WP:CLOP, but ultimately decided it wasn't a problem.

I appreciate the review RoySmith. I will comment in a couple of hours. My family and friends are gathered to watch Dortmund vs. Real Madrid in the UCL final, therefore I can't get to this right now. I hope Madrid prevails, but I'll see you later. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 18:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith and Vanamonde93: Sorry, but this week has been extremely hectic. I don't think I'll be able to get to this until Monday. I'll still be editing of course, but I won't have time to address the issues posted on this page. Thanks for your understanding, Wolverine XI (talk to me) 13:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, thanks for the heads up. Better to take your time and get it right than try to rush through it to meet some non-existant deadline. RoySmith (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Addressed all. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 19:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vanamonde[edit]

A creditable effort at a large and important topic, thanks for bringing it here. I look forward to reading it, comments follow. Please feel free to dispute any copy-edits I make. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "exhibit a high fidelity of return" is a little awkward, to me. I would suggest "often returning to the same sites in subsequent years". The sentence also has some grammatical issues: "migrates...exhibit".
    • Fixed
  • "Magnus later assigned it to "Monocerote"..." so why was Linneaus's description the first?
    • Linnaeus was the first to scientifically described the species. Most animal species had early variants of names before being recognized as valid taxa under science. The lion for example was not discovered in 1758 but was scientifically described in that year. If you look at that article, there were earlier variants of the name before the scientific description. So Magnus drew a painting depicting an animal similar to the narwhal and assigned it to Monocerote. Linnaeus likely used Magnus's depiction to officially recognize narwhal as a species.
      • I recognize that, but you have a wording issue: "assigned" is misleading here, it's a term we usually use for taxonomic studies. "Called it", perhaps? What was Monocerote, anyway? At Magnus's time I don't believe anyone used genera for mammals. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Edited. No, Taxonomy was not yet established but people still named animals. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 08:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The body records one known hybrid narwhal-beluga; but the lead implies multiple instances.
    • Fixed
  • "genome sequencing" is ambiguous, and today would usually imply whole genomes; the paper uses mitochondrial DNA, and I think the text should make that explicit.
    • Fixed
  • I have a few suggestions related to the phylogeny. First, the phylogeny refers to extinct taxa that you don't mention in the text. Given that you refer elsewhere to the white whale family, a sentence or two about the extinct taxa wouldn't go amiss. Second, it occurs to me that readers may be interested in the position of Narwhals within cetacea, rather than just a superfamily. I'd suggest concatenating this phylogeny with that presented at Toothed whale, but I'm open to discussion. Finally, and entirely optional; you could illustrate the extant branches with thumbnails, as at toothed whale.
    • Done
      • That's not quite what I meant; you now have two phylogenies, images only in one. I was suggesting combining them, which you can safely do without OR if you omit Kentriodon. Also, I appreciate that you put something in about extinct taxa, but a sentence about a single genus of four(?) doesn't actually elucidate much. I was hoping for more of a summary sentence; it could be as plain as "Several extinct species toothed whales have been identified, including multiple close relatives of narwhals". This is supported by the Bianucci source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how to combine them :( Wolverine XI (talk to me) 09:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I should be constructing the phylogeny for you as a reviewer, but perhaps you could ask for assistance at the biology wikiproject? Alternatively I'd be happy to recuse and work on that section a little; the order of information is a little counter-intuitive, and you have information about evolution in the first sub-section.
    Yes, please work on the section. I'll ask for assistance at WikiProject Biology.
    @Vanamonde93: Can you please finalize and fix the positioning of the some of the genera at User:Reconrabbit/Narwhalcladogram? Wolverine XI (talk to me) 14:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Narwhals are toothed whales, yes? If their only teeth are vestigial (plus the tusk), this warrants further explanation, I think.
    • Apparently, research is ongoing and there's limited/no information on this
      • Having skimmed some of the sources, including this one, it seems to me a sentence or two could easily be added. Among other things, it would appear there is only one pair of vestigial teeth in the adult, not "several".
        • Added
  • I think a distribution map would be very helpful, and given a well-characterizes and wide distribution I think it's almost necessary at the FA level.
    • Should I create another map or reuse the one in the infobox?
      • Missed that somehow. I think a reuse is justified here, just so you can show it a bit bigger, but if someone else objects I won't hold you up over this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the same map with labels and legends to show where the different populations reside? Wolverine XI (talk to me) 09:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't entirely clear to me what an entrapment event is.
    • It's when ice freezes over and there's very little open water. This limits the movement of narwhals since breathing holes are few and far between. If their breathing holes freeze over, they'll drown under the ice. I think I explained that in the article.
      • That explanation is present, but it isn't connected to the term entrapment that you later use to summarize the phenomenon.
        • Clarified to avoid confusion
  • Can you work in a link to climate change, or a sub-article thereof, when discussing sea-ice change?
    • I don't understand
      • We have articles discussing the consequences of climate change for arctic sea ice, which is what "sea ice changes" refers to. It would be appropriate to link to an article or section thereof.
        • Added a link
  • I think Brucella needs a gloss; also, did it actually cause disease in the animals it was detected in?
    • Glossed, and the source doesn't say
  • "837 narwhals in the waters off Svalbard" this is almost certainly an overly precise figure; at the very least, "estimated" is needed.
    • Fixed
  • The various committees listed in the conservation section need glosses.
    • Glossed a little bit
      • I mean specifically CITES, CMS, and COSEWIC.
        • Glossed
  • I'm not sure how to reword this exactly, but the final paragraph needs to make it clearer that essentially all the medical or scientific uses the tusks were put to were not supported by actual science. The last sentence attempts to do this, but its placement, and the specificity to antidotes, undermines the message a little bit.
    • Reworded a bit
      • I don't think this fully addresses my concern. "Used to detect poison" implies that this was actually possible, when it isn't. The same holds true for other sentences.
        • Rephrased

That's all from me on a first pass. I made a few copy-edits, but the prose feels a little scratchy to me in places; I may want to go over it again once more comments have been addressed. I think this is a creditable piece of work, however, and not far off of FA status. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will say I just read RoySmith's source review (my bad; should have done so earlier). In a scientific article I find the verification issues particularly concerning. However, I will also note my suspicion that these result from imprecise summarization rather than anything more egregious. I suggest using the plainest possible language to summarize sources; in many cases it is the adjectives that appear to be the problem, and in general they can simply be omitted (eg: "most conspicuous" -> "a conspicuous"). I hate to sound downbeat, but I suggest examining every source, not just the ones Roy flagged. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just so there's no surprises, my plan here is to let @Wolverine XI work through the issues I found so far and then give them time to, as you say, examine the rest of the sources in detail. When they're done with that, I'll do another statistically sampled spot check and see where things stand at that point. I should mention that the citations in my first FAC were a disaster. I was extraordinarily fortunate to have @Eddie891 as a reviewer; they invested a huge amount of time helping me sort out the mess and I feel obligated to pay that kindness forward here. RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the effort you're putting in here, and agree that that is the best way to go forward. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Addressed all. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 19:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Narwhals live an average of 50 years" given that you supply the method for the other estimate, I think it'd be appropriate to say how we know this.
    • Added
  • I had meant to do another read-through today, with a particular eye toward checks for comprehensiveness; but I can't see my way to supporting when there is an outstanding oppose on verifiability issues. I echo Roy's comments above; sometimes you need to take a step away from an article, work on something else, and return to it. Given the issues Roy mentions, I don't see how this could pass without another spotcheck, and the only way to ensure that you pass that is to check every citation. I know it's hard to hear this, but taking a break from this topic will perhaps make that labor easier to do in the future. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Therapyisgood[edit]

750h[edit]

  • Leaving as a placeholder. 750h+ 00:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

I don't think that this is going to move to a consensus to promote within a reasonable timescale, so I am going to archive it. I think that Vanamonde's parting advice is spot on. The article is clearly most of the way towards FA and I think that the issues raised above are best dealt with away from the time pressure of FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2024 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 June 2024 [2].

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) 17 June 2024 [3].

John Savage (soldier)[edit]

Nominator(s): Grosseteste (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 15th century knight Sir John Savage, who was one of the main commanders of the Tudor forces at the battle of Bosworth Field and a close companion of Henry VII. I significantly edited this article a number of years ago and subsequently it was raised to GA status. I believe it to be close to the required standard to be raised to FA status and would have initiated this review at that time if I had had the time. I would greatly appreciate some feedback as to what would need to be done in order for this review to be supported. Kind regards, Grosseteste (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:Coat_of_arms_of_Sir_John_Savage,_KG.png is missing a tag for the design. Ditto File:Arms_of_Arnold_Savage_(d.1375).svg
  • File:King_Edward_IV.jpg: the given tag requires that the image description includes information on steps taken to try to identify the author, and when was this first published?
  • File:John_Howard,_1st_Duke_of_Norfolk.jpg is incorrectly tagged. Ditto File:Archbishop_Savage.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, sorry to be somewhat obtuse (not intentionally so) could you please explain what you mean by alt text, fixed px size and these tagging issues, I've been away from editing for some time but I'm sure I'll pick it up and I will endeavour to resolve these issues. Many thanks and best regards, Grosseteste (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text is an alternative description added to an image to support those who are unable to see it to understand what it is meant to depict. Fixed px size is a set image size in pixels, which is discouraged because it overrides user preferences. Tags give information about the copyright status and reuse of an image, and must be sufficient to identify why a particular work is free or in the public domain in the US and (if hosted on Commons) in its country of origin. Does that help? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your response Nikkimaria. I have removed all fixed pixel sizing from images and I have added more detailed alt text (I believe this has addressed the issue of the description not being specific enough). As for the tagging issues, how would I go about resolving those. Most of the images used were uploaded by other editors and were already on commons. How do I add tags to these images after the fact. To address one specific tagging remark, the portrait of Edward IV is held by the National Portrait Gallery in London and their records merely state that the artist is unknown - https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw02029/King-Edward-IV?LinkID=mp01427&role=sit&rNo=0. Thanks again for your help with this (and understanding as I am sure you do not often receive so many questions!) Kind regards, Grosseteste (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrt to alt text, it looks like what you've done is edit the captions - those are different things from the alt text. Check out WP:ALT for more details.
Wrt tagging and image description pages, after the image is uploaded you can edit the image description page as you would any other page. So for example, to add steps taken to try to identify the author, you just go here and add that information. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the clarification Nikkimaria. I've added alt text to all images now and will try and provide some further information to the images so that they are correctly tagged Grosseteste (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review and source review[edit]

This version reviewed.

  • IB: Not sure all those relatives are necessary, esp the general familes.
  • Can you separate your footnote from your citation (so no [1][1])
  • Thos Stanley does not need to be disambiguated as 'the elder' as his son has not been mentioned, and even when he is, the Lord S. who d. 1459 is the only lord.
  • Clarify "Sir John Savage died three years before Stanley"; otherwise, which Stanley is referred to?
  • "Which included Clifton"
  • The second section on the origins of the family should come before the bit about the article topic specifically
  • "his younger brother": John Savage's.
  • Thos Savage became Abp of Yor (a career). His younger brothers became knights (events). The younger brothers may have been knighted, but those weren't their careers, which, of course, was royal service.
  • Personally, I'd call the gentry the gentry for this period. "County" is more of a modernist analysis, whereas the late medieval gentry was literally the political class and not just in the localities.
  • Stanley the younger: Sir Thomas Stanley, as he doesn't inherit the barony for another 15 years.
  • Link Elizabeth Woodville; she's a queen, not the lass what eats the dung.
  • "The now knighted...". We know. Stick to just calling him Savage per MOS:SURNAME.
  • Replace "later that same year" later that years with "April... the following month"
  • "as well as" doesn't work when discussing events 11 years apart. New sentence, something like, "In 1482 he returned to military service, joining the King's brother..." etc.
  • The parenthesised text can be folded into this new sentence.
  • "Aiding them to victories", etc. doesn't really make sense; the important thing is that they won, but even that's not directly relevant to the article, as he would have been personally responsible for neither an English loss nor victory.
  • Check your duplicate links (This script will create a link in your left-hand sidebar and will highlight them for you automatically). Specifically, I noticed that you have King Ed unlinked in 1471 but then you link—on first name terms!—"close to Edward".
  • Lose "he was later found worthy" etc, as it reads like a press release. Stick to something like "Following Ed's death in April 1483, Savage acted as a pallbearer at the royal funeral".
Pausing at this point.

Response

Thanks very much for your review Serial Number. There were some very useful suggestions here which I have taken on board and put into place.

Those which I have not yet enacted.

1) On the separating the footnote from the reference to avoid [1] [1] , I had noticed this but can't seem to separate the two. Is there a simple way to do this?

2) Clarify "Sir John Savage died three years before Stanley"; otherwise, which Stanley is referred to? Do you mean the line that says Savage died three years before his father? As I could not find a line similar to the one you quoted.

3) The second section on the origins of the family should come before the bit about the article topic specifically Could you explain what you mean by this? I presume you mean the Ancestral background section but this is the first section of the article. - Edit - I realise now you probably mean the Family section and thus will incorporate this with the ancestral background section or move it up.

4) Could you please tell me how you install scripts, as I note that you recommended this in the source review section also and I imagine that these could both prove very useful.

Thanks again for your suggestions and advice, I will try and address the referencing issues shortly!Grosseteste (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Source review

I'll do this after you've got a couple of reviews in. It's a nice bookend to Sir Thomas Neville, of the other side of the parish  :) ——Serial Number 54129 15:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, some formatting points:

  • You're missing several publisher locations, chapter page ranges and in some cases ISBNs or OCLCs. Install this script, it will highlight all the technical stuff FACs reuire in their source reviews.
  • For your primary sources, format them (using {{Cite}} template) as you have your secondary material.
Update
I've done a fair amount of reviewing (quite a lot of copyediting required but not insurmountable so), but I'm taking a pause to have a look into the sources. I'm seeing some glaring omissions, frankly. There is almost no recent scholarship from the last 30 years, and this is a period that has been effectively rewritten in that time. Obvious by their absence are Michael Hicks' and Charles Ross's biographies of Richard III (in the Yale Monarchs series). Worse is the absence of material from the reign of Henry VII. Stanley Chrimes's biography is essential; all three of these are into multiple reprints. Probably Thornton's Cheshire and the Tudor state 1480-1560. These are all absolutely fundamental authors and texts, specialists in the reign.
What really highlights the lack of modern scholarship, however, is the reliance on old sources.
Pre-war:
  • Crossley's Mediaeval monumental effigies, 1925
  • Shaw's The Knights of England, 1906
  • Williams, The Rebellion of Humphrey Stafford, 1928
  • Weber, Pope Innocent VIII, 1910
    Victorian:
  • Seacombe (not Seaacombe), The History of the House of Stanley, 1821
  • Magna Britannia is from 1808
  • Hales and Furnivall is a reprint from 1888
  • Ecclesiastical Memorials Relating Chiefly to Religion, and the Reformation of it is a reprint from 1721 (or 1822 if you prefer!),
  • Armstrong's Ancient and Noble Family, 1888.
    Of the post-war sourcing, the Thorpe Festchrift is sound (although you need to format it properly and include the actual author, chapter, etc, not just the eds); although, to reiterate, it is from 1976 and much work has been done on the period since. Lockyer & Thrush are sound. Ditto Kauffman. The title of the ODNB page you used is more than what fn67 currently says... it omits almost everything. The ODNB editor is also irrelevant; just use the entry author.
    The bottom line is there's a hell of a lot of primary sourcing and very of little of recent years. There's absolutely no harm in the former at all; they can provide colour and detail not available or suitable to the modern scholar, but they only come into their own when they are backed by solid, modern, independent expert scholarship, or what we call "high-quality reliable sources". I think I'll leave it there for the time being. Best of luck with the nomination. @FAC coordinators: ——Serial Number 54129 17:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grosseteste, you need to establish that each source is not only reliable, but also high quality. And that the article "is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". The onus is on you. Frankly I don't think that you can, but am willing to give you some time to prove me wrong. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Gog the Mild, can I ask why it is that you think that? Grosseteste (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan[edit]

Hi Grosseteste, marking a spot here. On first glance, the lead and body look good but the references are a mess, many sources don't have SFNs, ISBNs or OCLCs. Without these, reviewers cannot do spot checks to see if the information cited is accurate and if it violates copyright or not. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2024 (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 is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nine more days in and no sign of a consensus to promote, so I am regretfully archiving this. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2024 (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 above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 June 2024 [4].

Virgo interferometer[edit]

Nominator(s): Thuiop (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article describes the Virgo interferometer, one of the three interferometric gravitational-wave detectors to have made a detection. This is my first nomination, so I hope everything is up to the standards! Please note that this has been partly peer-reviewed; also, I took the initiative to split part of the article as it had become quite heavy, with the new Ground-based interferometric gravitational-wave search containing informations common to other detectors such as LIGO or KAGRA. Finally, note that I am a member of the Virgo collaboration; I have tried my best to keep to Wikipedia standards for neutrality, but please keep an eye open if I failed somewhere (on the bright side, this also allowed me to get most of the article reviewed by experts). Thuiop (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sandbh[edit]

I'll start with the lede.

I was confused by the images. What is the first image supposed to tell me about the interferometer? The article is supposed to be about the Virgo interferometer, but is captioned "The Virgo experiment".

Paragraph 1: Is good.

