Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/October 2022

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) 27 October 2022 [1].

Venus in fiction

[edit]
Nominator(s): Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a long while since I've been here. Anyway, hello again, old and new collegues. The article I bring to you is IMHO well written and comprehensive, having went through a GA review that was the most extensive and detailed in my decade+ history of GA reviews. The prose went through much copyediting, and me and the reviwer, User:TompaDompa, did a very throughout literature review. Now, let me be the first to point out a few issues.

First, the name (Venus in fiction). The article is about Venus (planet) in fiction, and int the future, if there is a Venus (goddess) in ficiton article, a disambig may be needed. Right now, the other topic is only covered poorly in a subsection at Venus_(mythology)#Mythology_and_literature, but it is arguably notable on its own. Not sure if we need to be concerned about the potential future move and creation of a disambig in the current title, but I'd like to highlight the issue. Also, note that Venus in science fiction redirects here, as effectively any fiction about plant venus is science fiction. There is also a redirect from Venus in popular culture, a more or less synonymous if more ambigious concept. The current name is in line with Astronomical locations in fiction, although the two prior GAs me and TompaDompa penned on related topics are under 'in science fiction': Moon in science fiction, Earth in science fiction. Standardization of names of relevant articles is a wider issue with no perfect solution, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Culture#Naming_of_articles_in_Category:Topics_in_culture:_time_for_consistency?.

Second. I do belive that the article is not comprehensive when it come to certain aspects, such as coverage of non-Western works Talk:Venus_in_fiction#Comprehensivness, video games (Category:Video games set on Venus...), board games (Onward to Venus), or works I personally consider significant (from Maurice Leblanc's fr:Les Trois Yeux to modern TV shows like The Expanse). Unfortunatley, we were unable to locate any sources that discuss them in this context. In general, it is not impossible some useful coverage exists in other languages, but there are realistic limits to what we can find (speaking for myself, I did a Polish-language query and found next to nothing). Several interwikis exist, but they are not helpful (they contain no sugestions of literature that we might have missed). As such, while I am concerned that the article suffers from some Western/English bias in coverage, as well from a form of anti-recentism (not enough weight given to the works from the last 2-3 decades), at this point I am ready to conclude that those biases are unavoidable, given our OR policy, as they represent common biases in accessible sources.

Third. Structure. The article is pretty much about literature. We have a section called 'Media' about comics and films. I wanted to add more - a section on anime and manga, a section in television, a section on video games, etc., but we did not find any sources discussing these other forms of media in this context (portrayals of Venus) in any depth.

I am looking forward to your thoughts, suggestions and constructive critique. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from mujinga

[edit]

What a fascinating article! It's good you discuss the concerns about bias and naming. I think it's ook for now and agree we can only go on the available sources. A few comments below

  • The Pope book is mentioned here three times as Romances of the Planets, no 2: Journey to Venus but our page calls it Journey to Venus and the full title there is Journey to Venus the Primeval World; Its Wonderful Creations and Gigantic Monsters, so I wonder if you can resolve the confusion
  • "The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction lists in its entry on Venus" - "on venus" seems redundant?
  • "beautiful paradisiac or primordial planet" - maybe it's me, paradisiac reads funny, do you mean paradise-like?
  • "The conception of Venus has abundant water was controversial" - something went wrong there? "having" maybe?
  • "gave others a license for exotic natural or fanciful scenery" suggest "gave others a license to portray exotic natural or fanciful scenery"
@Mujinga Thanks for the review, I was beginning to wonder if I messed up listing this at FAC and it was invisbile... :)
Regarding Pope's book, I used the name from SF Encyclopedia. The unreferenced but likely correct explanation in our article on JtV suggests that the Romances of the Planets is the series title. I will simplify references to this work in our article to just Journey to Venus, as the longer name (and/or series name) issue should be discussed in the book article, it is rather irrelevant for us.
Regarding the redundant phrase, I've changed it to "lists in this context".
Paradisiac. I have no preference for which synonym to use, honestly (paradisaic, paradisaical, paradisal, paradisiacal...). Feel free to adjust it to paradise-like if you think it sounds better (it certainly is simpler English, which is usually a good thing).
"The conception... Right. Rewritten, please see if it reads better.
Gave... changed as you suggested.
Regarding the link to sex-appeal, I am unsure (per WP:BTW). If anyone removes the link, I won't restore it, but I am inclinded to leave it be for now. On that note, I am having second thoughts about the link to siren, it is very much a good term to link but here it is a part of the quote, and I think the cited author meant siren in the context of beautiful women, not necessarily the "Greek humanlike beings with alluring voices"... unlink? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies, I've made some edits, see what you think.I've changed it to "The idea of water on Venus" and "paradise-like". Also, per MOS:LINKQUOTE I've removed the links from the quote. None of these changes are particularly major so I'm not fussed if you want to revert and in any case I'm changing to support. Mujinga (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from VickKiang

[edit]

Just did a few very quick spotchecks.

  • - Minor, small quibble: The lede mentions Sarah Zettel, despite her only being mentioned once in the body. Unsure if it's due to be included in lede?
  • - For Treatments described sometimes as more "cerebral" or "mainline" included Olaf Stapledon's Last and First Men (1930), Campbell's "The Black Star Passes" (1930), Heinlein's "Logic of Empire" and later works, C. S. Lewis's Perelandra (1943), Henry Kuttner's Fury (1947), A. E. van Vogt's The World of Null-A (1949), Jack Williamson's Seetee series (1949–1951), Frederik Pohl and Cyril M. Kornbluth's novel The Space Merchants (1952) and Isaac Asimov's Lucky Starr and the Oceans of Venus (1954), I'm unsure about the use of "sometimes". Perhaps a more specific wording would be better to comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch?
  • The SF is in quote, but shouldn't it be introduced first, possibly in brackets, as some readers might be unfamiliar with it?

More to come. VickKiang 07:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang My apologies, I missed your comments (do ping me in the future).
Regarding Zettel, I am ok removing her or not, I thought it's ok to mention her (Bova is mentioned twice in the lead). The problem is that most sources don't discuss the last two or three decades much, so we have very few examples of "modern" works and authors to mention.
I've removed the word "sometimes" as it seems simply unnecessary.
I am afraid I don't understand your last comment ("The SF is in quote"), could you elaborate? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my lack of clarity. I was referring to some of the gaudiest romances of Genre SF are set on Venus- could we introduce SF as science fiction? Of course, this is totally optional and is a minor nitpick. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "Classic writers who set their stories on Venus included": I don't think "classic" is the right word -- particularly for readers who are not genre aficionados. Kline is not well-regarded now, and Stapledon was not widely known in the field at the time, which makes a generally applicable adjective harder to find. Perhaps just drop the adjective completely?
  • 'A number of the earliest descriptions painted Venus as a beautiful, paradise-like or primordial planet, a view that was only in time modified by scientific findings. As observed by Carl Sagan in 1978: "A clement twilight zone on a synchronously rotating Mercury, a swamp-and-jungle Venus, and a canal-infested Mars, while all classic science-fiction devices, are all, in fact, based upon earlier misapprehensions by planetary scientists."' I think this would be better-placed at the start of the "Later depictions" section, where it can help with the transition.
  • Several works are mentioned both in the first paragraphs of "Early depictions" and again in the subsections, including Burroughs Pirates of Venus and its sequels, and Lewis's Perelandra. The article (necessarily) has a lot of in-prose lists, which don't make for easy reading, so I would take every opportunity to eliminate duplicate mentions in order to shorten those lists.
  • "The absence of a common vision of Venus resulted in the less coherent mythology of Venus": the source has (after talking about varied fictional settings of stories of Venus): "The other side of the coin was that there never grew up a consistent "Venusian mythology" comparable in power to the Mythology of Mars." I think what the source is saying is that stories set on Mars, because the settings were usually very similar, contributed to a coherent conception of a fictional Mars, whereas the freedom allowed to writers by the blanketing clouds meant that stories set on Venus used a wide range of settings, and prevented Venus having a similarly consistent image within the genre". I don't think the current wording says that -- it's compressed too far, to the point where it almost says "the lack of a common vision meant there was no common vision".
  • "some of the gaudiest romances of Genre SF are set on Venus": "Genre" is only capitalized in the source because it's a link, I believe; I think this is a permissible typographic change that you can make without indicating it. And "SF", as we're also discussing at my current FAC, requires introduction as an abbreviation, or you could do square brackets: "some of the gaudiest romances of [genre science fiction] are set on Venus".
  • "Scientific discourse on the prospects for life on Venus dimmed from the 1930s on": suggest "Prospects for life on Venus dimmed from the 1930s on" -- it was the prospects, not the discourse, that dimmed, and the rest of the sentence makes it clear this was because of scientific progress.
  • "The theme of romantic, habitable, pre-Mariner Venus occasionally resurfaces": suggest "A romantic, habitable, pre-Mariner Venus occasionally resurfaces": it's not the theme that reappears, it's the depiction of the planet itself.
  • There's a conflict between the chronological and thematic organization. "Colonization" and "Terraforming" are both subsections within "Later depictions", but as the examples indicate these include examples dating from the era before conditions on the planet surface were understood.
  • In the "Lifeforms" section, when you mention works that have been named before, I would just use the author's last name and skip the date where possible -- e.g. Pope should be dated as it's not obvious from context, but the sentence that starts "In the second half of the 20th century" doesn't need dates if they've been given earlier in the article.
  • "the latter reimagining the portrayal as Venusians into "half-naked sex-appealing blond sirens" with supernatural or psychic powers": suggest "the latter reimagining Venusians, portraying them as "half-naked sex-appealing blond sirens" with supernatural or psychic powers.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie Thanks for stopping by!
Changed classic to "Early science fiction".
"A number of the earliest descriptions" - not done. I see your point, but to me this looks good where it is. I won't object if someone moves it as it can fit in both places, it's a toss, really.
Regarding examples, they are examples of different types. For example, Pirates of Venus is mentioned in sources as an example of an early work about Venus, and as an example of work with the jungle and swamp setting. While the swamp and jungle is part of the early depictions, I am not convinced we need to mention it only once. Again, I won't revert someone removing the first mention (probably) but I don't feel the need to do it myself as I think it is informative to use such examples for all relevant cases.
To me, "less coherent mythology of Venus" is what the source says, succient and not the same as "no common vision". But I am open to suggestions how to rewrite it/expand it to be more clear?
Genre SF. I am nots sure if we need an article on this (https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/genre_sf), but yes, capitalization is not necessary - except it is in the quote, and we reproduce quotes as written. I am not opposed to changing it, in the quote, to [genre science fiction], but is this really a better practice than just quoting the source without changing its style?
"Scientific discourse..." - changed per your suggestion.
"The theme of..." - changed per your suggestion.
"There's a conflict between the chronological and thematic organization." Yes, some boundaries will be fuzzy, you could say the same about Venusian section, of later coverage of comics/movies. I don't think there is an elegant way to resolve it, not in a two-dimensial wall of text medium.
" when you mention works that have been named before, I would just use the author's last name and skip the date where possible" - fair point. There was some unnecessary repetition of such detail in several places, I've done a c/e pass for that. If I missed something, feel free to remove such duplication if you see it.
"the latter reimagining" - changed per your suggestion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the points you've addressed; I'll have a think about the others and come back to this, probably this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've left some points unstruck, but I don't expect you to address them; none of them prevent me from supporting -- they're matters of preference. Before I support this article for promotion I wanted to mention two sources that you might not have consulted: Everett Bleiler's The Early Years and The Gernsback Years. Both have a "theme index" section that links to summaries of stories; there are scores of references to Venus. I'm not certain any of it has to be included, because it's a completist index, rather than selective, so trivially non-notable stories are covered along with work by significant writers. Still, if you don't have access to a copy I can send you scans of the indexes and some sample pages to see if you think either book would be useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie Assumiung that the full title of the latter is Science-fiction: the Gernsback years : a complete coverage of the genre magazines... then I found both at Z-library. For the first, the index on pages 921-922 seems to have some interesting examples and cursory commentary, and I'll probably be able to add a few tidbits from it to the article. The index for the second one seems more disorganized, and I am not sure if this book is helpful. If you have physical copies, can you check if either has a chapter on Venus? I don't think so, but sometimes physical can be better then CTRL+F checking, particularly as the scan can be corrupt have an OCR issue or such. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Added a new paragraph to the top of Venusian section, based on the examples/comments from the cited work (pages 921-922). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I can send you the relevant index section from The Gernsback Years if you send me a Wikipedia email, but it doesn't look very different from the one you cited in The Early Years, so I don't think it would change the article much -- though I suppose citing this section too would be a benefit to readers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sent the index pages. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ReaderofthePack

[edit]
  • Forgot again! I'll do a quick review now. One of the things I noticed is that there isn't a list anywhere of the various works of Venus in fiction. This isn't really anything for the page in specific to fix, but it's something that could be useful in the future as a separate article. I suppose that you could link to the category within the article, but that just seems messy. As far as mentions in the article go, I think that the current amount is good. Sourcing-wise, I don't really have the time to go into the sourcing in-depth, but everything looks good offhand. I can see the argument for the page range in the sourcing section, but the presence of the pages in the body of the article allows for the sourcing section to give more of a streamlined, cleaner look. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ReaderofthePack Lists tend to clash with MOS:POPCULTURE. Note that this article was a gigantic, unreferneced list until I rewrote it. See how it looked before and let me know if I misunderstood what you are asking? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any merit to posting pictures of the surface of Venus? (There's some on Commons.) It looks like the depictions changed prior to the first images that came out in the 70s, but did those have any other impact on how Venus was depicted? If so, then this could be worth including in the article as an image. If not, then disregard. --ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ReaderofthePack It's a thought. Are there any images you'd like to suggested? Most of the "artists vision" stuff is copyrighted, and sciencey stuff is, well, just some images of clouds and such, AFAIK. I'd love to add a picture of "Venus in artists visions pre-50s and post-50s" but couldn't find anything better than what we have in the article now. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one isn't bad, but I see your point. A lot of it is the sort of thing that's exciting as far as science goes, but is just sort of "blad" when considering the article. Then there's stuff like this, which gives a view of the planet but doesn't really help illustrate the idea of "Venus as uninhabitable to humans". I admittedly thought we had some of the colored pictures of the landscape when I suggested this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TompaDompa

[edit]

I've deliberated quite a bit whether I should review this or refrain from doing so. As mentioned in the nomination, I reviewed the article for WP:Good article status. I am consequently already very familiar with the article and its sources, but it also means that I'm rather involved—while User:Piotrus is the main author of the current version, my metaphorical fingerprints are all over the article as a result of suggestions I made in the process as well as a fair amount of copyediting and the like that I did myself. I've finally decided to weigh in—this seems to be getting several fresh sets of eyes on it now—but it's worth noting that I'm not entirely an outside party. I intend to do a source and image review (I've already had a fairly thorough look during the GA process after all), though since I'm new to this I'd appreciate if someone (perhaps one of the coordinators?) could double-check that no important aspects are missed there. TompaDompa (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no expectation that a GA reviewer should refrain from reviewing at FAC, though it's worth declaring that you were the GA reviewer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much that I did the review for GA status in itself that gave me pause, but rather that I have had so much input that I could be considered a co-author of sorts. TompaDompa (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(For the record, given the amount of reviewing work, yes, I think you can call yourself a second author here, by all means!) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
[edit]

I have already checked the article's sourcing up to this version (not just spotchecks—I've verified every single sentence) as part of the GA process. All sources are—as far as I can tell—reliable and otherwise appropriate for the content they are used for. I was unable to access Bracia Strugaccy by Wojciech Kajtoch (currently ref 9), but I'm willing to WP:Assume good faith there. I have checked the changes and additions that have been made to the content and sources since (i.e. up to this version), and noted the issues I found below.

  • The WP:Featured article criteria mandate that citations be consistently formatted. To this end I was going to suggest restricting dates for books to year only, but you already implemented that.
  • The sources that are not in English need to indicate which language they are in (currently done for some but not all of them) and provide the English translation of the titles (use |trans-title=). Wanderer am Himmel: Die Welt der Planeten in Astronomie und Mythologie, for instance, would be something along the lines of "Wanderers in the Sky: The World of the Planets in Astronomy and Mythology".
  • The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction reference should not include "SFE" in the title, but just the title of the entry ("Venus").
  • The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction reference should include the date (2021 or 2021-01-25 depending on if you want to treat it like a book or a webpage).
  • The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction reference should include the entry authors: Brian Stableford and David Langford. It's debatable if the editors (John Clute, David Langford, Graham Sleight) should also be included.
  • The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy reference should provide the page range.
  • The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy reference could optionally use this link to the Internet Archive rather than the current Google Books link.
  • The Wanderer am Himmel: Die Welt der Planeten in Astronomie und Mythologie reference should provide the page range.
  • The Wanderer am Himmel: Die Welt der Planeten in Astronomie und Mythologie reference should provide the chapter title ("Venus" or "Ein geplatzter Traum", depending on how specific you want to be about it) and use the |chapter-url= parameter rather than the generic |url= one.
  • The link to Braccia Strugaccy should be removed—it's useless for verification. It also duplicates the |oclc= field, so it's unnecessary.
  • The Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia reference should provide the page range.
  • The Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia reference should provide the chapter title ("Venus and Venusians") and use the |chapter-url= parameter rather than the generic |url= one.
  • David Seed is not the author of A Companion to Science Fiction, but the editor. The author of the cited chapter ("Science Fiction and Ecology") is Brian Stableford.
  • E. F. Bleiler should be linked in the reference.
  • Alexander Victorovich Fedorov should be linked in the reference.

TompaDompa (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa Done except: 1) page ranges for books cited are provided in text body, using template:rp, which is why I removed any page ranges from the citation templates on purpose to avoid needless/confusing redundancy 2) Regading Wanderer am Himmel: Die Welt der Planeten in Astronomie und Mythologie, I believe this ref was added by you (or User:Daranios?), and it's in German, a language I don't speak. As such, I cannot decide which chapter title is better here, would you have a preference? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough about the page ranges, I suppose. I added the chapter title. TompaDompa (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
[edit]
  • All images are public domain, CC BY-SA 3.0, or CC BY-SA 4.0 (the last one being fine for media but not for text per WP:CFAQ).
  • The images lack WP:ALT text, which need to be added.
  • All images are relevant and the captions are suitable.
  • With the possible exception of File:Fantastic adventures 194111.jpg, all images have decent image quality. That image illustrates Venus appearing in pulp stories, tropical climate, and exotic lifeforms. The first and last of those aspects are illustrated by other images on the page. I think it's okay, but it might be possible to find a better image.

TompaDompa (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All good. The image review is a pass. TompaDompa (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
[edit]
  • Either reduce the number of examples or elaborate on the details of individual examples anywhere more than (say) three examples are listed. We're supposed to summarize, not enumerate.
  • The "Media" section feels really out of place considering the overall article structure. I would strongly suggest interspersing the examples throughout the text as appropriate rather than devoting a separate section to this (though there might also be some other solution I haven't thought of). The way it's currently done is conspicuous to such an extent that I find it to be a WP:WEIGHT issue.
  • I would suggest adding WP:REDLINKS at first mention for all applicable works, though this is a matter of preference.
  • This source (currently used as "Further reading") could probably be used to expand the article somewhat.
  • "The idea of water's abundance on Venus" – Awkward phrasing.
  • "Prospects for life on Venus dimmed from the 1930s on" – This should be rephrased. The actual likelihood of life on Venus was of course the same all along, it was scientists' estimation of that likelihood that changed.
  • "Overall, the sentient inhabitants of Venus are most commonly portrayed as human, or human-like, although Everett Franklin Bleiler listed a number of exceptions [...]" – This is missing the crucial piece of context that it comes from Science-Fiction: The Early Years, which means Bleiler's observations only apply to early (pre-1930) science fiction.
  • "winged, angelic people, dwarves, giants, archaic humans ("subhumans"), humans but wings and antennae, intelligent giant bees, ants and worm larvae, giant monstrous insects [...]" – Two items in this list have internal commas: "winged, angelic people" and "intelligent giant bees, ants and worm larvae". Either separate the items with semicolons or edit the set of items to avoid having items with internal commas.
  • "It was adapted into a two-part English-language release" – I don't think that's correct. It seems like these were two different adaptations rather than two parts of a single adaptation. Specifically, from what I can gather, dubbed and re-edited versions with some new footage (cf. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!).

TompaDompa (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa Done unless otherwise noted below:
1) "We're supposed to summarize, not enumerate." That's subjective. I'll note that numerous other cited reference works, including encyclopedias, have no problem with enumeration. If you think in a particular case (work) there was deeper content (analysis) in a source we haven't incorporated, do let me know and I'll see about expanding the article. Otherwise, we are simply repeating an enumration as given in a RS on the topic.
2) Regarding the media section, there is no good way of doing this. Some sources focus on specific types of media. The solution is to wait for the apperance of sources discussing this in other contexts.
3) I support REDLINKS, but that begs the question of which works are notable to be linked, and which aren't.
4) Good find with [2]. I'll read it and see what can be incorporated in a near future.
5) "The idea of water's abundance on Venus". And so it begins, my experience with numerous reviewers at FAC. No disrespect to anyone, but this was rewritten following a request to do so by another FAC reviewer. You are welcome to restore the old version. I wash my hands from that (to me both variants sound ok).
6) "Prospects for life on Venus dimmed from the 1930s on" - likewise, this was rewritten following a request of another reviewer. Feel free to restore the previous version. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1: I agree with Espresso Addict that this is "not an example of our best prose. It feels very listy and not very analytical." Adding a brief description (even if it is not really analytical) goes a long way. One example of this that is already in the article is "Kuttner and Moore's "Clash by Night" (1943), and its 1947 sequel, Fury, describe survivors from a devastated Earth living beneath Venusian oceans."
2: I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make.
3: I would link all of them. WP:REDLINK says "Only remove red links if you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject." (emphasis in original), so the threshold for adding them should similarly be low.
5: I rephrased it to "The idea that water is abundant on Venus".
Some additional comments:
  • "It was adapted into English-language as [...]" – This is ungrammatical and needs to be rephrased.
  • "with supernatural or psychic powers" – Well, which is it?
  • I don't see how mentioning Pathfinders to Venus is justified with the current sourcing. The cited sources are not remotely on Venus in fiction.
TompaDompa (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa I agree that descriptions are good, the problem is that most sources don't provide them, which raises the specter of OR, or adding even more citations for a few sentences of plot summary (which often is available in the blue linked link).
Re 2, to put it simply: there's no good solution, and I think the current headings/content division is fine. The main article focuses on books/short stories, and we have separate sections/paragraphs for comic books and film/TV. I don't see this as particularly glaring, although if someone does, they can rewrite it, moving the examples to other relevant section. I think it would be a lot of work for little gain.
Re red links, some (most) pass criteria (I just spent 10m+ checking all), Achille Eyraud [3], Gustavus W. Pope [4], Garrett Smith (disambig needed?) [5] nvm, just stubbed at Garrett Smith (writer), Brenda Pearce [6], Bob Buckley (de:Bob Buckley), Rolf Garner [7], Charles L. Graves [8], James William Barlow [9]. The only link I removed was to Stephen L. Gillett, the encyclopedia contributor, who is probably not notable yet.
"It was adapted into English-language as" - could you rephrase it? It sounds ok to me.
"with supernatural or psychic powers" - the source doesn't specify. Can't it be both? IIRC there was something about wheather control or telepathy, shrug. I'd argue that either can be described as both.
Re: Pathfinders to Venus - User:Espresso Addict asked for this to be added. I don't see a problem, it's a TV show that has some plot relation to Venus (travelling to it? visiting it? hard to say, but it's Venus in-sf-fiction related). Fiction being on TV screen. What's the problem? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think adding additional sources to be able to add details about the works is a problem at all, really. There are presently multiple instances where seven or more items are presented in succession without any additional details. That's only somewhat an improvement over a bulleted list. Adding details helps the reader get a better understanding of the topic, and makes the text a lot more pleasant to read (compared to a bare list) to boot. Plot details being available by following a link (many works currently lacking an article to link to notwithstanding) doesn't really enter into it. The alternative would be to remove some of the examples to reduce the "listiness".
I'll see if I can find the time to rework the "Media" section. Like I said, the way it's currently done conspicuous to such an extent that I find it to be a WP:WEIGHT issue.
The issue I see with the Pathfinders to Venus inclusion and sourcing can be viewed through several different lenses: the essay WP:CARGO ("Collecting raw data does not produce an analysis."), the guideline MOS:POPCULT ("Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist."), or the policy WP:PROPORTION ("An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."—on the subject being key here). It all comes down to the same thing, however: if we are to cover something in an article on Venus in fiction, it should be covered by sources on Venus in fiction. Sources on some other topic that happen to verify the connection to Venus in fiction are not sufficient. Pathfinders to Venus could perhaps be used as an example of something or other (as WP:CARGO says: "The raw data can be examples, that demonstrate the analysis."), but right now it's just mentioned as an instance of Venus appearing in fiction devoid of any particular context.
I have copyedited the things I suggested needed rephrasing.
Something I just noticed: "Ray Cummings' Tarrano the Conqueror (1925) or E. V. Lucas or Farley's The Radio Menace (1930)" – that should be "and" rather than "or" in both instances, right? I didn't want to change it in case there's something I'm missing.
Ping Piotrus. TompaDompa (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and is ok, I'll change it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi TompaDompa, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gog the Mild: I have intentionally refrained from doing so thus far, because I would oppose promoting this to WP:Featured article status in its current state based on the issues I've brought up above that have yet to be resolved, but these issues could be resolved and the article improved to a state that I would be comfortable with supporting for WP:FA status, and the latter would obviously be the preferable outcome.
      In particular, the deal-breakers for me relate mainly to WP:PROPORTION and the relative weight given to different aspects, which I suppose would fall under WP:FACR 1c (which mandates that the article be a "representative survey of the relevant literature"—representative being the key word) and 1d (which mandates that it be compliant with WP:NPOV more broadly), and possibly also 4 (which mandates that it "[stay] focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail"). I also don't see what amounts to lists in prose form as being compatible with the prose quality requirements set out by WP:FACR 1a. TompaDompa (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @TompaDompa I don't mind adding more detail, but again, I don't recall it being present in the sources. Other, academic, encyclopedias of sf that cover Venus are very happy with not providing detail (yes, they may be contrained by size, but we are constrained by OR and can't add details if it's not in the sources). Consider https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/venus : "Early Scientific Romances set on Venus include Gustavus W Pope's Romances of the Planets, No. 2: Journey to Venus (1895) and John Munro's A Trip to Venus (1897). Fred T Jane's early Satire on the interplanetary romance was To Venus in Five Seconds (1897), and Venus was also the world visited by Garrett P Serviss's A Columbus of Space (January-June 1909 All-Story; rev 1911)" or from Stableford's Science fact and science fiction an encyclopedia: "The oceanic version of Venus was featured in Harl Vincent’s ‘‘Venus Liberated’’ (1929) and Clifford D. Simak’s ‘‘Rim of the Deep’’ (1940), but many stories in the science fiction pulps, including John W. Campbell’s ‘‘Solarite’’ (1930), John Beynon Harris’ ‘‘The Venus Adventure’’ (1932), and Stanton A. Coblentz’s The Blue Barbarians (1931; book, 1958) and The Planet of Youth (1932; book, 1952), imagined Venus as fundamentally Earthlike but warmer and cloudier.". What we have is perfectly in line, and in style, and in detail, of such sources.
      And while we could of course add detail from other sources (ex, from a work about that particular book, or author), you yourself say "if we are to cover something in an article on Venus in fiction, it should be covered by sources on Venus in fiction". So I am not sure how we can have the cake and eat it here, we are either violating your view PROPORTION, or POPCULT. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      There is no contradiction. Not every single detail about a specific example needs to come from a source on the overarching topic. For instance: if you use Pamela Sargent's Venus of Dreams as an example of terraforming Venus, citing the "Venus" entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, it is perfectly reasonable to cite additional sources that discuss terraforming in Venus of Dreams to allow you to elaborate. And of course, there is always the option of reducing the number of examples listed.
      Entries in other, professional encyclopedias aren't always up to the standards we expect WP:Featured articles to meet. There can be issues in terms of length, depth, breadth, clarity, and so on. Matching them is not an end in itself if we can do better, especially when it comes to specialized and/or paper encyclopedias that have other considerations than Wikipedia does as an online general-purpose encyclopedia. TompaDompa (talk) 09:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      TompaDompa, I'm concerned that what you're proposing would stray into synthesis. The SFE3 article, for example, generally restricts itself to listing examples, rather than giving details of exactly how Venus is represented in each case -- the Bleiler sources are unusual in that they do go into that sort of detail. If Sargent's Venus of Dreams is mentioned by a source but they don't go into any detail about the terraforming, I think we have two reasons not to go into detail ourselves -- we don't have a source that does so, and it would be hard to determine what is relevant to include. I could imagine a scholarly article about visions of terraforming Venus that compared e.g. Anderson's "The Big Rain" with Sargent and others, but without such an article I think it's very difficult to go beyond what the reliable sources do, which is mostly just to list examples. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It goes without saying that we cannot write anything we don't have the sources for. This specific example isn't really one where there is a lack of sources, however. Worldmakers: SF Adventures in Terraforming by Gardner Dozois says "Suddenly, we were seeing stories and novels again that dealt centrally with terraforming, instead of reducing it to a background enabling-device, including the launch of two major series of terraforming novels that treated both the scientific and the social problems involved in creating a new world in considerable detail and with great gravitas, Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy (Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars), and Pamela Sargent's Venus trilogy (Venus of Dreams, Venus of Shadow, and Child of Venus)". Frontiers Past and Future: Science Fiction and the American West by Carl Abbott says (among other things) "Pamela Sargent, working a generation after Poul Anderson, has dealt with the same big question, giving a compelling and nuanced depiction of the political requirements of terraforming in Venus of Dreams (1986), Venus of Shadows (1988), and Child of Venus (2001)." Terraforming: Ecopolitical Transformations and Environmentalism in Science Fiction by Chris Pak likewise discusses and compares a number of works about terraforming including Sargent's. There may be other instances where we actually cannot write even a brief description for lack of proper sourcing, but then, we don't have to give seven examples when two or three would do the trick.
      I also don't think it's entirely accurate to say that reliable sources mostly just list examples (though Bleiler does indeed go into much more detail than most). Sticking to the subject of terraforming Venus, the "Venus" entry of The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy says things like "As early as 1955, Anderson's "The Big Rain" showed colonists working to transform a hot, poisonous Venus into a new Earth" and "in Pamela Sargent's Venus of Dreams (1986) and its sequels, terraforming serves as the background of a multigenerational saga", while the "Venus and Venusians" entry of Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia says things like "One pioneering story was Anderson's "The Big Rain" (1954), in which machines and bioengineered organisms are being deployed to make Venus resemble Earth." and "Pohl's "The Merchants of Venus" (1972) features people endeavoring to terraform Venus who first discover evidence of the alien Heechee race that was later the focus of his Gateway (1972) and several sequels." That's the kind of brief description I'm talking about.
      By the way, I discovered an additional source by Gary Westfahl that is relevant for this article: The Stuff of Science Fiction: Hardware, Settings, Characters, which has a chapter on Venus. As far as I can tell, the book was published just last month, i.e. during this WP:Featured article nomination. It's only partially available via Google Books, but it appears to cover some ground that the article currently does not. Thus, through no fault of the nominator (the source wasn't available when the article was nominated), it now seems dubious if this meets the comprehensiveness criterion (WP:FACR 1b). Of course, this should not be viewed as a problem but as an opportunity to further improve the article by expanding it using this new source. I have started doing so. TompaDompa (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @TompaDompa While I think it's great to add more substance, I disagee with "we don't have to give seven examples when two or three would do the trick." This may be subjective, but I don't see a problem with listing all the examples other sources do. If they find it relevant, I think a list of examples is just as relevant as their description. Of course, both are best, but since many sources, like SFE, focus more on lists than the analysis, it means that the authors, many of whom are experts on those literary topics, decided that listing examples is MORE important than providing an analysis. We can criticize this approach, perhaps, but we cannot ignore it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having been able to read the entire chapter on Venus in The Stuff of Science Fiction: Hardware, Settings, Characters (through help from WP:RX), I can now say with confidence that the current version of this article indeed does not meet the comprehensiveness criterion, nor is it really satisfactorily balanced in terms of relative weight. I'm working on addressing this, but that may take some time as I think it will be necessary to edit the existing content quite a bit to be able to incorporate the new stuff without ending up with an article that flows terribly. TompaDompa (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To keep it short, I am sure your edits will improve the article, I just don't agree that it currently doesn't meet FA criteria, including in comprehensivness. I doubt the new source will allow us to add more then a few more details (names, examples, etc). A few percentage points of more details won't be a major difference. As for balance, it represents what's in the sources we found so far. I don't think UNDUE is violated in any place. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TompaDompa, would you be able to send me the chapter? I'd like to be able to evaluate the article for comprehensiveness in the light of the material in the chapter. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Sure. Send me a wikimail and I'll reply with the chapter I got from WP:RX. TompaDompa (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa, thanks for sending that. Reading through the chapter and making some notes, and then rereading the article, brings up these points:

  • Westfahl (p. 166) gives a page of contrasts between conceptions of Mars and Venus. Some are already mentioned in the article, but I think one point he makes is worth including in the article: the association with the gods of war and love, which led to more stories about a female-dominated Venus -- the article does mention this point, but not the association with the relevant gods.
  • He also makes the point (citing statistics drawn from Bleiler's lists) that though depictions of the Venusian environment were more varied, because less was known and the cloud cover gave writers more licence, the Venusians themselves were not very varied (p. 167).
  • He suggests (p. 172) that modern genre sf is still in thrall to "cultural conditioning dating back to Lowell", a point I think is worth including -- he means that more sf is still written about Mars, but that this is illogical given that the two planets are both uninhabitable and Venus would be the more natural target for terraforming. The chapter finishes with a related point: "Yet there is nothing resembling Percial Lowell's myth of Mars to lure humans to transform and colonize Venus, so it might remain a planet that is marginalized in contemporary visions of humanity's future in the solar system." This draws the line from Lowell to sf writers indirectly, arguing that that Lowell's myth has a hold on the scientific imagination too, and that that in turn marginalizes Venus in sf.

Westfahl certainly mentions other works that are not mentioned in this article, but I think that's OK; these articles are forced to be very listy but we don't have to include everything relevant. I don't see any significant omissions. I've supported above and see no reason to strike my support, but I do think these points should be considered for adding to the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To add to that, another point Westfahl makes (on page 165) that I think is important to include is that Venus does not really have much of a canon (for lack of a better word) of major works, unlike Mars. Anyway, I'm working on restructuring the article a bit to make it easier to expand it with additional material and more varied examples. TompaDompa (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a sec, exactly how much of a restructure are we talking about? FAC is not the place for significant changes, if we're agreed a serious restructure is necessary then it will be best to archive this and work it away from FA. If I've misunderstood the extent of the changes you're talking about that's fine but let's work that out before beginning. N.B. It's past my bedtime so don't think me rude if I don't engage in any correspondence on this point for a bit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: I was thinking along the lines of moving sentences between paragraphs and reordering paragraphs, mostly—not changing the core structure of the article (the main headings and such). TompaDompa (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I'm not familiar with the Polish sources but as far as I can tell everything cited is reliable.

  • You have one source cited using {{citation}} and the rest using {{cite}}; these give slightly different output formats, so I would switch the citation one to cite book.
  • The cite to the ESO gives the website title, "European Southern Observatory", but the other instance of cite web, for the SFE, gives the URL instead. These should be consistent.
  • The cite to Fedorov doesn't cite a journal name.
  • You have "YYYY-MM-DD" for dates that give the date, but "Month YYYY" for journal dates with only a month. I suppose this isn't technically inconsistent but it does look odd. Can we go with "May 28, 1978" or "28 May 1978"?
  • You're inconsistent about giving publisher locations -- they're not compulsory but should be consistent, i.e. give them for all books or none.
  • FN 6 appears to be missing part of the name of the first author.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie All done, and few other fixes for issues I've noticed. Note that I decided to remove the location names (mostly trivial metadata), and day/month dates for references (not generally used for books and journals in academia). I just left day month for the one-two newspapers and a montly newsletter cited, as I think it is more relevant for those types of media. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK on all points except that it looks like there's still a location included in the citation to Kajtoch (2016). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that was using some weird fields, missed it. Fixed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now. I see there's another source review in progress above so I'll hold off marking this as a pass till that's done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/handle/item/151697?search-result=true&query=%22Kajtoch%2C+Wojciech%22&current-scope=&filtertype_0=title&filter_relational_operator_0=contains&filter_0=&rpp=50&sort_by=dc.date.accessioned_dt&order=desc&page=2
https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/handle/item/25668?search-result=true&query=%22Kajtoch%2C+Wojciech%22&current-scope=&filtertype_0=title&filter_relational_operator_0=contains&filter_0=&rpp=50&sort_by=dc.date.accessioned_dt&order=desc&page=4
https://www.academia.edu/49862339/Wojciech_Kajtoch_Bracia_Strugaccy_II_wydanie
https://www.academia.edu/49861114/%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%B9%D1%86%D0%B5%D1%85_%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%85_%D0%91%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%8F_%D0%A1%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BA_%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0_
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341286957_Wojciech_Kajtoch_Bracia_Strugaccy_Wydanie_drugie_uzupelnione_Stawiguda_2016_wyd_Solaris_s_570_ISBN_978-83-7590-248-8
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340255791_Vojceh_Kajtoh_Brata_Strugackie_ocerk_tvorcestva
Here's a this book
Wojciech Kajtoch 31.178.77.163 (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Espresso Addict

[edit]

Driveby comments from a quick skim. I found the article fascinating but not an example of our best prose. It feels very listy and not very analytical. There is a lot based on the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. The non-text examples at the end under "Media" feel very thin and might be better excluded althogether if sourcing is that sparse. Could do with a careful copy edit; there are numerous minor errors (eg hyphenation, italicisation, dash use) and redundant words (eg penned by) throughout. Some specific comments:

  • Lead: "Works of fiction about the planet Venus have been written since before the 19th century." Really? The body has the first work focusing on Venus as 1865.
  • Under "Early depictions: exotic tropics", "In time, Venus became one of the most popular planets in early science fiction, perhaps second only to Mars" very vague. Is there a reason for separating out examples not in English/French; there's no analysis of any difference in approach.
  • Under "Ocean", what do "The two" and "the former" refer to?
  • Under "Other" "The absence of a common vision of Venus resulted in the less coherent mythology of Venus" repetition. What is Stephen L. Gillett ? He is reffed again later but not even redlinked.
  • Under "Later depictions: hostile inferno" is "dimmed" the right word? "Following a brief period of disinterest" disinterest is incorrect. Later same sentence "now known to be a rather hostile environment" is repetitive. Still later, "as pictured in" seems wrong for lit.
  • Under "Colonization" need date for Wyndham to pin down subsequent decades. "Following emerging scientific evidence of Venus' harsh conditions, colonization of Venus" repetition.
  • Under "Terraforming" "Other relevant woks"; aside from the unfortunate typo, introducing a list like that without analysis, particularly when there are often no wikilinks to explore, is frustrating.
  • Under "Venusians" "humans but wings and antennae" missing something. "intelligent giant bees, ants and worm larvae, giant monstrous insects" is confusing/repetitive. The whole list here is very hard to parse. "Venusian society and culture has been described as both inferior and superior to human, varying from work to work." Bit of a pointless sentence. "James William Barlow and John Munro penned descriptions of Venusian civilizations, respectively," respectively misplaced, and the whole sentence seems tagged on.
  • Under "Media" "Most depictions of Venus in fiction are literary" Literary seems an odd word here given the prevalence of pulp. "The Soviet film Planeta Bur (1962) was another movie from that time period." Pointless sentence.

Sorry for terseness, typing is painful right now. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at Project Muse; there are 2577 hits for Venus & "science fiction" that might be worth a trawl (avail on library but needs a specific login). F'rex, The Essential Science Fiction Television Reader Telotte, J.P. (muse.jhu.edu/book/3715) mentions Pathfinders to Venus, a 1961 BBC television children's sf series but I don't see even a mention of television depictions. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict Thanks for taking a look!
"The body has the first work focusing on Venus as 1865." Errr, 1656 is given?
But only as a minor subject.("touching on"); "The earliest use of Venus as the primary focus was Achille Eyraud's Voyage à Venus (Voyage to Venus, 1865)"
I am not sure if this is a meaningful distinction, but it is worth a third opinion. I'll ping GA reviewer User:TompaDompa, who, as he himself admitted, has previously verified every sentence and fact. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would cut the Gordian Knot and go with the phrasing I have used for e.g. Mercury in fiction and Mars in fiction: say that the planet has been used as a setting in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict I'd be fine with that? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Is there a reason for separating out examples not in English/French; there's no analysis of any difference in approach." This is an attempt to address WP:SYSTEMICBIAS.
I don't understand why WP:SYSTEMICBIAS requires these works to be separated out?
Best practices recommended by SYSTEMICBIAS suggest that we try to avoid such things as Anglophone bias present in most cited sources, and so the adopted paragraph structure, stressing what little the RS say about other languages, is, I believe, best for achieving NPOV in this context. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"what do "The two" and "the former" refer to" - clarified (I hope)
OK.
"What is Stephen L. Gillett " - err, you ask, who? I can't find a bio of him aside from Goodreads here, but he has been invited (allowed? approved?) by Gary Westfahl to contribute to his encyclopedia. So, errr, we could describe him as "one of the contributors to The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy" or specifically as the author of it's Venus' chapter (although he contributed more than one entry to the encyclopedia). He also wrote the book World-Building - Science Fiction Writing Series [10], at least, I assume that's the same person. He may or may not be this scholar.
Doesn't the Greenwood Encyclopedia have contributor bios? Or at least affiliations. Someone over at the Resource Exchange Board might be able to assist. Acc. [11], Stephen P. Gillett contributed articles on Alien Worlds, Comets and Asteroids, Mercury, Venus -- So possibly not Stephen L. Gillett?
In the book, he is signed as L. not P. According to [12] there is a section on editors and contributors, p. 1383, but I am having trouble finding this (maybe it's in another tome?. Ping User:TompaDompa who found the link to IA copy for help (I have to go AFK for now). Oh, and I wouldn't call him an academic, maybe a scholar, since the book is scholarly. Will do so in the next edit pass. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's in volume 3. The relevant information is on page 1388. Given the mention of Reno, it seems this is indeed the same person as this one. Google Books likewise says "Stephen L. Gillett is a research associate at the Mackay School of Mines, University of Nevada, Reno." about the author of the book World-Building. TompaDompa (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For now I've added a description to him as "one of the contributors to The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy", which should give the readers sufficient context for now (red link...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else is available suggest describing him as an academic or scholar.
Re: "dimmed". I think so and none of the other copyeditors took an issue with that.
It's very unidiomatic in (UK) English, imo. "Waned" would be the usual way this would be expressed.
While I don't see a difference, I differ to your expertise and chanced this accordingly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "disinterest" - as above. Could you explain why it's incorrect as nobody else reviewing this article found it to be a problematic word?
See below.
Re: "now known to be a rather hostile environment" - I think this is a useful reminder to the reader why some authors became disinterested in this topic.
Think this whole sentence would benefit from recasting. It's a repeat of the end of the paragraph at the start of this section. One might even swap the two paragraphs ("A romantic, habitable, pre-Mariner Venus" and "Following a brief period") to remove the need for the reminder?
An elegant solution, implemented swap (and removed the redunancy). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "as pictured in seems wrong for lit" - mhm, I changed to depicted, unless you think that's only for pictograms and like, in which case we can change it do described. Although modern books are printed, not scribed.
Depicted or described are both fine.
Re: "need date for Wyndham to pin down subsequent decades", right, except I was asked to remove the date as repetetive (it is given earlier) by another reviewer. Since you are right that it's needed here for context, I've attempted to compromise by adding "from five years later", since it was published in 1932, that's five years after the work cited with date earlier (1927).
OK.
Re: "Under "Terraforming" "Other relevant woks"; aside from the unfortunate typo". I don't see a typo, can you elaborate?
Re: " introducing a list like that without analysis, particularly when there are often no wikilinks to explore, is frustrating". Wikilinks for some works are given earlier in the body, and as far I know, Manual of Style forbids us repeating them in the body (so duplicate links were removed). I don't understand what is frurstrating. There's no deeper analysis given in cited sources which simply mention these works as depicting terraformation of Venus, anything else I could add would violate WP:OR. If the context is unclear, we could merge this with the preceeding sentence, which opens with "The terraforming of Venus subsequently featured in...". Would that help?
I don't think MoS prohibits repeating wikilinks when the earlier one was in an earlier section. I know many at FAC are far more sparing of repeat links than I am but I don't agree that only linking once serves the reader -- one reads an interesting factoid, wants to know more, and can only find out that we have an article on the topic by text searching the article? Thereby losing one's original place? Serve the readers not the MoS.
I think you could delete "Other relevant works include" and just merge but the listiness is a general problem throughout.
I've merged the sentences as I agree it was redundant wording. I am open to wikilinking any specific terms you wish to see linked (although you can be just be bold and wikilink them yourself in text, might be faster). I will however stress that I believed that one link per text (not counting lead) is a rule we are supposed to follow. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Venusians". Something was added, as requested.
OK.
Re: "The whole list here is very hard to parse.". No idea how to handle this, given that the cited source contains nothing but a list. Any addition would violate OR.
The addition of semi-colons has helped a bit. But "intelligent giant bees, ants and worm larvae, giant monstrous insects" isn't clear.
Do note the semicolon before giant monstrous insects. I am not sure how to reword it better, here's the excerpt from the cited work that I am working with for this particular sentence/paragraph - numbers are cyphered work names, which one has to cross-check elsewhere in the book (print can't have hyperlinks...). Index entry for "Venus, inhabitants." Excerpt from the middle of the list: Dwarves: 13. Intelligent giant bees: 693, 694, 695. Intelligent giant ants: 693, 694, 695, 698. Intelligent worm larvae, surgically inserted into host brains: 695, 698. Giant monstrous insect-like forms: 1179. Living colors: 576." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Venusian society and culture has been described as both inferior and superior to human, varying from work to work." Bit of a pointless sentence. " The source says nothing else, just notes that some works showed Venusians as living in an inferior setting compared to Earth, and some, superior. It's, errr, analysis. Not great, but that's what the source says. Any analysis to lessen the list of examples seems like a good thing, no?
You could give an example of each perhaps? And what does inferior/superior mean? More advanced? More moral?
The source, being a list-like index, does not define what it means by those adjectives, so speculation would be ORish. That said, I double checked, and it does say "cultural level", and later, "culturally and scientifically", so I've added that phrase to the article. I've also add some examples. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "James William Barlow and John Munro penned descriptions of Venusian civilizations, respectively," respectively misplaced, and the whole sentence seems tagged on." I don't understant the problem with the word respectively, can you elaborate? I have moved some sentences around and added a bit more analysis, although I hope it doesn't get too close to OR, given a lot of is interpresting a list.
I think you need to move the respectively to the end of the sentence. Otherwise it applies to "descriptions of Venusian civilizations" which doesn't make sense.
Moved. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably recast for clarity: "James William Barlow and John Munro penned descriptions of Venusian civilizations, respectively, in History of a Race of Immortals without a God (1891) and A Trip to Venus (1897)" --> "Descriptions of Venusian civilizations are found in James William Barlow's History of a Race of Immortals without a God (1891) and John Munro's A Trip to Venus (1897)" --or-- "James William Barlow's History of a Race of Immortals without a God (1891) and John Munro's A Trip to Venus (1897) both contain descriptions of Venusian civilizations."
Re: "Literary seems an odd word here given the prevalence of pulp." Pulp literature is a thing. But I am open to consider synonyms, if you'd like to suggest any?
print media, printed media, textual works ?
Changed to print media. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "The Soviet film Planeta Bur (1962) was another movie from that time period." Pointless sentence." It's setting up context. We can't have just lists and examples, right? But we could cut it, if other reviewers concur (or if anyone removes it themselves, be bold, I won't revert such changes).
Suggest just cutting "was another movie from that time period. It " and running the sentence on.
Done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a note about television. I did look for such mentions but failed to find anything outside comics and films (hence their sections). If the ref pans out, I'll certainly add Pathfinders to Venus (1961) as an example of a TV treatment. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just got pinged as I was going offline; very quickly, I fixed the typo (wok for work) which is why you're not still finding it. "Disinterest" does not mean lack of interest, but rather something akin to lack of conflict of interest, lack of bias. Will revisit tomorrow when back online but it won't be till late, sorry, as I'm out all evening. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worry. I'll ping User:Nihil novi re suggestions for what word to use instead of dinsinterest, anyone else is of couse welcome to offer suggestions. Although my check with dictionary does suggest that "lack of interest in something" is one of the two meanings of the term disinterest (I was in fact not even aware that "lack of conflict of interest" is another meaning, leave and learn, thanks). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My dictionary and Wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disinterest#Noun) also give the two meanings for "disinterest".
Not knowing the context in the article, it's hard for me to suggest an unequivocal wording.
I tend to reserve "disinterest" for contexts involving "freedom from selfish bias or self-interest; impartiality".
For the other meaning, I might substitute something like "lack of interest" or "indifference".
I hope that helps.
Nihil novi (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The related adjectives "disinterested" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disinterested) and "uninterested" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/uninterested) carry the same duality of meanings.
Nihil novi (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up "disinterest" and (to my surprise) you are right that it can now be legitimately used to mean lack of interest/uninterest; apparently that was the original meaning, it then diverged, but has recently diverged back again through repetitive (what I'd characterise as) misuse. In my copy-editing days, this would have been considered grammatically incorrect, and it still feels barbarous. In any case it is ambiguous and so far better to recast the sentence to remove any ambiguity, along with the prospect of readers of my generation considering it ungrammatical. But I've suggested rewriting/reordering that whole section above. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Espresso Addict ? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fear fundamentally my review was that the article did not meet featured prose standards, nor did it meet featured article comprehensiveness, neither of which I believe can readily be addressed in a short time frame. I also offered a number of minor points, some of which have now been fixed but agreeing on the remainder will not affect my overall view. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been open for a long time, a large amount of work has been done on it, yet it still seems far from achieving a consensus to promote. This being so I am going to time it out and archive it. The nominator may wish to consider GoCER and/or PR and/or working further with Espresso Addict and TompaDompa prior to bringing the article back to FAC. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 October 2022 [13].

Frank McGee (ice hockey)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"One-Eyed" Frank McGee was once one of the biggest names in hockey, but today is known mainly for three things: playing with one eye; scoring 14 goals in one game; and dying in the First World War. This article goes into a bit more than that, and while it is on the shorter end (1800 words at time of nomination), it is comprehensive and detailed. It passed GA many years ago (credit to @Alaney2k: for that), but I've worked on it the past few months to bring it here. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Thanks for being so quick. Fixed most, but for the enlistment image, I'm not sure what would be the most appropriate tags here: it is a Canadian government document, so I don't think an author tag like is being used is right, but this is far from my specialty. Any thoughts? Kaiser matias (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PD-Canada-anon should work for Canadian status; I suspect the problem is going to be US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't qualify as a pre-1927 public domain work would it? It wasn't published for the public consumption at the time, but still published, no? Kaiser matias (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Published" has a particular meaning in US law, which you can find here - generally public consumption is part of the deal. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "His brother Jim was also a noted athlete in football and ice hockey" - could do with a link on football as it is unclear which sport this refers to (I bet it isn't the one I think of when I hear the word "football"). Also link ice hockey here rather than on the second use.
  • " Walter also served in the war," - which war? The last sentence mentioned two wars.
  • "he was promoted within the Dominion lands branch of the Department" - I'm guessing "Dominion lands" means something specific in Canada? Is there an appropriate link?
  • "Historian Paul Kitchen has suggested McGee's rise" => "Historian Paul Kitchen has suggested that McGee's rise"
  • "the connections both of his father John and William Foran," => "the connections both of his father John and of William Foran,"
  • "McGee was the youngest member of the team and standing 5 ft 6 in" => "McGee was the youngest member of the team and stood 5 ft 6 in"
  • "He repeated the feat in a game on March 9 against the Brandon Hockey Club" - this sentence has no full stop
  • "prompting the Nuggets' manager to reportedly say McGee " => "prompting the Nuggets' manager to reportedly say that McGee "
  • "This included eight consecutive goals scored in less than nine minutes,[30] which remains" => "This included eight consecutive goals scored in less than nine minutes,[30] and remains" (the record is the 14 not the 8)
  • "McGee scored five or more goals in eight other senior matches" - other than what? No game has been mentioned immediately prior to this
  • "At the time it was a common play, before icing rules for the defence" => "At the time it was a common play, before icing rules, for the defence"
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

Having read through this, the prose does not seem to meet the "engaging and of a professional standard" criteria. I shall look at a couple of sections in detail to see if this was just an unfortunate first impression.

  • "Along with his brother Charles, McGee had been a member of the Non-Permanent Active Militia of Canada, and when ..." Could we put the stress on the subject of the article, with something like 'McGee had been a member of the Non-Permanent Active Militia of Canada, along with his brother Charles, and when ...'
  • The 43rd Regiment was the "43rd Regiment, Duke of Cornwall's Own Rifles" during WWI. It did not become "The Ottawa Regiment (The Duke of Cornwall's Own)" until 1920.
  • Do you have a military source for the 21st Battalion being part of the 43rd Regiment, Duke of Cornwall's Own Rifles during WWI, as I don't believe that it was. (Two battalions of this regiment were formed and served overseas during WWI - the 38th and the 207th.)
  • "the armoured car he was driving was blown into a ditch from a shell". Perhaps "from" → 'by'.
  • "McGee was sent back to England on December 28 to recover, and spent several months recuperating." Having been told that he was in England to recover, do we need to be told in the same sentence that he did indeed spend the time recuperating?
  • "On July 7, 1916 McGee was medically cleared to return to active duty and returned to service on August 29." "... return ... returned ..." is a little clumsy.
  • "joining them on September 5, and took part in the Battle of the Somme." Could the tense be consistent? Ie, if "joining", then "took" → 'taking'.
  • "On the day of his death, he was mentioned in dispatches for actions he performed late in the morning that day." 1. This is clumsy. 2. Could we avoid repeating "day". 3. I strongly doubt it. It was usually weeks or months, occasionally years, between an action and it being recognised by a mention in despatches. 4. Would it be possible to quote some or all of the mention, if only as a footnote?
  • "Both of their names were later added to the Canadian National Vimy Memorial". "added" seems odd; were they initially missed off. Or would 'inscribed' serve better.
  • See MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." This seems to not be applied several times in the article, eg with "mentioned in despatches".

This section was better than it appeared on first reading. I shall pick another to examine.

  • See MOS:NOFORCELINK re "a Father of Confederation".
  • Is there a Wikilink for Privy Council? (Nice in line explanation.)
  • "After finishing his schooling in Ottawa". Is it known which school(s) he attended? Is it known when he commenced and completed his education?
  • "He had a passion for sports and played lacrosse and rugby and excelled at ice hockey." Three ties "and" in six words! And no punctuation?
  • "While playing half-back for his rugby team, Ottawa City, he was a member of the team". Spot the redundancy. I mean, he would be, wouldn't he?
  • "McGee lost use of his left eye during an amateur game for a local Canadian Pacific Railway team from a "lifted puck." I am left unclear as to just how McGee lost his sight. Did a puck - whatever a "puck" is strike him in the eye during the game? If so, could we be told.
  • "despite risking permanent blindness". In what way was this the case? At least, more so than not playing? Was loss of sight very common among ice hockey plyers?
  • "Highly sought out". I think what is meant is 'Highly sought after'.
  • "and standing 5 ft 6 in (1.68 m) tall". "standing" → 'stood'.
  • Do we need to be told his height twice in the article?
  • No links for "Ottawa CPR" and "Canadian Railway Hockey Union"? If not and they are notable there should be red links.

A better article than I had first thought, but I am nevertheless leaning oppose. I note that it sat for a month at PR without attracting comment, which is a shame. It would probably have benefitted from a visit to GoCER. I shall think on't and see what other reviewers have to say. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I am going to be honest, the GoCER completely slipped my mind here, and based on your comments and that by @ChrisTheDude:, I think that may be the best route to go right now. Rather than waste time or try and rush through it here, I think best to withdraw at this time, get it copyedited (and maybe reviewed at PR or somewhere else, hopefully), and try again. And thanks to you both for the initial review, I hope to be back soon with a stronger article for everyone. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Km and thanks for taking the review in the spirit in which it was intended. Although I am recused, I think that I shall allow myself to archive the nomination as you request. Do ping me when it returns. Bear in mind the usual two-week hiatus.


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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 28 October 2022 [14].

TRAPPIST-1

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, this was already at FAC but failed b/c of lack of supports and some prose concerns so it went through a second peer review during which some prose work was done. This is a star which is noted for the presence of seven planets in a harmonic chain, and some of these planets may even be habitable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Artem

[edit]
  • As many as four of the planets (d, e, f, g) are hypothesised to be orbiting within the habitable zone[c][12] - do you really need this ref 12 in the lead? everything is referenced in the body.
    No; removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • TRAPPIST-1 is in the constellation Aquarius,[13] only[14] five degrees south of the celestial equator.[d][1] - why does 'only' need a separate source? Is it that important?
    Yes, there was a discussion on the peer review about this sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2016, TRAPPIST-1's rotational period was first measured as 1.40±0.05 Earth days,[31] a typical period for M dwarfs.[43] 2017 measurements showed that the star actually rotates about every 3.295±0.003 Earth days,[8][44] though that may constitute the rotation period of active regions rather than stellar rotation according to a 2019 paper.[40] As of 2020, discrepancies between rotational data obtained by the Spitzer Space Telescope and Kepler satellite remain unexplained.[45] - I think it would be better if 2016 and 2017 events would be more implicitly accossiated with instruments, smth like "In 2016, data from the Spitzer show ... In 2017, Kepler measurements show ... As of 2020, discrepancies between those two remain unexplained."
    I think the 2016 observations were from more than one source, but I added the Kepler thing in 2017. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kepler satellite remain - why not 'Kepler space telescope'? Isn't it a common name?
    Changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on a combination of techniques, an age of about 7.6±2.2 billion years has been established for TRAPPIST-1,[46] - maybe these combination can be added? (if it's not very important, maybe a note would work?)
    It'd be pretty difficult to make it comprehensible without making it overly long, I am afraid. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • while the Sun will leave the main sequence (run out of hydrogen[i]) - maybe just a link - run out of hydrogen - will work?
    Eh, I don't think it's common knowledge what the "main sequence" is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggested this construct during the peer review, and I feel that such a link might be a WP:SURPRISE. At that point in the text, if we're to add a link, hydrogen burning or similar feels more appropriate. ComplexRational (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible faculae (bright spots[52]) - is this ref proves that faculae are bright spots? If yes, I think it's redundant. Same for albedo (reflectivity[136]). It just looks strange when there is a translation of 'faculae' or 'albedo' (especially for 'albedo' as a common word in astronomy), and there are no explanation of stuff like Alfvén surface, planet's Hill radius, global Rossby number, etc.
    Some of these are explained in text, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of 2017, this is the largest known number of planets within the habitable zone of a star or star system.[135] - what about 2022?
    It is not feasible to keep an article - even at FA standards - up to date on a monthly basis. Thus I only do it once per year during Christmas, hence any 2022 publication isn't used yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • making TRAPPIST-1b a candidate magma ocean planet - link magma ocean (it was linked before, but would be useful here)
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Models of tidal effects on TRAPPIST-1e have been created.[242] - maybe any details about these models are worthy and can be included?
    I'd prefer to leave them to TRAPPIST-1e. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Artem.G (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • For each section about a planet you have {Main article} and then start sentence with the planet's name. Maybe it can be simplified - insert links into first sentences and remove {Main}? (just a thought, I have no hard feelings of either variant)
    I think the current form makes it clearer that detailed information on each planet is found elsewhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discovery of the TRAPPIST-1 planets is often incorrectly attributed to NASA - 'often' is referenced by one source, maybe 'sometimes attributed to NASA'?
    This was a tough one. It certainly seems to me like NASA is frequently (not just "sometimes") mentioned as the discoverer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The speculative Breakthrough Starshot proposal for sending small laser-accelerated unmanned probes would require around two centuries to reach TRAPPIST-1.[305] - link is dead
    Changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Besides these comments, I can't find any serious flaws - as the article was under PR and FAC before, I think everything was polished several times. Nice article, I support it being promoted to FA status. Artem.G (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon

[edit]

I'm glad to see this back here again. I reviewed it last time around. The prose flows much better now. My comments:

That's it from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was a lot of things, but I think I got most. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Just a few points left. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy my points have been addressed. I Support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (support) from ComplexRational

[edit]

As I noted at the close of the peer review, I'm quite pleased with the improvements to this article since FAC1. I just gave it another quick review (having done the bulk of reviewing during the PR) and pending a few minor comments, I'm happy to support promotion to FA.