Paragraph 2: You spell out EGO, which is good. But then you refer to CNRS and INFN, but don't spell out the acronyms, which is bad. The second sentence refers to the Virgo Collaboration but does not explain what this is and its relationship to EGO. The third sentence is clumsy in that it refers to the interferometers, which is fine but then tells us that these other interferometers include two interferometers in the US and in Japan. The double use of the word "interferometer/s" is clumsy. And just where is the Japanese interferometer KAGRA, and what does the acronym refer to? The fourth sentence starts, "Since 2007, Virgo and LIGO..." What is LIGO in the singular sense?

Paragraph 3: Is good.

I will look at the Organization section next. I hope the standard of grammar is not as unsatisfactory as the lede. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments!
Regarding the infobox, I left the original one which is Infobox organization. I think this is fine as the page is both about the detector and the organization, but there is not really a slot for the detector. I am not sure if there is a better one to use? I noticed that the LIGO page uses the telescope one, but I am unsure about that choice since it is not a telescope.
I made some edits taking your comments into account. The only thing I did not change yet is putting the explicit acronym for KAGRA; the name of the detector is basically KAGRA and its non-abbreviated form is very rarely used. The same argument goes for LIGO actually. I can write out the acronym meaning if you still think this is useful but I am not sure it really adds anything to the article. Thuiop (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by XOR'easter[edit]

The introduction doesn't seem to reflect what is important about the project. For example, it spends a sentence talking about data-sharing between Virgo and LIGO, which sounds like dull bureaucracy, but it gives no specifics about the "multiple gravitational wave events" that Virgo actually detected. Which is more interesting? Which is more important? And which is discussed in more depth in the article itself?

The section heading "Science case" sounds like grant-proposal-speak. (And I should know; I've worked on enough of the dreadful things in my life...) Moreover, that material is really part of the conceptual background; it's answering the question of why one would want to build a gravitational-wave detector. I'd consider merging that into the "History" section. It could be part of the "Conception" subsection, or inserted just after.

In the final Advanced Virgo configuration, the laser power is expected to be 200 W. This is sourced to a document from 2012. Is it still true? Would it be better to say, e.g., "In the original plan for the final Advanced Virgo configuration, the laser power was expected to be 200 W"?

The first detection of a gravitational signal by Virgo took place at the beginning of the second observing run (O2), as Virgo was absent from the first observing run. What does "absent" mean here? How is the detector "absent" from itself?

The "Outreach" section reads rather like a bad PowerPoint slide. Outreach is good to do, but comes across as pablum when presented as a list of generically positive-sounding activities. Is there enough of substance to say about those events to write serious prose here?

XOR'easter (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @XOR'easter and thank you for your comments.
I agree that the summary could be a bit better, I will see if I can refocus it in a satisfying way.
Regarding the science case section, I thought it made sense for it to be that way as many similar articles are built this way (e.g. James Webb Space Telescope, Vera C. Rubin Observatory, Super-Kamiokande). It was originally longer until I splitted the content towards the new Ground-based interferometric gravitational-wave search page. I guess it could be integrated to the history section, although it may cut the chronological flow.
I agree with your reformulation; plans for the laser are still changing as we speak, so it is pretty hard to get the current plans.
I will make the phrase about O2 clearer.
Now that I look back at it, it does seem a little bit thin. I will try to find some more substantial content for it. Thuiop (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2024 (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 is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, should this be archived? xq 13:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 48JCL. As this is clearly not moving towards a consensus to promote I will archive it. It needs a thorough copy edit, ideally a run through GoCER - although I realise that the waiting list there is long - and then some further attention at PR. If possible the input of a mentor would also help. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this makes sense to me. I will try to go through GoCER and make some improvements in the meantime. Thanks ! Thuiop (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Graham Beards[edit]

Oppose. The prose is not up to FA standard. Graham Beards (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment (and the edits on the article). Would you have any high-level guidelines of where to start if I want to improve it ? Thuiop (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is a good place to start: User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. Graham Beards (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I will definitely have a look. Thuiop (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2024 (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) 11 June 2024 [5].

AC/DC[edit]

Nominator(s): VAUGHAN J. (t · c) and shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Australian rock band AC/DC, first widely known about their seventh studio album Back in Black (1980), an album in tribute to one of their members Bon Scott, due to him dying of alcohol poisoning. The article was created in 2002 by an IP user (203.36.248.17), first promoted to GA in 2006 by No-Bullet, and promoted to FA in 2007 also by No-Bullet, which then sadly got demoted in 2018. Five years later, me and shaidar cuebiyar have been working hard cleaning up the article to look like what it is now, and it is currently promoted to GA since 29 December 2023.

This is my second time nominating this article to FAC, because I withdrawed the last one that I first nominated, since there was a lot that needed to be fixed. The PR didn't work out since there was no reviewers 1 month after opening, but has been copyedited from GOCE (thanks to Mox Eden). So all feedback, constructive criticism, and suggestions are all welcome and very much appreciated. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 04:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

750h[edit]

this will be the longest article I'll leave comments on so it might take a while. it's a good article from first glance. 750h+ 03:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h+: Not to bother you; is there still more comments to come or is that all? — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 07:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do the rest soon. These are just first-glance comments; more extensive comments might come soon. 750h+ 07:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lede
  • Their current line-up comprises Angus, bass... – last name should always be used. Change "Angus" to "Young". i've just realised there's two "Young"s.
  • I was about to say... — VJ

more soon

  • They recruited English singer Johnson as their new front man. – front man should be one word (frontman).
  • Done. — VJ
  • The band's line-up remained the same for 20 years until 2014, when Malcolm retired due to early-onset dementia.. – comma isn't needed
  • Done. — VJ
history
  • ..developed a variety of genres, which included a harder blues rock style dubbed.. – i think "blues rock" should be hyphenated
  • Upon formation, Malcolm and Angus had developed the band's name after Margaret pointed out the symbol.. – remove "had"
  • Done. — VJ
  • I was just flicking it, when Malcolm came up to me and started slagging Sabbath..." – remove the comma.
  • Done. — VJ
  • With Johnson, the group completed the songwriting previously begun – change "previously begun" to "began"
  • Done. — VJ
  • for the Rock Band series by means of a Wal-Mart-exclusive retail disc – replace "by means of" with something simpler such as "using" or "through".
  • Done. — VJ
  • "It's been what I've known for the past 40 years, but after this tour I'm backing off add a comma after tour
  • Done. — VJ
musical style
  • [Scott] revelled in the lifestyle. Somehow he rose above all the substance abuse to become the ultimate rock and roll front man." ==> "[Scott] revelled in the lifestyle. Somehow he rose above all the substance abuse to become the ultimate rock and roll [frontman]."
  • Done. — VJ
  • However, there are people who will say that they are indisputably ==> "However, some people say that they are indisputably"
  • I'm keeping it that way because it's from a quote from McParland. — VJ
  • While AC/DC has referenced the underworld and they have given their remove "they".
  • See above. — VJ
legacy
  • Disco was huge and punk and new wave were ascendant, and along came this AC/DC record which just destroyed everybody. remove the comma
  • Done. — VJ
  • Gene Simmons of hard rock contemporaries Kiss remarked that, "A lot of people look the same remove "that" after remarked
  • Done. — VJ
  • David Marchese from Vulture wrote that, "Regardless of the lyricist remove the comma and decapitalise the word "Regardless".
  • Done. — VJ
  • she believed it would be "daft as opposed to damaging" for female listeners if they can understand the change "can" to could"
  • Done. — VJ
  • In spite of the "unpleasant sneering quality" of change "In spite of" to "Despite".
  • Done. — VJ
  • with AC/DC's name,[289] arriving at the conclusion that AC/DC actually stood for Anti-Christ/Devil's Child or Devil's Children. change "arriving at the conclusion" to "concluding". Remove the word "actually" too.
  • Done. — VJ
verdict
  • honestly i think it's a great article and is worthy of FA status; i don't have any more "extensive comments" as I believe the other reviewer has addressed them all, @Vaughan J.:.
thanks! another one's coming soon! and with the comments you didn't answer, i didn't realise those were quotes. with that, i think you'll be seeing a support from me. 750h+ 08:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 10:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino[edit]

It's great to see an article on such a substantial topic here. Just some drive-by comments for now; I hope to have time for a more thorough review soon:

  • There are often clumps of references supporting relatively simple statements – e.g. "In November 1973" [two references that both support that date], "Zorro" [three references]. I'd suggest trimming unnecessary references back to your most reliable/preferred support for a given claim. Reference piles make the article a challenge to review (as they make source-checking a pain in the ass) and update, and they don't do the reader any particular favors.
  • Done. — VJ
  • It looks like this is not done? Let me know if the request is unclear. Ajpolino (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now it is done. I didn't realise that it was not done before I posted that it was done 🙃 — VJ
  • This is still not done. Can you help me understand how you read my request, and what you did? We're clearly not on the same page. I'm asking you to trim unnecessary references throughout the article. I gave two examples. For one ("November 1973") you kept all the references but moved them to the end of the sentence. For the other ("Zorro") it's still followed by three references, two of which are unnecessary. These were just two examples that I checked (where every citation contained the information being referenced, and so only one was necessary). I see many more reference piles that I suspect could also be trimmed. Ajpolino (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ohhhhhh! Gotcha. Done that now. — VJ
  • "Before formation... after passing an audition." a confusingly long sentence. Can it be split up or reworded?
  • Has been split by shaidar cuebiyar. — VJ
  • "after Margaret pointed out" we don't learn who Margaret is until the next paragraph.
  • Fixed. — VJ
  • "AC from DC – i.e., "AC⚡︎DC"," the text is clear without the "i.e." statement; also it's adjacent to the image of the Huerta logo.
  • Done. — VJ
  • "Adam Behr of The Bulletin determined" - the verb "determined" doesn't seem quite right here.
  • Done by shaidar cuebiyar. — VJ
  • "Evans and Loughlin were incompatible" does the book clarify at all what this means?
  • Done by shaidar cuebiyar. — VJ
  • "Burgess later claimed his drink had been tampered with" is this important to include? Suggest cutting.
  • Removed by shaidar cuebiyar. — VJ
  • "glam rock image, which was favoured by contemporary Melbourne bands Skyhooks and Hush; instead, they" this comparison seems extraneous to the story.
  • Done by shaidar cuebiyar. — VJ
  • "Scott had worked as a driver for the group in that city until an "
  • Done. — VJ
  • It's odd to read "George Young and Harry Vanda as the producers" and then just a few paragraphs later "with Vanda & Young producing" (same people, now stylized, with a separate wikilink to the separate article about their career as a duo). I briefly assumed they were new characters in the story.
  • Done. — VJ
  • "Matters often questioned the Young brothers' decisions and admitted to being "lazy" and "cranky"." - Similar to Burgess' much-later claim above, I'm not sure this adds much to the story.
  • I've trimmed this one back to "Matters had quarrelled with the Young brothers' decisions."shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know why Bailey and Clack were fired?
  • Unfortunately not. There's no sources backing up why they got fired. — VJ
  • "setting the line-up, which lasted", suggest "setting the line-up that lasted" (i.e. removing the pause) which I think flows a bit better.
  • Done. — VJ

Have to run now, but will hopefully return soon for more. Ajpolino (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

shaidar cuebiyar: are you able to do the rest? — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 03:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done (mostly).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more.

  • In general, the article is quite long, currently around 9600 words – which Wikipedia:Article_size#Size_guideline classifies "probably should be divided or trimmed". Consider places where removing extra detail can focus the main storyline and improve the reading experience. I note a few examples that seemed extraneous to me, but you may be better able to differentiate the main thread from extra tidbits.
  • "They released the second single, "It's a Long Way to the Top (If You Wanna Rock 'n' Roll)"..." - This comes at the reader quickly. Do we know anything about the period between High Voltage and T.N.T.? We get some detail about the recording of the former, but nothing for the latter.
  • Done by shaidar cuebiyar. — VJ
  • The page range for current ref 53 (Browning 2014, pp. 100–256.) is excessively long. Can you narrow the page range at all (splitting up into several refs if you need to?).
  • There is only one ref that has the pages 100–256. Fixed it anyway. — VJ
  • "Their reputation managed to survive the punk upheavals and they maintained a cult following in the UK." Doesn't seem to add much to the story in its current form; suggest cutting or reformulating.
  • Removed by shaidar cuebiyar. — VJ
  • "and sold three million copies in the US by 2005, according to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)" this statistic seems kind of random, both in its US focus (while the story has us in the UK) and in the specific date of 2005. Suggest cutting or replacing if possible (you could even support saying "eventually going on to sell over three million copies")
  • Done. — VJ
  • "However, their appearance at the 1976 Reading Festival in August did not impress the crowd." is this of lasting importance to their story?
  • Removed by shaidar cuebiyar. — VJ
  • "Butler denied the allegations... started slagging Sabbath..."" I'm not sure the article really benefits from Butler's account, which is taken 40 years after the fact. I think the previous sentence says all we need to hear.
  • Removed. — VJ
  • The article states that the Young brothers haven't given a reason for Evans' firing; Griffiths gives a weird reason; it informs us that Evans wrote an autobiography that covers the incident, but then leaves us to wonder what Evans' autobiography said the reason was! What does Evans say? (or if it's not worth including, some of the earlier detail could probably be trimmed so we're not left hanging so harshly).
  • "Evans returned to Australia, where he joined fellow hard rock group Finch" this seems potentially unimportant and cuttable.
  • Done. — VJ
  • "AC/DC's first...,[72] two years before they played..." Suggest splitting this into two sentences. With "...1975.[72] Two years later they played..." this would flow into the next sentence more smoothly.
  • Done. — VJ
  • "which appeared on 27 July" appeared seems an odd verb; made me think I'd misunderstood and it was a television special.
  • Done. — VJ
  • " Eddie Van Halen noted this as his favourite AC/DC record, along with Powerage." seems unimportant to the article.
  • Removed. — VJ
  • "Angus later recalled, "I remember ... can find him." - this quote is very long, and I don't think it adds much.
  • Done by shaidar quebiyar. — VJ
  • "Simon Kirke of Free and Bad Company and Paul Thompson of Roxy Music were two drummers who auditioned." Would suggest cutting, or merging it in a sentence about the auditions so it doesn't seem like abrupt extraneous information.
  • Done. — VJ
  • "As a result of this incident, Salt Palace eliminated festival seating for future events." not sure this tidbit is worth including.

Will return soon with more! Ajpolino (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The band performed it live when they appeared as a musical guest on Saturday Night Live on 18 March 2000." is this of lasting importance?
  • Removed by shaidar quebiyar. — VJ
  • "presented by Aerosmith vocalist Steven Tyler" is this important?
  • Removed by shaidar quebiyar. — VJ
  • " AC/DC made their video game debut on Rock Band 2, with "Let There Be Rock" included as a playable track." is this important? I assume (though I really don't know) that the band didn't have to do anything for this, but rather the game publisher paid someone for the rights to the song?
  • Ditto the next sentence *"The setlist... Rock Band Track Pack."
  • All removed by shaidar quebiyar. — VJ
  • "On 15 August, AC/DC recorded a video for "Rock 'n' Roll Train" in London, with a special selection of fans invited to participate." Is this important?
  • Done. — VJ
  • At this point the article is feeling like a series of press release snippets organized chronologically, rather than a cohesive narrative about the band. I'd suggest focusing in on the events and circumstances described by broader retrospective sources, using contemporaneous news blurbs just to fill out precious details. Since you're writing about such a famous modern topic, there will be endless news snippets on everything AC/DC-related; not all of it merits inclusion here.
  • "AC/DC rescheduled six shows on 25 September 2009 for Johnson's recovery from a medical procedure." is this of lasting importance?
  • Removed. — VJ

I'll stop here for now. At this point I think the article would benefit from some trimming to improve readability and highlight the main thread of AC/DC's story. I think the article currently doesn't quite meet FAC criterion #4 "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail" or 1a "its prose is engaging and of a professional standard". I'd suggest giving the article a good look head-to-toe with an eye towards those things. I'm happy to give more examples, or to revisit and reassess later; just ping me if that would be helpful. For now, I'll have to regrettably oppose this article's FAC candidacy. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

shaidar cuebiyar: Hopefully you are able to sort out the remaining issues. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 01:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at some of these. Did the recent GOCE suggest any of this trimming? As Ajpolino has volunteered to provide further examples of improving this article's focus, I'd ask him to put his oppose on hold and let us continue as we have done. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
shaidar cuebiyar: Nope. They just copyedit or reword things. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 07:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ajpolino. May I request to put your oppose on hold, and some further assistance in getting the article more focused? — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 06:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll continue with comments in the next day or two. There's not really meaning to putting an oppose "on hold" here. It would be most helpful if some other reviewers could have a look at the article. If no one else shares my concern, then I'm off base and you can ignore me. If others think the same, then we'd have more opinions on how to get the article cleaned up and ready to shine. Ajpolino (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 23:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, comments from first pass, continued:

  • Consider breaking strict chronological order to discuss a given event in its entirety. Two examples close to each other:
  • "The Black Ice World Tour was announced on 11 September and began on 28 October in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania... [5 sentences unrelated to the tour]... and closed the Black Ice World Tour in Bilbao, Spain, on 28 June 2010, after 20 months in which the band went to 108 cities in over 28 countries, with an estimated total audience of over five million."
  • "Three concerts in December 2009 at the River Plate Stadium in Argentina were released as a DVD Live at River Plate on 10 May 2011... [2 unrelated sentences]... AC/DC released their first live album in 20 years, Live at River Plate, on 19 November 2012."
  • "Due to Malcolm's severe illness..." comes as a surprise since we hadn't heard anything about him being unwell since taking time off for alcohol issues in the late 80s (a few sections ago). Can you add any more context here? You say fans speculated the group could disband; what was that based on?
  • I've added more information on Malcolm's health in previous section and reworded the start of this section. Hopefully it ties together better and is less jarring.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, I'll list material that seemed unimportant and cuttable. Perhaps it instead just needs more context to integrate it into the narrative. Perhaps it's best to cut it:
  • "Rudd released his first solo album, Head Job, on 29 August 2014."
  • Removed. — VJ
  • "Rudd pleaded... of home detention." this could be condensed a bit.
  • Were George Young and Denis Loughlin involved with the band in their later lives? If yes, perhaps you could add some context to the point where they die, to describe how that impacted the group. If not, I don't think their deaths need to be listed in this article.
  • George was involved with the band in 2000, producing Stiff Upper Lip. I'll delete the irrelevant people that was not later involved. — VJ
  • "On 28 September 2020, the band updated their social media accounts with a short video clip depicting a neon light in the shape of the band's lightning bolt logo. This led to speculation that they were due to announce their "comeback, possibly as early as this week or next week."" is the fact that they teased their reunion two days before announcing it of lasting importance?
  • "The band have dropped clues, giving "speculation" that they would be going on another tour in 2024,[234] as the mayor of Munich, Dieter Reiter, confirmed that the band had booked a show in the Olympic Stadium for 12 June 2024." similarly, the several sentences of teaser to the current tour could be condensed.
  • "The impact of Australian pub rock on AC/DC was documented on ABC's Long Way to the Top (2001)." we care that pub rock influenced AC/DC (described earlier), but I don't know if we care that ABC documented that influence.
  • Angus's reflection occurred on Episode 4 of that documentary series. The series is titled for one of AC/DC's local hits and details a history of Australian rock music from 1950s to 2000s. I believe the context for his commentary aligns with how his group was a part of the 1970s pub rock movement in Australia. It should remain.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They sold over 1.3 million CDs in the US during 2007, despite not having released a new album since 2000 at that point" seems arbitrary to give us just 2007 US sales figures
  • Done. — VJ
  • "is due to begin on 17 May" I assume this has now begun?
  • Done. — VJ
  • "The Canberra Times' Tony Catterall... musically better"." This reads oddly as a comment about the album TNT in the midst of a retrospective on AC/DC's career. Consider rephrasing or removing.
  • As shown, this is a 1976 comment by an Australian music journalist. Contemporaneous reviews of their early work is very rare. Huge volumes exist of commentaries post-1980 but few accuse AC/DC of being punk rockers or that Buster Brown were a better band. Catterall's comments are not positive and provide balance to the analysis of AC/DC's musical style.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "AC/DC's music has been variously described..." consider flipping the order of this paragraph and the one before it.
  • Done. — VJ

That got me to the end of my first readthrough. Once you've made it through these I'm happy to take another look – though as I said above, hopefully by then other editors will have shared their thoughts on the article. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

shaidar cuebiyar: Hopefully you'll be free. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 04:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaughan J.: I've had a go at most of these, you'll have to tidy up any of my messes. Enjoy. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No messes to tidy. You're all good. 👍 — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 06:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ajpolino: Me and shaidar have got everything sorted except a few comments. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 06:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ajpolino: Don't know if you've got my previous message. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 23:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ajpolino: Is there any more issues to go through? — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 01:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vaughan J, I’m currently traveling but should be back online in a few days. Pardon the silence. Ajpolino (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay. Sorry for the mass pings. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 23:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, take three. Reading for prose and will check occasional sourcing odds and ends. Prose notes are, of course, just suggestions:

  • A small thing, but should the first few sentences "AC/DC are an... They were..." be singular rather than plural? Clicking arbitrarily through other FAs on singular-sounding band names (Alice in Chains, Audioslave, BTS) I'm seeing singular. Maybe either is fine?
  • Done. — VJ
  • "Membership subsequently stabilised..." unneeded word; obvious from context.
  • Done. — VJ
  • "with the Young brothers, Rudd, Williams and Bon Scott on lead vocals." this list reads as if the whole group is on lead vocals.
  • Done. — VJ
  • We struggled to connect on this above, but I'll give it another try. Citing a claim to several redundant references isn't against any policy (I think) but it makes the article a hassle to review and update. I'd suggest trimming reference piles to only the best necessary references. Examples:
  • "AC/DC were formed... mid-1970s" do we need all three references, one of which is a double?
  • Done. — VJ
  • "In November 1973, brothers Malcolm and ...vocalist Dave Evans." Ditto. Do we need all three references?
  • Done. — VJ
  • "Earlier, Malcolm and Evans... Velvet Underground ... Newcastle for two years" Ditto, though two of the sources only mention Young being in Velvet Underground; are we sure Evans was in that band and it isn't the third source's mistake?
  • Done. — VJ
  • I think the sentence and references are unchanged? Ajpolino (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which provided their first recordings for their debut album, Tales of Old Grand-Daddy (1974)" are two references necessary? The 1999 article seems to support the whole sentence. The Milesago doesn't quite.
  • Removed the Milesago ref. — VJ
  • "AC/DC's first official gig was at Chequers Nightclub in Sydney on 31 December 1973." Do we need all three references? The first one fully covers the sentence. I don't see anything relevant in Browning pg 112.
  • Done. — VJ
  • "costumes: Zorro, a gorilla, and Superman." Ditto. (Everything is covered by the Louder source
  • Done. — VJ
  • Perhaps you can check the others as well? The sentences with three references are particularly suspect.
  • Cleaned. — VJ
  • Is David Kent's MA thesis a necessary source? It's used three times in the opening paragraph of History, all for things covered by other sources. See WP:THESIS (under "Dissertations", not forbidden, but use with caution as their reliability can be questionable).
  • Removed. — VJ
  • I'm not sure the two sources fully support the idea that "Popular Australian bands... played mainstream pop or adopted a glam rock approach". The implication is that Australian bands of the era generally adapted those genres, with Sherbet and the Skyhooks as examples of this phenomenon. The sources don't speak to the general claim (I think? I also may have missed it) but rather only note the genres of those two bands. Is there a better source for this?
  • "The Young brothers had joined Marcus Hook Roll Band... in mid-1973" McFarlane 1999 implies this was late 1973 rather than "mid". I'm not sure what the other source McFarlane blog post, 2017 adds.
  • It now just says "1973". — VJ
  • "although the pair left before it was issued." what reference supports this? I don't see it in the next ref (p. 46 of the Engleheart book).
  • Done. — VJ
  • "Angus joined after passing an audition." I don't see the audition bit in any of the three sources (and I'm not sure what purpose the Kimball and Holmgren sources are serving here?).
  • Done. — VJ

I'm going to pause here. I'm sorry to nitpick, but FAC is really the time for an article to have its i's dotted and t's crossed. I know the article is quite large, but I suggest going through with a fine-toothed comb to make sure references are appropriate and support the content they follow. I'm happy to take another look whenever you're ready, but I fear we're falling into the dreaded WP:FIXLOOP, which no one enjoys. I surely appreciate the time and effort that you've put into improving this article on such a high visibility topic. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

shaidar cuebiyar Hopefully you'll be free to fix the rest. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 10:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Oh dear, a very prominent topic. What's "Bliss. Elsten Software", "chipmidnight.com", "tonedeaf.thebrag.com", "guitarworld.com", "getreadytorock.com", "metalinjection.net", "sleazeroxx.com" and "allthatsinteresting.com"? Is Blabbermouth.net a reliable source? It does seem to be a so-so blog. My impression was that AllMusic was not generally considered to be a high-quality reliable source. Source #139 seems to be a newspaper and should probably be formatted like one. I am not sure that Daily Express is a high-quality reliable source. Source formatting consistent-ish, albeit with some variation due to the different kinds of sources used. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus: Changed Blabbermouth.net to a variety of sources, Daily Express to Guitar.com, Chip Midnight to Loudwire and Tone Deaf to Paste, Metal Injection, Sleaze Roxx, All That's Interesting and Bliss was removed. I unfortunately couldn't find another source to replace Get Ready to Rock. I'm just looking if the website is reliable through WP:RSN. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 07:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Update – I couldn't find a chat discussing Get Ready to Rock, so I made a topic about it and it seems reliable, despite it being a blog. See discussion here. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 06:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: You there? — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 22:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK on Get Ready To Rock, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Sorry to bother; can you spotcheck this? — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 11:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, Ajpolino has already spotchecked several sources and expressed concerns over the article as a whole. The next thing is for the nominators to follow Ajpolino's suggestion and double-check all references to ensure they support the relevant text (while avoiding close paraphrasing or plagiarism). Only then would another spotcheck by an uninvolved party be appropriate. Now given the time this has been open, I'm going to archive this and ask that the nominators undertake source checking and other improvements outside the FAC process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 21:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

More than a month in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the nominators: pardon my absence. Travel led to an illness; go figure. Will get back to this by the end of the weekend. In the meantime, you'll need more reviewers – no doubt our scarcest resource. Tried and true methods for finding them, probably in order of decreasing efficacy, are (1) thoughtfully reviewing other FACs, (2) reaching out to FAC regulars with experience in this topical area, (3) posting at relevant WikiProjects if you haven't already. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

This will likely be piecemeal given the article's length. Aiming to complete in the coming days.

  • their biggest chart hit since For Those About to Rock -- We generally avoid using words such as "hit" in music articles (bios, songs, albums). Preferably single or song is a neutral choice. Same goes with every instance in the body.
  • Hopefully "highest chart peak" will work. — VJ
  • brothers Malcolm and Angus Young formed AC/DC in Sydney -- link Sydney
  • Done. — VJ
  • Matters had quarrelled with the Young brothers' decisions -- maybe disagreed or had disagreements
  • Done. — VJ
  • Big Joe Williams' "Baby, Please Don't Go" (February) -- not sure why the parenthetical is necessary
  • Done. — VJ
  • its tracks had were recorded with Evans and Rudd except for two tracks -- its tracks were recorded with Evans and Rudd except for two tracks
  • Done. — VJ
  • It peaked at number two in Australia and the top 40 in New Zealand. -- unless you are writing the name of the music chart, I would unlink it
  • Done. — VJ
  • Evans' autobiography, Dirty Deeds: My Life Inside/Outside of AC/DC, released in 2011, predominantly dealt with his time in AC/DC. -- not sure if this is necessary, as it doesn't mention any retrospective statements from Evans.
  • Two years later they played their first concert there -- comma after later
  • Done. — VJ
  • which issued on 27 July 1979. -- which was issued
  • Done. — VJ
  • Its hits are "Hells Bells", "You Shook Me All Night Long", "Rock and Roll Ain't Noise Pollution" and the title track. -- avoid using "hits"
  • Done. — VJ
  • It also reached the top spot in Australia,[29] Canada,[93] and France.[94] -- I would unlink the countries as this comes across as MOS:EASTEREGG
  • Done. — VJ
  • The band's eighth studio album, For Those About to Rock We Salute You, released on 23 November 1981. -- was released on 23 November 1981
  • Done. — VJ
  • The group's eleventh studio album, Blow Up Your Video, released in 1988, was recorded at Studio Miraval in Le Val, France and reunited the band with producers Vanda & Young. -- consider splitting this, as this is a bit clunky
  • Done. — VJ
  • and the popular "That's the Way I Wanna Rock 'n' Roll" -- use a more WP:NPOV word choice than popular
  • Removed the words "the popular". — VJ
  • The band's twelfth studio album, The Razors Edge, was recorded in Vancouver, Canada -- link Vancouver
  • Done. — VJ
  • reaching the top three in Australia,[125] Canada,[126] Finland,[103] Germany,[127] Switzerland,[128] -- remove link of charts from Switzerland
  • Done. — VJ
  • which reached number one in Australia,[143] Sweden,[144] -- same as above for Sweden
  • Done. — VJ

Down to 1990–1999: Popularity regained. Will look at the rest soon. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2024 (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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 10 June 2024 [6].


Larrabee County, Iowa[edit]

Nominator(s): 48JCL TALK 23:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC) Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk), 23:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [reply]

This article is about a former proposed county in Iowa, named after the politician William Larrabee. I am confident this will fail but I want to try to see how I can improve this. This is a very short article so I’m probably going to get a ton of opposes. After all, this is my first time here. Hope to come back and cheers 48JCL TALK 23:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point of peer review, to get feedback. And it looks like an ok article right now 750h+ 00:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the nominator's credit, it has already been peer reviewed (although closed fairly early.) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest withdrawal Without a wealth of contemporary newspaper sources, this is not going to be possible to bring up to FA quality. It is far too short and under-detailed - I am unsure if this article meets the GA criteria on breadth, and that's a pretty lenient metric; comprehensive is far stricter and not a bar any given subject could necessarily reach. I will also urge the nominator or any nominator not to submit a FAC if you expect it to fail! This is not Peer Review+. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. 48JCL TALK 00:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: , please note that the nominator wishes to withdraw. Thanks. Epicgenius (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2024 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 June 2024 [7].

Catherine, Princess of Wales[edit]

Nominator(s): MSincccc (talk), Keivan.f (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have collaborated on enhancing the article Catherine, Princess of Wales by updating its sources and refining its prose. With our combined efforts, we believe the article is now ready for submission to FAC. We seek to present a comprehensive and well-researched portrayal of Catherine's life and contributions, and we are committed to ensuring its accuracy and quality throughout the review process. Your feedback and support would be greatly appreciated as we endeavour to achieve recognition for this important piece of work. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Done.
      • Further fixed a few alt text for a neater presentation and enhanced accuracy.
  • File:CatherineSignature.svg: signatures are not generally PD in the UK
    • Removed.
  • File:Cambridge_family_at_Trooping_the_Colour_2019_-_03.jpg is quite poor quality
    • No other pictures of the five of them together exists on the Commons. Personally I think it's better than nothing, though if the Community thinks it's of no encyclopedic value then we'll discard it.
  • File:Royals.18d884.1850611.jpg: source link is dead
    • It was uploaded by User:Janwikifoto. His identity has been verified and archived in the Wikimedia Volunteer Response Team Software, to which I do not have access. But given their track record I really doubt that there is a copyright issue here.
      • It appears that that user has had a number of images deleted over copyright concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Removed it as a precautionary measure to avoid problems down the line. Keivan.fTalk 04:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Arms_of_Catherine,_Princess_of_Wales.svg needs a tag for the original design. Ditto File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Kate_Middleton.svg, File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Catherine,_Duchess_of_Cambridge_(2011-2019).svg, File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Catherine,_Duchess_of_Cambridge.svg, File:Combined_Coat_of_Arms_of_William_and_Catherine,_the_Duke_and_Duchess_of_Cambridge.svg
    • These are the sources: 1, 2, 3. They are already cited in the article's body, so I suppose you want them added to the file descriptions?
      • Those sources indicate these designs are copyrighted? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • The arms were recreated by User:Sodacan for use on the Commons and many of them are in use at Coat of arms of the United Kingdom. There have been some discussions about some of the arms and monograms (1, 2, 3) and the result has been mostly 'keep' since they can be classified as original work. I think even the BBC copied them from us in two instances (1, 2). Keivan.fTalk 04:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • It does not appear that those discussions arrived at the conclusion that these are original work - two were discussions unrelated to copyright, and the third involved a design old enough to be PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            How should we proceed then @Nikkimaria? Regards. MSincccc (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • You'd need to either find appropriate tags for these or remove them. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              @Nikkimaria Should I temporarily remove them until I can find suitable tags for the noted images? Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              @Nikkimaria Removed the images mentioned from the article in the absence of an appropriate tag. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yeah, remove them for now. But this is beyond the scope of this discussion. I single handedly cannot determine the copyright status of several coats of arms which is why I'll most probably start a deletion discussion on the Commons to address the issue. Keivan.fTalk 15:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                • Coats of arms should be OK as long as they are drawn from the blazon and not direct copies, per Commons:Commons:Coats of arms. DrKay (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Should I re-insert the Coat of Arms that have been removed then without an appropriate image tag @DrKay and @Nikkimaria? Do let us know. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I started a discussion on the Commons before seeing your message. If Commons:Commons:Coats of arms does indeed apply then I can withdraw that deletion request. Otherwise, I'll let the community decide because we are here to discuss the content of this article not the copyright status of several coats of arms in detail and I feel this discussion is going off track. Keivan.fTalk 17:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                    @Nikkimaria and @DrKay Do you have any further suggestions for us regarding the images? Looking forward to your responses. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @Nikkimaria: Re "needs a tag for the original design"—there is no original design for any of these. Coats of arms are rendered based on their blazon—a written description in standardized language. Each rendition is an original work in its own right. These files are, indeed, missing the {{Coa blazon}} tag, which clarifies this issue, but in terms of copyright and licensing they are all already appropriately tagged. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Based on the feedback received here and at the deletion discussion, I have restored the coats of arms. There is nothing wrong with their copyright status apparently. Keivan.fTalk 18:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Potternewton_Hall_Estate;_home_of_Olive_Middleton_(nee_Lupton)_and_her_cousin_Baroness_von_Schunck_(nee_Kate_Lupton).jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The uploader is still active on the Commons so I left a message to enquire about the file's origin. I'm waiting for their response. Keivan.fTalk 04:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed the image. I did not receive feedback from the uploader despite waiting for almost a week. Keivan.fTalk 18:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria Do you have any additional suggestions regarding the images used, their captions, and licensing? If so, please share your thoughts. Thank you for your feedback. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Are you satisfied with the images used, their captions and it's licensing? If yes, please do let us know of your verdict. Also, any further suggestions to improve the images would be greatly appreciated. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remain of the opinion that File:Cambridge_family_at_Trooping_the_Colour_2019_-_03.jpg is a poor-quality image, and there's another of the five in the article already. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the File:Cambridge_family_at_Trooping_the_Colour_2019_-_03.jpg. @Nikkimaria Could you please tell me which other images are poor in quality and need to be fixed? Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have quality concerns regarding other images. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Thanks for clarifying. Do you have any further suggestions for the image review, or does it conclude here? If so, please let us know your thoughts and your verdict. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no further suggestions. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a general support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h[edit]