  • I made a few minor formatting fixes, removed a couple of duplinks, and changed a second occurrence of magma ocean (in the section TRAPPIST-1b) to the more specific lava planet.
  • See my comment above re alt text – the infobox image doesn't have it, but it can be written to reflect the article text.
    Template:Starbox image does not have an option for ALT text, it seems like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it work to specify |alt= in the file link itself? I don't see anything suggestive of the contrary. Complex/Rational 22:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's see if it shows up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it does in the alt text viewer (toolbox). I might also suggest mentioning that TRAPPIST-1 is located very close to the ecliptic. Complex/Rational 16:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already noted this in one case at the PR – sources published by exactly the same authors in the same year should be distinguished, e.g., 2014a, 2014b, per this and similar guidelines. This is nicely done in some cases, though I've noticed a few instances of broken numbering (e.g., there's a Gillon 2020b but no Gillon 2020a) as well as slightly different author listings. I propose standardizing the authors (even with et al.) and numbering sequence.
    I think I got these? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Still needs a bit of work. In the list of sources, months and days are also provided in some cases, which serve to distinguish the sources there. I'm not sure if style guidelines permit, e.g., "April 2018a" and "July 2018b" unless there are multiple papers from either month with exactly the same authors. In these cases, it should suffice to leave them without letters in the list (using letters only as a "last resort" when authors and dates are not sufficient), but rather distinguish them using WP:CITEREF; thus, the list would include April 2018 and July 2018 but the footnotes would use 2018a and 2018b, respectively.
    Also, I think you might have missed that there's still a 2011b without a 2011a – there's only one paper by Prantzos on the list. Complex/Rational 22:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! Complex/Rational 16:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ComplexRational, that's fine. I had assumed it wasn't, but you know what they say about "assume" - it seemed best to check. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sportsfan77777

[edit]

I'll review the article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • What's rationale for calling TRAPPIST-1 just a star as opposed to a "planetary system" or a "star with a planetary system" (i.e. a "stellar system")? The website calls it a "planetary system" and I would think that when most people say TRAPPIST-1 they are referring to the planetary system, not specifically the star. (i.e. The equivalent article is the solar system, not the Sun.)
    The article covers both, unlike Sun-Solar System, but added planetary system. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related to that, I would suggest mentioning TRAPPIST-1 has seven known planets in the first paragraph to give that more emphasis. The current placement of that makes it a bit buried.
    Also done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the shortest period being" <<<=== suggest rephrasing the sentence to avoid the with "-ing" issue.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also suggest rephrasing that sentence to put the range of orbital periods first (1.5 to 18.8 days) and then add that they are in resonance afterwards. It's much easier to understand the length of the year part than the resonance part.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The habitable zone is the region around a star where temperatures are neither too hot nor too cold for the existence of liquid water" <<<=== "could be" neither too hot nor too cold for the existence of liquid water. (see e.g. [15])
    I dunno, usually one would say a planet too cold or too warm is outside of the habitable zone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As many as four of the planets (d, e, f, g) are hypothesised to be orbiting within the habitable zone[c] of the star and thus to have temperatures suitable to the presence of liquid water and the development of life. <<<=== Suggest rephrasing to make it clear that what's uncertain is the extent of the habitable zone, as well as possibilities of water and life, not the orbits. The current wording sounds to me like the orbits are uncertain.
    Did this, but I sort of don't like the formulation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Star

  • only[14] <<<=== suggest not citing "only" or moving the citation to the end of the sentence
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dwarf stars like TRAPPIST-1 are over ten times more common than Sun-like stars[27] and these stars are more likely to host small planets than Sun-like stars. <<<=== This sentence is out of place. It should be in the next paragraph after it's stated that TRAPPIST-1 is a red dwarf. (albeit see the new few comments) Also, careful: "dwarf" doesn't mean "small", it means "not a giant star, i.e. stars either on the main sequence or below the main sequence".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "TRAPPIST-1 is a red dwarf;[30] red dwarfs are cold stars with" <<<=== suggest avoiding these types of constructions in general. You could use a construction like "TRAPPIST-1 is a red dwarf,[30] a cold star with... "
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • red dwarfs are cold stars with a mass less than the Sun, including the spectral types M and K,[31] ad TRAPPIST-1 belongs to class M <<<=== I don't think this captures what a red dwarf is. Suggest "TRAPPIST-1 is a red dwarf, the smallest, coolest, and most common type of star". I would lean towards thinking mentioning K dwarfs is not relevant.
    Need a sauce for such a formulation, and I think that not mentioning K dwarfs would be slightly misleading. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "cool" is preferred to "cold". "cool" is a jargon term. (It's not actually cold, it's a few thousand degrees. That's really hot!)
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Spectral type" is introduced twice in the second paragraph. You should mention "M8.0" when introducing the spectral type.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • which is a scheme to categorise stars by their temperature <<<=== I'm not sure this captures the point. "Spectral type" categorises stars by their spectra, hence the name "spectral type". For main sequence stars, that classification implies a bunch of other properties including temperature, mass, lifetime, etc.
    I don't think it does, but the problem is that definitions like these are hard to source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link spectral type to Stellar classification#Harvard spectral classification.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • it has only barely sufficient mass to allow nuclear fusion to take place <<<=== this is related to the mass not the radius, but it's in the radius sentence
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest starting the rotation period paragraph by noting the disagreement
    It's somewhat hard to explain things when put in that order. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could compare the rotation period to the Sun.
    I don't think the rotation period is as important as the mass and luminosity, myself. Plus, it'd need another sauce for the Sun's rotation period. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to shine" <<<=== this is too informal. I assume you mean "stay on the main sequence"?
    Kind of, but "shine" captures the pertinent aspect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More commments later. In general, I think the quality of explanations could still be improved. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsfan77777, any more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary system

  • 1,700,000 kilometres (1,100,000 mi) to 8,900,000 kilometres (5,500,000 mi) <<<=== I would think AU would be a logical default choice of units. (Does 1 million km mean something to a typical reader?) If it were me writing the article, I would also add the distances in stellar radii to elucidate the proximity to the star.
    The AU thing's a reasonable suggestion so it's in. I don't think that the radii of TRAPPIST-1 are known with such precision or so well-known that we could use them as a reference, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A hypothetical eighth planet would be designated TRAPPIST-1i, and its orbital properties have been predicted under the assumption that it orbits exterior to planet h and is part of the planetary resonance <<<=== I would suggest removing the passive voice, as it makes the sentence more confusing. It's also strange to say the properties of have predicted without saying what that orbit would be.
    I am hearing you, but I am not sure how to formulate it otherwise ... also, it does say that we have an idea of what the orbit of an eight body in the resonance would look like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a 2018 paper, the authors <<<=== I would suggest not using "paper" in general (it's too informal), and just refer to the paper directly (i.e. Kral et al. 2018) or name the authors and year separately (In 2018, Kral et al. OR In 2018, Quentin Kral et al.), or if you'd prefer a similar construction, use "a 2018 study".
    Went for the format used by other paper mentions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the pre-planetary material was converted into planets <<<=== Rephrase so it doesn't sound so concrete. I don't think it's known for sure that this is the case.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I don't think "pre-planetary" is a real term. Either "solid material" or "rocky material" or both together "solid rocky material"
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • spin axis ot TRAPPIST-1 <<<=== typo
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the same plane" ===>>> "in the same plane"?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The planets all orbit on the same plane and, from the perspective of the Solar System, move past TRAPPIST-1 during their orbit <<<=== This would be a good place to introduce transits, i.e. just say "transit in front of TRAPPIST-1"
    Done, not sure if the quote marks are needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 0.775±0.014 <<<=== suggest using the +0.014 −0.014 to keep it consistent with the others
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Size and composition

  • Observations indicate that sizes of the planets range from between Mars-sized to slightly larger than Earth.[86] Their radii are estimated to lie within the range of 75% to 150% that of Earth. <<<=== Condense into one sentence. These are the same thing, but it sounds like they are different things.
    Done but a slight reformulation may be needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • consist of large amounts of atmospheres, ice and oceans <<<=== "large amounts of atmospheres" and "large amounts of oceans" aren't proper phrasing
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resonances

Stellar light

  • Okay.

Habitable zone

  • Okay.

Moon

  • Might want to clarify that no moons have been detected in general around any exoplanet even close to as small as the ones in the TRAPPIST-1 system
    Eh, I don't think it's necessary; we only have one or two disputed exomoons, period. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetic

Formation

More comments later, hopefully later today. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think I'm going to have much free time any time soon. Seeing as it looks like it's going to pass if I just abandon the review and since I already commented on the main things I wanted to comment on, I'm going to leave it at that. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Sandbh

[edit]

I want to support this FAC but concerns raised at FAC1 about the writing not seeming to be up to the high quality FA standard, and a lot of basic copyediting which would have been better done off-FAC and suggesting the article wasn't ready for FAC2 when it was nominated, remain outstanding.

Some examples of writing concerns follow.

Lede para 1, 1st sentence: "TRAPPIST-1 is an ultra-cool red dwarf star in the constellation Aquarius with a planetary system of seven known planets."

Lede para 2, 1st sentence: "The star was discovered in 2000."

Comment. Since para 1, starts off with a reference to a "star" it is not necessary for para 2 to again refer to the "star".

On this one I have to disagree: The star and the planetary system weren't discovered at the same time, so yes we need to specify what "2000" refers to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a reader who is very familiar with the subject matter may appreciate this nuance. OTOH, as a general reader, I found this doubling up to be off-putting. It now occurs to me that since the article is about TRAPPIST-1, rather than its planetary system, there is no pressing need to distinguish between the star and its planetary system, in that way. Sandbh (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the sentiment, the problem I have with the rewrite is that it is actively misleading. Even for a general reader that would be bad. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the distinction between a star and the planets orbiting it is "nuance", really. We're talking about the discoveries of very different kinds of objects, discoveries that were separated by years. XOR'easter (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lede, para 3: 1st sentence, "The orbits of as many as four of the planets (d, e, f, g) may correspond within the habitable zone[c] of the star and thus to have temperatures suitable to the presence of liquid water and the development of life."

Comment. The "and thus to far" makes no sense.

I don't see any "and thus so far"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appeared in the version of the article I was looking at, here.
Sorry, but I can't find it even there. Is there an extra space or something. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From my notes, I was concerned about "and thus to have". I don't know where I got the "far" from, sorry. No matter since this example has since been fixed. Sandbh (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rotation period and age
2nd sentence: "2017 measurements by the Kepler space telescope showed that the star may instead rotate about every 3.295±0.003 Earth days,[8][47] though that may constitute the rotation period of active regions rather than stellar rotation according to Miles-Páez et al. (2019).[43]"

Comment. Don't start a sentence with a number.

Para 2: "...TRAPPIST-1 is expected to shine for ten trillion years – about 700 times[51] longer than the present age of the Universe[52] – while the Sun will leave the main sequence (run out of hydrogen[k]) in a few billion years.[51] The life expectancy of a small, faint star like TRAPPIST-1 is hundreds to thousands of times longer than that of stars like the Sun.[40]"

Comment: The last sentence is redundant.

Looks like someone else resolved these issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Activity
"Numerous photospheric features detected on TRAPPIST-1 may introduce inaccuracies in measurements of its planets.[54] Possible faculae (bright spots[55]) have been observed by the Kepler space telescope and Spitzer Space Telescope,[56] but some of TRAPPIST-1's bright spots may be too large to count as faculae.[57] Their effect on the luminosity of TRAPPIST-1 may lead to the planets' densities being underestimated by 8+20−7 percent,[58] and to incorrect estimates of their water content.[59] A correlation between bright spots and flare[l] activity has been found.[35] The mean intensity of TRAPPIST-1's magnetic field is about 600 G[61] although many of its properties cannot be directly measured.[62] This intense magnetic field is driven by chromospheric[m] activity[12] and may be capable of trapping coronal mass ejections.[n][60][64]"

Comment. I do not understand the need for this sentence: "A correlation between bright spots and flare[l] activity has been found.[35]"

This section describes the activity of the star, I thought it would be relevant information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The context is disrupted due to the sentence between, "Possible faculae (bright spots[55]) have been observed by the Kepler space telescope and Spitzer Space Telescope,[56] but some of TRAPPIST-1's bright spots may be too large to count as faculae.[57]" and "A correlation between bright spots and flare[l] activity has been found.[35]" Sandbh (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected that one. That said, since we are just correcting examples, I think I need to ask whether folks think that the issues can be resolved within the confines of FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Size and composition
Para 2: "The densities are too low for a pure magnesium silicate composition, requiring lower-density molecular compounds to be present,[94] such as water."

Comment: The relevance of a pure magnesium silicate composition is not clear.

This is outside my specialization, but I think the meaning is that pure magnesium silicate is as light as rocky material can get, so to account for the low overall density, material of even lower density (like water) must be present. XOR'easter (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added a footnote. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resonance
"It could be sufficient to melt the mantles of the four innermost planets, in whole or in part,[124] it would cause the development of subsurface magma oceans in some planets;[125] increase the degassing[u] from the mantle and facilitate the establishment of atmospheres around the planets.[127"

Comment. The construction of this para is clumsy. At 45 words it is too long.

Shortened that one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the article be copy edited by an uninvolved editor. Sandbh (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh and SandyGeorgia: can I ask if you have any suggestions for editors who can do the copyediting? I am not going to try peer review for the third time, that doesn't work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've found GOCE to be helpful although I think they are very backlogged at this point. (t · c) buidhe 15:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo thx for the ping, and I sincerely apologize for losing the plot here; real life medical issues have wreaked havoc with my time lately. One editor who might be able to help bring this over the hump is XOR'easter and I don't know whether ComplexRational has more time to help with the ce. Others that come to mind are @Double sharp, Artem.G, and Ovinus:. I wish I could help more, but it is going to be quite some time before I catch up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already offered some feedback at the PR to help get the article into better shape pre-FAC. While I'm unsure how much free time I'll have in the next few days/weeks to do substantial copyediting, I'll keep watch and point out anything I find. Complex/Rational 21:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen this but am rather busy; I'll look when I can find time, though. Double sharp (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have a fair amount on my (on- and off-wiki) plate right now and haven't even been properly keeping up with the other FARs. If Planet gets closed and I finish up Yellowstone fires, I'll look at this one. Edit: I actually thought this was an FAR, not an FAC. So unfortunately I won't be able to contribute in a reasonable time. Ovinus (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When the article is ce'd I recommend that the logical flow of the paragraph topic sentences is checked. For example, in the Resonance section, the topic sentences go in this order:

  1. The planets are in orbital resonances,[101] with the durations of their orbits having ratios of 8:5, 5:3, 3:2, 3:2, 4:3, and 3:2 between neighbouring planet pairs,[102] and with each triplet being in a Laplace resonance.
  2. The close distances of the planets to the host star TRAPPIST-1 result in strong tidal interactions,[108] stronger than for Earth.[109]
  3. The resonances continually excite the eccentricities of the TRAPPIST-1 planets, preventing their orbits from becoming fully circular.
  4. Even if tidal heating does not significantly alter the climates of the planets, tidal heating could influence the temperatures of the night sides and cold traps, where gases are expected to accumulate; it would influence the properties of subsurface oceans[121] where volcanism and hydrothermal venting[t] could occur.

Whereas it appears the logical flow would be stronger if the order was: 1, 3, 2, 4. Sandbh (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The tidal interactions are the reason why the eccentricities get excited, so I wouldn't agree. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the current ordering of the paragraphs in "Resonance". XOR'easter (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a general reader, I don't know that the tidal interactions are the reason why the eccentricities get excited. Nor does the current sequence of four topic sentences make this clear. In the first topic sentence, what is a "triplet"? Sandbh (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another concern is that the information about the planets is split between two sections. Frex, in the Planetary system section there is a table called "The TRAPPIST-1 planetary system". About 5 screens down, in the List of Planets section, there is another table called "Other characteristics". Why is it necessary to split the data between two different sections, into two tables? Could there not be one consolidated table? A related concern is the structure of the article, as follows:
2	Planetary system
3	Potential atmospheres of the planets
4	List of planets
Why are sections 2 and 4 not consolidated?
--- Sandbh (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was a deliberate decision, so that folks can go from the general traits of the system to the list of specific planets. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I'll have another look and let you know. Sandbh (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I'm not pleased to say that my oppose still stands. The items I listed formed only a sample of my concerns. There were several more which I did not list as I considered that the items I did list were sufficient to show that the article needed a thorough copy edit, which it has not yet undergone. Here are some more concerns:
Activity[edit]
Numerous photospheric features detected on TRAPPIST-1 may introduce inaccuracies in measurements of its planets.[54] Possible faculae (bright spots[55]) have been observed by the Kepler space telescope and Spitzer Space Telescope,[56] but some of TRAPPIST-1's bright spots may be too large to count as faculae.[57] A correlation between bright spots and flare[l] activity has been found.[35] The effect of bright spots on the luminosity of TRAPPIST-1 may lead to the planets' densities being underestimated by 8+20 −7 percent,[59] and to incorrect estimates of their water content.[60] The mean intensity of TRAPPIST-1's magnetic field is about 600 G[61] although many of its properties cannot be directly measured.[62] This intense magnetic field is driven by chromospheric[m] activity[12] and may be capable of trapping coronal mass ejections.[n][58][64]
The topic sentence does not make sufficient sense to me. What are "photospheric" features? The second sentence says that bright spots may be too large to count as faculae, but does not sufficiently explain the "so what" if the spots are too large to count as faculae.
Stars lose mass through the stellar wind.[65] Garraffo et al. (2017) computed the mass loss of TRAPPIST-1 to be about 3×10−14 solar masses per year,[66] about 1.5 times that of the Sun,[67] while Dong et al. (2018) simulated the observed properties of TRAPPIST-1 with a mass loss of 4.1×10−15 solar masses per year.[66] The stellar wind properties of TRAPPIST-1 are not precisely determined.[68]
The topic sentence is not specific to Trappist-1. For that matter, what is "the stellar wind"? The sentence would read better as something like, "Trappist-1 loses mass due the activity of...Garraffo et al. (2017) computed the magnitude of the loss to be...". Dong et al.'s figure should also be expressed in terms of how many times it is that of the sun.
Size and composition
The radii of the planets are estimated to lie within the range of 75% to 150% that of Earth,[88] equivalent to Mars-sized to slightly larger than Earth
150% is not "slightly" larger than Earth.
I think I'll need a synonym here ... I think that "larger" on its own implies that such a radius is significantly different from Earth's, but in the context of exoplanetology 150% is only "slightly" larger. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since we need more science-topic FA's I regret to say that while the article appears to be technically accurate it does not yet meet the FA well-written criterion. Sandbh (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If my lede edits were satisfactory (let me know?) I might be able to help here. Not sure if this is just a copy edit or if it goes beyond that. czar 17:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar:That edit seems OK to me, although I wouldn't say "atmosphere as a precondition for life" as it's implicit in the scientific discourse rather than explicitly stated. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to edit that as would be appropriate, as I'm just attempting to paraphrase what was previously there.
The part that keeps me from copy editing further is not knowing how far this article needs to go to be comprehensible to a general reader or if we're just shooting for an advanced college student in astronomy as the target audience. I'd lean towards the former in a copy edit, which would include footnoting a lot of detail, such as items it wouldn't make sense to say when reading the article out loud. It looks like the last star FA was Rigel in July 2020 and it wasn't held to that standard then. Without looking at precedent, those are the edits I would want to make for today's bar of FA quality. czar 17:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it depends. In your judgment, how much work would it be to achieve the former? I know that people complain about excessive footnotes but well, you sometimes can't have it both ways (explained and short) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

Will look at source reliability next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are reliable as far as I can tell, not being knowledgeable about this field. The arXiv links are popping up as alerts but it seems they're just a URL for the text of the papers, not the actual source cited, so that's fine.

Other than as noted above, the links all work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue left is that I think the Wolfram site's website parameter should be ""Eric Weisstein's World of Science". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by CactiStaccingCrane

[edit]

Support - content-wise and image-wise, the article is top-notch. Bad content and good layout/prose is much worse than good content and bad layout/prose. People are just nit-picking entropy at this point. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this can be an controversial opinion, so let me detail at what I meant:
  • This article's sourcing is really solid. The author did the right thing by citing the research papers directly instead of citing newspapers. And as Mike Christie's source check shows, there is little if any issue at source-text integrity.
  • The article's prose is also good and reasonably easy to understand. Yes, some jargons need to be explained, some need to be clarified, and some should be substituted by other terms instead. But this should not a deal-breaker for FAC. The prose reviewing effort should be redirected towards WP:URFAs instead, where they are desperately needing more people to repolish old FAs.
CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator note: hi Mike, could I just check whether your source review confirms "there is little if any issue at source-text integrity"? Thanks.
Also, without prejudicing any closure decision, the FAC criteria do not require a nomination to be "reasonably easy to understand", and I fail to understand how a review which notes "some jargons need to be explained, some need to be clarified, and some should be substituted by other terms instead" can conclude "this should not a deal-breaker for FAC." The desire to see limited reviewing resources directed to venues other that FAC is not a sufficient reason to support an FAC nomination if the FAC criteria are not met. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, I did no spotchecking so I can't comment either way on the source-text integrity. If you feel a spotcheck is needed I can try to find time to do one but it might be as well to list it at the usual place in case someone else can get to it; I wasn't planning to do any reviewing for a few days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

Looking at the lead:

  • "The star itself was discovered". Delete "itself", what else would it be?
  • "The gravity of TRAPPIST-1's neighbouring planets". What does "neighbouring" mean? If what I am guessing then perhaps best to delete it.
  • "As many as four of the planets". Delete "As many as".
  • "an atmosphere, a precondition for life". Really?! And this is the clear consensus of the scholarly sources? Additionally, I do not see this repeated in the article.
  • I note some good uses of in line explanation, per general good practice and MOS:NOFORCELINK. ("Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links.")

Jumping to "Potential atmospheres".

  • "The existence of atmospheres around TRAPPIST-1 planets is a function of the balance between the decay of such an atmosphere, the amount of atmosphere initially present and the rate at which it is reconstituted by impact events,[76] accretion from a protoplanetary disk[180] and outgassing/volcanic activity.[181] Impact events would be particularly important in the outer planets, as impact events can both add and remove volatiles from the planets; in the outermost planets addition is likely dominant." This prose becomes increasingly impenetrable to a non-expert reader.
  • "including oceans over hundred times larger than Earth's". Either 'a hundred' or 'one hundred'.
  • "If the planets are tidally locked to TRAPPIST-1 and one side of their surface always faces away from the star". It is not a case of "and". 'with' or ', meaning that' would be better.
  • "In the case of a carbon dioxide atmosphere, the burial of carbon dioxide ice under water ice, driven by the density of carbon dioxide ice, the formation of carbon dioxide-water compounds named clathrates[z] and a potential runaway feedback loop between ice melting and evaporation and the greenhouse effect additionally complicate matters.[188]" Beautifully expressed, but not at the appropriate level (IMO) for a general encyclopedia article.
  • "have ruled out that the TRAPPIST-1 planets have hydrogen- or helium-rich atmospheres". Grammar: perhaps 'have ruled out the possibility that the TRAPPIST-1 planets have hydrogen- or helium-rich atmospheres' or similar.
  • "The existence of such an atmosphere and its mass are a function of the initial water mass, by whether the oxygen is dragged out of the atmosphere by escaping hydrogen and by the state of the planet's surface; a partially molten surface could absorb large quantities of oxygen, sufficient to remove an atmosphere." I think that most instances of "by" should be 'of'.
  • "as they are destroyed by the radiation of the star". "are → 'would be'.
  • "Biogenic ammonia or methane production would have to be considerably larger than on Earth to sustain such an atmosphere. It is however possible that the development of organic hazes from ammonia/methane photolysis could shield the remaining molecules." I doubt that a general reader would make much of this. As a minimum it needs an explanation of "Biogenic ammonia or methane production".
  • "Radiative decomposition of carbon dioxide could yield substantial amounts of oxygen, carbon monoxide[203] and ozone." no doubt, whatever "radiative decomposition" might be.

I am full of admiration for this article, in many ways it is excellent. However, in spite of the large amount of work since the article was nominated, the prose still has deficiencies and large parts of it do not seem to do what a Wikipedia aricle is supposed to: explain the topic at the level of a general reader. I appreciated it so much that I want to support it, but objectively I just don't think that it - yet - meets the criteria and so am reluctantly opposing. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note (2) -- this is a very long-running nom and unfortunately we're not getting closer to consensus as things go on so I'm pulling the plug; I realise there was a PR before the FAC but at the very least I'd suggest an informal review by some of the above commentators, especially the opposing ones, before any future run at FAC following the usual two-week break. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2022 (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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 23 October 2022 [16].

Tara Lipinski

[edit]
Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about figure skating gold medalist and commentator Tara Lipinski. If passed, it would be only the fifth FA about figure skating, and the first bio about a skater. It would fill in a much-needed content and gender gap and would bring more attention to the sport of figure skating, which due to its gendered status (i.e., most skaters are women), hasn't received the kind of attention it deserves in most areas of the world. Lipinski has made big contributions to the sport, both as a skater and as a commentator. It's a fun and interesting bio. I look forward to the comments. Enjoy! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]

I've always loved figure skating, but I actually know very little about it so this is very much a non-expert review if that is okay with you. I will post a full review sometime next week, but I do have some comments below for the time being:

No problem, @Aoba47; I appreciate the feedback anyway. No expectations regarding expertise. ;)
  • The height in the infobox has a citation needed tag.
Removed because I couldn't find a recent reliable source.
  • Yah sometimes. For current athletes, that information's easy to find and support because of stat pages, but not always for former athletes like Lipinski. I think the safest thing is to remove it as per your suggestion.
  • Would it be beneficial to link single skating in "competitor in ladies' singles" in the lede?
Yes of course, done. I also changed ladies' to women's as per Wikiproject Figure Skating policy.
  • I have two comments about this sentence: She is the first woman to complete a triple loop-triple loop combination, her signature jump, in competition. I would link figure skating jumps at the end. Is there a way to include a link for the "triple loop-triple loop combination" to help with unfamiliar readers like myself? Triple loop is already linked in the article.
Yes again of course. Done. For clarification: for your second link suggestion, I linked only the word "loop" to "Loop jump." Is that enough?
  • Should the first sentence in the "Early life" section use Lipinski's full name (i.e. with her middle name)?
Done.
  • I am guessing there is not any information on her mother's occupation?
Yes that's correct.
  • Is there any further context to "the end of the relationship between the Lipinskis and DiGregorio"?
Nope.
  • I have a question about some of the quotes in the article. In some areas, such (as spent the next year making her "appear more mature"), the quote is not directly attributed in the prose. Rather than listing these instances here, I wanted to get your opinion about this?
I know there are some differences in opinion about this. I'd like your opinion: Do you think that I'm overreffing? Personally, I prefer to put the ref, if two quotes from the same sentence are from the same ref, at the end, to capture that both quotes are from the same ref. I put the ref twice because I've been instructed by other editors to do it this way, especially at GAN and here at FAC. I will follow the recommendation of the reviewers here.
  • My point was less about the referencing and more about the attribution in the prose. There are spots in the article where a quote is used but the individual and work/publisher is not specifically attributed in the prose. In one of my GANs, a reviewer referred to this as "ghost quotes" which I found both amusing and a solid way of describing this type of thing. I just was not sure if the attribution should be more clearly presented in the prose to avoid any confusion on where it is coming and to avoid having it interpreted as being presented in Wikipedia's voice. Aoba47 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now I see what you mean. I went through and fixed all the instances of it, I think.
  • The article gets into the perceived Kwan-Lipinski rivalry, but have either of them publicly commented on this?
Oh sure they have, at the time and as late as 2021, according to one source I found. I guess I chose not to include it because other than Kestnbaum's reporting that it was a thing, I didn't think that information was encyclopedic. If you and other reviewers think it should be included, I would be happy to put it in.
  • Does the article discuss either of her books in the prose?
Nope, mostly because the sources state that she wrote and published them, and that's all.
  • I still think it would be worthwhile to add a brief sentence or two about it to the prose (i.e. the titles, publication year, publishers, etc.) because it felt like I missed something when I scrolled to the bottom and saw that she had released two books. Aoba47 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done.
  • Some of the citations do not have the work/publisher linked. For instance, Cosmopolitan is not linked in Citation 2.
My preference is that I don't link works/publishers in the citations, but somebody went behind me and linked some of them. I'll make it consistent, though. Which direction would you want me to go? I'm fine with either way.
  • I would go with any direction that you would prefer. What really would matter is consistency so if you would prefer to not have anything linked, then unlink everything. I do wonder why you would choose that route since I would think having the works/publishers linked would only help readers who may want to read more about the specific citations, but again, it is really up to you. Aoba47 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's mostly just aesthetics, which is why if you or another reviewer directs me to link them, I would. I mean, the ref is linked to the actual source. I will make sure everything is unlinked, though. Hmm, there was only one linked publication; isn't that interesting.

I hope these comments are helpful. I have only done a brief read-through of the article, but will do more thorough job in the near future. I will post a full review sometime later next week as I am trying to balance my time on Wikipedia with off-Wiki work, but I thought I should help here and get the ball rolling with reviews. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes very helpful, thank you. Looking forward to seeing more comments. I appreciate you getting the ball rolling. Best to you as well. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and thank you, too. I think that I've addressed everything and responded to your comments above. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your responses. I just have one quick clarification question, and once that is cleared up, I will be more than happy to support. Would the perceived Kwan rivalry be notable enough to mention in the lead? It may not be, but I was curious since a decent-sized portion of this article talks about Kwan in some capacity while Johnny Weir gets a mention in the lead despite not being mentioned nearly as much. Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I went ahead and added a line about the rivalry in the lead. Thanks for your support. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

@Nikkimaria, done. Wish I had more images to alt text. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ErnestKrause

[edit]

Its nice to see this article coming forward as a FAC nomination. It has been at GA level for quite some time now and has served as an example for other figure skating biographies to follow. One topic of interest for this article is her role as producer for the Meddling documentary which has received some good reviews; can something more be added about this 4-part series since Wikipedia does not have a separate article for it? Another question involves the general outline for the biography which you are using for this article; it looks a little different that other Wikipedia biographies (for the non-skating majority of biographies) in that a section on Skating technique appears halfway through the biography sections, as opposed to coming after all the collected biography sections. Should the biography sections be grouped together, and then followed by the various themes sections which normally come later in most other Wikipedia biographies? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ernest. Yah I've been a bit busy IRL for the last couple of years, so I've neglected editing, but that period has ended for now, so I've been able to do a deep dive back into it this summer. Also, to be honest, I'm a little anxious about bringing a figure skating bio here, especially one who's as polarizing as Lipinski can be. I'm glad to hear that you believe that this bio can be a model for others. I suppose I could add more content about Meddling, if I can find some serious reviews. I will go research and see what I can do. For figure skater bios, it's customary to place Skating technique/style and Influence sections after the sections about their careers; see WP:FS STYLE. I think it makes sense to make a clear separation of a skater's skating career and life post-skating because they're often very different and have little to do with figure skating. That's not the case for Lipinski, of course, but she seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endometriosis is mentioned in the article with her as a spokesperson for it and its symptoms listed on Wikipedia's medical article as "pelvic pain, heavy periods, pain with bowel movements, and infertility". Can something be added on this in her biography article here? Has she spoken about her type of experiences and pain management; does she and her husband speak about options like adoption, etc, are there any RS about these issues since she is a spokesperson for it? Also, the husband might be listed in the infobox as spouse. Regarding you TOC comments and the Skating technique section, then I'm interested if you are ruling out the option for rethinking the biography format for skaters; this may come up with the Hanyu figure skater article since he is transitioning to a professional only career at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So I was able to find info about Meddling and added it. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find any formal reviews, mostly promotional pieces when Lipinski did some interviews about the series. I think what I added was substantial, though. I added spouse to infobox. The information about endo is pretty much all I was able to find about it, including her reports about her moderate symptoms and pain; there's nothing about fertility issues. About the bio format for figure skaters: again, it seems to be customary for these kinds of articles. Wow, the Hanyu bio is such a complicated article; I so admire those of you who have taken it on. I imagine that eventually, since it's certain that Hanyu's professional career will be as long and illustrious as his amateur one, that there will be a separate article about it. That being said, I support following conventions, but that doesn't mean that the team working on Hanyu's article(s) can't break them if they feel it's necessary. I'll support you guys no matter what you do, even if I disagree with it. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meddling section looks pretty good now. I've just noticed that Yolo has added a new section of "Professional career" to the Hanyu article at Wikipedia and that she is taking the convention of the Sonia Henni article at Wikipedia to keep the biography sections together, and to make the biography sections come before the discussion of Skating sytle or Coaches themes in the Hanyu article. What do you think? You are setting a type of precedent for figure skating biographies, and it would be of interest to hear your opion on this. Should Wikipedia follow the stardard biography article format for TOC like Hanyu and Sonia Henni, or, take your route here. Separately, can you also confirm for her Personal life section that she has no children with her husband. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ernest, I think this discussion is probably outside the purview of a discussion here at FAC. However, I've done a cursory look at other skaters' bios and found that this is handled in a variety of ways. Perhaps we need to take it to a vote/discussion at Wikiproject Figure Skating and get a consensus from those of us who work on these bios. Re: the Personal life section: I don't know what you want me to do. I haven't found anything about children, which is why there's nothing about it in this bio. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be comments from both Yolo and Henni below which can be used productively. The MOS page for FS you opened two months ago has had virtually no activity on it. If you wish to start the equivalent of a RFC on this, then this would put a 30-day hold on this nomination which I'm not sure will sit well with the FAC coordinators. Do you have any opinion of leaning toward Yolo's comments or Henni's comments? It might be better to discuss it here rather than asking for the equivalent of a 30-day RfC for something that might be more easily discussed here. Are you leaning towards Yolo's comments or Henni's comments? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding review comments below:

(1) Is there sufficient discussion of the new age changes rules made over this summer concerning the sport and Valieva? How does this affect reading Lipinsky and Sonia Henni? How would the Olympics games have changed in Lipinsky's year at the Olympics if she were barred from competing due to her age?

Good question. I'm not sure, though, that this belongs here, although it for sure belongs in Valieva's bio. I haven't seen anything that connects the age change rules that happened in Lipinski's era to this one, or conjectures about what would've happened if she wasn't allowed to compete in 1998. However, I have seen her comments about young female skaters in the sport and how a strong support system is needed for them, and how Valieva unfortunately and tragically didn't have it. There's also discussion in Kestnbaum about the influence of teenage girls on the sport. I'm sure you already know that it was Henie's young age that changed female skaters' costumes and that it helped loosen up the strict injunctions against women skaters, which also belongs in Henie's article. The ISU didn't change the wording from "ladies" to "women" until this year. Sorry for the digression; my point is that it may be something important enough and should be researched more. I'll see what I can do about it.

(2) Infobox could mention that she has no children. This is usually covered in Wikipedia articles for married couples.

Not sure how this is done in an infobox. Could someone do that for me, please?

(3) There were fairly detailed interviews about Lipinsky and Weir taking a strng public position opposing Valieva being allowed to compete at the February 2022 Olympics on at least two different occasions. Does this deserve more comment in this Wikipedia article?

I think I've addressed that before. Although this discussion belongs in Valieva's article, for sure, I'm not sure it belongs here, other than the affect it had on your commentating.

(4) Has Lipinsky made any comments about the new age limits for figure skaters from this summer? What does it mean for the sport if the highest performances in the sport will be made at the junior level rather than the adult level? What has Lipinsky stated on this?

Yes, of course she has. See my response above.

(5) Articles for Hanyu and Tara should be consistent with each other in terms of level of coverage and sequence of covered topics since both articles are at GA level, which Tara nominated now for FAC. Yolo and Henni have already made an FL for Hanyu, and the Hanyu article is relevant here for its TOC since Hanyu has much experience in Ice shows already in his career which were conducted while he was still competing.