  • Comments to come soon. 750h+ 05:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lead
  • On 9 September 2022, she became Princess of Wales when her husband was created Prince of Wales by his father, King Charles III. I feel like "created" sounds weird. recommend replacing with "declared"
early life, education and career
  • Following her mother's retirement and the buyout of her majority shareholding, the new business management at that stage encountered difficulties after axing the quarterly product catalogue. remove "at that stage" since we already know it was after her mother's retirement
  • and benefited financially from trust funds which they had established over a century ago. remove "had"
  • I feel like She obtained three A-Levels in 2000, with an 'A' in mathematics, an 'A' in art, and a 'B' in English. isn't particularly necessary, it's a pretty random year and isn't usually included in these types of articles.
personal life
  • After her graduation, Middleton and her family were faced with intensive tabloid press scrutiny. ==> "After her graduation, Middleton and her family faced intensive tabloid press scrutiny."
  • at a remote alpine cabin on Mount Kenya,[71] during a 10-day trip remove the comma
  • an undisclosed medical condition that was not cancer, after she had been admitted to remove the comma.
  • undisclosed medical condition that was not cancer, after she had been admitted to The London Clinic the previous day. The London Clinic should not have a capital "the". It's somewhat like "the Beatles".
  • for social and emotional development of youngsters ==> "for the social and emotional development of youngsters". Also change the word "youngsters", it's not very formal. Maybe change it to "young people"?
charity work
  • In May 2021, Catherine received her first dose of COVID-19 vaccine by => "In May 2021, Catherine received her first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine by"
  • Catherine has been hosting a Christmas carol concert at Westminster Abbey called Together At Christmas annually since December 2021.The 2021 concert honoured those who made significant contributions during the COVID-19 pandemic. why is there no space between the two sentences
  • In March 2022 and amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Catherine and William made a donation to help the refugees. ==> "In March 2022 amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Catherine and William made a donation to help the refugees."
  • The same month, she and William voiced the Mental Health Minute message again, which was broadcast on ==> "The same month, she and William voiced the Mental Health Minute message again, which broadcast on"
privacy and the media
  • The death of Diana, Princess of Wales, while being chased by paparazzi in August 1997[299] has since influenced her elder son, William's, attitude towards the media. ==> "The death of Diana, Princess of Wales, while being chased by paparazzi in August 1997[299] has since influenced her elder son William's attitude towards the media."
titles, styles, etc
  • Upon her marriage in April 2011, Catherine automatically became a princess of the United Kingdom, gained the style Royal Highness and the titles Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, and Baroness Carrickfergus. remove "automatically"
  • She was normally known as "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge" except in Scotland, where she was instead called "Her Royal Highness The Countess of Strathearn". change "normally" to "formally"
verdict

That's all i have, nice work. But before supporting I might wait for a more experienced editor to join the conversation. you'll probably benefit from pinging some like SchroCat, HAL333, ChrisTheDude, or the people on the list of WP:FAM. Best, 750h+ 11:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@750h+, I have addressed all your comments and made the necessary changes. Your support for Catherine's nomination will be greatly appreciated. Please put forward you suggestions, if you have any more. Looking forward to a positive response. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean support. Waiting for another editor before i can fully support though. (consider pinging an experienced editor). 750h+ 13:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging experienced users on 750h+'s suggestion: @HAL333:, @ChrisTheDude:,@Gerda Arendt:, @Mike Christie:, @Harry Mitchell:, @Nick-D:, @Generalissima:, @Gog the Mild: and @Tim O'Doherty:. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MSinccc, that's not you ping users, you do {{ping|Example user}}. Also please do not ping that many people, three or around there is ok. 750h+ 13:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@750h+: I have pinged the users exactly the way you suggested. talk) 13:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I've reverted one of these suggestions, namely "first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine", as there are several different vaccines. Also, I'm not particularly convinced about the "received [...] by NHS staff". How about "Catherine's first dose of COVID-19 vaccine was administered by NHS staff at [...]"? Rosbif73 (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The present sentence is fine as it stands. Thanks for your suggestion by the way @Rosbif73. Please feel free to leave any further suggestions you have. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: @MSincccc, you have recently harmonised the capitalisation of the titles of cited sources. I can't find anything in the content guidelines or style guide about this, but it feels wrong to be changing the capitalisation actually used by the source itself. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosbif73 Its as per MOS:TITLECONFORM. Tim O'Doherty, who reviewed the article and it's related ones for GA, suggested that the capitalisation be made consistent as per MOS:TITLECONFORM. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I wasn't aware of TITLECONFORM, thanks for the link. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sodium[edit]

I intend to get to doing a review soonish. Sohom (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early_life,_education_and_career[edit]
  • Do we need upper-middle class in the first sentence, is this something the sources emphasize?
    • The fact that she is a "commoner" set to become the queen is discussed in the sources: 1, 2, etc. But it's also pointed out that her family were not poor 3. So I'd say those three words sum the whole thing up perfectly but if everyone insists on their removal then I'll definitely oblige.
  • This first paragraph is a mess in terms of a timeline. It starts with the subject being born before then talking about the mother's occupation a few years later and then catapulting into her retirement and then post retirement health of the company which she helped found. All the while the reader is left wondering what this has to do with Catherine herself.
  • The second paragraph feels even more out of place, and feels a bit unrelated. I would rewrite and absorb this paragraph into the first paragraph.
    • I trimmed and merged the two paragraphs. I have kept the info on her paternal and maternal family background to some extent. I'll wait until you reach the "Ancestry" section before moving around information on her family. That way I can get a finalized frame based on which I can trim/remove/alter the info.
  • she was enrolled aged four at St Andrew's School,... -- she was enrolled into St Andrew's School, ... at the age of four?
    • Yes. Per the BBC: "Catherine joined the school at four years old when her family returned to West Berkshire in 1986 after spending two-and-a-half years in Jordan. She was predominantly a day girl but boarded for part of the week in her later years."
  • she achieved a gold Duke of Edinburgh Award -- probably needs to be rephrased, "achieve" doesn't sound right here.
    • Rephrased and moved to the appropriate place.
  • before focusing solely on art history. -- solely is unnecessary
    • Removed.
  • The second last paragraph of the section reads like a laundry list of things that Catherine did before she married royalty, maybe instead of doing this, we could give a more general overview and contextualize it by merging in "Pre-marriage relationship with Prince William" (which appears to have happened in about the same timeframe)
    • Renamed the section to "Early life and education". Trimmed the paragraph, then divided the info between "Pre-marriage relationship with Prince William" and "Charity work" with information concerning her career and place of living put in the former, and the information on her pre-marital charity work in the latter.
  • The last paragraph seems almost unrelated it should be absorbed elsewhere.
    • Moved to footnote [a].
Pre-marriage relationship with Prince William[edit]
  • After her graduation, Middleton and her family faced intensive tabloid press scrutiny. that single statement is provided without context, why did she recieve intense tabloid coverage?
    • Clarified. According to the sources it stemmed from the fact that she was dating William, which the article now mentions.
  • She and her family attended the Concert for Diana in July 2007,where she and William sat two rows apart. this feels like a unnecessary amount of detail?
    • Removed.
  • with the day declared a bank holiday in the United Kingdom. Make this a seperate sentence instead of akwardly chaining two things together.
    • Done.
  • Catherine keeps bees on the grounds. What? Why? Huh? (This sentence doesn't fit in and disrupts the flow of the paragraph and should be moved somewhere else)
    • Removed. It referred to the grounds of Anmer Hall which is discussed in the previous sentence, but I agree. It's trivial and can be discarded.
  • for an undisclosed medical condition that was not cancer
    • Done.
That's it for right now, I intend to go through the rest over the weekend. My intial impressions with this review are unfortunately that the article will need a lot of restructuring and rewriting to become cohesive enough for a FA. I can see that a lot of effort went into tracking all the sources and compiling all of this information, and I'm really impressed by the level of detial, however, it currently feels a bit all over the place and without a cohesive narrative it's a bit of a mixed bag of information. Sohom (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sohom Datta Thank you for your comments. Let us know if you have any further suggestions for the article. It would be greatly appreciated. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tried my best to address all of your concerns. I'm glad you found the article appropriately detailed. We did our best to ensure we are not missing anything of value. Will carry on once you have posted all your comments. Cheers. Keivan.fTalk 04:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More from me Sohom (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sohom Datta I have addressed most of your comments. Thanks for your suggestions. They are greatly appreciated. Please do let us know if you have any further inputs to share regarding Catherine's article. I hope my responses to the suggestions are clear. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • when she and William met Barack and Michelle Obama at Buckingham Palace. there should be something more to add here? Did she handle it well?
    • Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your suggestion to add more details. However, we believe the current information sufficiently highlights the significance of Catherine's first official engagement after her wedding. By keeping the details concise, we aim to maintain the article's focus and readability. We hope this approach aligns with the overall objective of providing a clear and informative summary. Thank you again for your valuable input.
    • Added a short sentence which clarifies that the meeting was "warm" as a per the sources.
  • The first paragraph is again a laundry list of "she did this". Try to put atleast a line or two to contextualize the events (for example was there any particularly notable coverage of their tour of Canada or the US ?)
    • The detailed information regarding their visits has been covered in this article. Furthermore, the article 2011 royal tour of Canada covers their first major tour after their marriage in depth. Here, we are only summarising the overseas visits she undertook in an official capacity. Hence, all the engagements she carried out have been left out, following the GA reviewer's recommendations. Otherwise, the article would be unnecessarily long.
  • Similar issues with the 4th paragraph
    • Similar response as above. This article covers all the information regarding the official overseas visits in detail. We are only summarising here so as to not have an unnecessarily long biography.
  • visiting County Meath, Kildare, and Galway. that's a WP:SEAOFBLUE. Also I wonder if the Ireland trip is particularly important to include here. For the whole section, I would err on the side of including only the most important trips and then contextualizing and building a narrative/describing notable events instead of trying to pack as many events as possible.
    • Given that The Troubles lasted for three decades and William's great-great-uncle was assassinated by the IRA in 1979, I would say any trip to Ireland by the royal family is important. Even to this day their visits to Ireland are announced at the very last minute.
    • Solved the WP:SEAOFBLUE issue by replacing the names with "three of the country's counties".
  • The following day, William was created Prince of Wales by his father -- created doesn't make sense in this context
    • That's the standard usage in this context and can be found in countless reliable sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • She holds a number of charitable patronages:..... Same issues as above. That is a laundry list and a SEAOFBLUE.
    • Some of them were already discussed in the prose with context, so I linked them there instead. The other eight that were not mentioned specifically in the prose, I turned into a footnote (as has been done for articles such as Diana, Princess of Wales and Queen Camilla).
  • handpicked the Art Room this is confusing, I assume she handpicked the art in the Art room and not specifically the art room
    • Using "the art in The Art Room" could be misleading as it suggests she selected specific pieces of art within The Art Room rather than the organisation itself. Referring to "The Art Room" directly clarifies that she chose the entire charity or program, which provided art therapy to disadvantaged children.
  • handpicked the Art Room The source capitalizes the in "the Art Room"
    • Done. Thanks for the suggestion.
  • She discreetly volunteered with the Royal Voluntary Service during the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 pandemic gets mentioned in the previous sentence, maybe say during the same time period.
    • Done. Thanks for your suggestion.
  • first dose of COVID-19 vaccine Do we know which vaccine she took?
    • From the cited source where it is clearly mentioned as such.
    • No, unfortunately we don't know the type, neither for her nor for other family members.


From Tim riley[edit]

The nominator has invited my comments. I think the article looks comprehensive. I think the heraldic excursus is seriously superfluous and I suggest it should be removed. The article List of titles and honours of Catherine, Princess of Wales would be a more suitable location for this sort of obscure information. I think the switch from calling her "Middleton" to calling her "Catherine" is well managed. Tim riley talk 17:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley Thank you for your suggestions. It would be addressed soon. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley I have moved the Arms section to the article concerning her titles and honours. Do you want me to trim, add or modify the article any further? Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing more from me. Good work as far as I can see, and I wish the article well at FAC. Tim riley talk 18:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I know enough about the topic to feel confident in offering my support, but I certainly don't oppose the promotion of this article. Tim riley talk 12:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From Ssilvers[edit]

  • I am not sure that the WP:LEAD contains all the Lead-worthy facts about the subject. It mentions her charity work and fashion impact but does not give an overview of her other public appearances or describe what she normally has done as a member of the Royal family (before her illness). Nor does it nod to the extensive "Privacy and the media" section. The Lead also says that Catherine was listed by Time mag as " as a finalist in 2018" (is this Leadworthy?), but it does not say that anywhere in the body of the article.
    • @Ssilvers I have rephrased the lead based on your comments. If you have any further recommendations to improve the article, please let us know. I look forward to your response.
    • Removed the phrase "as a finalist in 2018" from the lead. I will be revising the lead shortly. Thanks for your time and suggestions.
  • The Lead says that she "held several jobs in retail and marketing", but the body of the article says that she was an accessory buyer for a year (part time) and worked as a "project manager" for the family business. This indicates that either (1) the Lead has not been updated to reflect improvements to the body of the article or (2) a more serious problem with the research of the body of the article.
    • [This source] says that Before marrying into the Royal Family, Kate Middleton spent time working as project manager for Party Pieces. She stopped the job ahead of her 2011 royal wedding to Prince William. whereas [this one from the Guardian] reports that Her unspectacular career at Jigsaw and then at Party Pieces, where she was responsible for the website and catalogue, has at least demonstrated an interest in design, marketing and fashion. The latter also reports on her career as an accessory buyer.
      • Right, so the Lead and the body of the article are inconsistent. And if you are going to mention retail at all, I'd say "buyer for retail". -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the present version fine @Ssilvers? I have removed the phrase "in retail and marketing" from the lead.
Yes, ok, but the Lead still does not give an overview of her other public appearances or describe what she normally has done as a member of the Royal family (before her illness), and it does not give an overview of the "Privacy and the media" section, per WP:LEAD.
  • A lot of the prose is very vague or makes the timeline of events confusing. For example, I saw a reference to "the latter" that was difficult to relate to the intended person (I fixed it), and I see sentences like this: "Middleton, who was christened as a child, decided to be confirmed". Did she go through with the confirmation or not? If so, it would be much clearer to say that she "was confirmed", rather than that she made a decision to become confirmed, which is a less noteworthy fact than whether or not she actually *was* confirmed.
    • Done. Per The Guardian: There was no pressure for Kate Middleton to get confirmed – she did it because she wanted to, showing her strength of faith. She indeed went through with the confirmation.
  • Another example of this comes soon afterwards, where it says "Catherine assumed the style 'Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge'". The source says: "Miss Catherine Middleton on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge.” The phrase "assumed the style" is problematic. This use of style is not familiar to many non-Brits, so it should either be linked to Style (form of address) or, better yet, say "title" instead of style. The term "assumed" -- did she insist on the title, or did the laws/rules/Queen give her that title? A simple solution would be that she "received the title", although that would still beg the question of how, exactly, she got it. Perhaps there is a link that would help. Finally, this source does not actually verify that it happened, just that it "will" happen.
    • This issue has been taken care of now. Thanks for the suggestion.
      • There is still the passive voice problem created by "assumed". The sentence explains "why" she got the title, but now how. I recall that there was intense discussion about it at the time, so I don't believe it was dictated by law or precise custom. Was it "granted" to her by the queen, did she "choose" it? Did she and William choose it? Was it based (by whom?) on a previous Princess of Wales's style? Not that it is so important, but it is a symptom of my concerns about the prose in this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Was it "granted" to her by the queen? Yes. The use of primary sources is not encouraged by Wikipedia, but for the sake of clarification, the following is from the royal family's official website: The Queen has today been pleased to confer a Dukedom on Prince William of Wales. His titles will be Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus. Prince William thus becomes His Royal Highness The Duke of Cambridge and Miss Catherine Middleton on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge. I will adjust the wording accordingly.
          • Thanks, but you do not understand my question. It was about exact style "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge". I think the right answer is "no", that it was decided in consultation with William and palace advisors, and slightly different from the style used by, for example, Diana. But my problem is with the quasi-passive voice problem created by "assumed". If we can't state it with certainty, it could more easily be solved by "became styled...." -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, the thing is that wives of future kings have not had the exact same style historically as you pointed out. Alexandra of Denmark was "HRH The Princess of Wales" from the beginning as her husband was first in line to the throne, while Mary of Teck was "HRH The Duchess of York" as her husband was second in line at the time of their marriage. I cannot say with certainty how they decide on a style, but to solve the 'passive voice' issue I'll follow your advice and change it to "became styled....".
              • Thanks. I'm not sure my phrasing is much better, but at least it removes the implication that we know she chose the style herself. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...were respectively third, fourth and fifth in the line of succession to the British throne.... Shouldn't we say that, after the death of Elizabeth, they moved up to 2nd, 3rd and 4th? Or just say that instead, as it seems more important to readers today than the order at their birth.
    • Done. Thanks for your suggestion.
  • "Her medical leave from public engagements was subsequently extended." Until when? Has she returned to public engagements?
    • Unfortunately, Kensington Palace has not mentioned any specific date or time for her return. She will be returning to public engagements only when she has been cleared to do so by her medical team.
  • When William became Prince of Wales, Catherine became Princess of Wales
    • Fixed it in lead as per your suggestions. Thank you.

Good luck with the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers Thank you for your suggestions. I have addressed the majority of them and will ensure the remaining points are resolved soon. If you have any further recommendations to improve the article, please let us know. I look forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Bit of a general question: How reliable are British newspapers when discussing the royal family? My impression is that between sensationalism, cozy relationships between media and royal family etc. there is quite some scope for unreliability. I'd be a lot more comfortable with the sourcing if it relied far more on biographies than news media. "news.com.au" doesn't seem like the correct way to format a source. What's "www.iol.co.za" and "popsugar.uk"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, and The Guardian are all generally reliable sources as per Wikipedia's guidelines. The "news.com.au" citation will be replaced soon. Unfortunately, there are no book sources available for this article's subject at the moment. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to any further suggestions.
Kind regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there are no book sources available for this article's subject at the moment Really? Seems unlikely, considering the coverage that the pair have received nationally and internationally. Let's take a look.
Catherine Middleton: The Making of a Modern Queen; Catherine Middleton: Her First Year as HRH the Duchess of Cambridge; A Modern Royal Marriage: Prince William of Wales & Catherine Middleton; The Ancestry of Catherine Middleton; Kate: The Making of a Princess; Kate: A Biography; William & Catherine: Their Romance and Royal Wedding; Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge; The Story of Catherine: Duchess by Day, Mother by Night; Kate: The Future Queen; The Duchess of Cambridge.
H'mmm. Seems to be sufficient to build a pretty decent article out of. Not every single one may be the highest quality RS, but it is impossible that most aren't. It's hard to see how in its current state it passes WP:FA? 1C, and by extension, possibly 1D also. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 17:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too am wondering how this article meets the FAC sourcing requirements when not a single ones of these books has been used as a source? There are also ten citations to Hello! magazine, which Headbomb's "unreliable sources" script calls a "generally unreliable source". Esculenta (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Esculenta and @Serial Number 54129 Thanks for your suggestions. They will be taken care of soon. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All references to Hello magazine have been replaced and removed. I don't why the other nominator gave the impression that no books have been cited in this article. At the time of writing this: citation #6 uses Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Cultural Consumption, Classification and Power, and Prince William: A Biography as a source; citation # 7 and 283 use Kate - A Biography of Kate Middleton; citation #13 uses The Ancestry of Catherine Middleton; citation #28 uses Kate: The Making of a Princess; citation #354 uses William & Catherine: A Royal Wedding Souvenir; citation #355 uses Battle of Brothers, etc. So basically the article has both online and print sources. Keivan.fTalk 21:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone please confirm whether the nominators have reviewed each of the books listed by Serial Number above to harvest the source's encyclopedic information, or, on the other hand, decided not to use each source? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comment. Kate - A Biography of Kate Middleton, The Ancestry of Catherine Middleton, and Kate: The Making of a Princess are already used in this article. This book is straight up trash with a manipulated photo of Kate on its cover. This book is pretty much just about their wedding, and there is so much we can fit into this article about their wedding ceremony. This book doesn't have a proper publisher attached to it. This one is pretty much about her style for which we have a separate article. These two (1, 2) are pretty outdated. Could they have been used as a source for some of the information that is already here? I would personally say yes, but I honestly don't think their absence from this article could be equated to valuable information being withheld from readers here. I'll leave detailed evaluation to the commentators here and if they decide that any of these books is worthy of inclusion then I will try to utilize it as a reference. Keivan.fTalk 22:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Please add any of the more useful ones that you nevertheless decided not to use under "Further reading". -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a procedural matter, shouldn't all the book sources be listed at the bottom of the article above "Further reading" under a Sources heading, with the cites to them given in "short citation form"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll take care of it. Thanks for the suggestion. Keivan.fTalk 22:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "royal duties and commitments in support of the British monarch." What is the difference between the two?
The present version acknowledges the breadth and depth of Catherine's contributions, showcasing her comprehensive engagement with both formal royal duties and additional commitments, providing a fuller picture of her role and impact within the monarchy.

Royal duties encompass official tasks expected of royals, such as attending events, representing the monarchy, and engaging in charitable work. Commitments extend beyond these formal obligations and include personal, professional, or philanthropic endeavors that support the monarchy's values and goals. While duties are often prescribed by tradition, commitments may include discretionary activities aligned with the royal family's broader mission and interests.

  • Are the health issues worth mentioning in the lead? It could be argued that given the prominence of the discussions of her health, that many readers would be looking for some word.
Just as the Earthshot Prize stands as William's most significant project to date, Heads Together represents Catherine's. This initiative, unrelated to her current medical condition, underscores her longstanding advocacy for mental health and early years. Its mention in the lead is significance, given its prominence and her enduring commitment to these causes.
I think by "health issues" Wehwalt is referring to her recent cancer diagnosis. There were lengthy discussions about this on the talk page and one of the concerns raised was WP:RECENTISM. Nevertheless, I added one sentence at the end of the last paragraph in the lede.
  • "Her paternal family benefited financially from trust funds and her great-grandparents Noël and Olive Middleton, played host to members of the British royal family in the 1920s through to the 1940s." I wonder somewhat at the placement of the comma. I might delete it as well as the word "and" and place a semicolon after "funds".
Done
  • "She boarded part-weekly at St Andrew's in her later years." I might add "there" at the end. Is it known when she left one school and started another?
  • "sports" Should this be "sport" in British English?
Done
  • "women's field hockey team" Since these are children who attend this school, should this be "girl's"?
Done.
In this context, "women's" is more appropriate as it refers to the age group and level of competition rather than the gender of the students. Since Marlborough College is a co-educational boarding school, it's more common to use "women's" to denote the level of the field hockey team, regardless of the age of the players. Therefore, "women's field hockey team" is the preferred phrasing.
Preferred by who? The school uses "girls".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt Then I had also use "girl's". I was previously referring the OED solely and thus based opinion. I will change it presently. Regards.

MSincccc (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "seat at the University of Edinburgh" should "seat" be "place" in British English?
Done.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt Thanks for your suggestions. I have addressed all of them and left a suitable response when U did not make the suggested change. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in William's stead" Maybe "in William's place" but I'm something at a loss to understand this. She was substituting for William? At a fairly major family event with HM present? Really?
Thank you for your feedback. The phrase "in William's stead" was intended to convey that Middleton attended the wedding in place of Prince William, who was unable to attend. To improve clarity, I have revised the sentence.
  • You seem inconsistent in whether to hyphenate "search and rescue"
Done.
  • "Middleton, who was christened as a child, was confirmed into the Church of England preceding her wedding.[66] The confirmation service was conducted on 10 March at St James's Palace by the Bishop of London with her family and William in attendance.[67]" It feels like you are telling us she was confirmed once in each sentence. Can the sentences be combined?
Thank you for your suggestion. I have combined the sentences to avoid redundancy and improve clarity.
  • "Catherine became styled " Is this the proper phrasing?
The phrase "Catherine became styled" is correct according to traditional British titles and styles. However, for clarity and consistency, it has been rephrased.
  • Kensington Palace is linked at the start of "Health" not too long after it was previously linked.
Thank you for highlighting this. I have removed the redundant link to Kensington Palace in the 'Health' section to avoid over-linking.
  • "She was formally introduced to public life in February 2011" What does "formally introduced" mean in this context?
I have rephrased the sentence for clarity. It simply means that she made her first public appearance in an official capacity in February 2011.
More to follow--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

You invited, and finally I have a bit of extra time. I'll look at the lead in the end. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

  • I don't need the hospital where she was born there. Enough in the body.
Removed.

Early life

  • How about introducing at least her parents (if not other ancestors also) before she is baptised. Then the younger brothers?
Done
  • "She briefly studied psychology" - when and where, or simultaneously?
Done. I have rephrased the sentence for clarity and to avoid repetition.

Pre-marriage relationship with Prince William

  • how about: Relationship with Prince William?
Pre-marriage relationship is the most preferable term. Consensus was achieved discussed here.
  • "She previously lived in an apartment owned by her parents in Chelsea, London, with her sister." - How about saying that when it begins?
Thank you for your suggestion. I have revised the sentence to indicate her living arrangement more clearly from the beginning.
  • "who was christened as a child, was confirmed into the Church of England" - if she was not baptised into the CoE, say so in the beginning, but if, why repeat it at all?
Done.

Marriage

  • "The couple married on 29 April 2011 at Westminster Abbey (St Catherine's Day)." It took a bit until it dawned to me that the saint matched her name ;) - why not "at Westminster Abbey on St Catherine's Day"?
Done

Patronages

  • I suggest to have a few more subheaders such as sports, photography, addiction.
Done.

Privacy

  • That section is too detailed for my taste. A few relevant instances perhaps, but the minutia in a separate article?

Lead

  • Can you keep chronology and first mention meeting William, then graduation (4 years later)?
Done.

That's all. Thank you for the article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt Thanks for your suggestions. I have covered all of them except the "Privacy and media" related one which I will be covering later. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt I have trimmed the Privacy and media section retaining essential information along with the citations. Looking forward to knowing your thoughts on the refined version. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the changes, I feel understood ;) - I support for FA.
I'd like to discuss two points, here or on the talk, you decide.
  • I am not happy with the rendering of Princess of Wales (more) in the infobox which I didn't notice last night. In this case I think it's more part of the name than a title. It isn't italic in the article. Possible changes:
    • find a way to at least not make it italic
    • have (more) in an new line
    • move Princess of Wales to the name and say (list) in title
  • The discussion you pointed me to was Pre-marriage vs. Pre-wedding, but my suggestion is to drop any and leave a neutral "Relationship". The term Pre-marriage relationship is (for my taste) too close to premarital sex which - as that article says - is a sin in some cultures, and the English Wikipedia has readers from all over the world with different background. The kind of relationship needs not to be described in the header. I guess 99% of our readers know already that she became his wife when they come to the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt Thank you for your feedback regarding the rendering of "Princess of Wales" in the infobox. I understand your concerns and agree that it is important to ensure consistency and clarity. Hence I have made the necessary changes. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 08:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your fast reaction, probably before I even got to fine-tune ;) - The (more) stands now (more than before) unexplained, more what? The reader doesn't see that the parameter is "title". (That's why the great Brian Boulton explicitly said "composer" when he used infobox classical composer first, for Percy Grainger, recently partly restored to this 2013 version, don't ask me why.) You could say "(titles)" or "List of titles", but that also should not appear italic. In {{infobox person}}, titles don't come italic, and later in the list. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt I have replaced "more" with the phrase "List of titles and honours". Is it fine now? Looking forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 08:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, but needs no brackets, and should not be italic. I could imagine to suggest at the template talk that titles are not automatically italic, - I see many instances where it's not wanted. - What about the Pre-question? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
found something: you could put the list in |moretext=, see Elizabeth II. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt I have replaced "Pre-marriage relationship..." with "Relationship with ..." in both William's and Catherine's articles. Looking forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments Gerda Arendt. With regards to the infobox, I just removed the list of titles and honours altogether and just left her primary title there. That ensures that it remains consistent with other articles and also takes care of the problem you had with the vague word "more". Keivan.fTalk 16:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • More than five weeks in and just a single support, despite quite a bit of interest. A consensus to promote is not forming and so I am going to archive it. The usual two-week hiatus will apply before it can be brought back here. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2024 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 4 June 2024 [8].

Nonmetal[edit]

Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having attempted to go around the FAC buoy eight times without success, here’s my ninth nomination. Over the course of its FAC history, the article has attracted 10 supports and two "inclined to" supports, but never with enough clear air.

Your consideration and feedback will be gratefully appreciated.

If it succeeds this time, it will complement the metalloid FA. The long-term aim is to then bring the metal article up to FA status, completing the trifecta. Sandbh (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I've read through this article and commented on some of the previous nominations. In my opinion, it now meets the criteria. Double sharp (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the article is great, but has way too many distracting non-reference footnotes. Footnotes should be rare and only used to clarify non-informational aspects. For example a footnote might explain why a formula in the article differs from a reference. Incorporate on-topic footnotes into the article and use wikilinks for related material. (I made a similar comment on the Talk page).
Johnjbarton (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnjbarton: Thanks for your feedback. Here’s my perspective on the use of footnotes in the article, in the context of the Wikipedia FAC criteria:
1a. Well-written: Its prose is engaging and of a professional standard.
1b. Comprehensive: It neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.
1c. Well-researched: It is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature.
Footnotes are particularly useful for the subject matter, which is characterized by nuances, caveats, exceptions, and fuzziness. This is especially true for nonmetals in chemistry, where complex details often require additional clarification or context.
As I understand it, footnotes are often used as an alternative to:
  • Comments or annotations
  • Additional information
  • Longer explanations
  • Qualifications
These might otherwise be too digressive for the main text.
I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy requiring footnotes to be rare and only used to clarify non-informational aspects. Instead, I believe their use can enhance the article's depth and readability without overwhelming the main content. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All that said, I'm going to review the footnotes, and will let you know. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nature of the footnotes is explanatory, data-related, or commentary, which I feel is appropriate rather than being incorporated into the text. --- Sandbh (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by YBG[edit]

I will add comments here as they occur to me. YBG (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) In § Abundance, we read the following note:
In the Earth's core there may be around 1013 tons of xenon, in the form of stable XeFe3 and XeNi3 intermetallic compounds. This could explain why "studies of the Earth's atmosphere have shown that more than 90% of the expected amount of Xe is depleted."
My question: are all of three of these facts directly stated in the reference (Zhu et al. 2014, pp. 644–648)?
  • (a) The amount & forms of Xe in the core
  • (b) The quote re atmospheric studies
  • (c) That (a) "may explain" (b)
—— YBG (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Yes. The title of the article is relevant: "Reactions of xenon with iron and nickel are predicted in the Earth’s inner core". The authors write:
"Studies of the Earth’s atmosphere have shown that more than 90% of the expected amount of Xe is depleted...under these conditions, Xe and Fe/Ni can form intermetallic compounds, of which XeFe3 and XeNi3 are energetically the most stable. This shows that the Earth’s inner core is a natural reservoir for Xe storage and provides a solution to the missing Xe paradox...The Earth’s core, which contains approximately one-third of the Earth’s mass, has also been considered a potential Xe reservoir...If Xe were captured in the Earth’s inner core, it would have to form chemically stable compounds with Fe and Ni to resist any release into the atmosphere. Here, we establish just such chemical reactions of Xe and Fe/Ni...Our results reveal that XeFe3 and XeNi3 are readily stable under the conditions in the Earth’s inner core...Accordingly, the Earth’s inner core is a viable natural reservoir for depleted Xe...the total mass of depleted Xe is on the order of 1 × 1013 kg (ref. 2), which is about ten orders of magnitude lower than that of the Earth’s inner core (9.67 × 1022 kg). Thus, storage of the entire missing Xe would therefore make a negligible contribution to the total mass and density of the Earth’s inner core. The present findings might also shed light on the Earth’s evolution by virtue of the model of the missing Xe in the Earth’s inner core. --- Sandbh (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(2) § Uses has little cohesiveness; the previous version was better but not by much. The lists of element symbols are understandable only to the expert; replacing them with element names would make it almost as tedious as the previous list of uses.
I suggest developing this section along these lines:
  1. Characteristic uses of nonmetals. Uses shared by all (or almost all) nonmetals and by no (or almost no) metals. List three or maybe four; no need to be comprehensive. You’ve got a start to this already, just grab the references from the (to be deleted) table. If you can connect the use to some shared chemical or physical property of nonmetals, so much the better. Expected reader reaction: This set of elements really is a cohesive set with shared uses based on shared properties.
  2. Characteristic uses of nonmetal subsets. Maybe start this with semiconductors and insulators which contrast with the use of metals as conductors. Expected reader reaction: This set of elements may be cohesive but also display variability.
  3. Variety of uses. A half-dozen or so uses that display the variety and variability of nonmetals, contrasting with the relative sameness of metals and uses of metals. Expected reader reaction: Wow, there is so much variety.
  4. Exotic uses. Perhaps an extension of the previous list of uses, perhaps a list in its own right. Expected reader reaction: What a bizarre bunch of elements!
  5. Surprisingly common. Here’s where your household accoutrements come in. I see this as a list of all nonmetals with where you would find them used in your home. Expected reader reaction: These bizarre and exotic elements are right here under my nose!
This is just one idea of how to organize this section. Above all, I’d say ditch the tables. I generally prefer tables to paragraphs, but in this case, I think pure paragraphs would be better. YBG (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Thanks. I've just read your suggestion will give it further thought. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Smokefoot[edit]

This article is the hobby horse of a clique of editors who composed the article and defend their turf very effectively. Those characteristics are weaknesses.