Yes, I understand that, but if the research doesn't bear that out, you can't do that. The Hanyu team is able to access a myriad of sources, but for Lipinski, since both her amateur and professional skating careers occurred before the wide use of the internet, there aren't as many sources about her out there. It's also why there aren't as many free images of her to use here. The Hanyu team has been able to create an FL because the sources and content warrants it. That's just not true for Lipinski. If you compare this bio to Johnny Weir, you'll find the same thing, even though they're almost the same age, because Weir's career is later than Lipinski's and after the internet. (Yes, I'm considering submitting Weir's bio to GAN, but that'll require more work and frustrations.) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look forward to seeing your comments and updates. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your comments below in the other sections, I'm going along with Aoba and Hawkeye in Supporting your nomination. After also reading Yolo's comments, it appears to my reading that you and Yolo are already in 90% agreement about the TOC issue. I've gone ahead and appiled both of your comments to adapting the TOC for the Wikipedia Scott Hamilton biography which you might look at sometime. The five comments I've just added above are optional for you to look at when time allows. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks so much. Also thanks for your willingness to help and for your openmindedness to the discussion here. This bio and others like it will be better because of it. In that same spirit, I will go ahead and address your above comments now. There's so much work to be done on skaters' bios; it's a neglected content gap, for sure. Heck, I'd like to handle Sonia Henie's bio sometime. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]
  • Should figure skater be linked in the lead sentence?
    Yes, done.
  • In the lead, it is noted that she is "the youngest to win an Olympic gold medal". This is ambiguous, and should be elaborated. The body says "Lipinski was the youngest Olympic gold medalist in figure skating history". That is correct, but it passes over her other claim to fame: being the youngest ever in an individual event.
    The lead states, however: "She was, until 2019, the youngest skater to win a U.S. Nationals, the youngest skater to win a World Figure Skating title, and the youngest to win an Olympic gold medal." And the article goes on to state all the individual events in question. If that's not enough, what else should be added?
    Yes but.. she is the youngest ever Olympic gold medalist in an individual event. Winter or Summer. Any country. Any individual event. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I added the phrase "in figure skating history", as it states in the article's body. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was the sixth American woman to win an Olympic gold medal." Should add "in figure skating".
    Ok, done.
  • Duplicate links: Richard Callaghan, 1996 U.S. Figure Skating Championships, Sonja Henie, Champions on Ice, Johnny Weir, Scott Hamilton
I can remove them, but for longer articles like this one, I like to include multiple links so that readers can access them if they want to without having to scroll too much elsewhere, or if they're only reading that one section.

That's all I have. Great effort. Nice to know that being a figure skating champion qualifies you to comment on fashion at the Oscars Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciate the feedback. Ha ha, fashion is a big deal in the figure skating world. And hello, we are talking about Tara and Johnny! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Moved to support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Hawk! Appreciate it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Yolo4A4Lo

[edit]

Thank you for ErnestKrause to mention this nomination to me. I'm excited to see more figure skating article getting FA. The article itself is pretty good already, but it depends a lot with direct quotes from writers and in need of some copy-edit work. So, English is not my native language, but here are some suggestions on diction, grammar etc. Feel free to use them or not. I just managed to read through her competitive career though. Will continue it later.

Addressed comments
  • the 1997 world champion -> World champion
Done.
@Yolo4A4Lo: I don't think that this change is actually correct. The event itself is called "the World Championships" or "Worlds", but "world champion" is a casual term and not capitalized (see Collins dictionary for example). Same with "world junior champion" or "world record". It's only capitalized if you write "Worlds champion" or "champion of the Worlds event". Henni147 (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Henni147: I would agree to you if it's on another part of the article or the lead, but this is the first paragraph where we establish their competitive career highlights. You can see in every article on figure skater it's written as "World" Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 09:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the consens on Wikipedia, then I agree of course. Thanks for clarification. Henni147 (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • a two time Champions Series Final -> a two-time
Done.
  • "She was, until 2019, the youngest skater to win a U.S. Nationals, the youngest skater to win a World Figure Skating title, and the youngest to win an Olympic gold medal in figure skating history." First, I think "Until 2019, she was..." has better flow. Secondly, I looked up previous commentaries and she's the youngest in individual event. I think that needs to be stated clearly. So, "The youngest single skater to become an Olympic, World, and U.S. Nationals champion" if that applies to all three competitions. The order follows the previous statement.
The "Until 2019" only applies to Nationals, but I agree that it flows better with the phrase at the beginning of the sentence. I changed it to this: "Until 2019, she was the youngest single skater to win a U.S. Nationals and the youngest to become an Olympic and World champion in figure skating history." I disagree with you about the individual event because when Lipinski was active, there were only individual events; the team event in the Olympics is relatively recent. Plus, no other skater's bio includes it, even after the team event was added to the Olympics. For example, Nathan Chen doesn't state that he won his medals in individual events and states that he "helped" his team win.
  • "Lipinski had a rivalry with fellow skater Michelle Kwan, which was played up by the American press and culminated when Lipinski won the gold medal at the 1998 Olympics. " -> needs comma before "and"
Done.
  • "Lipinski, along with sports commentator Terry Gannon and fellow figure skater and good friend Johnny Weir, commentated for skating in two Olympics; they became NBC's primary figure skating commentators in 2013." Which Olympics? And rather than semicolon, I think "before they became" is better.
Okay. Hey, I like semi-colons. ;)
  • "At the age of three, she began roller skating; when she was nine years old, she became a national champion in her age group" -> "At the age of three, she began roller skating, and eventually became a national champion in her group when she was nine years old. She began figure skating in the same year, transferring..."
Done.
  • "Two years later, in 1993, her father stayed in Texas to support the family and Lipinski and her mother moved back to Delaware..." -> "Two years later, her father stayed in Texas to support the family, while Lipinski and her mother moved back to Delaware..."
Done.
  • "When she was 12, she became the youngest athlete to win a gold medal at the 1994 U.S. Olympic Festival[7] and took first place in her first international competition, the Blue Swords in Chemnitz, Germany. According to Cosmopolitan Magazine, the media began to notice Lipinski after Blue Swords in November 1994.[2]" -> "When she was 12, she became the youngest athlete to win a gold medal at the 1994 U.S. Olympic Festival.[7] She then took first place in her first international competition, the Blue Swords in Chemnitz, Germany in November. According to Cosmopolitan Magazine, the media began to notice Lipinski after the competition.[2]"
Done.
  • "As a junior skater, she came in fourth place at the 1995 World Junior Figure Skating Championships and with six triples in her long program, second place at the 1995 U.S. Figure Skating Championships.[5][3]" -> "Long program" needs to be changed into "free skate", based on WP:FS STYLE. It’s still used in the whole article. The ref should be sorted, but I couldn't find any mentions of six triples on both articles.
Fixed all instances to free skating and removed unsourced info.
  • "After what sports writer E.M. Swift calls a "whirlwind coaching tour" -> "After what sports writer E.M. Swift of Sports Illustrated called a "whirlwind coaching tour". I think it’s necessary to point out the news outlet at first mention
Got it.
  • "After what sports writer E.M. Swift calls a "whirlwind coaching tour", when Lipinski and her mother interviewed and Lipinski took sample lessons from figure skating coaches around the country, they hired Richard Callaghan" Shouldn’t it be "where”? CMIIW.
No I think "when" is correct.
  • "but her long program, which included seven triple jumps and which Sports Illustrated calls "sparkling", brought her up to 15th place” -> "but her free skate, which included what Sports Illustrated called "sparkling" seven triple jumps, brought her up to 15th place”
But Swift calls the free skate sparkling, not the jumps.
  • "Lipinski and Callaghan spent the next year, as Swift puts it, making her "appear more mature"; she enrolled in ballet classes and hired choreographer Sandra Bezic to, as Swift also reports, 'create programs for Lipinski that expressed delight yet looked adult'." I think the first mention of Swift is enough to indicate all quoted parts are from their writing.
I've gotten different directions about that, but I'll follow yours.
  • "In late 1996, she added the triple loop-triple loop combination, which became her signature jump and added technical difficulty to her programs." Needs comma after jump.
It's already grammatically correct because the dependent clause follows the independent clause.[17]
  • "She defeated Kwan, Nationals champion in 1996, who won the short program." I think "the reigning Nationals champion" is better.
Done.
  • "Kwan fell twice and landed only four out of seven of her planned triples during her long program." I think "triple jumps" sound more formal. Needs to be uniformed throughout the article as well if changed.
I respectfully disagree. Yes it's the sports' lingo, but it's pretty standard for figure skating writers and commentatators to use it. If you insist upon it, though, I'll follow your instructions.
  • "She was the last skater to perform in the competition's free skating program; she skated cleanly with seven triple jumps, including what writer Ellyn Kestnbaum called 'a history-making triple loop-triple-loop combination' and came in first place." Need to change "in the competition's free skating program" into "in the free skate segment of the competition", according to MOS. Needs a comma before and.
But the MOS leaves the use of "free skate" vs. "free skating" up to the discretion of the editor. Do you think I be consistent? Added comma.
  • The thing is the "free skating program" here actually refers to the competition segment rather than the program, like other instances it's used in the article. So, if you still want to use "free skating", the right words would be"the competition's free skating segment". Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's because in figure skating, "programs" and "competition segments" are used interchangeably. It's common to say something like, "Lipinski was in first place after the short program" or "She came in sixth in the free skate and tenth overall." That's true across all figure skating disciplines, probably because your suggestion, while it's technically correct, doesn't flow easily in writing or in speech. Thus, I respectfully request that we use the conventional language. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was a month younger than the previous record holder, Sonja Henie from Norway, when Henie won the first of ten World Championships in 1927" Changed "the" to "her".
Thanks. More later. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lipinski completed seven triple jumps, as she had done at the U.S. Nationals and the Champion Series final and finished in first place after the short program.” Champion Series final -> Champion Series Final. Needs comma after final.
Done.
  • axel -> Axel. Throughout the article.
Got em, thanks for the catch.
  • According to 6.0 system, the right term is "presentation mark" not "artistry mark". It needs to changed and linked to the article at first mention.
Fixed. The 6.0 system isn't mentioned anywhere here, so not sure what you want me to do.
  • "included a triple flip and her "signature triple-loop, triple-loop combination"." Doesn’t need double quote. It’s been established the jump is her signature throghout the article.
But it's a direct quote from Longman.
  • But why does it have to be direct-quoted though? Like I said, the jump has been established as her signature in the article many times. Two instances before that part, actually, not counting the lead, if it's the "signature" that's deemed notable enough to be direct quoted. I just think it's too much. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Removed direct quote. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lipinski, Kwan (who was fourth after the short program), and Russian skater Irina Slutskaya..." -> "Lipinski, Kwan - who was fourth after the short program, and Russian skater Irina Slutskaya...”
I think you want me to replace the paranthetical with dashes. Shouldn't there be dashes before and after the phrase?
  • I didn't put the dash after because there's already a comma there, but you can replace the comma with a closing dash if you want.
Ok, thanks for the explanation. Done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "first- and second-place votes" Is that the right way to write that, not "first and second place votes"? CMIIW
Yes I believe it's correct.
  • "Longman reports that if two more judges had placed Slutskaya before Lipinski after the free skate, Kwan would have won the competition but instead came in second place." First, "reports" should be in past tense. And it should be "instead of coming in second place".
Fixed grammar, thanks for the catch. And I knew that this would come up. You'll notice that I use present tense when quoting or attributing a statement to a source. I do that because my main professor in my graduate program in English has said that for academic writing, that's the correct use. Is that true for encyclopedic writing? If it is, can you (or anyone else) direct me to a policy that collaborates it? I've never seen it.
I didn't know about that part of the MOS. Thanks for that! I went through and made changes as needed, I think. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to her routines" should be "into her programs"
Changed.
  • "She went into the 1997–1998 season by continuing to add more of what Longman calls "sophistication" to her routines, by improving her artistry, and by taking daily dance classes from Russian ballet teacher Marina Sheffer" -> "She went into the 1997–1998 season by continuing to add more of what Longman calls "sophistication" to her routines; improving her artistry by taking daily dance classes from Russian ballet teacher Marina Sheffer". I think it’s easier to read that way?
But it wouldn't be grammatically correct. I removed the commas instead; that might make it easier to read.
  • "At Skate America" -> "At the 1997 Skate America". Make all events uniform would be better.
Okay.
  • "Lipinski came in second place after Kwan in both her short program and free skate and took second place over all" -> "...both short program and free skate segment of the competition..." to be more clear for non FS-friendly reader.
Got it.
  • There are many occasion of present tense is still used for writers throughout the article, not past tense. Eg. "Kestnbaum calls..." "Longman states..." Also, make sure the indirect quotes are in the proper tense.
See my explanation above.
  • "behind French skater Laetitia Hubert, who had not won a major competition since the 1992 World Junior Championships, and who had come in eleventh place at her previous competition" -> "behind French skater Laetitia Hubert, who had not won any major competition since the 1992 World Junior Championships and come in eleventh place at her previous competition"
I agree that this phrase needed tightening up, but improved it a little more than your suggestion, to: "...behind French skater Laetitia Hubert, who had not won any major competitions since the 1992 World Junior Championships and who came in eleventh place at her previous competition."
  • "Lipinski was tied as the fourth best-ranked female figure skater in the world coming into the Champion Series Final." I wasn’t into figure skating at that time, but seeing Champion Series is the predecessor of Grand Prix, I think calling it "best-ranked female figure skater in the world" is too much, especially that sentence doesn’t exist in the source. So, I suggest to adapt what the source said.. "Coming into the 1997-98 Champion Series Final, Lipinski was tied for fourth place in the Series standings with Russia’s Maria Butyrskaya."
I don't see where this is. Has someone come in and changed it?
@Figureskatingfan : This still needs to be addressed as well. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yolo4A4Lo, got it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She won..." -> "She won the competition..."
Done.
  • "the finals" -> "the Finals"
Done.
  • "Mike Penner, a writer from the L.A. Times, reports that both Lipinski and Callaghan were concerned about what they considered unfair treatment by the judges at the Champion Series that season, who gave her lower technical scores than the previous season, as low as 5.3, for "an incorrectly launched lutz"." -> "Mike Penner, a writer from the L.A. Times, reported that both Lipinski and Callaghan had been concerned about what they considered unfair treatment by the judges during the Champion Series that season, who gave her lower technical scores than the previous season, as low as 5.3 for "an incorrectly launched Lutz"."
See above for the tense issue. "Lutz" isn't capitalized because it isn't in the source, which is directly quoted.
  • "Callaghan told Penner that the judges told him that Lipinski regularly performed her lutz jumps from the inside edge of her blade instead of from the correct outside edge, something skaters called ‘the flutz’." -> "Callaghan told Penner that the judges had told him that Lipinski regularly performed her Lutz jumps from the inside edge of her blade instead of the correct outside edge, something skaters called "the flutz"."
Fixed capitalization because it wasn't a direct quote. ;)
  • "a difficult triple toe loop-half loop-triple toe combination sequence". this is not direct quote, so should we adapt the new terms? "tripe toe loop-Euler-tripe toe". Either way, link the Euler article. And, is it a combination or sequence? Since two years ago iirc, only combination ends with Axels that are called sequence now. Whichever it is, it can’t be both.
Removed "sequence" because you're right; it wasn't called a sequence back then. Linked to Euler jump.
  • "Lipinski's free skating program, with her triple loop-triple loop combination and seven triple jumps total, was the most technically difficult program in Olympic history." add "at that time"
Added "up to that time."
  • "As Kestnbaum put it, Lipinski's jumps were not as big as Kwan's and her jump takeoffs "were not always ideal", but her landings were clean and according also to Kestnbaum, seemed to increase in speed as she came out of them." -> "As Kestnbaum put it, Lipinski's jumps were not as big as Kwan's and her jump takeoffs "were not always ideal", but her landings were clean and ‘seemed to increase in speed as she came out of them’."
Done.
As I state above, I disagree with adding the word "individual."
  • "It was the first time singles skaters from the same country won the gold and silver medals at the Olympics since Americans Tenley Albright and Carol Heiss did it in 1956." -> "single skaters"
Fixed. User:Yolo4A4Lo, I believe that I've addressed your comments, other than the ones I disagreed with. ;) Thanks for your thoroughness. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 10:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Yolo: Could you comment on your new section on Professional career at Hanyu, in comparison to this Tara Lipinski article. In the Hanyu article you placed the Professional career section before the Skating technique section, however, the Tara Lipinski article placed it after that section. Is there is reason for this, or does one have advantages to offer? ErnestKrause (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked and it's after Competitive Career on Lipinski's? Unless I just missed it's recently moved. Anyway, I have moved my answer to FS MOS section Henni just made. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ernest, the Professional career section is after the large Competitive career section in Lipinski's article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone, I think that this discussion doesn't belong here in this FAC. So as this article's nominator, I request that it be removed and be moved to the FS MOS talk page as Yolo suggests below. I can make the move myself if you like. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I've explained above, there are significant advantages to commenting on this here and now, rather than starting the equivalent of a 30-day RFC process on this. What do you think of Yolo's ideas, and what do you think of Henni's ideas? Are you supporting either one of them, or do you prefer another approach? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Yolo moved the discussion as per my request, which I appreciate. I'll respond to the RFC and FS bios structure issues below, under Henni's comments. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More comments by Yolo4A4Lo

Got a lot of job desk today so I didn't have many time to read through it. So, only this so far:

  • "According to skater Scott Hamilton, Lipinski "took an enormous amount of heat" for turning professional. He reported that USA Today criticized her decision, stating that she had taken "the easy way out" and compared it to "joining the circus"." Not a mistake, just to give it more variety. Figure skater Scott Hamilton revealed in his book Landing It : My life On and Off The Ice that Lipinski had taken "an enormous amount of heat" for turning professional. He mentioned that USA Today had criticized her decision, stating that she had taken "the easy way out" and compared it to "joining the circus"."
Done, much better now, though I kept the word "reported."
  • “The Associated Press (AP) reported that in 1998, Lipinski's net worth, due to many endorsements and book deals, was "possibly as high as $12 million"[37] and also reported that she had signed "an exclusive deal"[40] with CBS to do some acting and to perform in skating shows and non-sanctioned competitions” -> “The Associated Press (AP) reported that in 1998, due to many endorsements and book deals, Lipinski's net worth was "possibly as high as $12 million"[37] and that she had signed "an exclusive deal" with CBS to do some acting and to perform in skating shows and non-sanctioned competitions.[40]“
Done.
  • “She skated in over 300 live shows, including professional team competitions like Ice Wars on CBS. Also on CBS, Lipinski produced and starred in a two-hour special called "Tara Lipinski: From This Moment On". She won every competition she entered during her professional career. After the Olympics, Lipinski toured with Champions on Ice, visiting 90 U.S. cities.[2]" First, the reference cited only supports the 90 U.S. cities Champions on Ice. There’s nothing on the live shows, Ice Wars, the special, and “won every competition”. It does have "Lipinski says she had a long-term contract with CBS for skating specials on-air, and to appear on shows like The Young and the Restless and Touched By an Angel." Those are important information, so I wonder if you can find the source. Secondly, kind of OOT, but if Ice Wars is made-for-TV then the title should be italicized (it’s not on its article) since it’s more a competition TV show rather than an event.
Somehow the source for it got lost, or maybe someone came in and added it without a source. At any rate, I'm removed the unsourced content.
  • “which the AP calls "the highlight" of the tour.” -> “which the AP called "the highlight" of the tour.”
Fixed.
  • “Also in 1998” -> “In the same year”. Just preference.
No problem.
Got it, thanks.
  • BTW, I wonder if the article needs a filmography section. Judging from her IMDB page, her TV career was pretty long, and I know most of them are cameo, but she was billed second in Ice Angel, so that’s notable enough. Cameo and voice acting are usually listed on filmography table as well. You can refer to MOS:FILMOGRAPHY and WP:FILMOGRAPHY Sorry, I didn't realized the article already has Television Credits section.
  • "Her scores consisted of two 10s, 11 9.9s, and one 9.8" According MOS:NUMERAL, integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words. I suggest to use "eleven 9.9s" so they're all uniformed.
You're right, of course.
  • "Lipinski had hip surgery in 2000 at the age of 18, which she believed saved her career." -> "to have saved"
Sorry, but I disagree. Your suggestion doesn't flow. But I'll change it if you insist.
  • "Her injury, a torn labrum in her hip, had been misdiagnosed for four or five years, and that it had caused her a great deal of joint pain." -> "Her injury, a torn labrum in her hip, had been misdiagnosed for four or five years and had caused her a great deal of joint pain."
Done.
  • "which the National Institutes of Health calls "a dangerous potential side effect of surgery"." Needs past tense
Got it, thanks for the catch. That's all for now, more later. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which may have occurred before the Nagano Olympics" -> "might have" and "the 1998 Winter Olympics"
Both changed.
  • "The surgery, which usually lasted 45 minutes, took 3+1⁄2 hours to complete because she was developing arthritis and because cartilage had grown over the bone." -> "Despite usually lasted 45 minutes, her surgery took 3.5 hours to complete because she was developing arthritis and a cartilage had grown over the bone". Using decimals for consistency
Got it.
  • "In 2002, she toured 61 U.S. cities with Stars on Ice. Lipinski retired from skating in 2002." -> "In 2002, Lipinski toured 61 U.S. cities with Stars on Ice then retired from skating."
Done, but put comma before "then."
  • "Her skating style was often compared to her "rival" Michelle Kwan's;" I think a full stop is more appropriate to end this sentence since there are many example of the comparison, not just Longman's, in the paragraph.
Okay.
  • "Kestnbaum discusses Lipinski's skating technique in her book Culture on Ice: Figure Skating and Cultural Meaning, to illustrate women's and girls' influence on figure skating" No need for a comma there
Okay.
  • "and how many in the press criticized the sport, and sometimes even Lipinski herself, for encouraging it." -> "how many people"
Done.
  • "In 2009, longing for the "high" she felt as a figure skater" -> "she had felt"
Done.
  • "she would call figure skating from studios in the U.S., instead of from the competition venue." -> "she would call figure skating from studios in the U.S. instead of the competition venue."
Got it.
  • "After realizing they worked well together and after recognizing what reporter Tom Weir calls their "instant chemistry"" -> "After realizing they worked well together and recognizing what reporter Tom Weir called their "instant chemistry""
Fixed, thanks for the catch.
  • "She stated that she had worked for ten years to commentate during prime time during the Olympics." -> "She stated that she had worked for ten years to realize her dream of commentating during primetime Olympic broadcast."
Got it.
  • "They covered the 2022 Winter Olympics, this time remotely from the NBC studies in Stamford, Conneticut, where they had covered events for many years, due to the rise of COVID-19 cases internationally and China's strict COVID-19 protocols, which NBC stated made it "too challenging" to send broadcast teams to Bejing in person." -> "They covered the latter remotely from the NBC studios in Stamford, Connecticut"
Got it.
  • "Lipinski and Weir were hired by NBC's Access Hollywood in 2014, to analyze fashion during the red carpet at the Oscars" No need for comma there
Fixed.
  • "She served as a "social media, lifestyle, and fashion correspondent"[41] for NBC Sports, including, with Weir, the Beverly Hills Dog Show in 2017,[61] the National Dog Show since 2015,[41] the Kentucky Derby in 2014–2017 and 2018 (as "fashion and lifestyle experts" in 2016),[62] and pre-game coverage for the Super Bowl in 2015 and 2017" -> "She served as a "social media, lifestyle, and fashion correspondent"[41] for various NBC Sports properties, including the Beverly Hills Dog Show (with Weir) in 2017,[61] the National Dog Show since 2015,[41] the Kentucky Derby in 2014–2017 and 2018,[62] and pre-game coverage for the Super Bowl in 2015 and 2017" Since Kentucky Derby has been listed in her NBC profile under the events she covered as "social media, lifestyle, and fashion correspondent", i think it's not necessary to point out her role twice. It barely has any difference anyway.
Okay.
  • "They were named what People Magazine calls "culture correspondents"[64] for the 2016 Summer Olympics" -> "They were called "culture correspondents" by People Magazine for the 2016 Summer Olympics"
Done.
  • "In the same year" for the second "In 2018"
Done.
  • "Lipinski and Weir's commentating style was honest and colorful; they used bantering and avoided what Cosmopolitan called "fluffy, polished performances"." This whole sentence needs to be reworked. The way it's written now makes it seem "honest" and "colorful" as facts, when honest and the "fluffy, polished performances" were taken from direct quotes by Lipinski and "colorful" is from Cosmopolitan.
Changed to: "Cosmopolitan considered Lipinski and Weir's commentating style honest and colorful, and said that they used bantering and avoided what the magazine called "fluffy, polished performances"."
  • "They tried to present figure skating in an accessible way to their viewers, keeping the more technical aspects of the sport to a minimum but emphasizing, as Tom Weir put it, its "gossipy nuances"." -> Tom Weir opined that Lipinski and Johnny Weir understood their viewers didn't want a lecture on the technical aspects of the sport, keeping it to a minimum and instead emphasizing its "gosippy nuances"
You know what? I like the original version better. First, I hate the word "opined." Second, and no disrespect meant, but the second version is pretentious and talks down to the unititated figure skating fan. So I would like to keep it as is, please.
  • "Dick Button told Olympic reporters he thought Lipinski and Weir were "excellent", but that Lipinski "might talk a little too much", although Tom Weir stated that when skaters were "elegant and error-free", both Lipinski and Weir had "the good sense to stay silent"" -> Need link to Dick Button page. I suggest to close Button's quotes with a full stop and continue with "However, Tom Weir stated that when skaters were "elegant and error-free", both Lipinski and Weir had "the good sense to stay silent""
But Button is linked just one paragraph earlier.
  • For the Goodykoontz part, I suggest: In 2022, media critic Goodykoontz pointed out they were "uncharacteristically quiet" while calling the short program of Kamila Valieva from the Russian Olympic Committee, who was allowed to comp:ete despite failing a drug test prior to the Olympics. Lipinski and Weir chose to simply announce Valieva's jumps and to express their opinions that she should not have been allowed to compete afterwards instead."
I disagree slightly with your version. Goodykoontz is introduced a few sentence prior, but I added "media critic" to his description and did this: "Goodykoontz pointed out that Lipinski and Weir were uncharacteristically quiet while calling the short program of Kamila Valieva from the Russian Olympic Committee, who was allowed to compete despite failing a drug test prior to the 2022 Olympics. They chose to simply announce Valieva's jumps and to express their opinions that she should not have been allowed to compete afterwards instead."
  • "Also in 2022, Lipinski and her husband, Todd Kapostasy, a sports producer and documentary director, were co-producers of Meddling: The Olympic Skating Scandal That Shocked the World, the four-part documentary series focusing on the 2002 skating controversy at the Salt Lake City Olympics, which aired on the NBC streaming service Peacock in January 2022." -> "In the same year, Lipinski and her husband, Todd Kapostasy, a sports producer and documentary director, co-produced Meddling: The Olympic Skating Scandal That Shocked the World, a four-part documentary series focusing on the 2002 skating controversy at the Salt Lake City Olympics, which aired on the NBC streaming service Peacock in January 2022."
Done. I think I've finished addressing all your comments now. Please let me know what else I should do and thanks for the thorough comments, which were helpful. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More (again) comments by Yolo4A4Lo

  • "Lipinski, who called the series "a deep and responsible look at what happened",[72] says that she and Kapostasy chose to create the series because it was the 20th anniversary of the scandal and because there had been no comprehensive look at what happened." -> "Lipinski, who called the series "a deep and responsible look at what happened",[72] said that she and Kapostasy had chosen to create the series because it had been the 20th anniversary of the scandal and there had been no comprehensive look at what happened."
Done.
  • "She also reported that they travelled to Russia, France, and Canada to interview people involved in the scandal" -> Saw Henni's suggestion, and I think we can just go straight to "They traveled to Russia, France, and Canada to interview people involved in the scandal"
Okay.
  • "She wore a necklace with a good-luck charm, given to her by her uncle, that said, "Short, but good",[2] as well as a medal of St. Therese, given to her by Rev. Vince Kolo, a Catholic priest from Pittsburgh, during the Olympics." Just prefer "during the Olympics" at the beginning.
Got it.
  • "Ann Rogers-Melnick of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports in 2001" Needs past tense
Got it, thanks for the catch.
  • "Lipinski stated that although their skating careers had not occurred during the same time periods and as a result, they did not know each other well when they began to work together at the Sochi Olympics" -> " Lipinski stated that although their skating careers had not occurred during the same time periods and, as a result, they did not know each other well when they began to work together at the 2014 Sochi Olympics"
Got it.
  • "Both Lipinski and Weir told GQ that they would bring dozens of suitcases to the competitions they announced, and would do their best to wear matching clothes and never the same outfit twice." -> "Both Lipinski and Weir told GQ that they would bring dozens of suitcases to the competitions they announced and do their best to wear matching clothes and never the same outfit twice."
Removed comma.
  • She reported that her surgery was successful, that all of her adhesions were removed, and that her recovery was "mainly pain free"” -> “She reported that her surgery was successful, her adhesions were removed, and her recovery was "mainly pain free"”
Done.
  • I feel like the paragraph on her belief should be before her wedding. I don’t know if there’s convention on this section, but I feel like for Personal Life, it should start with the subject themselves (either belief, education etc.) then continues with spouse or children, then anyone or anything else.
I dunno. I kinda feel the opposite, that you put info about significant others first, before religious/spiritual faith and or tradition. I'm not sure it matters, but I'll switch paragraphs if you tell me to.
  • The entries under Records and achievements should be without a full stop because none of them is a complete sentence. And all need to have the year it happened.
Okay, done.
@Figureskatingfan:: the full stops still have to be removed. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yolo4A4Lo, now it'd done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title formatting under Programs still not following Wikipedia MOS. On the Town, Little Women, Samson and Delilah, Speed, The Prince of Tides, Much Ado About Nothing should be in italic. Songs should be with double quotes. etc. The year should be uniformed with the FS MOS, so 1994–95, 1995–96 etc.
All n-dashes. Formatting fixed.
What I meant about the year is, now under Lipinski's Programs and Competitive highlights, it's "1994–1995", 1995–1996" and so on. Meanwhile, based on the current MOS, it should be "1994–95", 1995–96" and so on. I think it's important to be consistent with that (and also on naming whether it's Competitive highlights/Eligible, Junior and Novice seasons/pre-certain year). Ofc it's a problem for the FS MOS, but it would be nice if we start it from FA and GA like this.
@Figureskatingfan:: still need your thoughts on this. I didn't see any changes made except the n-dashes, so Lipinski's would have the tables different from current MOS? Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yolo4A4Lo, oh I see now that I had misssed that part of your feedback. Fixed now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Results, same problem with the year.
Like above, already all n-dashes.
  • I suggest to move the footnote on 6.0 system to right after ”Her presentation marks were mostly 5.7 or 5.8”. Also the “rush” footnote to right after “longing for the "high" she had felt as a figure skater”
Okay.
  • “over 300 live shows“ part in the lead needs to be removed/change because it has no source in the body.
Right! Good catch!
  • Also, in the body it’s said Lipinski, Weir, and Gannon became the NBC’s primary commentators after Sochi Olympics. Meanwhile, in the lead it says that they “commentated for skating in two Olympics before they became NBC's primary figure skating commentators in 2013.” So the year is not accurate. And what other Olympic they had commented on together? Because the body doesn’t mention anything before Sochi.
Another good catch. Corrected to 2014 to parallel what it says in the body.
You kept "two Olympics before they became NBC's primary figure skating commentators", but Tara's website says Sochi was the first time she's commentating on the Olympics, so that should be removed and changed into Sochi Olympics instead. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see that I had missed it in the lead; fixed now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early Edition, Veronica’s Closet, Generation Jets, What’s New Scooby-Doo? are missing from the TV credits. I think voice acting should be indicated as well.
I didn't include Early Edition because she was featured in it as a subject. What's New Scooby-Doo is actually Scooby-Doo and Guess Who?, which is there. I wasn't able to find sources for the other two, as well as the voice acting gigs, other than what's already there.
No, on What's New Scooby-Doo?, she played a camp counselor named Grey, on Scooby-Doo and Guess Who? she played herself. Based on MOS:FILMOGRAPHY, the format for non-table filmography should be Title (year), role – notes. Cameo or voice acting should be mentioned as note. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yolo4A4Lo, would you mind providing sources? Like I said, I haven't been able to locate them. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found these for What's New Scooby-Doo?. The site has editorial team that checked all the credits, so I think it's trustworthy. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here a source from the same site that lists more of her credits: [18]. I'll go ahead and add them if I get the okay from you guys regarding its reliability and its appropriateness for a FA. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Figureskatingfan: I personally think it's appropriate. But maybe other editors could also chime in their opinion on this. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yolo4A4Lo, went ahead and made some additions from the site. I only added the credits where she's playing a role, even if it's Herself, because TV credits sections usually don't include interviews or hosting gigs. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Figureskatingfan:: It's alright. Also, the format should be changed to Title (year), role – notes
@Yolo4A4Lo, got it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • These reference numbers need to be sorted: "[3][2][6]", "[34][30]"
Done.