Comment. Not so; 80.9% of edits to the article have been made by me. About 83.8% of the text has been added by me. There's no clique of editors. Nor is there any evidence of a clique defending their "turf". Quite the contrary; from the nonmetal talk page there's an abundance of critical feedback, which I've taken into account; ditto applies to the past eight FAC nominations. Along the way, nine differing editors have expressed support, or indicated they were close to, inclined to, or believed they could support. Between them, these editors have made about 13% of edits and roughly 8% of content. Sandbh (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I feel that your position Smokefoot, is compromised by your view that "I am not a fan of classifications within chemistry". I offer this in the context of classification being deeply rooted in chemistry literature, and widely utilised. Sandbh (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The comment by @Smokefoot is not about the article content. Who wrote the article and why is irrelevant and should be ignored. Johnjbarton (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the article? Let's see:

  • "Fourteen elements are almost always recognized as nonmetals:..."

but

  • "Three more are commonly classed as nonmetals, but some sources list them as "metalloids""

still not finished:

  • "One or more of the six elements most commonly recognized as metalloids are sometimes instead counted as nonmetals"

So, scope = 14 elements ± 3 ± 6.

The point of the article is unclear. If one wants to read about noble gases or about halogens or about chalcogens, and other columns of the main group, then fine: these articles exist (and always invite improvements). But the article on Nonmetal is a collection of only some of these elements. So who wants to read about a clique's idea of their subset of elements (which ranges in numer from 14 to 24)?

Comment. The point of the article is made clear by its title and hatnote. It's not about groups of the periodic table. As the article makes clear, the classifications involved have a history dating back to as early as 1844. Sandbh (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some elements are nonmetals, which are defined by certain physical properties for those elements. Most of the article is not about the elements, but about compounds. The non-metal aspect disappears once the article crosses into compounds. There is no effective distinction between nonmetal halides and the halides of neighboring elements. Futhermore, even within the group of nonmetal halides/oxides/nitrides... there is little commonality. The article struggles to delineate how the chemistry of these compounds defines them or holds this article together. So, again the scope is unclear.

Comment. As the article makes clear, the literature defines nonmetals by certain physical or chemical propeties, including the acidic or basic nature of their compounds. Sandbh (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The applications section is one area that clearly illustrates the struggle. Carbon is a one of the nonmetals. Does this article usefully summarizes the applications of carbon compounds? The article seems to allocate more words to the applications of radon than it does to carbon. A reader would be misinformed.

Comment. That's a good call Smokefoot; I've adjusted the section so as to show which nonmetals have which uses. Sandbh (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation: The article is packed with factoids and eye candy. Nonexperts will be impressed, because collections of technical facts required advanced knowledge.

Advice: crop the article into:

  • discussion of the scope of the term "nonmetal"
  • present properties for those elements
  • discuss history of the term "nonmetal" (vs "main group", "metalloid")
  • transfer other content to well defined article on elements or groups (halogens, noble gases, etc.).

--Smokefoot (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I feel that the extant structure works well: 1. Definition and applicable elements; 2. General properties; 3. Types; 4. Abundance, sources and uses; 5. History, background and taxonomy Sandbh (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Red fuming nitric acid[edit]
a vial containing some clear golden-brown liquid
Red fuming nitric acid: A nitrogen-rich compound, incorporating nitrogen dioxide (NO2), an acidic oxide used in the production of nitric acid
.

In the previous FA nomination, I challenged this very visible component of the article, but my challenge was basically disregarded. I reiterate my challenge and invite this tight group of editors to ask the wider community some of the following:

  • is Red fuming nitric acid even a compound? (ans: no)
  • is Red fuming nitric acid even nitrogen-rich? (ans: no)

My point is this, even when an expert and a colleague (i.e. me) challenges their view, these editors stick with the party line. Now maybe these editors are more expert than me (entirely possible), but jeesh, please break out of the huddle: if one very experienced colleague is perplexed by this caption, certainly nonexpert readers would be even more misled. Here I am only raising one snippet of a long article. The article is packed with claims.

My point is that these editors dont want input, they want to steamroller into FA-dom by relentless effort. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In FAC #8 all you said was, "Some possibly problematic details - nitric acid (which might not even be a compound) is "nitrogen-rich"?", to which I responded, "The term "nitrogen-rich" refers to the presence of dinitrogen tetroxide in red fuming nitric acid, which is responsible for its distinct color." As you say, even what is commonly thought of as nitric acid i.e. HNO3 at a concentration of 68% in water, is not really a compound due its diassociation into ions. All that said, I've changed the caption so that it now reads, "Nitric acid (here colored due to the presence of nitrogen dioxide) ..." Sandbh (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Response: With this HNO3 figure, I needed to challenge and re-challenge. Ditto for the Applications section (radon trumps carbon). These two examples cross the line from the usual glitches to downright misinformation. And we're on the 9th revision! And the responses from the editorial clique were obstinate. So what am I supposed to do now? Comb through this article and gird myself to debate other gaps?

In any case, good luck with your work.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tx Smokefoot. For HNO3 you made a passing comment the 1st time, to which I responded. This time you've made a more substantial comment, with I've addressed. For the applications section you asked if they were for the element or its compounds, which prompted me to add a footnote to the article. Feel free to post your evidence of an editorial clique. Elsewhere, your other sensible comments have resulted in improvements to the artice. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Esculenta[edit]

  • Was wondering if you've seen doi:10.1098/rsta.2020.0213; it's a 2020 review article that discusses some of the historical background of this topic, and argues that the Goldhammer–Herzfeld criterion for metallization is conceptually better than is usually acknowledged. It also discusses Sir Nevill Mott's (seemingly important, but I'm not a chemist) ideas on the metal-non-metal transition; I notice that Mott isn't mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Esculenta (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion incorporating the overall viewpoint of this review would substantially improve the article. Some highlights:
    • A strictly chemical point of view. Does not involve issues related to nuclear properties (stellar abundance)
    • Discusses transition between metal and nonmetal, eg under pressure. This fundamental to the topic but is only touched on in footnotes.
    • Discusses the abundance of nonmetallic compounds as the significant observation.
    Johnjbarton (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw request[edit]

@Gog the Mild: Could you please withdraw my nomination. I would prefer to take on the good suggestion by YBG, the pertinent comment by Esculenta, and the interesting commentary by Johnjbarton, including on the nonmetal talk page, in more considered time. Thanks. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2024 (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) 4 June 2024 [9].

Eternal Blue (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): mftp dan oops 22:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings FAC,

This article is about the debut studio album by Spiritbox, a work of musical art I consider to be a magnum opus of heavy metal. Spiritbox are groundbreakers in mixing metalcore with post-metal, and with this record they have become by far my favorite metalcore group from North America. I wrote this from spare parts on the band's page, and achieved good article status for it back in August. I was left some helpful feedback by a reviewer who treated it in the style of a featured article, which I have since taken. I tried to take this to peer review just over a month ago, but I got no feedback and grew impatient. I am confident enough in my work that I can meet the demand of a featured article on the fly with this one. I'm really excited for this one, because I actually created this article and hope to reach the Four Award with it. mftp dan oops 22:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Spiritbox_EternalBlue.jpg needs a specific source
  • File:Spiritbox_EternalBlue_Alt.jpg: FUR needs expansion
Hey Nikki, I hear you. Thank you for your comments!
  • I normally add alt text but this one seems tough. I'll let you know when I think of something to put there.
    • I can't seem to find any reliable sources which even talk about the cover art, and I can't identify it either. This one's got me stumped. mftp dan oops 15:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • By "specific source", do you mean the actual URL instead of just genius.com, or something else?
  • Rationales are not my strength but I will reach out and see if someone else can advise me on that. I imagine it shouldn't be too hard, I just don't know what to model after.
  • I have edited both the rationales, I think the second one might be good? The slipcase cover I looked to another metal FA. mftp dan oops 23:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am working on a sample to add in during the course of the FAC.
mftp dan oops 17:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draken Bowser[edit]

Looking good, I have only one substantial concern. The process leading up to the record is extensively and appropriately described, but I would like a bit more commentary on the result. Themes are comprehensively analyzed, but there is room for more neutral commentary on the result in terms of music/composition and lyrics, with respect to the individual songs.

  • Lead: Prefer: "Music critics reviewed the album positively, who generally praised its production, songwriting, and musicianship."
  • Critical reception: for creative works receiving overwhelmingly positive critique I've always found it elegant to include a dissenting opinion to round off the section. This is of course provided that such a dissent has been published and can be considered due, I'm not asking you to invent a dissenting voice (that would likely be a breach of YESPOV)

Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three things:
  • Resolved the prose comment. You are correct, that text was redundant.
  • I found it considerably difficult to find anyone (either professional or amateur) who viewed this album as anything less than good when writing this. The closest I could get were a few who recognized it had some shortcomings, but even those critics lauded EB. My GA reviewer suggested I reorganize the reception to some sort of theme to fit guidelines, and I tried to separate these viewpoints into another paragraph from those who took it as gold.
  • Ok, sounds good. /DB
  • I am not certain what you mean by "more neutral commentary on the result in terms of music/composition and lyrics", can you be more specific? Are there questions it leaves you asking, maybe?
mftp dan oops 17:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. By composition/music I mean (including but not limited to): key, chord progressions, time signature(s), melodies/licks/riffs, instrumentation, solos, drop-d-tuning, production/mixing/post-production. The "composition"-section only comments on the album as a whole. There is some commentary on a few of these aspects with respect to the individual songs, but I think we need more. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a reasonable request. Let me try looking through the sources I have in the article already tomorrow night (Mondays are busy). If I don't find anything, I'll give a look elsewhere, but I feel like I would have included that kind of stuff if I'd seen it (though perhaps in fact I didn't). mftp dan oops 20:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a concerted effort to address this comment. I don't know if I'm all the way where you want yet, but am I on the right track? How much are you looking for? (Solos aren't really a hallmark of Spiritbox's music.) mftp dan oops 00:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's more like it. With something this djent-y I'm hoping for some info on time signatures and/or drum patterns, but I'm also open to the possibility that these music journalists skipped that part of their homework. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Mike might have said something about Zev's playing in one of the refs I added or expanded with, let me see what I can do. If not, I'll try pursuing something from Zev's words directly. mftp dan oops 20:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Man, the press really gave Zev the shaft here... Mike talks about his contribution to the album a little bit in the ref to the Michigan Daily, but there's really not anything all that special that he says about it that I think translates well to a Wikipedia article. Pretty much everything is taken from Courtney or Michael, it seems. If there's anything a reviewer observes that's particularly a standout comment, I can try for that, but it's not my first choice.

(Original research here, not for article inclusion, but relevant discussion point: it's annoying too, because you can hear where there's something irregular in this album rhythmically a few times - "Sun Killer" and "We Live in a Strange World" stick out to me, but there's nothing I can personally say about that because my word means jack on Wikipedia. Conversely, if you listen close enough... you can also hear that most of this album is composed in a conventional 4 time. Even through the chaos of "Silk in the Strings", I could make out the intended time because of the drums.) mftp dan oops 00:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Jumping in): per WP:PRIMARY, a work of art, music, literature etc. can be used as a source, uncited, for its own contents, as long as those are readily apparent to an audience -- so, for example, we can summarise the plot of a novel without a secondary citation, with the novel itself as the implied source. How far that goes for music is trickier, and other reviewers may disagree, but personally I'd have no problem with talking about a piece's time signature, key, tempo, instrumentation etc. on the same terms. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I appreciate the thought, at least as far as my Wiki travels have taken me, that doesn't appear to me to apply in music. Keys and time can change often and sometimes it's more difficult to hear, especially in music that's purportedly progressive metal. Are you familiar with Dream Theater? "The Dance of Eternity", though an extreme example, is one which would testify to man's typical fallibility on this issue. It treads too close to OR for my comfort, if I was reviewing a nomination personally. mftp dan oops 16:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Google AI seems to think "Constance" swaps between a 4/4 and a 7/4, which is definitely plausible, though unclear to me. It would be really interesting to note were there an actually reliable 3PS on the subject. I searched for information on this but this FAC is Google's third result. Not a good sign. mftp dan oops 17:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some convention around only writing about the singles? I'm asking because if we include content on other songs we could use this. Draken Bowser (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not that's specifically written out, no. It's usually common to write about the singles because they're a key part of promoting the album. I don't think that you absolutely must include something on every song on the album, but it only helps for more. I certainly am all for adding this. ADDENDUM: Would you like me to integrate the singles' analysis into composition so we could have one cohesive section on the songs, and then I create a section for this album's promotion where the singles currently stand? This way, I could more sensibly add this analysis on the title track. The only downside to this is it might read rather close to critical reception, whereas the chronological way it reads now loans is a little leeway because all the singles were released preceding the album. mftp dan oops 22:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC) 01:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if we start including info on songs that weren't released as singles I think it makes a lot of sense to separate the sections, but my preference for that could also be colored by svwiki-convention, which generally separates "music and lyrics" from "marketing and release", and we gotta do what's right by enwp-standards. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I have a visitor from another wiki! I did not see that you were Swedish. This is an interesting opportunity to get feedback from. I think among the other wikis they have a pretty good grasp on badged content by comparison to others excluding English, and I don't know if there's one single correct way to organize albums in enwiki. I could try it your way and see how it turns out; if it doesn't work out I can restore it to the way I previously had it. After all, this is the first album I've built literally from the ground (redirect) up, and I just thought of the singles as something important to highlight. mftp dan oops 14:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it turns out, Courtney LaPlante actually did a track-by-track analysis of the album with Apple Music. However, it isn't easily accessible anymore. For whatever reason, the album ID on Apple Music for EB was changed at some point and didn't keep the interview. I found a cached version of the old ID interview on Google, but clicking the link gives me a 404. I took said link to Wayback Machine, but the place I should find it is under a dropdown menu where the collapse button doesn't function. If I hit F12 to examine the page elements, however...it's there. I know this is a really far reach asking if this is admissible at FAC, but I think it would be invaluable coverage if it were permitted with the caveat that I include instructions on how to verify the information. If not, I can look for more ways to cover the information from critical reception, but much of it might be to similar or repeated. I would at least have "Silk in the Strings", the title track, and the singles. mftp dan oops 23:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Draken Bowser, any more to come on this review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at the moment. I'm waiting for more content on the individual songs and the inclusion of the new Loudwire source. Once that's done I'll wrap up. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the Apple Music interview with LaPlante admissible or not? mftp dan oops 12:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good question, I hesitate to answer due to my inexperience with the finer details of enwp-sourcing policy interpretation. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll proceed with reorganizing the music without it when I get home from work, since both you and Skyshifter seem to want that, and then expand using the AM ref if and when I get a verdict. It would make things a lot easier, but I understand the accessibility on it is unconventional. mftp dan oops 14:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose you could ask at WT:FAC whether the community thinks a source like that belongs in an FA or not, like "conceptually". Draken Bowser (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Skyshifter[edit]

Infobox and lead

  • The article says that "Eternal Blue was recorded over a period of three weeks in February, and the process was finished by the beginning of March"; shouldn't the infobox say "Recorded: February–March 2021"? Same applies to the lead, which says "The recording was finished by Braunstein in February 2021" instead of March.
  • The lead lacks much information from the "Background" section, such as how Spiritbox was formed; feel like this is pretty important especially considering this is a debut album.
  • "Spiritbox relocated to Joshua Tree, California, and completed the songwriting process for the album, which former Volumes guitarist Dan Braunstein and the band's guitarist Mike Stringer produced." — could be reworded for clarity; for example, "the band" could still refer to Volumes. I'd recommend the following: "Spiritbox relocated to Joshua Tree, California, where they completed the songwriting process for the album. It was produced by former Volumes guitarist Dan Braunstein and Spiritbox's guitarist, Mike Stringer."
  • "five songs became singles" → "five songs were released as singles" is more appropriate
  • I saw above that "Music critics reviewed the album positively" was removed. I believe a general summary of the album's critical reception is acceptable in the lead; the main problem here is that the article's "Critical response to Eternal Blue was very positive" is not sourced and could be considered subjective/OR. This should be exchanged by Metacritic's assessment of "universal acclaim" (which is currently not mentioned anywhere) and, after that, readded to the lead.
    • Actually, I believe the issue I had above was that the way I originally wrote it was clunky and I corrected it so it read better. I am in bed now but I will make these fixes after work tomorrow. mftp dan oops 03:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eternal Blue proved an immediate chart success for the band" is not mentioned explicitly in "Commercial performance"; also, what would be considered an "immediate success"? Would remove as it seems a bit subjective.
    • Good catch. It was easy for me to get swept up in a seemingly unprecedentedly good debut metalcore album. Removed "immediate", hope that addresses it.

More comments to follow soon, but first, I'll listen to the album. Skyshiftertalk 01:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you in advance for the feedback! mftp dan oops 03:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, in order to satisfy the second bullet point, I made a substantial structure change to the lead. As a result, not all of the changes I made are to exact specifications, but I believe that I have addressed everything listed here so far in a way you would find satisfactory. mftp dan oops 00:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't listened to the album yet, but I gave "Circle With Me" a listen (because its their most streamed song on Spotify) and really enjoyed it! Definitely going to check more of their songs later. Anyway, I've re-read the lead and read the article up to "Composition". Here's what I found.