I think that’s all from me. I do think the page still needs to be reviewed by editors who are experienced with FAR. I really love the edits you did with Henni, I think it really helps to make the article sounds more encyclopedic. I'll probably do another readthrough after my last comments are addressed. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I think I'm done addressing them, whew! Thanks for your thorough review, I think? ;) No seriously, I appreciate it; it's making this bio all the more better. Looking foward to seeing more from you. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Before I take one last look, shouldn't all references that can be archived be archived? Just checking other FAR. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yolo4A4Lo, Yes, one of the things I did before submitting to FAC is to double-check that all sources were archived and then to archive them if needed. This is an important task to do for all figure skating articles, which I've done this summer as I've updated the ones that I've worked on. Now that I think of it, there should be a notice on the talk pages when that's done; will do so for this one and for the others I've recently updated. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Figureskatingfan:: i assume a bot will add the archive link to the ref when it's dead in the future? Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yolo4A4Lo, no it's my understanding that the archive link has to be added manually, although a bot will mark it when it's dead. That's why it's always a good idea to check and update links from time to time, especially for figure skating articles and bios. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Figureskatingfan:: You can use Fix dead links on the history page and clicked "Add archives to all non-dead references" to add in archive links to all refs that haven't had one. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last read-through:

  • "At the age of three, she began roller skating, and eventually became a national champion" I knew this is from my own comment, so I just removed the comma myself. Sorry
  • "which one rival coach said had little elevation" I checked the source and the rival coach gave a quote "you couldn't have put a piece of paper under them". I think it's better to include that as well, because from how it is now, it begs a question how little it is? Including the quote also paints the view that people were crictizing her jumps
Changed.
  • "Lipinski opened with a double Axel, and included a triple flip jump" no need for comma
Done.
  • "The final results after the free skate were close and the judges were unable" this one needs a comma before and
Done.
  • "Kwan's free skate came in first place because she had more first- and second-place votes and Lipinski came in first place" needs a comma before and
Added.
  • The subsection should be titled "Pre-Olympic events" instead of Olympic season, because Olympic season is the whole 1997-98 season
Already done.
  • "she fell while performing a triple Lutz jump, despite it" no comma before essential information
Removed.
  • "Lipinski skated her season's best at the Finals, with a well-executed triple Lutz." no need for comma
Removed.
  • "She was awarded 5.8s and 5.9s" needs to change she to Lipinski, since the subject in the previous sentence is Kestnbaum, not her.
Done.
  • "one point over Denise Biellmann. who came in second place" a typo there, should be comma
Fixed.
  • "because she was developing arthritis and because a cartilage had grown over the bone" double because
This is not incorrect.
  • "Her jumps, which Kestnbaum calls "small and in some cases technically flawed", debated in the press in 1997 and 1998." should be "were debated"
Added missing word.

I think that's all! Just need to address this and all the missed points I have pinged for you earlier, and I will change my comments to support. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yolo4A4Lo, whew, I believe I've addressed all your comments. Thanks for your feedback and patience. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your hard work and patience as well. I give you my support, and good luck for the FA. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Henni147

[edit]

@ErnestKrause: informed me that this article got nominated for FA class, and I'd like to add some comments as well (mainly about skating-specific issues):

Extended content

Agree with Yolo4A4Lo that the article is quite stuffed with direct quotes, and cites many reporters or newspaper writers by name. If we mention people like Kestnbaum, Longman, etc., it must be clear why they are notable people and why their voices carry weight in figure skating. If they don't have a Wikipedia entry, it is questionable if they are notable enough to be cited by name in the prose text.

I've worked on decreasing the direct quotes during this FAC. I can go through the bio again if you like. I respectfully disagree about requiring that the individuals quoted in sources need to be notable. There's nothing in WP's notability guidelines that require it. The individuals may not be notable, but most of the publications, agencies, and publishing houses they work with are. Perhaps you mean that the sources need to be reliable? If so, again, most of the sources in this bio are reliable, and if they aren't, I think a case can be made for using them here.
@Figureskatingfan: Sorry, my wording was not clear here. I truly meant to further reduce the number of direct quotes (drastically). Especially the paragraph about the 1998 Olympics is a sea of citations at the moment, of which the majority is completely superflous and should be turned into plain prose text or reported speech. In that paragraph you literally have to search for the actual event results and facts, which get lost in the mass of opinions from sportswriters. The summary of a sporting event should be as objective and factual as possible. Here are examples for possible changes:
Section Current text Comment Suggestion
Early years [...] she placed 22nd after the short program, but her free skating program, which included seven triple jumps and which Sports Illustrated calls "sparkling", brought her up to 15th place. "sparkling" is no essential information that needs a direct quote. [...] she placed 22nd after the short program, but a strong free skate performance, which featured seven triple jumps, brought her up to 15th place.
1996-1997 season Longman reported that Lipinski opened with a double Axel, and included a triple flip jump and her triple loop-triple loop jump combination. This is a fact that can be found in the competition protocols. No need to mention Longman here. Lipinski opened with a double Axel, and included a triple flip jump as well as her triple loop-triple loop jump combination amongst others.
1997-1998 season Lipinski had what writer Rose Minutaglio called "a devastating fall" after attempting a triple flip jump during her short program, which Lipinski called "the lowest point" of her career. It is obvious from the context that the fall was a devastating mistake. Doesn't need a direct quote. In her short program Lipinski fell on a triple flip attempt, which she called "the lowest point" of her career.
There are much more direct quotes that should better be turned into plain prose/reported speech, but it would blow this discussion page to list them all up here. However, I think it's clear from the suggestions above, how the amount of direct speech can be easily reduced.
@Henni147: thanks for the explanation. I went through the article and cut many direct quotes, as per your suggestion. I made exceptions, however, during the commentaries about Lipinski's skating and broadcast styles because I think that a subjective opinion should be quoted directly. Please let me know if I need to do more. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Figureskatingfan: Yes, the skating career sections look much better now! Thank you very much for the changes. I am not an expert for English language, so it might be best to have another check by someone else, but it looks fine to me now. Good job.
  • "triples" should be changed to "triple jumps", especially at the first appearance in the prose text (Early years section).
As I state above, I disagree with this, but since two reviewers have asked for it, I'll make the changes.
  • The toe loop (97/98 section) and flip jump (96/97 section) should be linked at their first appearance in the prose text.
Done.
  • The Lutz jump is named after Austrian skater Alois Lutz and must be capitalized. Same goes for the Axel, Salchow, and Euler jump.
All fixed now.
  • The "flutz" term can be linked to this section in the Lutz article for more detailed explanation. There are two big issues with the "flutz" take-off, of which the first one could be added as a footnote (for readers who don't have access to the Kestnbaum source):
    • By switching from the correct outside to the wrong inside edge before the take-off, the skater removes the difficulty of counter-rotation and change of curve between the take-off and landing, which characterizes and distinguishes the Lutz from other figure skating jumps.
    • The "flutz" is a morphed jump that is camouflaged as a Lutz, but is technically executed like a flip. If the judges or the technical panel overlook the illegal edge change at the take-off, the skater can basically execute an additional flip jump in the program without being punished. This is particularly beneficial in the current system, where skaters are very limited with jump repetitions and get full jump elements invalidated in some cases.
I linked the flutz as per your suggestion. I agree that the current footnote [c] is a lazy way to deal with the problem of not having a good definition of the flutz, not even on Lutz jump. That's an easy fix, though, but unrelated to this article and its FAC, I think. The solution is to add Kestnbaum's definition (as well as the definition of any other source) to the Lutz article. Actually, that'll eventually get done by me, as a part of my current yearly project to update the figure skating articles I've worked on. For now, I think the link is enough for our purposes of improving and promoting this article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "half loop" (97/98 section) is outdated and should better be changed to "Euler", which is the official term in the current judging system, and it should be linked to its respective article. "Half loop" is a misleading term, as it is not a loop with a half revolution, but a jump that takes off like a loop and lands on the inside edge of the opposite foot, usually placed before a Salchow or flip jump. Hence, the ISU decided to change the name to "Euler" to avoid confusion.
Understood. Again, like for the Lutz, the Euler article will eventually get this info. Back when Lipinski was skating, though, the jump was known as the half loop, so I don't think it'd be accurate to use the current terminology. I do think, though, that we should link "half loop" to Euler jump, which has been done and put a footnote in this article explaining that the half loop is now known as the Euler, which I've also done.
Yes, I really like your solution with the footnote. Henni147 (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that context the information about the "triple toe loop-half loop-triple toe loop" element (97/98 section) should be checked (Kestnbaum, p. 160). This element is technically impossible to execute, because a toe loop jump cannot take off from the inside edge landing of a Euler. The correct element must be either a "triple toe loop-single loop-triple toe loop" or "triple toe loop-Euler-triple Salchow". My bet is the latter, but I don't have access to the orginal source.
Actually, the Salchow is correct. Fixed.
  • In figure skating we distinguish between the terms "jump" and "jump element" (or "jumping pass"). The term "jump" refers either to a solo jump or a specific jump within a combination or sequence. In the women's singles free skate there is a total of 11 jumps distributed across 7 jump elements. A "jump element" can be a solo jump, jump combination, or jump sequence. The last one is usually done with an Axel as the second jump. Here in this article we have:
    • triple-lutz combination jump (97/98 section): this must be "triple Lutz jump" (or something is missing, because a triple Lutz alone is not a combination)
The source (Longman) states: "Lipinski, 15, the 1997 world champion, fell on a triple-lutz combination jump, and took second place with an otherwise strong and technically difficult performance." I wonder if he meant that the triple Lutz was a part of the combination jump she fell on. How would you suggest clarifying it? Something like: "Longman stated that during Lipinski's free skate, in "an otherwise strong and technically difficult performance",[22] she fell after performing a triple-Lutz jump."
Unless we don't know the exact element she executed, I would definitely go with "triple Lutz jump" and skip the combination term here. Henni147 (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • triple loop-triple loop combination, her signature jump (lead and 96/97 section): this is not a jump, but a jump element, and should be changed in the prose text.
  • triple toe loop-Euler-triple Salchow sequence (97/98 section): this is not a jump sequence, but a jump combination with an immediate take-off from the landing edge (in a sequence there is either a change of foot, direction or edge between the jumps). Change "sequence" to "combination" here to avoid confusion.
Last two comments addressed.
  • In the 96/97 section there is a quotation with "signature triple-loop, triple-loop combination". The notation of the jump element is not correct. It should be "triple loop-triple loop combination". Since it is a direct quote, I don't know if we're allowed to change the punctuation, but in this case the comma is very problematic, as it indicates two separate solo loops instead of a combination.
Someone (perhaps me) must have already taken out the comma; the source (Kestnbaum) has the correct designation.
  • 96/97 section: "Her artistic marks were mostly 5.7 or 5.8". There are multiple issues here:
    • Change "artistic mark" to "presentation mark", which is the official term used by the ISU.
Already done.
  • Personally, I would refrain from using the terms "artistry" or derivates in encyclopedic articles about figure skating altogether, unless they are part of a direct quote. According to this article by Sandra Loosemore "Olympic-eligible skating is not judged on 'artistry.' The official terminology or the second mark is 'presentation', not 'artistry', and in fact the words 'artistry' or 'artistic impression' do not appear anywhere in the rulebook. Instead, the presentation mark is effectively a second technical mark encompassing several specific criteria explicitly listed in the rules."
Already addressed from previous reviewer comments.
  • If we bring up specific marks like 5.7, we have to mention and link the 6.0 judging system somewhere in the article, and also note that 6.0 was the highest possible mark that a judge could reward at that time, so that casual readers have some kind of a reference value. We can include these information either directly in the prose part or place it as a footnote.
I agree; I've put it in a footnote [c] as per your suggestion.
Footnote looks very good. I like your solution. Henni147 (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article uses the term "score" multiple times, but in the old 6.0 system there were no total scores, only single marks rewarded by the judges. It was not a scoring but a placement system. So we should better use the term "mark" instead of "score" consistently in the article.
Okay.
  • In the 97/98 section it says "Lipinski's free skating program, with her triple loop-triple loop combination and seven triple jumps total, was the most technically difficult program in Olympic history." Maybe we should add in a footnote, when and by whom it got surpassed, because it no longer is the most difficult program.
Already addressed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The skating program and result tables do not meet the current requirements of MOS:DTAB. The tables on the bios page of Yuzuru Hanyu got already adjusted in the way that they meet the requirements, so I'd suggest to use their formatting here as well.
So I've update the tables as per your suggestion. Could someone please add the medal colors for me, please? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me as of now, I hope, it's helpful. The article looks very promising and I think that most of the issues listed above can be fixed quickly. Henni147 (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are nice comments above from Henni. Henni, could you comment on the new section by Yolo in the Hanyu article. Yolo has added a new "Professional career section before the Skating technique section in the Hanyu article, however, the Tara Lipinsky article here places the Professional career section after the Skating technique section. Is there a reason to do this the one way or the other way as you see them side by side? ErnestKrause (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be comments from both Yolo and yourself which can be used productively. The MOS page for FS you opened two months ago has had virtually no activity on it. If we wish to start the equivalent of a RFC on this, then this would put a 30-day hold on this nomination which I'm not sure that will sit well with the FAC coordinators. Do you have any opinion of leaning toward Yolo's comments or the nominator's comments? It might be better to discuss it here rather than asking for the equivalent of a 30-day RfC for something that might be more easily discussed. Are you leaning towards Yolo's comments or the nominator's comments? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ernest, I requested that we move the discussion about the structure of FS bios because it wou've made this FAC too long and because it applies to all bios, not just this one. It's a policy issue, which I feel doesn't belong at an FAC. If I'm wrong about that, perhaps the FAC coordinators can correct me. I also don't see how coming to a conclusion about the structure of FS bios has any bearing on this particular article and on this particular FAC, since there has already been support for passing it, even with its current structure. I agree that this discussion is important, but I disagree that we need to resolve in through an RFC before moving forward with this FAC. If folks here disagree with me, I don't see a reason for continuing with this FAC and I'll remove it. But since you insist that I chime in on the structure issue, I'll do so here briefly and then go into more detail over at the FS MOS: it depends upon the article and it depends upon the skater. For Lipinski's article, I like the current structure because it correctly represents the entirety of her life so far. The way editors have structured Hanyu's article does a good job at representing his life so far. I'm confused about your statement above about the FS MOS: I created it way back in 2020, when it became obvious that we needed a style sheet, and then Henni did some marvelous work expanding upon it back in June 2021. There's been no activity on it since because no one else has added anything else to it. Are you talking about the MOS' talk page? It was created after Henni added to the MOS, also in June 2021. Please explain. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additions from Henni147
Already fixed:

  • Even if the term "lutz" is part of a direct quote, it should be capitalized (with respect to its inventor Alois Lutz). According to MOS:TYPOFIX, small errors can and should be "silently corrected", and I'd say that this type of error belongs into that category.
Hmm, that's new to me. The issue here is that there's a wide variety in the punctuation of figure skating elements. For example, the ISU capitalizes all elements, while U.S. Figure Skating capitalizes elements named for people. We at Wikiproject FS has chosen to follow U.S. Figure Skating's convention, which is something that can be discussed and changed by consensus. Perhaps what we can do is, as the above policy recommends, to add {{sic}} for direct quotes?
If you take a look at the latest TP Handbook, the ISU uses the same conventions as U.S. Figure Skating: Axel, Salchow, Lutz, and Euler are capitalized, toe loop, loop, and flip not. I suggest to follow that convention as well, and silently correct the capitalization if it's done wrongly in a direct quote.
  • I recognized that the article used the term "combination jump", but it has to be "jump combination" according to the ISU TP Handbook.
Ok, done.
  • Also, there is no hyphen between the number of revolutions and jump type. It has to be "triple Lutz" instead of "triple-Lutz".
That's accurate; however, the ISU puts hyphens between jump combinations; see their Media Guide, p. 18.[19]
Yes, of course. There have to be hyphens between the different jumps in a combination or sequence, but that's a different issue. I was talking about hyphens within a jump name, which have to be removed. I have fixed the two cases in the article already.
  • I have adjusted the competition result table in accordance with the MOS:DTAB guidelines for accessibility.
You may have to go back and do it again, sorry; I put in new tables as per previous feedback. The medal colors need to be added, though. ;)
The split tables are even better than my solution. Thank you very much for the changes!
  • I also added pictures of Kwan and Weir, so that readers have an image of these two people who played a key role in Lipinski's career. I hope, that's fine.
Ya know, I tend to avoid putting images of the non-subject. I get why it may be a good idea to do it in this case, though. I found some additional images of Lipinski, some of her alone and some of her with others (like Weir) on Openverse [20], though. Should we download them to Commons for our use?
Yes, that seems to be a good source, but we have to take care of the exact license type when uploading the images to Commons, and check if the license type is suitable for Wikipedia. Not all CC licenses can be used for Wiki articles.

Open for discussion:

  • The 1997/98 section is pretty long at the moment. Personally, I'd suggest to divide it into two sub-sections (pre-Olympic events and 1998 Winter Olympics) for better overview.
I'm not opposed to long sections, as long as they're not overly-long, but I'm okay about dividing it. I also moved the last two sentences in the first sub-section to the first paragraph of the next, even though I hate short paragraphs. ;) All I have time for now; will do more later. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently, there are many links to competitions with full name like "1996 World Junior Figure Skating Championships". I wonder if they can be shortened via piped link at the second or later mentioning. It's quite exhausting to read, especially in the Early years section.
The FS MOS states that for competitions, the custom is to state their full titles the first mention and then shortened/piped subsequent mentions.
  • Comments on specific sentences:
    • 96/97: [...] including what writer Ellyn Kestnbaum calls "a history-making triple loop-triple loop combination" → Why was that 3Lo+3Lo combo at the 1997 U.S. Nationals considered "history-making"? She had already landed it at another event in 1996, no?
Already dealt with when removing over-quoting.
    • 96/97: [...] according to the Associated Press, were "in line" with her technical marks. → What does "in line" mean here exactly? That the marks for tech and presentation were within the same numerical range? The wording is unclear to me.
Changed to "similar".
    • 97/98: [...] by improving her artistry and by taking daily dance classes → In what way did she improve her "artistry" exactly? Which types of creative technical skills did she specifically work on (carriage/dancing, music translation, program composition, acting/expression...)? "Improving artistry" is a very vague statement that can mean anything and nothing. Personally, I would either look up what she exactly worked on or skip that info altogether.
I'm not sure; the sources don't explain. I think the solution is to remove the mention, which I've done.

Overall, the article looks good now. The few notes above may need a quick check, but I give my support for FAC now. Henni147 (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed all comments, both from and from the other reviewers. Thanks for the strenuous reviews, all! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments from Henni147
This won't change my general support for FAC, but here are some more questions and suggestions after second reading:

  • Professional career section:
    • "Lipinski's net worth was perhaps $12 million." → maybe change "perhaps" to "estimated"? Sounds more professional.
    • "In August 1998, Lipinski ended her association with Champions on Ice, which she had performed with since 1995, and joined the cast of Stars on Ice in order to expand artistically and to participate in the company's group numbers." → What does "company's group numbers" mean here? Is it the usual group performances with other cast members in the show? And what kind of opportunities did SOI provide for artistic growth that COI didn't? Was it these group numbers only or something else as well?
    • What judging system was used at the World Pro Championships? Was it the same system as 6.0 with judges' mark scale from 0 to 10? I would add a footnote there, so that the mentioned marks have some reference value.
  • Broadcasting career section:
    • Maybe place the last paragraph "In 2018 and 2019 [...]" before "According to Houston Chronicle [...]", so that Lipinski's activities as a broadcaster come first, and then the critical reception of her commentary and works. This is not a must, it's just my personal preference as a reader in terms of structure.

Henni147 (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment from Piotrus

[edit]

No errors detected in the brief treatment of Polish context, but shouldn't Poland be linked in body? I also do wonder if the term Polish American can be worked into the article and linked from the body. Do we know if she consider herself Polish American? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: We don't link present-day countries. (MOS:OVERLINK) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a rumor that she was nominated for being elected to the Polish-American Sports Hall of Fame circa 2020 though I can't recall if it went through; it was discussed with this image from the Olympics which might be a nice addition to this article if someone can get it into Wikimedia [21]. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did a cursory google search, but didn't find anything. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a possible lead for this and another nice Nagano image which might be nice for this article here: [22]. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause, looks like it was just a rumor. There's nothing on the HOF website that states that Lipinsky was inducted. The only two figure skaters on their webpage are Janet Lynn and Elaine Zayak. The image on Twitter is most likely not free. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose Comments from Kavyansh

[edit]
Leaning to oppose the article's promotion to FA status on criteria 1f.

I am reviewing this version of the article. There are a lot of instances where the article is missing MOS:GEOCOMMA. There are also source to text integrity issues. "the only child of Patricia (née Brozyniak) and oil executive and lawyer Jack Lipinski", where does the source states 'née Brozyniak' and that she was the only child? "Lipinski is Catholic ... that said, 'Short, but good'" appears to be cited to Ref#2, when it should actually be Ref#75, etc.

But what really makes me oppose is the closed paraphrasing issue. While conducting random spot checks, I found many cases where we have closed paraphrasing. Although I tried to ignore even the ones which I felt were cases of borderline WP:LIMITED, a few sentences are almost copy-paste. Sample:

Article: "All four of her grandparents were born in Poland"
Source: "All four of her grandparents were born in Poland" [23].
Article: "They met in May 2015, when Lipinski presented Kapostasy an award at the Sports Emmys."
Source: "The duo had met in May 2015, when Lipinski presented Kapostasy an award at the Sports Emmys" [24].
Article: "... loop-triple loop jump combination and seven triple jumps total, was the most technically difficult program in Olympic history up to that time". [25]
Source: "... another triple-triple combination and seven triple jumps total, was the most technically difficult in Olympic history."

I am open to reconsideration, but would request the coordinators to not promote until another reviewer has taken a comprehensive look at the sources and assured that the source to text integrity and closed paraphrasing issues have been cleared throughout.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: Ok, so I fixed the two instances of MOS:GEOCOMMA. I fixed the ref mixups you mention; I'm sure they're the only instances of it. I also randomly tested five different refs for text integrity, but found no problem; I challenge anyone else to do the same and I'm sure they'll get similar results. I looked up your same version on Earwig [26], which had it at almost 34% but found "violation unlikely." I went through and changed many of the close paraphrasing, so Earwig now has it at 24.5% [27], also unlikely. I can change more if you like. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kavyansh.Singh Could I ask you to look at the new edits made to deal with this copyvio issue; it looks like the article has made progress on this issue. Separately, if you are now taking more interest in sports articles at Wikipedia, then I've opened a review for Yuzuru Hanyu Olympic seasons which could use a good read and FAC comments from someone with you interests at Wikipedia. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Christine and ErnestKrause, and sorry for the delayed response. Had been really busy IRL. I'm happy to strike the oppose, but would still suggest someone else to take a look. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree about this requirement that another reviewer look at the close paraphrasing. I don't see the need for it, since the issue has obviously been resolved. I would ask that the coordinators take all the supports and the work that's been done as a result of this FAC into account. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the FAC coordinators, I would request that whoever does the required source review here also do spot-checks. While I do AGF that the close paraphrasing issues have been resolved, it would still be best to verify that. Hog Farm Talk 21:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Czar

[edit]

Hi, this might be a source review if I have time, but wanted to ask:

Why is her mother's maiden name even encyclopedic information? (t · c) buidhe 23:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. For her parents' names, then, the Sports Illustrated source would be okay but there are several books that are even better. Nike Is a Goddess (p. 176) is published by Atlantic Monthly Press and is more reliable as a source than the one currently in place. I was a little surprised not to see more book coverage in this article. Newspapers have contemporaneous facts but books tend often require taking a few steps back from the story, making for better secondary source analysis. Gale would probably have relevant biographies here too—I'll take a peek later. czar 00:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest thing to do is to remove the offending content about Lipinski's parents' names, so that's what I've done. Regarding the dependence upon magazines and newspapers over books, this article is about an American athlete, so most of the information written about Lipinski will be in magazines and newspapers. There are fewer well-written books about female figure skaters and the ones that are tend to be for a juvenile audience. In other words, books aren't always more reliable than other sources just because they're books. Also, if you look at other bios about athletes, even contemporary and well-known athletes, you'll find that they also use more newspaper and magazine articles than books. For example, Yuzuru Hanyu Olympic seasons, which just passed its FAC and which I admit is much longer and complicated than this one, also uses fewer books, and in Japanese for that matter.
  • What makes Golden Skate (goldenskate.com) a reliable source? From the site itself it looks like a community site without usual hallmarks of fact-checking, editorial background (no background page), or industry reputation, but perhaps I'm missing something. czar 00:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Golden Skate is a well-respected website about figure skating and one of the oldest news source about the sport. They conduct interviews and report on all competitions, even during non-Olympics years, when major news organizations don't tend to report on figure skating, especially in the U.S. WikiProject Figure Skating okays its use; see WP:FS STYLE. The information the Golden Skate website supports can't be found anywhere else, so I chose to include it for comprehensiveness sake. Again, Hanyu's FA also uses it.
This is a forum post—it does not have any hallmarks of reliability. Apart from your writing of WP:FS STYLE, I have not seen a discussion of how such a source would meet the FAC criterion of a "high-quality" reliable source for FA purposes. The reviewer at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yuzuru Hanyu Olympic seasons/archive1#Source review – pass raised the same issue. Especially if this nomination is meant to be a precedent for this source, it seems even more important that there be either a WP:RSN discussion or further input from FAC participants. czar 03:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's a forum post, but it's the only place to find the information it supports, the music used in Lipinski's programs. Those forum posts are more reliable than a lot of mainstream sources that report on figure skating, especially the music used in programs. The music skaters use for each program isn't something that's normally reported on in the press. Also, the reason FS WikiProject hasn't had a discussion about the reliability and suitability of Golden Skate because its members, all familiar with the sport of figure skating, agree that it's an appropriate source, so there's no need to debate it. And yes the reviewer at Hanyu's FAC brought it up and obviously accepted the nominator's explanation, which is the same explanation I gave here. Therefore, I don't think it's necessary to bother the folks at RSN with a pointless discussion those of us who edit FS articles already agree about. I also think that in the case of bios about figure skaters, Golden Skate is an appropriate source to use and satisfies the FA criteria. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A forum post is not high-quality RS period. The answer to most questions that start with, "I know X is a questionable source, but it's the only one that says Y" is "if Y is only covered in this one sketchy source, it probably does not belong in the encyclopedia". (t · c) buidhe 04:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe, you make a valid point, but exceptions can be made, even in FAs, if there's a strong enough case for include sources like Golden Skate and the other source also mentioned. I ask, though: Why is Golden Skate acceptable for the Hanyu FAC reviewers and not here? Is there some kind of double standard for this bio? It seemed like the reviewers AGF regarding the sources the Hanyu article uses, even though many of them of them are in Japanese. It also seems that the reviewers are AGF that the nominators' claim that the translations of those sources are valid. I agree with following that AGF, but why is that this FAC hasn't benefitted from that same kind of AGF? I don't necessarily expect any answers to my questions, but these points need to be raised. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of any case where user generated content would be an acceptable source, except for WP:ABOUTSELF which does not apply in this case. (t · c) buidhe 17:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To the questions: The Hanyu reviewer (@FrB.TG) raised the same concern, as I had mentioned. (Even if he didn't raise it, a single FAC doesn't alone create a sourcing precedent.) WP:AGF is about assumption of intent, not assuming that a source is beyond reproach. Everyone assumes that the source was added in good faith, but the point of a featured article review is to ask, if there ever was a place to ask, whether a forum post is a high-quality source, as that is itself the featured article criteria. czar 18:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's used for comprehensiveness. Also, a previous reviewer (see Yolo's comments above) directed me to use it for Lipinski's TV credits.
It appears similar to IMDB, which is similarly not seen as a reliable source, nevertheless a high-quality reliable source for FAC purposes czar 03:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to keep it in, if I may. There's obviously a conflict between reviewers here. User:Yolo4A4Lo, can you chime in here? Should we follow your recommendations to include the TVDB info, or remove it as Czar seems to request? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
UGC is not acceptable source at FAC )or anywhere else). If it's not in a reliable source, it is not required for comprehensiveness. (t · c) buidhe 04:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added identifying information.
  • "Swift, pp. 30-31" There are multiple works by Swift cited so these citations need to be more specific. The {{sfn}} template works great for this purpose and defaults to surname and year of publication. (The other short footnotes should match the format. czar 02:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know about the template mentioned and made a choice not to use it because it'd only be for two sources, Swift and Kestnbaum. It was an editorial choice and doesn't affect the article's qualifications towards FA. The other Swift refs are all from web-based magazines and newspapers, which is still very clear.
Citation templates are not required but clarifying the Swift short footnotes when there are several Swift sources cited is uncontroversially needed for clarity. czar 03:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the FA criteria doesn't state that we have to use a specfic citation technique. I disagree that it's inconsistent and unclear, but I'll go ahead and change it as per your request. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The citation technique is up to you—I only asked to clarify the ambiguity for the reader. Looks like some are using 1997 and some are using 1997a so they're referring to different citations. Is that intentional or a typo? czar 09:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a typo; they're two different sources published in the same year, 1997, and was generated by Visual Editor when I tried to differentiate them. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are [[Special:PermanentLink/1117784935#cite_note-FOOTNOTESwift1997a30-31-5|"Swift 1997a, p. 30-31." and "Swift 1997, p. 30." referring to page 30 of the same source? "1997a" and "1997" represent different sources (if you click them), but I imagine they're both referring to 1997a? czar 18:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency check: It's unclear why some citations list the periodical's location ("The Tennessean. Nashville, Tennessee.") and others do not. Same goes for other redundant parameters ("ET online.com. Entertainment Tonight." and "AP News. Associated Press.") The formatting should be checked for consistency. Wikilinking is an easy way to identify a parameter without needing extra citation parameters, but I did see the above discussion with Aoba. czar 02:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another editorial choice. I included locations for lesser known sources, or if the location was in their titles, like the NYT. Again, this has nothing to do with this article fulfilling FA criteria.
Citation consistency is a FAC criterion. In the case of The Tennessean, the location is in its title. If your editorial choice is that you don't need the location to reduce redundancy, then the same should apply to the AP News example. czar 03:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the AP (Associated Press) is a national news organization and isn't tied to a specific location, like the Tennessean or the NYT or the Los Angeles Times. But I added it anyway. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "New York" needs to be added to the Associated Press citations. I was saying that "AP News. Associated Press." is redundant and can just be either. czar 09:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article does state, however, that Lipinski trained at the University of Delaware, which is in Newark. I added it to the text, anyway.
And about Houston? czar 09:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The text states that Lipinski and her mother moved to Bloomfield Hills and that she trained at the Detroit Skating Club. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no issues with Detroit. The article says she trained in Houston too, but that is not reflected in the infobox. My question was why include one but not the other? czar 18:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The policy also states that it should be determined on a case-by-case basis. In this case, Cosmo reports on lifestyle stories, and the content it supports here is an interview with a celebrity and sports figure, so it should be acceptable.
  • Footnote c is helpful for explaining competition scoring but out of curiosity, has there been prior project consideration for creating a sidebar that would explain it? I imagine it would be needed in almost any competitor's article to explain the scoring concept for a general audience. czar 03:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not the convention for any sports article. There are other articles that explain scoring in figure skating, just as I'm sure there are articles that explain the scoring in other sports articles. The Hanyu article mentioned above didn't need it to pass its FAC. There's a link about the 6.0 system, which is up-to-date because I recently rewrote and update it, that readers can read if they want to know more. At the same time, though, it's true that there's a need for someone to improve the ISU Judging System and it's on my to-do list, but that should have no bearing on this FAC because Lipinski didn't skate under it.
I think it's clear from the question that this was a curiosity and never had bearing on the FAC criteria. czar

Source review from Czar

[edit]

below footnote #s are from Special:PermanentLink/1115157508

Huh?
When the footnotes below are edited, they will no longer be "fn 74" so I linked the version that I used as the ref number reference. czar 03:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 74: Forbes stated that Meddling "uniquely takes a deep dive" The source does not mention Forbes at all, nor the quoted parts.
The ref name was mislabelled. Fixed.
  • fn 74 close paraphrasing:
    • source: "Lipinski and Kapostasy traveled to Russia, France and Canada to interview people connected to the scandal, including Marie-Reine Le Gougne, who hasn’t spoken to American media in two decades."
    • Wikipedia: "They travelled to Russia, France, and Canada to interview people involved in the scandal, including Marie-Reine Le Gougne, the French judge at its center, who had not spoken to anyone from the American media for 20 years."
Changed to "They interviewed people in Russia, France, and Canada who were involved in the scandal, including Marie-Reine Le Gougne, the French judge at its center, who had not spoken to anyone from the American media for 20 years."
That they interviewed the judge does not appear material to Lipinski's biography, so I've pared it down per my below comment. czar 09:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 72: Checks (But why do we need to cite Lipinski's description of the documentary? Are there no secondary sources?)
No there are not. This source was the best I could find for a minor documentary that aired on a minor streaming service.
Here is an AP News article. There are quite a few source options in terms of covering the basics. And if this truly is a "minor documentary", then it probably doesn't warrant four sentences of coverage, compared with the rest of the article. czar 03:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also it's still unclear why we need to quote Lipinski's opinion that her documentary was a "deep and responsible look" – this is something a general reader would assume about any documentary. Same goes for the redundant USA Today quote later in the paragraph that the documentary is "a deep look". czar 09:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quoting the sources. The insinuation is that Lipinski and USA Today agree that it's a deep look. It would be conjecture to state something like "USA Today agrees with Lipinski", so the current wording leaves that to the reader. And um, documentaries don't necessarily look at their subjects responsibly. Again, it's what the source states. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 71: E! News is NBC-affiliated—is there no other secondary source coverage of this documentary?
Again no, for the above reason.
This source and the Forbes source below are referencing basic descriptive details about the documentary. I don't see what they're offering that, say, Oxygen (used in the article) or USA Today provide and from a higher quality source. czar 03:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So why is Oxygen okay to use as a source and not E! News, when they're both basically entertainment sources? The Forbes source has already been removed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned E! because it was NBC-affiliated and publishing about an NBC documentary. But yes agreed that E! and Oxygen.com (already used in the article) don't necessarily have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This said, I wasn't going to press that. czar 18:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; the source's writer, Scott King, is an expert in the field of entertainment. Hanyu's FA also uses Forbes as a source.
That Forbes contributors are not reliable for statements of fact has been long established (per that link), so this isn't the place to rehash that topic. There should be plenty of other sources available for these statements if they are noteworthy. czar 03:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not really. But I removed the Forbes reference and tried to recreate the same content as per your insistance. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's been discussed over a dozen times at RSN. czar 18:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 69: aired on Chicken Soup for the Soul Studios Hm, how can this air on a production company? From the source, it looks like it aired on the Crackle streaming service?
Changed to: "...produced by"
  • fn 4 close paraphrasing – I think there's less to help with this one but at least the sentences could have been mixed:
    • source: "In June 2017, and after two years of dating, Lipinski tied the knot with sports producer Todd Kapostasy .... The duo had met in May 2015, when Lipinski presented Kapostasy an award at the Sports Emmys."
    • Wikipedia: "In June 2017, after two years of dating, Lipinski married sports producer Todd Kapostasy. They met in May 2015, at the Sports Emmys, when Lipinski presented Kapostasy an award."
I think it's fine too, so keeping as is.
Edited czar 17:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 4: not seeing mention of Saint Therese, Catholicism, nevertheless Lipinski crediting her with her win, or any mention of her hip surgery; only checks for the "short, but good" quote
Changed to make the referencing more clear.
This source is 20 years old, so it would be more accurate to say that at the time of her Olympic win, she had a devotion to St. Therese rather than implying that it continued over the last 20 years (unless we have such a source). The article also doesn't say she is Catholic. If it's implied in the source, we could similarly imply it in the article. czar 09:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the wording and removed the conjecture that Lipinski's still Catholic. You're right; there isn't anything more recent that supports it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't see this edited so did so here czar 18:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is just two paragraphs I chose at random. Has a nominating editor gone through every citation in the article already? I would expect to find more of these if not. czar 03:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I would expect that they would not, or at least not enough of an issue for this article to not pass to FA. This article, for some reason, has been through a level of scruntity I've never experienced in an FAC, but I've gone through the process because Lipinski, an important figure (har-har) in figure skating, deserves to have her WP bio be an FA. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is your scrutiny comment in reference to this source review or to the other reviews above? If the former, I'm surprised to hear it and would be happy to end my review here if you'd prefer another source review. I think my comments have been exceedingly fair given the number of referencing errors found in a single paragraph. This is exactly the standard why FA-quality candidates have their sources reviewed and spot-checked. czar 03:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar, at any rate, I've addressed the feedback in your responses. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reading the comments from Czar and it would be helpful if he could mark which of the comments have been fully addressed by Christine in his list and which comments are unaddressed in his list above. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can strike addressed citations but part of the point is that the issues were not isolated. Also some of the threads above are discussions so they won't be marked as "done". czar 09:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote #s below are from this version of the article, per above

  • fn 55: "instant chemistry" is a quote from Lipinski, not the reporter; also any connection between the reporter Tom Weir and the figure skater Johnny Weir? Both are introduced in the same paragraph so it is a coincidence worth acknowledging or recasting around.
Fixed attribution. I respectfully disagree that it's important enough to do anything about. Johnny is mentioned in the lead, anyway.
  • fn 54: The sentence order currently implies that they were in Sochi when Lipinkski and Weir had the realization that they work well together, and then made a change on the fly. The GQ interview (fn 54) says it was in the lead up to Sochi. Optional but that part about their first connection could be sourced to just GQ without any loss in quality.
Removed that it happened in Sept. 2014 when it clearly did not.
  • No action required: The Bleacher Report should generally be replaced as a low-quality source known for open blogging, but the byline does note that Tom Weird had covered multiple Olympics for USA Today, so I think okay to keep if the only place these contents are cited, but otherwise not a high-quality source
  • fn 65: What is this source's connection to the text? Looks like it's meant to be attached to the Kentucky Derby claim instead, if that sentence needs more references
Moved ref to correct place after the Derby sentence.
  • fn 11: She was the first woman to complete the jump combination in competition. This is an extraordinary claim that deserves a source farther removed than Lipinski's own op-ed. Neither the op-ed (fn 11) nor the other source (fn 4, Cosmo) mention it being her signature move.
Removed mention of sig jump in this phrase.
It's also mentioned in Tara Lipinski § Records and achievements and the lede czar 18:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 40: It's unclear why this opinion is being cited. There are plenty of sources that say flatly that the skating establishment reacted negatively to her going professional. If that's the point of this closing sentence, then a more authoritative source can be cited as a statement of fact without having to attribute an opinion to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette sports column.
Removed sentence.
  • fn 48 close paraphrasing:
    • Source: "She then transitioned to NBC and NBC Sports in 2011, where she has covered almost every international skating competition that has aired on the network."
    • Wikipedia: "... transitioned to NBC and NBC Sports in 2011, where she covered almost every international figure skating competition broadcast by the network."
Changed to: "She began commentating for Universal Sports in 2010 and in 2011, began working for NBC and NBC Sports, where she commentated most international figure skating competition broadcasts."
  • fn 48: For competitions not broadcast live The source says that "Unlike when she competed, figure skating commentators today call most events from remote studios far away from the live action", which would include live broadcast events. This part can be removed, but alternatively, does this sentence need to be mentioned?
You seem to think that the first part of the source's statement is important so I added it, thusly: "Unlike what was customary for skating commentators when she competed, she would call figure skating from studios in the U.S. instead of at the competition venue." I think it's important to keep the sentence because it describes Lipinski's working conditions. It also goes to the fact that skating commentators were working remotely for several years before they forced to due to COVID. I know no source states that, but with the current situation, I think it's important enough to mention, anyway.

I had asked above if someone familiar with the article can vouch for having gone through each citation before coming to FAC to confirm that the claims match the sources. From the examples above, that doesn't appear to be the case, so it would help for that to happen before continuing with spot checks, given the level of discrepancies exceeding FA guidance. czar 09:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation to Czar for this. As I'm an early supporter for the prose part of this article, I'll note that there are already three supporters for the prose of this article and a pass on the image review. Putting in an added effort for this source review from Czar would put this article into what appears to be realistic reach of moving towards promotion. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed Czar's most current comments. I agree that this FAC has more than enough supporters, but let me know what else I can do to bring this bio over the finishing line. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've since went through Czar's comments and re-addressed his comments and addressed what I missed. I will reiterate that this FAC still has more than enough supporters for it to passed to FA. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I need to be clear here that I, unfortunately, need to oppose on basic verifiablity issues, namely text–source integrity. Spot checks, such as those above, are meant to rubber stamp that the citation appropriately reflects the contents and repeatedly I have seen and shown that it does not. These spot checks were specifically requested by a FAC coordinator (@Hog Farm) above based on similar issues @Kavyansh.Singh had found in source verification. I have now twice suggested that a nominator or supporter at least review that all citations in the article match their sources before an outside reviewer such as myself is asked to perform another spot check. This is a standard expectation for preparedness before nominating an article for featured status.
That other editors have supported on prose (1a) is great but a separate matter if they have not also reviewed and supported on citation verification (1c). I would encourage those supporters to contribute to the citation verification if they are so willing. czar 18:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - I'm sorry, but given the continued issues with source-text integrity here, I will have to archive this nomination as not sufficiently prepared for FAC. Figureskatingfan - Please make sure these problems are resolved before renominating. Hog Farm Talk 18:57, 23 October 20

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) 13 October 2022 [28].

Abdollah Mirza Qajar

[edit]
Nominator(s): Amir Ghandi (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Abdollah Mirza, an Iranian prince of Qajar dynasty who was a poet and the governor of two provinces during his lifetime. I had nominated this before and I believe it was archived because it was so short, but there is barely any information on life to add. I have seen featured articles shorter than this so I don't think that's much of a problem. Thanks in advance for any reviewers. Amir Ghandi (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from AviationFreak

[edit]
  • Just as a note, the article would probably benefit from another image or two. Even a relevant map or something similar would be nice, but I know these things can be difficult to find and source.
  • due to complaints and dissatisfaction - Isn't this a bit redundant? Suggest either using a different second noun or only using one.
Deleted dissatisfaction
  • Unclosed parentheses when listing the reign of Mohammad Shah Qajar
Why? I thought years should be placed in closed parentheses
Yes - I agree that the style here looks good, but you have two opening parentheses and only one closing parenthesis - ...(r. (1834-1848)... AviationFreak💬 22:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Amir Ghandi (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • Probably worth stating that Baba Khan was crowned after his predecessor's assassination
Added it
  • Perhaps clarify who "Behzadi" is, especially as the name is not mentioned earlier
  • Same for Ardakani
I think I'm gonna delete 'the according to' for these two.
Gotcha. I believe similar phrasing was used for other authors later in the article, so that should be reworded/removed as well (if it's not already). AviationFreak💬 22:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added 'the modern historian' to those examples later in the article.
Amir Ghandi (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does rule of a particular province not also grant rule of cities within the province? I would recommend somehow textually differentiating Zanjan from the cities within.
The borders of a province were defined by the territory its ruler had. So, there wasn't a Zanjan province with today's borders. I added a cities in the sentence "rule the cities of Zanjan, Sojas, Sohrevard, Abhar, and Soltanieh."
  • If it's not broadly agreed-upon that he ruled over Khamseh province, it probably shouldn't be in the lede. Also doesn't appear to be as talked-about in the article as Zanjan.
Deleted it from the lead.
  • Because of his youth, Fath-Ali Shah appointed Mohammad Taqi Saheb Ali Abadi, his favorite poet, as Abdollah Mirza's regent. - It's certainly implied that we're talking about Abdollah Mirza's youth here, but maybe reword this bit? Also, link regent.
reworded it
  • Abdollah Mirza developed a taste in poetry because of his teachings. - In my first skim, I though "him" referred to Abdollah Mirza, but it looks like it refers to Ali Abadi.
Also reworded it.
  • Ali Abadi served as regent for Abdollah Mirza until 1819 when he returned to Tehran from his father's order. - Who returned to Tehran? What does it mean to return from his father's order? I think the use of pronouns in this section could be cleaned up a little. :)
Amended it.
  • The name of the mosque can be linked in the caption, along with maybe adding ", constructed during Abdollah Mirza's rule" or something similar
Done
Done
  • Naming should be consistent throughout an article - Should he be referred to as "Abdollah Mirza" (used until mention of 1810 valuables discovery) or simply "Abdollah"?
I'll go with Abdollah Mirza.
  • They discovered the tomb of Arghun Khan, Ilkhan of Ilkhanate and it was filled with gold and jewelry Abdollah Mirza brought the findings to Tehran and presented them to Fath-Ali Shah. - This is missing a period. The first sentence also is a bit clunky; suggest They discovered the tomb... which was filled with gold and jewelry.
Done
  • Include role/title of Abbas Mirza
Done
  • According to tradition
Done
  • Abdollah's family took a summer trip to Soltanieh. Fath-Ali Shah held a wedding party there for the new couple. can be condensed into one sentence by substituting the period with ", where"
Done
  • by his fathers order should have an apostrophe in "father's"
Done
  • Do we know anything about what the vassals complained to Fath-Ali Shah about, specifically? I know sources aren't always super specific but if we can get any better than just "complained", it would be great.
Unfortunately, there's nothing. Although, in the Appearance and skills section, James Edward Alexander says that he was cruel towards his subjects.
  • There's a jump from the subject accompanying his father on a trip to the father suddenly dying - maybe fill in a bit of context?
Done
  • Wouldn't the upcoming conflict be better referred to as a battle than a war?
Replaced with battle
  • They dispersed two hours before dawn and before any confrontation took place and Abdollah Mirza was forced to flee to Qazvin. - Three "and"s here feels like a run-on.
Amended it
Amended it
  • Unclosed parentheses when discussing name and reign of Mohammad Shah
Done
  • It's not super clear to me what happens in the last two sentences of this paragraph - How is Abdollah allowed to decide who is King of Iran if his brother has already taken control? Maybe I just haven't had enough caffeine yet this morning.
Replaced it with pledged allegiance.
  • Do we know how or where he died?
Only that he died in his sister's house
  • What is the significance of Divan-e Marathi?
  • MOS:SOB in "satire Mathnavi"
  • Last 2 sentences in paragraph can be condensed - "...satire Mathnavi about life of a balding person that Abdollah Mirza co-wrote with his brother..."
Changed the whole sentence to 'He also co-wrote a satirical mathnavi called Golnameh or Kalnameh about life of a balding person with his brother Mohammad Reza Mirza'
  • The idea of having an "appearance and skills" section seems a bit strange to me. Curious to hear what other editors think, but this could maybe be assimilated into the article somehow? The second paragraph also suffers from pronoun-specificity issues.
@AviationFreak: I think we can integrate James Edward Alexander's words into the 'Removal from Zanjan government' section as he explains that Abdollah Mirza was a cruel person and his subjects lived in misery. Any thoughts?
Yes, that seems to me like it would be a good reworking of the structure. AviationFreak💬 00:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done

Overall, a solid first FAC article. The prose is a little rough around the edges but otherwise looking good to me. AviationFreak💬 15:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking much better now. My only remaining quibbles are in the last section:
  • What is the significance of Divan-e Marathi?
Hi AviationFreak, there is not any significant to Divan-e Marathi, I just listed it among his other works.
Gotcha - I'd hesitate to include it just because it looks a bit out of place without any explanation of significance or content, but it's not a galring issue.
  • Suggest merging the two paragraphs as one is only a single sentence
Done
Happy to support upon these items being changed or discussed here. AviationFreak💬 15:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. AviationFreak💬 13:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • I haven't read the above - this is what I got......
  • "He had two children with his wife, Mohsen Mirza and Shams al-Molok" - suggest changing to "He had two children, Mohsen Mirza and Shams al-Molok, with his wife" as at first glance I thought Mohsen was his wife's name
Done
  • "When at the early reign of Mohammad Shah" => "When during the early reign of Mohammad Shah"
Done
  • "Agha Mohammad Khan was still the king" - why "still"? I would think just "Agha Mohammad Khan was the king" will suffice
Amended it
  • Wikilink Shah of Iran
Done
  • "Because of his youth, Fath-Ali Shah appointed Mohammad Taqi Saheb Ali Abadi,[1] his favorite poet, as Abdollah Mirza's regent" => "Because of Abdollah Mirza's youth, Fath-Ali Shah appointed Mohammad Taqi Saheb Ali Abadi,[1] his favorite poet, as regent"
Reworded it
  • Merge the para beginning "Abdollah Mirza's rule over Zanjan" with the previous one as it is very short
Done
  • " and it was filled with gold and jewelry" - full stop is missing at the end of this sentence
Done
  • "After this incident, Prince Hossein Ali Mirza Farman Farma, governor of Fars and brother of Abdollah Mirza immediately" => "After this incident, Prince Hossein Ali Mirza Farman Farma, governor of Fars and brother of Abdollah Mirza, immediately"
Done
  • "or according to Khatibi, 1812" - who is/was Khatibi?
A modern historian, changed it to 'according to another source'
  • "According tradition" => "According to tradition"
Done
  • "by his fathers order" => "by his father's order"
Done
  • "Mohammad Mirza (later known as Mohammad Shah (r. 1834-1848)" - you haven't closed the brackets opened before the word "later"
Amended it
  • "about life of a balding person" => "about the life of a balding person"
Done
  • "According to Behzadi" - who is/was Behzadi
A modern historian; added it in the article
Reworded it
@ChrisTheDude: I believe all points have been addressed. Amir Ghandi (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
Good with one link for each, but they should be linked at first mention in the article body, now it seems you kept the links at second mentions instead. FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it
  • Don't think lady needs to be linked, too unspecific.
Dislinked it
  • "Mother Kulthum Khanum Mazanderani" The article body doesn't indicate Mazanderani was part of her name?
Amended it
  • " By his order, the Jameh Mosque of Zanjan and Zanjan Government House were built. The Zanjan Bazaar was expanded as well." When?
Added the year for Jameh Mosque, but I don't know the year for the government house
  • "Abdollah Mirza married the daughter of Soleyman Khan Qajar Etezad ol-Dowleh" At what age?
Fifteen, added it to the article
  • "Abdollah Mirza had two children, Mohsen Mirza and Shams al-Molok, with his wife." Born when? And what happened to them?
Neither their birth date nor their fate is known
  • "During the Second Russo-Persian War" Any link?
Done
  • "fought Valerian Madatov " Present who he was for context?
Done
  • "In 1827, vassals complained to Fath-Ali Shah about Abdollah Mirza and the Shah removed him from the government" What did they complain about?
Nothing we know
  • "and pledged allegiance his nephew, Mohammad Shah" Allegiance to?
Done
  • "and died on that exact date, 18 June 1846" Any idea how?
Nope
  • Link f Fath-Ali Shah in the article body, now it's only linked in the intro. Everything linked in the intro should also be linked at first mention in the article body.
Done
  • "the 11th son of Fath-Ali Shah, king of Qajar Iran from 1797 to 1834" This only seems to be stated in the intro, which should not have unique info. Repeat it in the article body with source.
Done
  • Link Jameh Mosque of Zanjan in its caption.
Done
  • Why should his nephew become shah instead of one of his brothers? Isn't this against rules of succession?
Because Mohammad Shah was the eldest son of the former crown prince, Abbas Mirza. Add the information in the article
  • "Abdollah has been described as the prince of writers and poets." Only stated in the intro.
Deleted it.

@FunkMonk: I believe all of the points have been addressed. Amir Ghandi (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Starting with spotchecks; footnote numbers refer to this version:

  • FN 2 cites "During the Second Russo-Persian War, Abdollah Mirza moved to Ardabil with an army to help Abbas Mirza, the crown prince and his older brother. During the war, Abdollah Mirza fought Valerian Madatov, a veteran of both Russo-Persian wars, and successfully looted horses, guns, and supplies." Several of the details given are not in the source -- Madatov's first name and experience, and the mention of Abbas Mirza (Mohammad Vali Mirza is mentioned as his brother; perhaps they are the same person?). The source has "In the second Russo-Persian war, he was sent to Ardabīl with the army of Ḵamsa; there he raided the Russian forces under Madatov and captured horses, guns, and supplies." I think this is too closely paraphrased.
  • FN 2 cites 'Abdollah Mirza studied Islamic astronomy under his brother Mohammad Vali Mirza. Abdollah Mirza was also a writer and poet. He wrote poetry under the pseudonym "Dara"' The source has "He studied astronomy under his brother Moḥammad Valī Mīrzā" and "This prince was a witty and clever poet who used the taḵalloṣ Dārā." The first part is too closely paraphrased. The second part is OK, but why is "writer" added to "poet"? I don't see separate comments on non-poetic writings in the source.
  • FN 15 cites "The exact reasons why Abdollah Mirza was ousted are unknown, but according to James Edward Alexander, a Scottish soldier and traveller, who met him in 1821, Abdollah's character was greedy and tyrannical and his subjects were the most oppressed people in Iran. As a result of his government, people suffered from poverty and the temperament of plunder and shamelessness had prevailed over them." The source has "his disposition is exceedingly grasping and tyrannical. His peasantry are the most oppressed in Persia, and, as a natural consequence of this, they are the most insolent, and very much addicted to plundering." The paraphrasing is too close, but in any case we can't cite this 1821 travelogue source to say that the reasons Abdollah Mirza was ousted are unknown -- that's something that can only be commented on by a historian.

Oppose and suggest withdrawal to address these issues. Those are the only three sources that I have access to, and there are issues with all three. I think a full spotcheck is needed by someone with access to the sources before renominating. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I withdraw then. To be honest, I only translate this article from Farsi, and kinda hoped that the author there has sourced this rightly. Amir Ghandi (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Translating good quality articles is fine. But please, please don't nominate at FAC again unless you have checked every cite for source-text integrity. You may wish to consider looking for a FAC-savvy collaborator.
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) 13 October 2022 [30].

Lake Street Transfer station

[edit]
Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a double-decker elevated rail station. Chicago is a city (in)famous for keeping most of its rapid transit above-ground, and this was particularly the case before the 1940s and 1950s, when it didn't have any subways. A particularly striking example of this "L"-mania, coming about due to the competing rail lines of the 1890s, was when two lines, the Metropolitan and Lake Street Elevateds, crossed each other, making the Metropolitan have to cross over the Lake Street. This is the article about the station at that crossing, and the tracks surrounding it and the circumstances that led to its demise and replacement by a subway. This is my first time writing an article about transit despite being a lifelong railfan, but from what I understand I'll ping Lost on Belmont, Kew Gardens 613, and ZKang123 (the last of whom gave me advice to which I am indebted) as particularly appropriate prospective reviewers of this article. If this works out, I hope to also get a Four Award out of this. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

[edit]

More to come. Steelkamp (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elias / Your Power

[edit]

I know nothing about trains ... except for the fact that they get things moving I suppose ... so consider this a prose review from a beginner POV. Comments to come this weekend ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 06:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Your Power: You said you would comment on this two weeks ago, would you happen to have any comments on this? Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@John M Wolfson: I am an extremely forgetful person; really sorry that this flew under my radar! I was busy the past few weeks, but work is done for the week and now I have time to review this. Comments below; obviously feel free to point out short-sighted comments. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 08:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • An aside, but re. Steelkamp's question and the nom's response - "high-quality" usually entails that the author is a professional on the relevant field, or the website employs a rigorous editorial process. So to answer "what makes 'Chicago-L.org' a high-quality source" would be to provide the author's credentials. I think the response above is sufficient, but John, feel free to expound on that if you wish
  • The web sources here can use some Internet Archive links - I see that ref 1 has one but the others do not.
  • I think it would help to specify the Chicago "L" was a rapid transit system in the first sentence of the lead (and maybe the prose's first sentence as well), at least from the POV of a total outsider
  • "passengers would then" that "then" could be removed and the sentence would still retain its meaning
  • is there a MOS-based reason for why "Wood" and "Lake" are bolded on the lead?
  • "The transfer station was an amalgamation of two separate stations – Wood on the Lake Street Elevated, one block west of the site of the future transfer station on Wood Street, and Lake on the Metropolitan that was on the site – that had been constructed in 1893 and 1895, respectively" -> sentence is way too long and complex for comfort
  • I feel like the subsection for Wood station is too short that it can be merged with the one for Lake station. Both subsections deal with the transfer station's predecessors anyway, so the theme would be consistent
    • Not done, mostly to keep the redirect mentioned above, as well as to keep these stations conceptually separate. If others agree with you, however, I can change it. To your point, the subsections used to be longer before I migrated their details to the "station details" section. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on which the Metropolitan's station lay" the sentence is in past tense; that should be "laid" instead
  • "which operated one single line" -> redundant
  • "the Metropolitan had a main line" gives MOS:EASTEREGG-y vibes; I thought it was linked to Main line (railway) for a sec. Perhaps including "a" in the "Metropolitan main line" wikilink will solve the problem
  • "from downtown to Marshfield Junction, whereupon it split into three branches" this can be simplified into "where"
  • "one northwestern branch going to Logan Square (which in turn would have a branch into Humboldt Park), one going due west to Garfield Park, and one southwestern branch to Douglas Park." -> FAs must feature concise writing; we can remove the italicised words. Moreover we can change "into" to "to" so that the sentence has consistency
  • "Since this station crossed the pre-existing Lake Street Elevated" we already know that Lake Street Elevated was pre-existing because the prose gives events chronologically. There is no need to state it out loud

Will take a break from here. More to come ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 08:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

Comments from Lost on Belmont

[edit]

Image review

[edit]

I note that an image review has yet to be done.
Quick checking through the three images, all have descriptive alts, captions and freely licensed. No major concerns.
IR is a pass.-- ZKang123 (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "Plans to replace the Logan Square branch in the area, on which the Metropolitan's station lay, with a subway". A railway line was replaced by a subway?
  • With only one support four weeks after nomination I would be looking to time this one out. The open oppose rather forces my hand, so I am afraid that I am archiving. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 11 October 2022 [31].

Lumines: Puzzle Fusion

[edit]
Nominator(s):Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a 2004 Puzzle game originally released on the PlayStation Portable. It had received multiple revisions and ports along with sequels and spin-offs. The article covers in detail the original game and its revisions. The sequels and spin-offs are covered briefly but have their own article and intended to be summarized in detail in the Lumines article. This is the second nomination. It initially failed because of criteria 1a. I had since requested Guild of Copy editors to assist with the specific intent of getting it to Featured status. Baffle gab1978 assisted with the copy-edit and i had found all the edits satisfactory. I believe this time it meets Featured class.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies for leaving a message, but I just wanted to let you know that this FAC does not appear to be properly formatted. I am not sure how to correct it, but I just wanted to raise this to your attention. Aoba47 (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: I tried to format it manually. Sorry for the inconvenience.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No apology necessary. Thank you for addressing this point. Unfortunately, I will be unable to review this FAC, but I wish you the best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from VickKiang

[edit]
  • I'm worried by the statement that the game received "critical acclaim", which is inexact and bordering on failing MoS Words to Watch. This could be true, but it needs to be backed by multiple RS. IMHO, the usual ref for this designation is Metacritic, which needs 90+ score to label as so. For all aggregated scores on differing platforms, the reviews were only ""generally favorable", noted by the reception section. Without multiple cited refs supporting this, it seems to be bordering on OR and fails MoS words to watch, the closest I can find is an ABC kids video here, which doesn't seem to be enough to say it received acclaim.
  • Destructoid is listed situational on WP:VG/RS, better source?

Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang: I have removed the first Destructoid source and replaced it with Shacknews. the second Destructoid source was redundant and was removed without needing to alter the text. As for the mention of "critically acclaimed", I thought t was allowed so long as it was described as such by multiple sources. I have found 3 sources describing the game back as "critically acclaimed". [32][33][34]. I believe the only one that is promising to use is the Guinness World Record source. The others briefly mention the original Lumines as critically-acclaimed. Are any of these acceptable?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: I'd say no. On RSP, the ref (Guinness World Record) is situational, [editors] have expressed concern that post-2008 records include paid coverage. Because of paid coverage, I don't think saying critical acclaim is WP:DUE weight. VickKiang (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang: to simplify this situation, I removed both the Guinness record and the phrase for critical acclaim.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang: Have you been able to decide whether the article meets FA quality?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: More minor nitpicks:
  • In the original release subsection under reception, the opening is the same, Reviewers gave and Reviewers frequently, could we alternate the wording?
  • Here, why is IGN's reviewer mentioned when we could just state IGN? Some other WP articles attribute all reviews to its authors, but as this isn't the case here, IMHO, it should be trimmed.

More to come. 08:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

[edit]

Forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still...? :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, sorry. Lost my review in progress and got sidelined with IRL stuff. It's coming presently! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • General:
    • The structure of the gameplay section seems a little odd to me. The first paragraph lays out the basic setup, but only expressly states the objective of the game in the second one, which feels weirdly late. It also restates information about points and creating blocks after having introduced those concepts.
    • Likewise, you introduce the composers and talk about the music composition, but then rewind in time and talk about it again like it was just introduced.
  • Prose:
    • "The game sold over half a million copies in North America, Europe, and Japan, and earning the title "Best Handheld Game of 2005"." According to whom? (Also seems weird this is a new paragraph but it's never clarified that it's Lumines, just referred to as 'it' and 'the game'.)
    • "Progressing through the game modes unlocks skins, which can affect gameplay; fast tempos make it more difficult to create large combos and slow tempos may cause the playing field to fill more quickly while players wait for the time line to sweep across the screen."—I'm a bit confused what this means, since you said that skins were tied to stages before. Is there some free play or endless mode where these stages can be played? Or is this just for the Single Skin mode (which we don't hear about until later, which makes this part confusing?)
    • A bit weird, but you say Mizuguchi left Sega but later reference games that were published by Sega but developed by UGA; so it might be clearer to explain he left UGA versus Sega since that was the subsidiary where he created those games.
    • "Mizuguchi was inspired to make a puzzle game with music when he first learned about PlayStation Portable (PSP) technology." This reads weirdly to me, possibly because there's no definite article for PSP, or perhaps because it sounds like he's interested in the disembodied technology rather than the actual platform.
    • "In September 2005, mobile game-maker Gameloft announced it would release both Meteos and Lumines for cell phones." Why is it important in this article we know they were going to release Meteos?
  • Media:
    • I think File:Lumines Puzzle Fusion gameplay.gif is a good use of a GIF to give a better understanding than a single image of gameplay, but I'm not sure the 15 seconds given meets minimal usage as required by NFCC—it seems like you could easily make a <10 second version that has the same general info represented.
    • Other images seem fine.
  • References:
    • Source checks forthcoming.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 21, 22, 23, 25, 29, 39, 53, 57, 69, 71, 87, and 95.
      • In general you need more specific citation information. For multi-page articles or minutes-long video, you really need a timecode or page number (c.f. the manual with ref 2, Ref 7 or 11.)
      • Refs should be ordered in ascending order when placed next to each other.
      • The manual doesn't appear to adequately source "Lumines: Puzzle Fusion is a tile-matching video game similar to Tetris. The objective of the game is to arrange grouped blocks descending from the top of a 16×10 grid playing field to create single-color squares once they have landed", nor the shape and number of colors.
      • Ref 5 doesn't specify the high score limit is for challenge mode, it just says overall.
      • Ref 6 confirms the details of his departure, but doesn't say Mizuguchi founded the new company (it's just 'he's doing something new' in the article.)
      • I don't see where Ref 7 confirms development took a year?
      • Where does the manual confirm the order the songs are heard in?
      • Ref 17 doesn't relate the boss levels to the CPU Versus mode on the PSP, whereas the text does.
      • Refs 21–23 all together don't support the specific songs missing.