Lead

  • Some sentences throughout the article should be fixed according to WP:FALSETITLE. The very first sentence is an example: "Eternal Blue is the debut studio album by the Canadian heavy metal band Spiritbox." In Background, another example: "members of the American metalcore band".
  • There is a repetition of "After" ("After leaving [...] After revealing") and "The band" ("The band recorded [...] The band's first). "In advance of the record's release" can be changed to "In advance of Eternal Blue's release" to avoid repetition of "the record".
  • It still says that "The recording was finished by Braunstein in February 2021". Also, the "March 1" date isn't specifically stated in "Recording and release".
  • What I meant with the "universal acclaim" thing was actually a change in "Critical reception". "Critical response to Eternal Blue was very positive" should be changed to something like: "According to review aggregator Metacritic, Eternal Blue received "universal acclaim" based on a weighted average score of 84 out of 100 from 4 critics scores". In the lead, you can add quotation marks at "universal acclaim" and mention "according to Metacritic", or change it to a more usual wording like "received critical acclaim".
  • While the wording was changed, "chart success" is still subjective — what is considered a chart success? Unless sources specifically mentioning this can be found, you should cut this part, going straight into the "entries in eight countries" sentence.

Background

  • "The singles were all recorded themselves" reads as if the singles recorded themselves, or something. A wording like "The singles were recorded in a do it yourself manner]] would be clearer.
  • "The band members met Rose only two days (...)" is a very long sentence; I recommend spliting it or at least adding commas.
  • "Following the album's release, Crook left Spiritbox (...)" This isn't Background; moving it to "Recording and release" would be more appropriate.

Composition

  • "disregarded genre" → "disregarded genres"
  • "on what it enjoyed" → "on what they enjoyed"
  • LaPlante makes use of both screaming and singing throughout the record" → "LaPlante [both] screams and sings throughout the record"
  • "The bulk of the album's lyrics, which were written by LaPlante, were written about her feelings of frustration and sadness" repetition of "were written"; here's an alternative wording: "LaPlante, who wrote most of the album's lyrics, delved into themes of frustration and sadness."
  • "changed tunings" → "changed them", avoiding repetition

More comments soon. Skyshiftertalk 00:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may need you to look at composition again later in order to satisfy Draken's concern, but I have addressed all other feedback given me. Appreciate it! mftp dan oops 13:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments:

Recording and release

  • "The songwriting for Spiritbox's debut album" — why not "The songwriting for Eternal Blue"? Even if they didn't have the title yet (or something similar), their debut album is Eternal Blue, and this change would make that clearer.
  • properly released a single for 'Holy Roller'" → "released 'Holy Roller' as a single"
  • "so it could be released by the end of 2021" → "so it could be released by the end of the year", as 2021 was just mentioned
  • "the record's recording" — replace "the record" with a synonym or the album's name to avoid repetition
  • "within 24 hours of announcing the album's release date" — what was the announcement's date?
  • "was finally released" — "finally" could be removed
  • "Following the album's release" could be removed

Skyshiftertalk 00:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Done all but one. As for the first point, I've grown used to people telling me the contrary, but I have no problem with this personally. For the fifth point, Pollstar doesn't give a date for when the album was announced for release. mftp dan oops 16:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You could use another source for the announcement date, like this one, or even a primary one. Skyshiftertalk 17:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Done that. mftp dan oops 16:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singles

  • I don't think the usage of "No." in this section is appropriate. You could replace them with "number" without any issues.
  • "first found critical and commercial success" — I couldn't find this on ref. 35.
  • "Hailed as their heaviest song" — I don't see the justification in the source for using the non-neutral "hailed"; could just use "Described"
    • For the second point here, is The song's original version spent seven weeks as number one on Sirius XM Liquid Metal's Devil's Dozen,[3] and was deemed the best song of 2020 by the station's listeners. not a fair enough way to draw the conclusion that it was successful if I remove "critical and commercial"? I addressed the other two. mftp dan oops 16:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It is not enough. In fact, the article should explain what "Sirius XM Liquid Metal's Devil's Dozen" is, because it is not clear what it is. Anyway, it being popular and well-liked in a single radio station is not enough for describing it as a "success" — and even if it was more than that, "success" would be WP:OR unless stated by sources. Skyshiftertalk 17:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As someone who listens to the Devil's Dozen sometimes, it's like Sirius XM Liquid Metal's own little chart countdown of new metal music. It is almost/sort of like a metal version of Total Request Live, where they count down new popular metal releases among the channel's listeners who help vote for the chart placements. I know their active rock channel Octane does something similar, as do many other stations away from rock and metal. Should I describe it as a chart show? Do I need an external source for that? mftp dan oops 16:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe you can add that without needing additional sources, as it's a simple description. Skyshiftertalk 16:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Done that. mftp dan oops 16:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue.

  • "The band released a remix of "Holy Roller" in October, which featured" → "which features"
  • "The "Holy Roller" remix version" → can be simplified to just "The remix" as the song has just been mentioned
  • "which earned the band further critical acclaim from critics and the metal community, showcasing the versatility and variety of styles within the band's music." I don't see this highly subjective information in any of the provided sources, and even if the information was there, I'd recommend attributing it.
  • "That same month, a Kerrang! reader's poll voted Spiritbox as 'Best New Band'" This is not related to the single, and I'm unsure if this is relevant to be cited.
  • "The song displays 'breathy vocals'..." I'd recommend attributing these kinds of subjective sentences, especially when paired with quotation marks. (This may apply to previous sections such as "Composition" as well).
    Before I proceed to the fifth point, I have a question. To address point #3, I bundled the two refs I had at the end into one <ref> tag and added quote parameters, with an overview in the bundle explaining what each do. Is this an acceptable solution to demonstrate the conclusion drawn, or is this wading too far into WP:SYNTH territory? mftp dan oops 16:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "critical acclaim from critics and the metal community" is still not supported at all. One source says that "metalheads cried", another one says the song is versatile. This feels like WP:OR. Skyshiftertalk 17:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

  • This section is heavy on quotes, I'd recommend paraphrasing some.
  • If possible, I'd try to connect some reviews whenever they share a theme (see here for an example; you can also do different things if two reviewers say a similar thing, i.e. "Both X and Y said this about the lyrics" etc).
  • I subscribe to Draken Bowser's idea of creating a dedicated "Songs" section to discuss each specific song.

Commercial performance

  • The same suggestion I gave above about "No." applies here.

Accolades

  • I'd recommend adding text to this section; see here or here for examples.
  • The "Circle With Me" accolade could be removed.

I've finished my (mostly) prose-wise review. Skyshiftertalk 20:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be addressing these concerns tonight after work. Been a tiring last few days, but I think I'm ready to finish it. mftp dan oops 12:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi MFTP Dan, have you finished addressing Skyshifter's concerns? If so, could you let them know. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not, but as I detailed down below I have been ill recently and have not been editing Wikipedia very much in general. That changes this week; I was hoping to get started yesterday but became to busy with the holiday. I am feeling much better now and would be able to properly focus my energy on the task at hand. mftp dan oops 12:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PMC[edit]

Hello! I was the GAN reviewer, nice to see this at FAC. I don't expect to have a great deal of comments since other reviews have been fairly thorough, but I'll give it a readover within the week. Ping me if I don't get back to this by then. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Premeditated Chaos:, it's been a couple weeks so I thought I'd reach out. As for me and the other comments, I have been sick this week and have not had proper energy to sit down and address this, but I still have every intention of completing them as soon as I am healthy. Hoping for sometime this American memorial day weekend. mftp dan oops 13:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry! I let this one get away from me. I'll get rolling right now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Noticing some instances of redundant/unnecessary words again, similar to what I pointed out at the GAN
  • I might swap "after revealing" to "after they revealed" (and change "release" to "released"), so the subject of the sentence is more grammatically clear
  • "earliest development on what would become Eternal Blue" you could trim to "development on Eternal Blue" and keep the same meaning; there isn't going to be any earlier development before development began, right?
  • " initially slated" and "initially halted" in the same sentence - you could remove both without any change in meaning
  • "which guitarist" I might move the verb here to give us "produced by guitarist", which is a more natural order
  • "as part of Spiritbox's dynamic" "dynamic" seems to be operating as a synonym for "style" here and I'm not really sure it works
  • "screamed and clean vocals" link Screaming (music)
Background
  • "the two decided to" - you could trim the "decided to" for the same meaning
  • "the two" in two back-to-back sentences (the second one is duplicative with "the duo" as well)
  • "and Shreddy Krueger drummer Ryan Loerke became the band's first permanent drummer.[13]" it isn't clear when this happened, and since it directly follows someone else playing drums on the EP, it's a bit confusing.
  • You have a photo of a Joshua tree later in the article but one not of LaPlante? She's got two free ones on her page.
Composition
  • "The band's use of the digital synthesizer was a prominent aspect of Eternal Blue" redundant and also you have "aspect" again later in the sentence. Suggest something like "Digital synthesizer was used prominently on Eternal Blue"...
    • The wording implies that the synth is what provides the "atmospheric to industrial" elements. However, the source uses that phrasing in reference to the whole album, not the synth. I think you'll have to reword.
  • I'm just about willing to let the unattributed quotes about the "post-metalcore" and "nu-metal djent etc" slide, but the quote about Stringer's "dissonant, spastic, crazy..." style absolutely needs attributed in-text
  • "to diversify into styles which yielded stronger full tracks rather than a small portion of a song," it's not clear how these this is connected to his wild playing style. Does that style only work for small portions of songs?
Recording
  • "The songwriting for Eternal Blue commenced early" I'm not sure this sentence really communicates much to the reader. "commenced early" - I assume this means early in their career, but I would think that's kind of expected, right? You don't form a band and sit around not writing music.
  • "initially scheduled" same thing here as with "initially" earlier, you can remove it without losing any meaning
  • "were released by the band" - passive voice. "the band released"
  • "promote the album..." "anticipation of the album" - you have "the album" twice. You could probably remove the last clause "and increased anticipation of the album" and have the same meaning - the point of a promo is to increase anticipation, so it's not surprising that if the fans liked the video, they anticipated the album
  • "He would be featured" - "He was". See WP:WOULDCHUCK for an explanation of why the "would be" future tense is rarely necessary
  • "Although Crook was an official member" Do we know why the bassist didn't record the bass parts? That's weird. Did he actually do anything on the album or did he just lounge around while everyone else worked?
  • Hmmm. I think you should reorder some of the content here. Para 3 contains the important details about the production, but is placed after what are arguably the less important details about featured guests and bass players. I would split para 2 at "end of the year", then combine it with what's right now para 3. Then move the stuff about featured guests etc to be para 3. (Does that make sense?)
Singles
  • "the song bears a theme revolving around religious faith." - "the song's theme is religious faith" or "the song revolves around religious faith", it doesn't need both
  • Lots of repetition of "The song", could you switch it up with the title here and there?
  • I made some bold changes to the paragraph about Constance. Feel free to revert or revise them, but I think it made the prose cleaner and more organized
Critical reception
  • I agree with Skyshifter that this section is a bit heavy on quotes; their suggestions cover what I would recommend so I won't repeat them. Generally speaking you want to save quotes for punchy, interesting bits that would be difficult to paraphrase without losing the meaning.
  • The best reception sections are split into smaller paragraphs focusing on one or another theme (where possible). For example, you might have one about the lyrical composition, one about the vocals, one about the drums, whatever. I would strongly recommend overhauling to do so here, if possible. Even if you don't have enough for paragraphs on individual concepts, maybe a clearer split between positive and negative appraisals?
  • "which encompassed all the dynamics displayed on the album" it's not super clear what this means
  • "and that the songwriting and musicianship" - "and said that"
  • "simply referred to" not sure the "simply" is adding anything here.
  • The quote following "musical journey" is redundant to the part calling it a musical journey; cut one or the other (honestly, my suggestion would be to cut the entire bit where Brown calls the album "incredible" and focus on the larger quote, as that's far more significant to the reader than "incredible")
  • " Simon Crampton summarized his review of the record" he didn't summarize his review, he summarized the record
  • "particularly noting that" - couple things. "particularly" isn't needed here at all. Also, I think you might want to sub "noting" for something like "arguing" or "suggesting", because "noting" makes it seem like an objective fact, but it's an opinion (I've had this suggestion made to me at my FACs). You've got two more "noted"s later; same suggestion applies

Okay, that's what I got! Take your time with replying lol since I took enough time getting back to you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for five weeks and, while it has attracted comments, hasn't seen support for promotion. It is liable to be archived in the new few days unless that changes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to a lack of structure and overquotation in the critical reception section. Revising into thematic paragraphs is something that should be done off-FAC IMO. Heartfox (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox, what do you think is enough for "overquotation"? I don't mean to be vain, but I thought I did a really good job at quote balance, and my GA reviewer did too (and they said they review it about the standard of an FAC).
Nevertheless, I agree the structural issues are hefty. You guys deserve honesty; while I definitely am capable of addressing these concerns inside the timeframe of the FAC, my being ill the other week successfully took all the energy I had to address these issues out of me and I'm just not feeling it anymore. I have an idea of what needs to be done, but it's just too much for me to address right now. If you look at my contributions lately, it'll be quite clear that I just don't have the energy for Wikipedia at the moment. I appreciate all the feedback, but I'm going to ask FAC to close this now so I can work on it another time when I'm actually feeling it instead of wasting more time. I'll be back. mftp dan oops 22:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently every sentence about a critic's point of view includes one quotation, sometimes two. One even has three quotes. While it is natural for their to be more quotes in reception sections, every sentence is overkill and in my opinion does not align with MOS:QUOTE or WP:FACR "its prose is engaging and of a professional standard". Reading a quote in every sentence gets unengaging. There should be more variety in the prose. I try to do no more than 2/3 of the sentences in a paragraph including a quotation, aiming for as little as possible. Heartfox (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The GA reviewer mentioned above is me. I did say at the time I felt the balance was good, and I think it was sufficient to pass GA. But on re-reading the article and seeing the comments from others in this FAC, I do think the quotes could be reduced. Dan, I'm sorry if that feels unfair; for what it's worth I do think you might have understood my comment at the GA. I review GAs in the style of FAC reviews, going top to bottom and leaving comments along the way, just as I've done here. I didn't mean to imply that I was reviewing precisely to an FAC standard. (And even if I was, the benefit of FAC is the voice of many editors chiming in and creating a consensus about what's best for the article). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't do anything wrong, I just undershot what I thought I had. I clearly thought this would be simpler, but I was wrong. I know how to fix it, but I just don't feel like I can muster that in a timely manner, and it's not fair to make you guys wait. To tell the truth, I feel a little burnt out of Wikipedia at the moment. I need a break from regular contribution. It might just be the two weeks between FACs, who knows? mftp dan oops 00:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will take that as a withdrawal request and action accordingly -- tks everyone for their input. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2024 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 June 2024 [10].

Sam Manekshaw[edit]

Nominator(s): Matarisvan (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Sam Manekshaw, one of only 2 Indian generals and the first one promoted to Field Marshal rank. I previously nominated this article for FAC two times. The first FAC, to be found here failed for a bunch of reasons, the article was not mature then. The second FAC, to be found here, failed because I had lost access to 3 books I had cited, and a reviewer could therefore not do the spot checks. I have replaced all citations to those books with accessible sources, and I'm looking forward to work with all reviewers. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Sorry, but the problems I identified in the last FAC are still present in this one. Looking at the changes made since the last FAC, the examples of problems are still present, and no work has been done to address other areas. Removing sources from a completed article needs to be done very carefully, and this does not look like that is the case here. Wikilinking magazines and publisher names is a waste of time for an article like this (linking publishers is nearly always a waste of time anyway): it needs much more fundamental work done on the text to source integrity, which is where this article fails yet again. - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you give specific examples? Matarisvan (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the point is that changes like
    Manekshaw was their fifth child and third son.{{Sfn|Panthaki|Panthaki|2016|pp=18–20}}
    to
    Manekshaw was their fifth child and third son.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Sood |first=Maj Gen Shubhi |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zFfWDQAAQBAJ |title=Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw |date=2021-01-01 |publisher=[[Prabhat Prakashan]] |language=en}}</ref>
    are potentially worse, especially where the source is a magazine or newspaper rather than a book.
    A better solution would be to add a second source, rather than replacing it; but in any case, @SchroCat or another reviewer would need to be able to review the books cited. Is it possible to get the scans as requested at the last review? This would go a long way to resolving some of the probems, or at least assessing how fundamental they are. Jim Killock (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The source you mention above is a book, not a magazine or newspaper. I removed the two sources because I did not have access to them and replaced them with sources which were open access. Also, I searched for the two books at multiple libraries, they seem to be out of print and are only available at foreign libraries. On the topic of magazines and newspapers, I linked to them only to fulfill the criteria of consistency raised by @SchroCat in the last review. Matarisvan (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the above is a book. Removing good sources for worse ones is not helpful. In terms of where books are and getting access, yes that can be a problem. Solutions could include asking someone - an academic or the author - for scans or photocopies of the most relevant parts (partial copies for research purposes don't necessarily infringe copyright); purchasing second hand copies; getting a grant from Wikimedia to visit a reference library or to purchase second hand books. Jim Killock (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry: I didn't realise a question had been left for me. I'll leave two of the paras I highlighted last time, slightly tweaked to show where the issues still lie (which is ostensibly the same as last time):
"At the end of 1947, Manekshaw was posted as the commanding officer of the 3rd Battalion, 5 Gorkha Rifles (Frontier Force) (3/5 GR (FF)). Before he had moved on to his new appointment, on 22 October, Pakistani forces infiltrated Kashmir, capturing Domel and Muzaffarabad. The following day, the ruler of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh, appealed for help to India. On 25 October, Manekshaw accompanied V. P. Menon, the secretary of the States Department, to Srinagar. While Menon was with the Maharaja, Manekshaw carried out an aerial survey of the situation in Kashmir. According to Manekshaw, the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession on the same day, and they flew back to Delhi. Lord Mountbatten and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru were briefed, where Manekshaw suggested immediate deployment of troops to prevent Kashmir from being captured"
"On the morning of 27 October, Indian troops were sent to Kashmir to defend Srinagar from the Pakistani forces, who had reached the city's outskirts. Manekshaw's assignment as the commander of 3/5 GR (FF) was cancelled, and he was posted to the MO Directorate. As a consequence of the Kashmir dispute and the annexation of Hyderabad (code-named "Operation Polo", also planned by the MO Directorate), Manekshaw never commanded a battalion. During his term at the MO Directorate, he was promoted to colonel, then brigadier. He was then appointed the first Indian director of military operations."
These are only examples of problems that run throughout the article. I am going to repeat what I said last time: "you've put in a lot of work on this article, but you need to slow down and do some basic (and very boring) stuff slowly and properly if this is going to pass FAC next time. Every piece of prose between one citation and the next needs to be supported by the end set of citations." At the moment the information is not supported by the sources. The advice I left last time was that: "You need to go through the article sentence by sentence, word by word and check to see if every piece of information is contained in the citation. If it isn't, it needs to either be removed or cited." This has not been done to even the smallest extent and the article is, I think, in a worse state than its last visit. - SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I am inclined to believe that you will not support this article for promotion even if it is proven to be the most epistemologically sound article in existence. I do not know if this is a result of some personal animosity with me or the article or Indians in general, or a hazing ritual for first time FAC nominators like college frats do.
Responses to the highlighted text:
  • "At the end of 1947": Singh 2005, page 192, last four lines. Singh says "shortly afterwards" but does not specify when, he does say that the infiltrators moved in on 22 October, a few days after Manekshaw's promotion. 22 October does seem to be close to the end of 1947, unless you only consider 31 December as the date fit to be called so. Nevertheless, I will try to find a public domain government source which gives the exact date.
  • "the ruler of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir": Page 193, line 1. Maharaja means ruler.
  • "the secretary of the States Department": Does not really need a source but will still add one.
  • While Menon was with the Maharaja: This is obvious, Menon could not be negotiating with the Maharaja and be present at the aerial survey at the same time, but I will remove this.
  • "According to Manekshaw": The book is Singh's recollection of what Manekshaw and other generals told him, but I will remove this.
  • "where Manekshaw suggested immediate deployment of troops to prevent Kashmir from being captured": Page 193, last 3 lines. This was Manekshaw's message to the Cabinet as per Singh.
  • who had reached the city's outskirts: I did not know that 9 kilometers is so far away that it cannot be considered outskirts, if I had specified 9 km, I am sure you would say copyvio.
  • (code-named "Operation Polo", also planned by the MO Directorate): I will add a separate source as the exact words are not there in this source.
Matarisvan (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also @SchroCat, if you had actually read the article before commenting above, you would have noticed that points 4, 5, 6 and 8 were removed. This further adds to the premise that you did not even read the article before commenting, and just copypasted your comments from the peer review and the last FAC review, I would imagine this is violative of FAC reviewer integrity in some way, no? Matarisvan (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not start making accusations, but concentrate on the facts @Matarisvan Jim Killock (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What if the accusations are also facts, Jim? Is it not provable from the above comments that the updated version was not read through even one time, only the changes which could be criticized were conveniently noted and previous comments were recycled without regard to the changes effected since? I knew this would happen but I am still in awe of the blatantess of it. Matarisvan (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recriminations won't get us anywhere, is the point. This is difficult and painstaking work for all of us. Jim Killock (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult work, but copypasting is not, I would assume. Matarisvan (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this list of issues raises a few points:
  • this work requires patience and an asusmption of good faith on all sides
  • what is obvious to an Indian reader is not necessarily obvious to a US / European reviewer (points 2, 3, 4, 5)
  • what is obvious to an expert is not necessarily obvious to a non-expert (Operation Polo point 8)
  • going through these points will take time, so that checks and consensus on those can be more easily reached; whether FA is best for this is debateable, but if not then someone should ideally step up to help @Matarisvan with this work; and @Matarisvan will need to commit to following their advice closely
  • it would be helpful to number issues (using # perhaps) if we are going to go through them in this way.
Jim Killock (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, I do want to assume good faith, but do the above actions warrant it? Would you consider these actions carried out in good faith? Matarisvan (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it matters what I think, but it will matter to your reviewers if you state baldly that they are in violation of their duties. We are all volunteers doing our best, so getting sidetracked into questions of whether we are somehow trying to be obstructive is just soul destroying. Better to work through the issues with the people trying to help you, even where if feels like the other person is making a mistake. Jim Killock (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will heed your wise words even though I think acts have been carried out here in bad faith. Matarisvan (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Points 1 to 8 have been addressed in the most recent edit, Jim. Matarisvan (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely refute your accusation that I am acting in bad faith, or that I being driven by racism against Indians or some animosity to you or that I am engaging in some form of bullying. My review is solely driven by the state of the article. Nothing else.
    Because of your accusations, I will withdraw from this FAC, as I don't enjoy being accused of rubbish like this, but my oppose stands. What is in that paragraph is not covered by the source - and these are just examples of the shortcomings of the text. There just has not been enough work done since last time to make this one of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, which is what an FA needs to be. @FAC coordinators: please note. - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I do reckon Ian will archive this within 24 hours, won't he? You have addressed none of the points of substance, only the resultant theories of mine. Also I did not accuse you of racism, only animosity, there is a difference. Could you just answer one question, did you read the article before commenting, or did you copy paste your previous comments, as I assumed? I bear no animosity towards you but I do believe you do towards me. Matarisvan (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

  • Matarisvan, you are completely out of order. These are outrageous accusations against any reviewer. (They are, if possible, even more so against an editor who has taken 82 articles through FAC and carried out 478 reviews.) I am archiving this. There will be the usual two-week hiatus. I suggest that you spend this time closely examining the beam in your own eye. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it would be Ian who would archive this, but all the same. You focused on my "accusations" but not the underlying. Matarisvan (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the article is in such an horrible state, let the reviewer point out one paragraph other than the one they have used for PR 1, FAR1, PR 2, FAR 2, FAR 3; a paragraph which had already been updated. Matarisvan (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2024 (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) 1 June 2024 [11].

Sabuktigin[edit]

Nominator(s): Amir Ghandi (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a Turkic slave called Sabuktigin who became the amir of Ghazna (in Afghanistan) and founded the Ghaznavid dynasty. He was recorded to summon snowstorms by throwing dirt on the air and became the image of an archetype by contemporary historians. The article was promoted to GA status yesterday, but since I had prepared it with the intent of FAC I've nominated it right away. Thanks in advance. Amir Ghandi (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship[edit]

Will certainly comment on this! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Some images are missing alt text
Added
  • Suggest scaling up the map
Can't do that one if I'm using upright
Never mind, fixed
  • Don't use fixed px size
Fixed
  • File:Coin_of_the_Ghaznavid_amir_Sabuktigin,_citing_the_Samanid_amir_Nuh_II_as_his_overlord._Date_unknown,_minted_at_Ghazna.jpg needs a tag for the original work
Done
  • File:Mahmud_of_Ghazni_first_success.jpg: where is that publication date coming from? If the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
Updated the info; the author was Walter Victor Hutchinson (d. 1950) and the book was published in 1933.
  • File:Fighting_between_Mahmud_of_Ghazni_and_Abu_'Ali_Simjuri.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the link

Ajpolino[edit]

Very interesting topic about which I know nothing. Some drive-by comments:

  • "a slave market at Nakhshab... There, he was bought by Alp-Tegin" - A small thing, but Bosworth isn't explicit that Alp-Tegin bought Sebuktegin at Nakhshab. The cited source (2008b) says "he was sold as a slave at Nakhshab, and eventually bought by Alp-Tegin", and Bosworth 2020 says "he was brought as a slave to Naksav... and eventually acquired by the Samanid commander Alptegin." I'd suggest changing the wording here slightly to match the sources better.
Reworded it
  • "...in 962, as an act of rebellion, he left his position and sought to establish an independent rule in Ghazna," - the cited source (Bosworth 1985) describes Alptigin attempting to secure a preferred successor for the Samanid throne and failing, and therefore fleeing to the edge of Samanid control. Bosworth 2020, summarizes "Alptegin, after a failed coup d'etat, had to withdraw from Bukhara in 961 into northern Afghanistan". Suggest rewording as I don't think the current "as an act of rebellion..." is getting the right meaning across.
Reworded it
I still don't think the new wording "after he fell from grace, he left his position" is getting across the same thing as the source. Ajpolino (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He died shortly after in 963" I don't see this in the cited source (Bosworth 2008b)
Added the source supporting his year of death
  • "the most plausible way to maintain his authority was expansion" this reads as editorializing. I'd suggest cutting it. I see Bosworth writes "...a dynamic policy of expansion may have seemed... the best way to ensure its survival" but I think Bosworth is clearly speculating here, not stating Sebuktegin's views as a matter of researched fact.
Deleted it
  • Bosworth 1985 has a couple sentences on the Sebuktegin's marriage that resulted in Mahmud's birth. Given Mahmud's importance to Sebuktegin's legacy, I'd suggest including the info somewhere in the article.
  • "Qaratigin Isfijabi (d. 929), another rebellious Samanid ghulam" the cited article calls Isfijabi a "Samanid general" but doesn't say he was a slave or a rebel.
Added another source that calls him a Turkish slave commander.
  • "Using jihad as an excuse" - "as an excuse" reads as editorializing. Perhaps rephrase or expand to clarify?
Reworded it
  • "In his Pandnameh, Sabuktigin states that during his childhood, his faith differentiated from his captures, who worshipped a statue, therefore presenting himself as an adherent to the 'right' religion." - Not sure what you're trying to get across here. Suggest cutting this, unless I'm not understanding its importance?
Would this sentence be a good footnote to expand on the jihad against Hindus?
  • Bosworth 2020 says "He successfully combated [Kassa and Simjuri], but then sent Maḥmud with a force against Bukhara in order to intimidate Amir Nuḥ" but this latter episode isn't reflected in the article. Any particular reason?
That statement is not mentioned in other sources. Still, I hinted at the deteriorating relationship between Nuh and Sebuktigin in the next section.

Have to run now, will return later for more. Ajpolino (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second batch of comments, including some small prose things:

  • "expanded his rule down to south of present-day Afghanistan and north of Balochistan" - "north of Balochistan" makes it sound like his territory didn't extend into Balochistan itself; the article implies it did.
  • "opening the gates of India" the figure of speech "opening the gates" seems a bit informal here for an encyclopedia.
  • "As a vassal of the Samanid Empire" (lead) and "he was not bound to any vassalage obligations" (Revolt) - are these in conflict with each other?
He was a vassal, just a very autonomous one. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typos? "conclution", "compromised",
Fixed. I still think this article is very good, but I should certainly have been more thorough with my review. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...shared by later historians... and lived..." - "lived" seems an odd word choice here. Somewhat informal to say a conclusion "lived" on.
  • "later after" redundant.
Removed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mu'in ad-Dawla" - can we get a translation for this alternative name?
  • I don't think "The conflicts among... resulted in enslavement like this one." is very helpful, and I'd suggest cutting it to help the story flow better.
This was added by me during my review. While I also thought it disrupted the flow (a little), I thought it was a interesting bit of info. Regardless, I've removed it now. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and soon, by the age of eighteen, commanded"
Fixed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alp-Tegin served as the head of the royal guard of the Samanid dynasty" - are we missing a superior position? The Bosworth 1985 article says he was head of the royal guard under Nasr, then "Under... Nūḥ (343-50/954-61) he enjoyed great favor, becoming governor of Balḵ and then commander-in-chief of the Samanid army in Khorasa."
  • "1m dirhams" you can write out "million" as you do later in the article.
Fixed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fa'iq's men quickly disarrayed Sabuktigin's war elephants, which made him furious." The source says Fa'iq's men killed the elephants. Though I'm not sure this episode is worth including. It's hard to believe Sabuktigin's mood in response to this temporary defeat was recorded as a matter of historical fact.
  • "His war elephants crushed many of Abu Ali's soldiers and chief commanders." not sure this is important enough to include, but either way "and chief commanders" is not supported by the cited source.

I'll stop here for now to give some general comments. I think this article is not yet ready for FAC. Just looking at a few sources, I see several places where the text and the source don't quite align – I recommend going through each source with a fine-toothed comb to make sure it's accurately represented in the article. Also the prose is choppy and could use more work to help it flow smoothly and compellingly. This is a fine base, and it seems there are plenty of sources to support a solid article here. I'd suggest enlisting the help of other editors to finish preparing this for its next FAC run -- whether through peer review or by reaching out to editors with FAC experience. For now, I'll have to gently oppose. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

I will try to review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 13:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "he died on his way to Ghazna on August-September 997." - should this be in August-Septeber 997?
  • " (2008a) [1975]. "The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World (A.D. 1000-1217)". In Frye, R.N. (ed.). The Cambridge History of Iran: From the Arab invasion to the Saljuqs. The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–202. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521069366.002. ISBN 9780511467769. OCLC 457145665." - this citation is incorrect. This chapter is actually found in Volume 5
  • "In Sabuktigin's Pandnama, a mirror for princes epistle, he attests " - is this appropriate phrasing? Bosworth 2020 notes that this was "attributed to him" and that it was "ostensibly an epistle of the "Mirror for Princes" genre", Bosworth 2008b says that it was "allegedly left to his son". Our article is treating this Pandnama as being of undisputed historical basis, but Bosworth is definitely expressing some uncertainty as to the provenance of this work. Askari outright states that it was probably written during the reign of Mahmud - Sabuktigin would have been dead by the reign of his son
  • "Sabuktigin accompanied him and helped defeating the Samanid army in Tokharistan." - this is not grammatical
  • "He flourished under Alp-Tegin's patronage and by the age of eighteen, commanded 200 ghulams (military slaves)." - Bosworth attributes this to the narrative of Nizam al-Mulk, but then notes on the very next page that "It is likely that Nizam al-Mulk's elaborate story of his gradual rise in his master's esteem is largely invention, and the Sebuktigin, although originally bought by Alptigin, did not achieve prominence until Alptigin and his son settled at Ghazna". In a different work, Bosworth describes the Nizam al-Mulk narrative as one that "should be treated with some caution"
  • "Sabuktigin increased his prestige among his troops" - Bosworth 1963 provides some additional detail as to how he accomplished this (wining and dining the officers and marrying the daughter of a local chief) - should that be mentioned?
  • Are pandnama and pandnameh variant spellings of the same thing? If so, standardize
  • Bosworth 2008b notes that he was of "pagan" birth; this article seems to treat him as always Muslim?
  • "Abu Ali's warriors found these terms too humiliating and thus attacked Sabuktigin's army on their own." - recommend clarifying as per the source that this was only a portion of Abu Ali's army that did this
  • "Fa'iq's men quickly disarrayed Sabuktigin's war elephants, which made him furious" - the source says that they killed the shahna in charge of the elephant force as a "quick demoralizing attempt"; would this have actually disarrayed the elephants? Demoralizing is not a word that is likely to be applied to the effects on elephants
  • "His war elephants crushed many of Abu Ali's soldiers and chief commanders" - as noted by Ajpolino above, the cited source does not mention chief commanders
  • "their dominance upon farming lands burdened the farmers and had pampered their production" - are you sure "pampered" is the word you want to use here?
  • Who is al-Utbi? This figure is mentioned several times, but always without a link or explanation as to who this is
  • "his faith differentiated from his captures" - Based on Askari, you want "captors", not "captures"
  • Bosworth 1963 has a little bit of information about his minting of coins (where his mint was and that they varied from the coinage of the Samanids, and that he struck coins for use in India) - should this be mentioned in the section about his administation
  • I agree with Ajpolino that "opened the gates of India" is not particularly encyclopedic language
  • "According to him, 'Buruskhan' was an altered version of 'Bars Khan' or 'Pars Khan' ("Persian Chief" according to Askari" - the cited source appears to express some uncertainty about this
  • Askari mentions that the pandnama states that he was worked as a shepherd for four years before being sold as a slave, should this be mentioned?

I'm leaning oppose like Ajpolino. I find the sum total of minor source-text integrity issues, information mentioned in various sources and not found in the article, and the article presenting theories, provenances, or narratives as factual when the relevant sources express uncertainty to be concerning. Hog Farm Talk 00:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wish to withdraw this nomination. Thanks. Amir Ghandi (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2024 (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_2024&oldid=1229585586"