Given the number of issues I found, I think you need to go back through and double-check that citations aren't being used to support text that goes beyond what they say. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: Thanks for your review so far.
  • At the moment, I'll be applying all the fixes for Gameplay in my sandbox. I don't want to make too many small edits all at once. Maybe you can still provide your critique on the section as i make adjustments to ensure it is up to FAC standards. So far, I think we're almost there with the gameplay.
  • For your second point, can you clarify what section you're referring to? If you are referring to the "Development" section, I made changes so that the timeline of events makes more sense. As for the "lead", I went with the route of "Mention key staff first. development steps second".
  • Best handheld of 2005 was awarded by Spike TV awards and Electronic Gaming Monthly. I hope to add "by multiple media outlets" suffices. I added that it was also named one of the best games in 2005 by several publications. Which is verified in the Awards section.
  • The UGA/Sega situation is complicated. Rez is technically the only mentioned game they developed as a Subsidiary, Space Channel 5 was designed and released when they were still AM9 (not a subsidiary). UGA was dissolved first before Mizuguchi resigned from the company, so it won't be accurate to say he quit UGA. Although technically he resigned when his team merged with Sonic Team (a subsidiary company at that time), I think it's splitting too many hairs. For the most part, Rez and Space Channel 5 are still considered "Sega" games. I decided to add background information in the Development section notating he left Sega after they dissolved UGA.
  • I'm confused about your question. (PSP) is there so the article doesn't have to use "PlayStation Portable" repeatedly. Mizuguchi was interested in developing a game involving music on the PSP platform because of its technical properties of being a portable gaming device with a headphone jack, which he claims there weren't many at the time.
  • I was trying to condense it to 10 seconds originally, but it was pretty difficult trying to luck out on showing both skin transitions, and how the special blocks work. I'll try to do it again.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 08:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The draft gameplay section looks much clearer, thank you. My issue is "PlayStation Portable (PSP) technology" sounds clunky and redundant and starts raising questions about what specific part of the PSP he was interested in and whether or not he would have tried to develop the game if whatever criteria weren't met. You can just say "Mizuguchi was inspired to make a puzzle game with music when he first learned about the PlayStation Portable (PSP)." and it avoids that problem. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- David Fuchs - Anything further coming here? Hog Farm Talk 22:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

More than five weeks in and no sign of movement towards a consensus to promote. Unless this nomination attracts significant further support over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Anarchyte

[edit]

Reserving a spot. Will review within the next day or so. Anarchyte (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • One of the first things I noticed when reading through was that in the Sales and awards, it's not clear how Lumines plays into the PSP bug. "In 2007, hackers discovered a bug that allowed them to install any program to the PSP's firmware". This should be expanded using the Engadget article to explore this bug in more depth. At the very least, the sentence should refer to the relevance Lumines has.
    • In a similar vein, a timeframe should be provided to give clarity as to whether June 29, 2007 is a quick resolution of the bug.

Will continue shortly. Anarchyte (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments:

  • The objective of the game is to rotate and drop 2×2 groups of blocks to create single-color 2×2 squares - not clear without looking at the gameplay gif that the blocks have random colours. Consider "groups of bicolored blocks" or similar (bicoloured may lead to the confusion that the blocks themselves are two colours).
  • reviewers described it as addictive and compared it with Tetris - is this comparison for the addictiveness or the gameplay?
  • The reviewers' comparisons of Tetris vary in what they focus on. So I can't say what the overall aspect they're looking at. All I verify without original research is that it is a patterned comparison. Do you think I should word that differently?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • disappointed with the lack of an online-multiplayer mode - to me, this complaint seems out of place as the article has not mentioned multiplayer yet. By reading the lead, I was under the impression this game was purely singleplayer. The previous sentence discusses missing features present in the original. Is this another one of those?
  • I don't think the article explains this well enough then. A search for "multiplayer" in the article does not return any hits until #Reception, and #Gameplay is the only other bit that mentions PvP. #Development needs to be expanded to outline where multiplayer was introduced and #Gameplay needs to explain which modes are in which versions. Anarchyte (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Anarchyte: Lumines: Puzzle Fusion (including ports and remasters) offers offline multiplayer between two players. The reviewers are upset that they did not introduce any online multiplayer for the Remaster. I looked everywhere and there is no additional development information that I can immediately find regarding Multiplayer. And I hope that's not a problem. I'm willing to add the differences between ports and remasters.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's an issue that the Development section does not cover the differences in versions. It does not need to be overly detailed, but an FA-class article should not be missing information; by excluding (whether intentionally or otherwise) the differences between versions, the reader won't be able to distinguish why the critics are complaining. Gameplay should be an easy fix: the final paragraph just needs to note which versions lack specific gamemodes. Development might be harder. Anarchyte (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A single-color square is created when grouped blocks form a 2×2 shape of matching color with additional blocks to create larger shapes with overlapping squares - quite wordy and not entirely clear. I understand what it's trying to say, but only because of the aid from the gif.
  • I may need some help with better wording. For now, I broke it down into two sentences to reduce the wordy-ness of it. I also ommitted "overlapping squares".
  • that was less daunting for players than his earlier titles - not sure "for players" is necessary.
  • He purchased several PC software packages - should mention that these are music software packages or expand to mention Photoshop being used to edit the graphics.
  • Mondo Grosso - "performed under the stage name Mondo Grosso" or cut the parentheses, unless this is common practice (I'm unsure).
  • The use of the 4/4 time signature allows 16 eighth notes to correspond to two bars - unclear relevance.
  • similar to "Vs. CPU" on the PSP - in #Gameplay, this gamemode is called "Versus". Consider "similar to the CPU Versus mode on the PSP".
I think that's a good choice.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Release does not mention the omitted gamemodes mentioned in the lead and criticised in #Reception.
  • Reviewers gave the gameplay a positive reception. - summative statement, needs citations. Same issue with some other leading sentences.
  • I added multiple refs on the summative statements. Although I think it's easy to see that Lumines Plus received less favorable reviews just by comparing the Metacritic scores. I opted to simply say it received "mixed or average" reviews according to Metacritic. Hopefully, it's not necessary to mention all the Metacritic scores for the ports and remaster.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pocket Gamer complimented the single-player mode, stating; comparing the quality of the game to class A drugs. - stating or comparing?
  • reaches the rank - not fond of "the rank".
  • The article misappropriates what the reviewer is saying then: "Tetsuya Mizuguchi's stylishly eccentric Lumines joins the ranks of Tetris and Bejeweled as the newest game you can't stop playing". Consider replacing "reaches the rank" with "is as addictive as". Anarchyte (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • and noted songs from the original were missing - "and expressed disappointment that songs from the original were missing".
  • IGN's reviewer - first time a website's reviewer has been singled out. Unclear why.

Anarchyte (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte: hopefully the changes are satisfactory. I'm very much open to suggestions on the gameplay.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: I've replied above. I also think "the" should be added before instances of the word PlayStation. See articles like Super Mario 64 that say "the Nintendo 64". Consoles typically have a definitive article, while operating systems do not. Outside of these comments, my primary concern is that the article does not distinguish enough between the versions. #Gameplay implies that all versions have all the game modes listed. This is misleading. Additionally, #Development does not explicitly state the differences outside of the soundtracks. Once these sections have been expanded, I'll have another read. Anarchyte (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchyte: The Development section doesn't mention any differences because the Development section is focused on the development of the original PSP version. I moved the gameplay differences between versions in the Gameplay section as requested, but that's about all the differences there. I don't know how to add information in the Development section without being redundant to the "Sequels and Spin-off" section.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Development needs to discuss all releases and platforms of Lumines: Puzzle Fusion. Of course, the PSP release will take up the majority of the content, but if other versions of Puzzle Fusion have been released that don't warrant their own article, this article needs to address them. Look at Cave Story for an example. In that article, the ports are given their own section and then the differences are outlined. There may not be enough for a section for each here, but it's something to consider. I've made an adjustment to the wording in Gameplay that should relieve some confusion, as the recent addition introduced conflicting information about how the number of game modes. For an example of an FA that discusses other, less important game modes, consider looking at League of Legends or Freedom Planet. Note how those articles discuss the core concepts of the game (as you have done here), but then explore different modes. What you can do now that I've added "In the original release of Lumines: Puzzle Fusion" to #Gameplay is add sentences like "In later re-releases and remasters, some game modes were omitted." and "Some re-releases also included new game modes...". #Development can then explore them in more depth. There shouldn't be any duplication with Sequels and follow-ups because that section talks about the games that followed Lumines: Puzzle Fusion, not the later released versions of the same game. Anarchyte (talk) 07:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchyte: I followed Cave Story's structure while following your direct recommendations. Let me know if I missed anything.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You do not have a source for "Later re-releases and remasters added new game modes or made omissions" and gameplay still needs to explain the new game modes. Anarchyte (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte: I guess before I make anymore edits, I would like more details on what you prefer in the layout. You want both #Gameplay and #Development to cover gameplay changes, am I understanding you correctly? How would you like that to be organized while avoiding redundancy? In detail, please.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. Gameplay should cover the game modes and Development should cover which versions have each game mode. Aspects that relate solely to the experience of playing the game should be in Gameplay while content that discuss the changes and differences between platforms and versions should be in Development. For example, this is currently in development: "The Steam version contains 21 unlockable skins, and Time Attack, Puzzle, and Mission modes". Gameplay now needs to explain these game modes (Mission is currently missing). I suggest restructuring the game mode discussion to something like: "The original release of Lumines: Puzzle Fusion had [number] game modes: [list]. [explain the original modes]. Later releases introduced new games modes for a total of [number] game modes, though some of these releases also omitted past game modes. The new game modes are [list]. [explain new game modes]." Obviously this can be reworded, but I think something like this will demonstrate to the reader that there are differences between the versions and that if they want to learn more, they can read the Development section. The Ports section was a great addition. Anarchyte (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchyte: #Gameplay now goes into detail about each new game mode that wasn't in the original PSP. #Ports summarizes which game modes were added and excluded for each version with less description.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Time Attack and Single Skin are not supported by ref5. Please confirm whether these were in the original game or added later. Anarchyte (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchyte: GameSpot review technically does mention time attack. For some reason they chose to rename it time trial. I replaced it with Eurogamer's review. I added IGN's review to cover the summative sentence of the game modes.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Anarchyte, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild: I don't believe the prose reaches the level required for FA at this current time. I'd go through and try to copyedit it but I'm concerned that the article still lacks content. For instance, IGN gives priority to two gamemodes (calling them "the two main modes of play") but this article gives no such distinction. Other statements like "The maximum score in the game is 999,999 points" in the article are ambiguous; I'm not sure whether this relates to Challenge or the entire game. For this nomination, I unfortunately oppose. The article is closer to FA quality than before the nomination, but it's not there yet. Anarchyte (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte: I am aware that IGN casually brought up Challenge and Vs CPU as "main modes" but this is very subjective and no other source highlights both of them as the main mode. Eurogamer only highlights Challenge mode, while other modes are considered a "distraction" including Vs CPU. GameDaily also mentions that the most important game mode is Challenge as well. I avoided highlighting which ones were the "main" mode because the sources weren't direct and I didn't want to assume what they meant.

As for the 999,999 "ambiguity". There is no ambiguity. It erroneously mentioned that the high score limit was specific to Challenge mode. I fixed it by removing it. The high score cap is there for the game in all game modes that records scoring. Im sorry if the erroneous information gave false pretenses.

If you believe its ambiguous to mention at all, it can be removed.

As for missing content, what do you believe is missing?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 999,999 score sentence is still positioned such that it can be confused as being specific to Challenge mode. Also, regarding primary game modes, I've found various Lumines Remastered sources that say Challenge is the "main mode" (PCMag, official website). Unfortunately I'm just not convinced that meets WP:FA?1b. Outside of this, some of the wording is still inconsistent. "Mobile phones" is used in the infobox and the lead, but then "cell phones" is used elsewhere. Anarchyte (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchyte: Isn't cell phone and mobile phone allowed to be interchangeable? I originally stuck with "mobile phone" but when I opened this to the guild of copyeditors specifically to meet FAC (initial failure of 1a), the copyEditor opted to alternate between the two. I reverted back to just "Mobile phone".
I moved the scoring back to an area in #Gameplay not involved. I could've sworn in earlier revisions I had it exactly where i moved it to. And lastly, considering IGN and PCMag both highlight Challenge as the main mode, I added that in. I was told a long time ago I wasn't allowed to use first party sources for FA articles such as official sites, and that everything needed to be verified through reliable strong third party sources. I'm now questioning a lot of my early advice.
Failing 1b is hard for me to swallow. I believe at least 99% of all major facts and details are in this article. What "major fact" is missing? I would hate for this to fail for the 1% that can be easily added in or verify it doesnt exist. Some information in previous FAC was omitted because it was difficult to interpret too. So theres that.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchyte: I added in the last possible information I can find that I think is the missing 1%. So at this point I believe I got 100% of info. But that's all I have so far.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I referenced 1b because there are sources that explain some important components of the game and the development in more detail that the article lacks. For instance, "which alternates between time signatures 5/4 and 3/4" means nothing to those that don't then open up the source to find that "For every two bars, the meter averages out to 4/4, which works out just right for the game". Another example is "Nakamura wanted the songs to be enjoyable, even though parts of them were missing during gameplay" whereby the source expands, saying "The flow of songs in Lumines has to feel good even if a part of it is missing. [...] The music changes. But even with those changes, it has to feel like a complete song". The source is discussing the music during gameplay, not the songs themselves. The article would be better off saying something like "Nakamura intended for the background music during gameplay to feel complete despite the song changes". A third example is in the same source where he says "The style of Lumines' music was originally more techno or electronica, but I really see it more as ambient music". The article doesn't mention ambient music once. My concern is that the underlying core information is in the article, but more exploration can be included. Anarchyte (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchyte: Some of the information was directly ommited due to being too ambiguous or their explanations being easy to interpret. No one liked the wording I used initially in past reviews, and no one found a solution of how to properly interpret the information. And in tight situations, like GAN and FAC, difficult to decipher content just ended up not being omitted because no one knew what the authors meant exactly. If you see earlier versions of the article, it had some of this information. There was even info that directly referenced the subtitle "Puzzle Fusion" too but ended up being trivial in a past FAC. It's information I personally would've loved to keep in the article. I can add it back in, and see if you can copyedit it to FA standards?
Only because I'm extremely familiar with the game, the "two bars" Nakamura is referring to is specifically the cycles of the Time Line as music bars. I don't know if we should refer to them exactly as Nakamura explained it and easy to understand for the average reader.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchyte: I re-reviewed every source and re-added back information about the title meaning. One of the sources is just the web page that originally housed the video from GameSpy. IGN reuploaded it on their youtube channel, so I don't know what's better. I'm open to copy editing. I don't have a lot of time to edit articles, so I try my best to squeeze in as much time as possible. After all these edits so far, do you still feel it fails criteria 1b?.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 08:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking better now. I'll rescind my oppose and let other editors determine whether to promote. I still think the article needs a good copyedit before I am willing to support. Anarchyte (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte: well I'm happy to make further copy edits if you see any problems.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than just a few sentences needing changes. With all the new additions, I suggest requesting another GOCE edit. Anarchyte (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchyte: This was a problem in past FAC too.Even after multiple copy-edits that were requested, it them falls on requesting from GOCE without context or even an idea of what is wrong with the new information added in. Youve done some copyediting yourself too to the article. It's discouraging because this is the one and only time in Wikipedia where editors tell me its broken or subpar but dont have a criteria to actually guide me to do better.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from ProtoDrake

[edit]

There isn't much here that stands out, but some points that stood out.

  • "In September 2005, mobile game-maker" - Are you sure "developer" or "game studio" wouldn't work better? Just a suggestion, not essential.
  • Unless it's mentioned and discussed somewhere else, I'm wary of including red links in the prose.
  • Maybe use fewer quotes and more paraphrasing in the reception, but again that's personal preference.

--ProtoDrake (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from CR4ZE

[edit]

I'm sorry.

From a full read-through of the article, and of the concerns raised in the commentary above (especially those of Fuchs and Anarchyte), I find the prose and comprehensiveness not up to standard. Here's some examples taken throughout, but note this is not an exhaustive list:

Clunky prose
  • "to play for the entire play session"
  • Overuse of "specifically" in para 4 of Gameplay.
  • "allows players to play"
  • "a personal computer PC"
  • "He experimented with rhythms that synchronized with the game's time line bar and with pacing the gameplay to match the speed of the time line"
  • "By the time ports for additional platforms were released, several sequels and spin-offs had been made available; music and gameplay from those new games were incorporated into the ports"
  • "enables the use of"
  • "distributed as a limited release" not even sure what this means.
  • "1Up.com also criticized the intermittent silence between songs and expressed disappointment that songs from the original were missing. However, they praised the addition of skins from Lumines Live and Lumines II, calling it a "Lumines greatest hits"
  • "Despite having an overall positive response, some reviewers were disappointed in the absence of introducing an online multiplayer feature."
Prose that uses passive voice
  • "Additional score bonuses are earned by clearing the playing field or reducing the remaining blocks to a single color"
  • "His goal for the background music was for it to feel complete and enjoyable to listen to despite it changing during gameplay"
Prose with redundancies
  • "Grouped blocks have a 2×2 shape and vary between two colors" and "a single-color square is created when grouped blocks form a 2×2 shape of matching color" are almost the same thing verbatim.
@Cr4ZE: the grouped blocks are the blocks the player controls during its descent and they happen to be in a 2x2 formation, but they vary between two colors. The single-color squares are the blocks that have landed and form "matching color" is in a 2x2 arrangement. I wish there was an easier way to describe this game. But the reviewers arent consistent with verbiage and the official word choice confused editors.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Additional blocks of matching color can be added to create larger shapes" something that's "additional" "can be added"?
  • fixed
  • "At the time of the development of the prototype" of the of the. Why not "During the prototype's development"?
  • fixed
  • "The music and skins were simultaneously developed; the music had to be completed before the skins were finalized"
  • "Ports for multiple platforms, each with its revisions, were also released" why is the word "also" being used in the opening sentence for a new paragraph? Moreover, why is the word "also" being used at all?
  • "Also" is used to connect two related things. A new section can't have an "also" in the opening sentence because it's supposed to be standalone. If the phrasing were "Lumines was released on the PSP. Other ports for multiple platforms, each with its own revisions, were also released", it would be fine. Anarchyte (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Opportunities to improve flow
  • "The game was..."/"The game was..." in para 1 of Development.
  • fixed
  • The same year does not need to be stated twice in a row (throughout Ports and Lumines Remastered especially).
  • "Game Informer said the visuals are less vibrant..." why is this clause fragmented by a semicolon?
  • Look for instances of repetition or similar phrasing. There are several across the different sections.
I'll take a look. Phrasing can be a bit subjective so i may not end up seeing the words you see. Lets hope i do.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of comprehensiveness
  • There are 55 critical reviews for the original PSP version on Metacritic. Naturally, many of these would not be reliable enough to meet Wikipedia standards. However, at 250 words, the critical review summary's length feels alarmingly thin. Much of the critical reception reads "Reviewer A liked X", "Reviewer B said Y". The music, which constitutes a large portion of Development as well as a standalone section, is not examined anywhere close to the level of depth I'd have expected.
  • A lot of the reviews I do want to use are not available to me since they are physical media. But I can definitely add more that are verifiable and accessible. I wish reviewers were more in detail with the music. In previous revisions of the article, there was an attempt to highlight more music witha. Few snippets of quotes but past FACs have demanded to reduce the trivial quotes.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Perusing the revision history reveals some pretty substantive additions being made over these few weeks. An article should be as close to comprehensive as possible before nomination.
  • Not much on sales, which isn't your fault, but the bulk of the paragraph here deals with a bug exploit that caused a temporary spike in Amazon downloads. This information feels really tacked-on for the sake of it.
the point was only to highlight the Amazon sales, but reviewers demanded more information about it. You can see such demand in this very FAC and in previous.

A full copy-edit would indeed be beneficial here, but is not in the spirit of what an FAC is supposed to be. I think this would best serve the article if taken outside of the pressures of an FAC, with the contributors and/or copyeditors working together to make a truly great article, which I fully believe they are capable of. Unfortunately, taken in its current state, I would oppose this candidacy based on 1a & b. — CR4ZE (T • C) 12:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually prefer the pressures of the FAC. You have no idea how little assistance this article gets. I've asked for help multiple times and I get ignored every time. It takes one FAC at a time to actually get real advice. At the same time I also see conflicting advice too, but it's worth it. Once the FAC closes, none of the editors who participated in the review want to help make the article better. I understand if you still choose to oppose.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for your efforts to resolve the specific points raised above. Your diligence and persistence is commendable.
If I may, I'd like to give my 2¢ going forward. Engaging multiple different copyeditors with different preferences and editing styles may do an article more harm than good. I deduce that may have played a part here. There are multiple alternative avenues that may merit better results. The first would be to take the onus upon yourself to improve your own prose writing. See the following: WP:CRS, Fuchs' guide, Tony's guide, Andy's guide, WP:REDEX. I'm certain there's more. Read FAs similar to the one you're trying to write. Try to apply what you've learned to your own style. Then, open up a peer review before renominating. Engage with a mentor through the process. You can't just rely on others to step in, and that often creates mixed results. If writing quality is consistently being broached by others, there may be opportunities for learning. Your comment about reviewers not wanting "to help make the article better" is not assuming good faith. For what it's worth, either way this FAC closes, I'd be happy to offer further review.
I made my assessment based on my own reading of the article, as well as the concerns raised by other editors above. While some of your edits have certainly improved the article, I'm not comfortable reconsidering my opposition at this stage. Other changes made have merely substituted weak writing with other weak writing. There have been substantive changes to the article's content over the course of this FAC, and a recommendation from another editor that more copy-editing is necessary. I'll leave it up to the coordinators to weigh my oppose in context with the other comments (including supports) above. — CR4ZE (T • C) 15:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd assume with FACs, you really don't have that much room for conflicting styles in editing. If you wish to help get this article after the FAC, that'd be great. I'm honestly burned out after every FAC. Even trying to get GA was hard. And most of my articles arent that difficult to get them to GA.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly there is a gulf between what is needed for GAN and that for FAC. It is a pity that MilHist seems to be the only project with an active and functional A class review process. Blue Pumpkin Pie did you follow the advice at the head of the FAC oage? "Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination." (Emphasis in original.) In any event, after two months this has had a lot of work done on it and shows no sign of garnering a clear consensus for promotion, so I am archiving it. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 9 October 2022 [35].

Mount Garibaldi

[edit]
Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 03:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a dormant volcano in Canada that partially erupted onto glacial ice during the last glacial period. It has been improved greatly since the last time it was at FAC in 2008, two years after I became a registered Wikipedian. Mount Garibaldi is one of Canada's best known volcanoes and Natural Resources Canada considers it to be one of the country's highest threat volcanoes due to its location near the populated southwest corner of British Columbia (e.g. Vancouver, Squamish, Whistler, Brackendale). Volcanoguy 03:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

JJE's review

[edit]

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Airship

[edit]

I'm not a geologist in the slightest, so this will probably just be a review of the prose.

  • "The northern and eastern flanks of Mount Garibaldi are obscured by the Garibaldi Névé. This is a large snowfield containing several radiating glaciers." would one sentence be preferable?
  • What's a "scarp"? A wikilink would be nice.
  • "fans out in the Squamish Valley" into instead of in, perhaps?
  • "the primary volcanic rock comprising Mount Garibaldi" awkward, please rephrase. Don't think either of the words "primary" or "comprising" are the most precise.
  • "If this were to happen, relief efforts may be quickly organized." Fairly redundant sentence.
    • Reworded to "If this were to happen, relief efforts could be organized by teams such as the Interagency Volcanic Event Notification Plan who are prepared to notify people threatened by volcanic eruptions in Canada." Volcanoguy 00:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " involve traversing glaciers, snow slopes or loose rock. Mountain climbing hazards include crevasses, avalanches and rockfalls." this somehow seems to be saying the same thing twice.
  • I must inquire as to whether the biogeography section is fully necessary — it seems almost entirely reliant on one source, and most of its information only seems indirectly related to the volcano itself.
    • Given that there's no biogeographic information about the volcano itself it doesn't hurt mentioning the areal biogeography. What's in the local ecoregion is what is at the mountain. Volcanoguy 21:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mount Garibaldi is a moderately dissected stratovolcano" is there a link for 'dissection' (whatever it is) as a process?
  • I have taken the liberty of wikilinking Giuseppe Garibaldi in the body.
  • Two of the coordinates in the recreation facilities section are identical. Are the coordinates really necessary?
  • The table of grade and class explanation isn't necessary—a simple explanation in the body would suffice.

Prose is generally good, although perhaps slightly too punctuated at times. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AirshipJungleman29, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can support now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eewilson

[edit]

Support: I have given the article a thorough prose and content review and give my thumbs up for it to move to FA status. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "The northern and eastern flanks of Mount Garibaldi are obscured by the Garibaldi Névé. This is a large snowfield containing several radiating glaciers." These sentences could probably be combined: "The northern and eastern flanks of Mount Garibaldi are obscured by the Garibaldi Névé, a large snowfield containing several radiating glaciers."
  • "Flowing from the steep western face of Mount Garibaldi is the Cheekye River, a tributary of the Cheakamus River." Perhaps: "On the steep western face of Mount Garibaldi is the Cheekye River, a tributary of the Cheakamus River." Removes "flowing" from this sentence, as "lava flow" was in the sentence directly before.
  • Should "scarp" be Wikilinked to something? Wikipedia has two articles from the DAB page "Scarp" that could apply: "Cliff" and "Escarpment". If you link here, remember to link on first instance in the main as well.
  • "The first period of volcanism that led to the construction of Mount Garibaldi commenced between 260,000 and 220,000 years ago with the formation of an ancestral cone that was subsequently destroyed." – Perhaps: "Mount Garibaldi construction commenced between 260,000 and 220,000 years ago with the formation of an ancestral cone that was subsequently destroyed."
  • "Another period of growth began with the eruption of Atwell Peak..." – Perhaps: "Another growth period began with the eruption of Atwell Peak..."
  • "After the ice sheet disappeared..." – "After the ice sheet melted..."? or "After the ice sheet dissipated..."? Disappeared sounds a bit like magic. Your call on that.
  • "...with the eruption of lava from Dalton Dome and Opal Cone" – Could this be "...with eruptions from Dalton Dome and Opal Cone"?
  • "Although the mountain is not known to have experienced a volcanic eruption since that time, it could erupt again..." – maybe just "it could again" as "erupt" is implied within the context of the sentence.
  • "...which would potentially endanger the nearby populace." – "...which could endanger the nearby populace" would give the same meaning (probably) and more succinctly.
  • "If this were to happen, relief efforts may be quickly organized." – "may be" or "would be" or "could be"?
  • "They have passed down several stories regarding the mountain, including one involving the great flood." – perhaps replace with "Their oral history includes a story of the mountain and the great flood."
  • "Several mountaineers had climbed Mount Garibaldi by the early 1900s, some of which were members of..." – pretty sure it should be "some of whom", as "who" is for people and "which" is for things.
  • "Attempts at creating a ski resort at Mount Garibaldi began in the 1960s." – perhaps "A ski resort was begun in the late 1960s, but developments were halted in 1969 due to financial difficulties." This gives the "lead-only" readers a succinct sentence about the dead resort and doesn't leave them hanging.
  • I know the Oxford comma is not required and is main writer's preference. I do find the final lead sentence difficult to follow without it. Not sure if there is a solution. "...Brohm Ridge and the Diamond Head parking lot at the end of Garibaldi Park Road." Took me four reads, most likely my problem.
  • "The non-indigenous name of the mountain was given by George Henry Richards in 1860, who named it in honour of the Italian patriot and soldier Giuseppe Garibaldi."
Perhaps "The non-indigenous name of the mountain was given by George Henry Richards in 1860 in honour of the Italian patriot and soldier Giuseppe Garibaldi." – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 17:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

  • Do we also link first time in the main even though something was Wikilinked in the Lead? I thought we did. If so, some links may be needed in this section.

I'll have more later. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of these changes look great! Still working on other parts. More this weekend. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geography (continued)

Subfeatures

  • "The eastern side of Mount Garibaldi contains a peak known as The Tent." The other subfeatures have a bit of description. Could you add that to this sentence, or a sentence directly following it, about The Tent?
Okay. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biogeography

Okay, think on that. If you do, you can pull most of what's in here about it out into that. Doesn't have to be fancy. Then you can put a short blurb in here and Wikilink. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessary to move the Pacific Ranges Ecoregion paragraph into its own article if that's what you're suggesting. There's enough information about the Pacific Ranges Ecoregion to create a good sized article. The "Biogeography" section is merely background information. I could retitle it to "Biogeographic background" or just "Background" if that would be more appropriate. Volcanoguy 23:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may need to be broken up somehow; let me look again. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think Pacific Ranges Ecoregion is something that would be referenced or repeated in other articles, whether on volcanoes or other topics? Would it be something that could go in the article on Pacific Ranges and accessed via a redirect that could be linked to in this article so that the entire explanation/description of it is not included in this one? I am thinking of summary style and scope both here. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do think the Pacific Ranges Ecoregion is something that would be referenced or repeated in other articles, at least articles about features that are mentioned in the given source (Mount Garibaldi being one of them). It could certainly be mentioned in the Pacific Ranges article but I'm not sure about a redirect because the ecoregion is not limited to the Pacific Ranges; it also extends into the Cascade Range in Washington state. Volcanoguy 02:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you do that? Pull it out and put it in the Pacific Ranges article? Then link to that. A redirect isn't necessary if you think it's not a good idea. I did envision a section in that article about the ecoregion and a redirect to the section, but that's not necessary either if it wouldn't work as its own section. If you will commit to adding it to that article and pull it out of this article now with a Wikilink link to Pacific Ranges and just a quick summary, the same as what you would have in once it's in that article, I could review that change and then go ahead and render my approval. If it's not a big deal just to toss it in the Pacific Ranges article, doing that asap would be awesome. What do you think? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Pacific Ranges article is still Start class, so anything added there would be a help, and I think the Ecoregion could have a section right after the Geology section. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not pulling anything out of the article. I'm not sure why you're making a big deal over that one paragraph. The Pacific Ranges Ecoregion surely does belong in this article because Mount Garibaldi is part of that ecoregion just like it's part of the Eastern Pacific Ranges Ecosection, the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt, the Garibaldi–Garibaldi Lake volcanic field, etc, which are all mentioned in the article. Why should the ecoregion be pulled out while everything else Mount Garibaldi is a part of stays in? It doesn't make any sense. Obviously Mount Garibaldi is an important feature of the Pacific Ranges Ecoregion if it's mentioned in the given source. Volcanoguy 23:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the problem is that it seems to veer off topic, but I could be wrong. Let me look at it yet again. I hear your frustration, and I would feel it if the tables were turned. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! You're right, and I'm good with it. I paid it even a much closer attention this time. For some reason it was not sinking in to me that this is background information even though it clearly says it. Thank you for your patience. I approve and will state such at the top of my section. Great article, Volcanoguy. Keep up the great work! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Anything larger than the Pacific Ranges Ecoregion would probably veer off topic. That's why I didn't write a paragraph about the Coast and Mountains Ecoprovince or the Humid Maritime and Highlands Ecodivision. Volcanoguy 09:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Geology

Check. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you put a few words to explain what it is? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an explanation in the article. Volcanoguy 04:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dacites from a flow remnant at the western end of Alice Ridge...." Should it be "Dacites form a flow remnant at the western end of Alice Ridge...."? Or maybe not. The full sentence is hard to follow. I think you are saying that the dacites were created from these three things or possibly that they are located there. Regardless, can you reword that full sentence to clarify what you mean?
Check. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think what the source was trying to explain is that the eroded remains of a dacitic lava flow are found at the western end of Alice Ridge, Columnar Peak and Mount Garibaldi, but I'm not sure. Volcanoguy 01:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can't interpret, so just report as best you can. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several Peléan pyroclastic flows (consisting of a super-heated mix of gas, ash and pumice) accompanied these cooler avalanches, forming a fragmental cone with an overall slope of 12–15 degrees (erosion has since steepened this slope)." I don't think that what is in parentheses needs to be in parentheses. The part about erosion could be in its own sentence.
    • I've reworded this sentence to "Several pyroclastic flows generated by Peléan eruptions accompanied these cooler avalanches, forming a fragmental cone with an overall slope of 12–15 degrees; erosion has since steepened this slope." Volcanoguy 07:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "resulting in a series of landslides between 12,800 and 11,500 years ago that removed nearly half of the volcano's volume into the Squamish Valley." Perhaps "moved" instead of "removed"?
Check. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Human history

Okay. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification here – does "American party" mean a party from the United States, and if so, can you say the first United States party? Or does it mean the first non-Indigenous Peoples group? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first United States party. Volcanoguy 00:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Saw the change. Looks good. Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"It was designed by..." or something similar. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 21:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation facilities

Check. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bunk beds for 33 people" How can you have bunk beds for an odd number of people when bunk beds are, by definition consisting of two beds each?
Ah, okay. A bunk bed is defined as two or more bunks with one on top of the other. A bunk is one single-person bed. So a bunk bed would be the double bunks. If the source is saying that the double bunks are double beds, not bunk beds, then that's a bed that will hold two people. So you may just say that it "can sleep up to 33 people" (well, my math comes out to 34, but the source has 33) and leave it at that. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 21:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Climbing and skiing

Hmmm, I don't see it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does there still have to be a link if it's already linked under a different word? "Scree" is already linked under "talus" and "escarpment" is already linked under "scarp". Volcanoguy 21:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the reader isn't going to know they both mean the same thing, so yes, unless it's the same word, link it, even if it goes to the same place. That's been my expectation as a reader and editor. I don't know if it's in the MoS or anyplace else, though, but if you don't mind doing it, go ahead. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 21:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for tonight, and may be all depending on what comes from this. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eewilson: Anything else? Volcanoguy 20:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I support! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WereSpielChequers

[edit]

Hi, nice read thanks for that, sorry for coming in late to the party.

Describing the most recent volcanic eruption as "final" may be a hostage to fortune, I'd only do that if we can attribute a particular vulcanologist as asserting that.
"Final" in this context means "last", not that the mountain will never have another eruption. Volcanoguy 23:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I get that this was the intended meaning and it wasn't meant to be read literally. But we are writing for a general audience, I suggest either latest or most recent.
Reworded to: "The latest period of volcanic activity took place about 10,000 years ago with eruptions from Dalton Dome and Opal Cone after the ice sheet retreated." Volcanoguy 03:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ϢereSpielChequers 05:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The geography bit includes "It is characterized by little precipitation and mild temperatures due to air from the Pacific Ocean often passing over this area." I get that air from the Pacific Ocean could lead to mild temperatures, but the little precipitation comment needs more justification. Is the area in a rain shadow from more coastal mountains?
The source does not specify why there's little precipitation, but Mount Garibaldi is surrounded by other mountains of the Pacific Ranges. Volcanoguy 23:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked for other sources? I did a search for rain shadows in British Columbia and had several hits, I don't know if this is from the right part of BC but it explains the phenomenon well.
I haven't been able to find any information about a rain shadow at Mount Garibaldi. The source you provided above is for the interior of British Columbia rather than the coast. Volcanoguy 00:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The flora and fauna has been taken from the wider ecoregion, has no source covered this specific mountain?
I haven't been able to find any flora sources covering this specific mountain, but the fauna is for the Garibaldi area. Volcanoguy 01:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
deer is a tad generic, especially as other animals link to specific species from the ecoregion.
The fauna source does not specify what species of deer are present. Volcanoguy 23:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a source that specifies the type of deer. ϢereSpielChequers 10:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the significance of glaciers to the topic, and the threat to mountain glaciers from climate change, I think there should be coverage of the issue of whether the ice is stable growing or declining. For example this source
I've added "Although the glaciers at times have seen surges reaching further down slope, they overall have been progressively retreating since the early 1900s." Volcanoguy 00:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but given how fast things are changing 2009 is a bit dated. ϢereSpielChequers 10:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the source you gave above is from 2004 so it's not any better. How do you know the glaciers have been changing fast at Garibaldi? Do you have a source? What has happened since 2009 is insignificant compared to what has happened since 1900. Retreating glaciers is nothing new. Volcanoguy 00:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The general retreat that is happening under climate change is not just the sort of fluctuation that happens when a peak has heavy or light snowfall or hot or mild summers. The article uses sources for the wider area on other issues, how about under some scenarios of Climate Change, all the mountain ice in British Columbia could be gone by the 2080s ϢereSpielChequers 05:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That source has nothing to do with Garibaldi but rather BC's interior mountains (Selkirk Mountains, Purcell Mountains, Monashee Mountains, Cariboo Mountains) which are nowhere near this mountain. The 2009 source I used in the article is the most recent one I have been able to find. The melting of glaciers at Garibaldi since 1900 appears to be more than just some sort of fluctuation from heavy or light snowfall or hot or mild summers. The 2009 source makes it clear that glaciers have been retreating there every decade with much fewer glacial advances and stable periods since 1900. So anything different since 2009 is unlikely. Volcanoguy 01:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "Some models predict a BC landscape with no glaciers at all as early as the 2080s." doesn't limit itself to the interior mountains. ϢereSpielChequers 09:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it doesn't specify what models or how old the models are. Volcanoguy 16:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also find it quite questionable that all the mountain ice in British Columbia could be gone by the 2080s. Earth's ice caps were supposed to be gone by now but that isn't the case. Volcanoguy 08:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any serious scientific study that predicted the Earth's Ice Caps would melt by now, and I live at an altitude that would struggle if either Greenland or West Antarctica went. Let alone East Antarctica. It isn't our role to discard studies simply because we find them questionable. Though I'd agree that a study spelling out a worst case scenario such as the world failing to act on HCFCs is now less important because the world has agreed to act on HCFCs and taken a lot of other steps to address the problem. ϢereSpielChequers 09:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Volcanic sandstones seems like an oxymoron to me, especially with sandstone linked. I did find a link to a site that discusses it and says it is derived from ash, so I suspect it is a form of tuff. But unless we can find a source that better describes what it is, I suggest delinking it and putting volcanic sandstone in quotes.
"When volcanoes erupt, they may emit a variety of materials, such as lava, gases, and pyroclastic rocks, which may vary greatly in size from sand-like particles to sizable boulders. If accumulations of the sand-sized grains become lithified over time, the material that results is often referred to as volcanic sandstone." [36] So "volcanic sandstone" is a used phrase. Volcanoguy 19:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked "volcanic sandstone" and redirected that to tuff where I added a description for it. Volcanoguy 20:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that works. ϢereSpielChequers 14:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ϢereSpielChequers 05:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi WereSpielChequers, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Gog, at the moment I'm leaning oppose, but happy to still engage. I'm uncomfortable re sourcing and balance between the different things that such an article should cover to be at FA standard. ϢereSpielChequers 09:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not much can be done about that if there are no sources. Nevertheless, the article is still comprehensive. Given the lack of post-2009 sources for the glaciers at Mount Garibaldi I question whether or not climate change is an important subject there. Volcanoguy 12:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Volcanoguy, might you be able to find something in here that would help? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit more about glaciers in the article. The 2015 estimate may be an underestimation according to a 2022 Vancouver Sun source. Volcanoguy 17:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to eview.

  • "Both summits were volcanically active at different times throughout Mount Garibaldi's eruptive history." Active throughout the eruptive history? Really? And what is an eruptive history?
  • "from which a lengthy lava flow descends." "lava flow" is linked to lava, reinforcing the impression given by the prose that this flow is currently active.
  • "This activity produced mostly dacite". Which of the two periods mentioned in the previous sentence does "This activity" refer to?
  • "a story of the mountain and the great flood." → 'a story of the mountain and a great flood.'
  • The lead seems over detailed in places. Eg "some of whom were members of the British Columbia Mountaineering Club and the Alpine Club of Canada"; " If this were to happen, relief efforts could be organized by teams such as the Interagency Volcanic Event Notification Plan who are prepared to notify people threatened by volcanic eruptions in Canada."
  • "A plane operated by Pacific Western Airlines disappeared". Disappeared? Amazing. It would seem that it didn't.
  • "A ski resort was begun". I assume this means that 'The construction of a ski resort was begun'.

My reading of the lead is not encouraging and smacks of an article not yet ready for FAC. This despite a lot of activity since it was nominated. Nb, this is not all of the comments or queries I have on the lead, just those which I would broadly expect to have been resolved prior to nomination. I shall pick a random section to review to see if the lead is an unfortunate outlier.

Volcanic hazards

  • "The hazard rankings of both volcanoes are nearly identical to those of Lassen Peak in California and Augustine Volcano in Alaska." Is there a reason why this comparison is made. Is it anticipated that a reader will be familiar with the hazard rankings of these?
  • "Although Plinian eruptions have not been identified at Mount Garibaldi, Peléan eruptions can also produce large amounts of volcanic ash". This is impenetrable to a non-expert without chasing links, contrary to MOS:FORCELINK: "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so." and "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links."
  • I see over close paraphrasing on the only cite I checked.
Article: "cause short and long term water supply problems for the city of Vancouver and most of the Lower Mainland. The catchment area for the Greater Vancouver watershed is downwind from Mount Garibaldi".
Source: "cause short- and long-term water-supply problems for Vancouver and much of the lower mainland. The catchment area for the Greater Vancouver watershed is downwind from the Garibaldi area."
  • "which is one of Canada's most rapidly changing ecoregions." This seems irrelevant. How does it tie to either the volcano or the paragraph? I assume this means the ecology is rapidly changing, but if it is kept it would be helpful if this were made clear
  • "At the head of the Cheekye River are several fractures and anti-slope scarps. These features, referred to as the Cheekye linears, occur in pyroclastic rocks and interbedded andesitic and dacitic flows on the slopes of Brohm and Alice ridges. They may have formed as a result of sliding of this volcanic sequence along its contact with the underlying basement rocks." This is an encyclopaedia. We are supposed to explain things. Little of this will be comprehensible to a non-expert.
  • "Dacite is felsic in composition". ?
  • "This increases the viscosity of dacitic melts relative to that of andesite or basalt, generally resulting in the formation of steep-sided lava domes and stubby lava flows. An exception is the 15-kilometre-long (9.3-mile) Ring Creek dacite flow from Opal Cone, a length that is normally attained by basaltic lava flows." No doubt these are fascinating facts, but they seem to be dropped into the "Volcanic hazards" section almost randomly, with little explanation or contextulisation.

Overall I am afraid that this seems to need considerable further work to get it to FA standard, which would best be done off-FAC. I oppose and recommend withdrawal. Gog the Mild (talk)

I hate to do it, but with WereSpeilChequers leaning oppose and Gog opposed, it doesn't look like this one will be getting to a consensus to promote this time around, especially as it's two months in. I'd recommend working with the opposers outside of the FAC, which will hopefully get this into shape to renominate. Hog Farm Talk 22:15, 9 October 2022 (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 October 2022 [37].

TV (song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 10:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, everyone and their grandma knows about Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard. I think many of us have a few hot takes surrounding the situation; Billie Eilish seems to be one of those people. She thinks that the explosive media popularity around the trial was extremely unjustified - so much so that she wrote a whole line in a song, "TV", comparing it to the (in her view) relatively silent online reaction about the Dobbs draft leak.

But "TV" is more than just an ode to politics or publicized celebrity drama. It is also an exploration of disillusionment and numbness, about trying to distract yourself as the world around you crumbles to dust.

I've been on a spree of improving Billie Eilish articles lately. Here is the second one I am taking to FAC. This one is about a recently released song, but it was surprised-released and has fallen off major charts that the article shall hopefully remain stable for many months. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 10:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)

[edit]
  • File:BillieEilishO2160622 (44 of 45) (52152978743) (cropped).jpg: The image has appropriate ALT text and a clear purpose in the article. I would include the year that the photo was taken to the caption to provide the full context to readers. I would also archive the source and author links for this image to avoid any potential headaches in the future with link rot and death. However, to be absolutely clear, neither of these two points are required for a FAC so that does not hold up this image review. They are more suggestions than requirements.
  • This is outside the scope of an image review, but I was curious if there were any negative reviews of the song?

This passes my image review. I did have two brief suggestions on how to improve the only image used in the article, and I did have a single prose question about the reviews as I was somewhat surprised about there being apparently no negative or even mixed reviews to this song. Aoba47 (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aoba47! Thank you for all the diligent work you do at FAC, and ofc thank you for this review in particular. The image caption has been tweaked. I tried including archive links for the source, but the image isn't showing up in the archived version for some reason. Will get to it eventually. Though I suppose the green verified template on the file's licensing section on Commons should do enough to assuage worries wrt source validity?"
About the reviews - I cannot find one single negative review about the song. TBH there were few full-fledged reviews of the song - I think the Nylon and Guardian articles come the closest to such - but there were enough articles that included opinions about "TV" that there was an emerging, seemingly unanimous consensus about the song's quality. Many people liked it because of the lyrics; no one said anything remotely critical. A reception section does not necessarily have to include criticism or negativity to be considered neutral and balanced, after all Once again thank you for the comments! ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 04:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your responses. There should not be any issues with the images. Archiving the source and author link is more of a suggestion than a requirement. I was only curious if there were any mixed or negative reviews because when I read the article, I must admit that I did find some things I did not enjoy about the song, but that is just my personal opinion. I did not mean to imply that the article was not comprehensive or the like. It is likely the case that the music critics who did cover the song had positive reviews for it. I'd also imagine that some critics would feel uncomfortable posting a negative review about this song given its topic or fear any potential blowback for critiquing a popular artist. Anyway, apologies for rambling and best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 05:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47 - those are completely fair assessments :) glad we're on the same page here ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 05:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Maybe wikilink Manchester both times it is used. As Eilish is American, people might not initially make the connection with the city in the UK
  • "speaking about writing the lyrics after the first verse in hindsight" - should this be "speaking in hindsight about writing the lyrics after the first verse"?
  • "12 days later" => "Twelve days later"
  • "She sings about "sinking in the sofa while we all betray each other,"" - think that comma should be outside the quote marks
    • Done all four :)
  • "In particular, entertainment columnists for the Manila Bulletin" - multiple columnists from the same paper?
    • Most likely - the article's byline says "Manila Bulletin Entertainment", and if there was a single author I think they would have spelled it out.
  • Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regretfully, this nomination has timed out. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 7 October 2022 [38].

Staurakios

[edit]
Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about another relatively unfortunate Byzantine emperor. Living in his father's shadow, he would not rise to become the senior emperor until a brutal defeat where his father was killed and he was mortally wounded. Reigning alone for a short time, he was deposed in a palace coup and died soon after. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Funk

[edit]
I'm thinking images more than text, but probably same problem. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unknown woman, her name sometimes given as Prokopia, possibly due to confusion with her daughter, Prokopia" Is all this detail needed in the otherwise stripped down infobox? Should already be explained in detail in the article body.
    Changed to just "unknown"
  • "who are the main source of history" Sources?
    Done
  • "Bardanes Tourkos revolted" Perhaps introduce him as general?
    Done.
  • " The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium states that Staurakios "raped two beautiful girls",[15] but this is a misreading of Theophanes, who asserts that Nikephoros selected the two most beautiful girls from the bride show, and engaged in open debauchery with them" So it was not Staurakios?
    Well the confusion appears to be two-fold. First, even Theophanes makes no suggestion of rape but only that Nikephoros pretty openly had sex with two girls who were in the bride-show; to be fair, if the story is even true, willing consent probably wasn't great given that the girls were probably ~16 and Nikephoros was literally the emperor, but even that is not as heinous as the corruption that Staurakios, not Nikephoros, directly raped two girls. IMO it's likely the story isn't true, as "oh they were an unfaithful manwhore" is pretty textbook for biased Byzantine sources trying to dunk on people they don't like. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "likely because Stephanos was the first to proclaim Staurakios emperor, to propose blinding Michael" Kind of confusing sentence, missing "and" before "to propose blinding"?
    Added
  • " occasionally being forced to make humiliating concessions to powerful enemies, such as the Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid (r. 786–809)." The article says nothing of this, though?
    Will re-add some context; I had taken out a foreign relations section for being UNDUE as it was basically just the actions of Nikephoros for most of the reign.
  • Why not show the coin[39] with his father since it's described in the text? Seems it would fit nicely under Historiography.
    Added.
  • ", which included the severing of his spine" why not state this alreadt after: "despite his severe injuries from the battle." Now it seems odd that you kind of only state the nature of his injury upon repetition.
    Moved
    @FunkMonk: Done all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I fixed some minor issues in the new section, but everything else looks fine to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from mujinga

[edit]

I enjoyed reading the article but looking at this version, I regret to say I do not think the article is FA quality at this stage. I would suggest taking it for a peer review then resubmitting.

It fails 1a, well-written, including but not limited to examples such as:

  • readability - On 1 October 811, Staurakios summoned Stephanos, whom he trusted completely, likely because Stephanos was the first to proclaim Staurakios emperor, and to propose blinding Michael; Staurakios was unaware that Michael had the support of Stephanos himself.
    Re-written
  • spelling - Nikephroos was not able to respond quickly as he was preoccupied with the revolt of Bardanes Tourkos, but after defeating Bardanes he gathered his army to meet another, even larger, invasion lead by Harun himself.
    Fixed
  • repetition of bulgarian - Staurakios took part in an invasion of the Bulgarian Khanate in 811, alongside his father and brother-in-law. Although initially successful, with the Byzantines laying siege to the Bulgarian capital of Pliska and defeating a Bulgarian relief force, they were soon ambushed by the Bulgarian Khan Krum, and trapped in a small valley.
    Fixed
  • typos - After being removed from power, he was sent to live in a monastery, where he stayed until he died, either of gangrene or poisoned by his sister, Prokopia. on 11 January 812.
    fixed by Cplakidas.
  • weasel words - Some, such as Historian Alexander Kazhdan, argue that he was proclaimed emperor on 26 July, the day of the battle itself.[20]
    Fixed.
  • close paraphrasing:
    • text here says "According to the Syriac sources—the Chronicle of 813 and Michael the Syrian—and the chronicle of the Petros of Alexandria, there were rumors that Staurakios had been poisoned by his sister Prokopia, rather than dying of gangrene. Theophanes considered these rumors possible and mentions that Theophano herself considered these rumors true"
    • text translated from source says "According to the Syriac sources (Chronicle of 813; Michael Syrus) and the Chronicle of Petros of Alexandreia (197,21f.) there was a rumor that S. had been poisoned by his sister, the later empress Prokopia (# 6351), while Bar Hebraeus 125 speaks of blinding. This news finds an echo in Theophanes 492,20-24, where it is reported that S., on the whispers of his wife Theophano (# 8163), suspected among others also his sister Prokopia of conspiracy."
      Fixed as best I can rewrite it; I'm open to suggestions; a good portion of the text is basically unmovable source names, which makes it difficult.

It also fails 1c, well-researched, with examples including but not limited to:

  • I can easily find sources which are not mentioned for example "Power, Infirmity and 'Disability'. Five Case Stories on Byzantine Emperors and Their Impairments" - C Laes - Byzantinoslavica-Revue internationale des Etudes 2019 and "Dropping the Base: Why Does Follis Production at Constantinople Appear to Cease for 24 Years between 842–866?" Maria Vrij 2021
    IIRC correctly, Laes was consulted earlier and not incorporated for having little to add; both have now been added, although Vrij is largely identical to Grierson in opinion, Laes adds some interesting facts.
  • text says "but this is a misreading of Theophanes, who asserts that Nikephoros selected the two most beautiful girls from the bride show, and engaged in open debauchery with them" and source says "Theophano was chosen in spite of the fact that, according to Theophanes, she was engaged to another man whom she had already slept with and she was not the most beautiful of those in the show".
    This is an inaccurate reading of the discussion in Theophanes A. M. 6300 discussion of the bride-show which states that Nicephorus chose the two girls, more beautiful than Theophano, and openly debauched with them. from Footnote 7 of Marsh.
  • text says "he was hated by many, especially the contemporary ecclesiastical historians, and the heavily-biased Byzantine historian Theophanes, who are the main sources of history for his reign; many modern historians, therefore, doubt their assertions of his malevolent character.[1][5]" but im not really seeing the justification in the sources currently used. Bury p15 even says of a statement of Theophanes "we have no means of disproving and no reason to doubt"
    Good catch, I've removed the bits I can't find good justification for (including the bit about ecclesiastical historians, which is definitely true, but I'm unable to track down the source for...), and added better sources for Theophanes' biases.
  • there's a lot of claims in the paragraph beginning "After his marriage, Staurakios is not mentioned again until 811" and only three citations at the end so it's too hard for me to verify anything
    The major source is Marsh, with some details cited to others in ways that would make separate sourcing annoying for a reader. (I have however rewritten the paragraph as some bits of it seemed uncomfortably close to the source)
  • The remaining Byzantine forces, including a severely wounded Staurakios, retreated to Adrianople over three days. Staurakios' spine had been severed during the battle, which along with Staurakios' demonstrated lack of ability, led the uninjured influential figures in the empire to consider the issue of Nikephoros' successor. Chiefly they were three who had traveled with Nikephoros and Staurakios, the magistros (Master of Offices) Theoktistos, the Domestic of the Schools Stephanos, and Michael Rhangabe. The severity of Staurakios' wounds led to speculation as to whether he would live, although eventually they judged he would make the best candidate, as the legitimate successor, and declared him emperor.[1][16] - these claims are covered by the sources but Marsh says at this point Rhangabe was asked and refused to be emperor, contradicting what comes later: "Almost immediately after Staurakios ascended the throne, Michael was pressured to usurp it"
    These are actually two separate events. At the exact time that he was to be declared emperor, many wanted Michael to take the throne instead. For the rest of his reign, he was pressured to usurp the throne. One day versus a process.
  • In legacy it would be good to add more opinions. also "For these reasons, historian Matthew Marsh comments that he "remains a brief and shadowy figure in the history of the Empire.[1]" lacks a closing double apostrophe and the quote is wrong, it should be "he remains a brief shadowy figure in the history of the Empire" Mujinga (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can double check, but I believe Marsh was the only one to provide a legacy for Staurakios himself; I can add some opinions for Nikephoros if desired quite easily, but I'm worried about losing focus.

Comments by Constantine

[edit]

Will have a look at the article over the following days. Constantine ✍ 17:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early life
  • Refs #2 and #3 are from the same work.
    To clarify, you think I should consolidate the p. 14 footnote and p. 14 sfns?
    Yes.
    Done.
  • 'logothetēs tou genikou' is not Latin.
    Fixed
  • Nikephoros was logothetēs tou genikou (finance minister) at the time of Staurakios' birth Hmmm, pace PmbZ he was gen. logothetes at the time of the coup, and we don't know anything about his career before that. Marsh writes that 'possibly in the same time period that Nicephorus became Irene’s Chief Logotheate in charge of finance for the empire.', referencing Treadgold 1988. I strongly recommend a) qualifying the statement and b) using Treadgold's work (which is listed in the sources, but not used) and tracking down his arguments there.
  • Byzantine Empress regnant 'Byzantine' is probably redundant, and it should be 'empress-regnant'
    Fixed.
    Not entirely, fixed the 'empress-regnant' bit myself.
  • instituted caesaropapism very vague and hence debatable; Byzantine emperors generally leaned towards caesaropapism, and Nikephoros did not really do anything that his predecessors or successors did not also do.
  • For these reasons, he was hated by many, especially the heavily-biased Theophanes, who is the main source of history for his reign to a lay person, the 'reasons' are unclear. Clarify why Theophanes was biased. Also 'hated by many' refers to Theophanes and his faction. The sparse references to him from other sources (including hagiographies) are rather positive. Bury is not the best source to use here, he is definitely out of date, have a look at the PmbZ article on Nikephoros. Marsh also does not contain anything on Theophanes' attitude on Nikephoros, so he is out of place as a source here.
  • The Historian David Olster comments that although some historians have viewed the Chronicle of Theophanes as being free his editorial hand, this assumption has been challenged by Hans-Georg Beck, who demonstrated how vast the changes Theophanes made upon his sources are, with Theophanes inserting his own view of history This is ancient history: no-one since the 20th century at least would consider Theophanes unbiased. I don't know how this helps a reader (since the article already says before that Theophanes is biased), and whether this has a place here.
    Removed.
  • After Staurakios was elevated to co-emperor, he is not mentioned again in the sources until 807,[13][14][15] except for the installation ceremony of Patriarch Nikephoros,[12] -> Except for the installation ceremony of Patriarch Nikephoros, Staurakios is not mentioned in the sources until 807,[13][14][15]'
    Done.
  • held an imperial bride show pace PmbZ, this is a subject of considerable debate. Marsh points to an article by Treadgold dealing with the issue. It should be at least stated that the historicity of this bride show is heavily debated.
  • The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium states that Staurakios "raped two beautiful girls",[17] but this is a misreading of Theophanes, who asserts that Nikephoros selected the two most beautiful girls from the bride show, and engaged in open debauchery with them.[1] This should be relegated to a footnote. An error in a tertiary source that non-experts won't ever get to see is not something that belongs in the core narrative.
    Done.
  • son-in-law Michael Rhangabe, a kouropalates (high-ranking court official), better 'son-in-law, the kouropalates (high-ranking court official) Michael Rhangabe,' otherwise it might be read that the kouropalates was a different person.
    Done
  • Add regnal dates for Khan Krum.
    Done
    Fixed it.
  • Re the new addition on the Abbasid invasion, two comments:
    • Generally, please refrain from using old sources, even if they are easily available. To be frank, I was not even aware of Foord before. Is he a Byzantinist? I very much doubt it, it looks like a popular history on the lines of Norwich. Strongly recommend eliminating this work from the article altogether, I would not consider it WP:RS.
    • Specifically, Foord's statement about and six great gold medals is nonsense; the sources are quite clear that this was payment of a head tax (jizya). This information comes from Tabari, and he is explicit in writing about 'dinars'. Treadgold should suffice here.
Reign
  • Staurakios' spine had been severed during the battle, which along with Staurakios' demonstrated lack of ability close repetition of 'Staurakios'
    Done
  • the magistros (Master of Offices) while technically a correct translation, by this time the magistros was a honorific title, hence the gloss provided is inaccurate.
    Fixed.
  • and Michael Rhangabe an optional editorial suggestion: remove Michael from the first reference above, and first mention him here. This places Michael in proper context, and simplifies the previous statement to Nikephoros led the campaign over the Balkan Mountains and into the Bulgarian Khanate alongside Staurakios, his son-in-law, the kouropalates (high-ranking court official) Michael Rhangabe, and many senior Imperial officials.
    Done
  • eventually they judged he would make the best candidate, who is 'they'?
    Done.
  • This was the first time a Byzantine emperor was installed outside of Constantinople not sure how to take this (don't have access to the source itself to check). 'Installed' is a tricky word here, because it does not correspond to any of the constitutionally necessary acts of becoming emperor. If it means 'proclaimed', then it is incorrect since a lot of pre-395 emperors, as well as some later usurpers like Theodosius III proclaimed themselves emperor (or were proclaimed by their troops) outside Constantinople. If it means 'crowned', then it is also incorrect because Staurakios was already crowned co-emperor, and did not need another coronation.
    The literal words from the source are At the instigation of Stephanos, the domestic of the Schools, Staurakios was proclaimed emperor at the end of July 811. The matter was apparently urgent, and therefore he became the first emperor who was not installed in Constantinople. ; I can provide a PDF via email if desired. The source was recommended for inclusion by Mujinga above. Christian Laes is a high-quality classicist and has something like 100 publications (many focused on children and disability in the classical world), but it seems here he perhaps made a mistake or else is stating something neither of us are picking up on. He is not ignorant of the fact that Staurakios was already crowned, "On Christmas Day of the year 803, Nikephoros had his son Staurakios, who was at that moment in his early teens, crowned co-emperor. (p.224), so perhaps Laes simply believes that the matter necessitated re-crowning? Perhaps simply removing this bit may be the best option. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historian Alexander Kazhdan argues that he was proclaimed emperor on 26 July, the day of the battle itself.[25] Well, I looked it up, and this statement is doubly incorrect. First, the article in ODB was not written by Kazhdan, but by Paul A. Hollingsworth. Second, the article clearly has his reign starting at 28 July. The wording allows for some confusion ("on 26 July 811 Staurakios was gravely wounded during Nikephoros's fatal encounter with KRUM and was carried to Adrianople, where the domestikos ton scholon Stephanos proclaimed him emperor") but nothing along the lines of anyone 'arguing' for 26 July as the date.
    Removed, good catch.
  • and his military abilities. any details on this?
  • as well as his marriage to Prokopia, which made him brother-in-law to Staurakios the latter part is a tautology to the former; perhaps smth like 'as well as his family ties to Staurakios via his marriage to Prokopia.'?
    Done.
  • The historians Edward Foord and George Finlay comment that the army seemed willing to stand by Staurakios, but for his mortal wounds posing a threat to the succession of the empire. Again, Foord is likely not a historian, and Finlay is definitely out of date. Here is a good place to use Treadgold instead.
  • Re the whole section, it is sometimes frustrating how modern historians make all kinds of guesses and explanations, or interpret the sequence of events, from Theophanes often very frugal statements: "The patrician Stephen, who was Domestic of the Schools, in the presence of the magistros Theoktistos, proclaimed Staurakios emperor and the latter spoke to the remnants of the army blaming his own father, at which they were greatly pleased." Since Theophanes is, whether we like it or not, our only source, a statement like Staurakios gave a speech to the surviving troops, where he insulted Nikephoros' military judgment, before being acclaimed by the army is, strictly speaking, incorrect. Here I would simply follow (and even cite) Theophanes: Stephen proclaimed him emperor, the speech was held, the troops were pleased. Then the opinions of the historians (attributed, of course) can follow.
  • to have funds that Nikephoros had collected returned to the church this is something that should be mentioned above, when discussing Nikephoros' policies (since this was a major reason for Theophanes' hostility, IMS).

Will continue with the rest later. Constantine ✍ 09:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • his imperial authority 'imperial' is redundant here
    Done
  • impending death...impending danger from foreign countries avoid repetition (replace one with imminent?) and be clear as to which foreign countries we talk about.
    Done
  • a return to normality was therefore essential hmmm, this is a rather modern turn of phrase, and misses the point IMO. What was needed here was a successor who could govern and lead the army, i.e. what was needed was a stable and competent succession.
  • The delay of Staurakios in selecting an heir -> 'The delay of Staurakios in selecting a successor'
    Done.
  • while Theophano backed herself -> 'while Empress Theophano backed herself'
    done
  • Staurakios wavered between two possible options for succession -> 'Staurakios reportedly wavered between two possible options for his succession.'
    Done.
  • The first, to make Theophano empress Theophano was empress by virtue of her marriage. You mean empress-regnant.
    Done
  • The second option is considered by Bury to be the machinations of an addled brain if it did in fact happen this is a bit oddly phrased. Perhaps 'Bury dismisses the second option as the machinations of Staruakios' addled brain, and furthermore questions the authenticity of the report' or something similar.
    Done.
  • that future Emperor decapitalize Emperor
    Done.
  • Stephanos gathered the remaining tagmatic forces and senate at the Great Palace of Constantinople, and declared Michael emperor....Michael was publicly proclaimed emperor in the Hippodrome of Constantinople, by the remaining tagmatic forces and the senate duplication. Remove one of the two (I'd say the first) occurrences.
    Removed the secondary one, as I think it strips the first of much meaning otherwise.
  • Symon the monk 'the monk Symon', and Symon is not really a Greek name; is it perhaps Symeon?
    Fixed. It's actually Simeon per Bury; Marsh gives it as Symon.
  • he was buried in the Monastery of Braka here it might be worthwhile to elaborate a bit on the name, e.g. "he was buried in a monastery that was likely named 'ta Stavrakiou' after him, but later popularly known as Braka or 'ta Hebraika'" or similar. Also, marsh does not say anything about his burial.
  • which was given to Theophano by Prokopia, this seems to contradict PBE, 'monastery founded after their overthrow by his wife Theophano 1'

Will do the final two sections later. Constantine ✍ 13:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign relations

This entire section has little to nothing to do with Staurakios. At most, the payment of tribute in the form of a head tax for him is notable. That can be included in the 'Early life' section, the rest should be deleted.

Done.
Historiography
  • and the weakness and bias of the sources by 'weakness' I assume you mean paucity? or poor quality?
  • are similar to that of the Isaurian dynasty 'similar to those'
    Done.
  • Perhaps it would be better to include the discussion on the bias of Theophanes here, and simply refer and link to it from earlier in the article.
  • The discussion on coinage is not really 'Historiography'; I'd recommend its own section.
    Done.
  • Please use the {{transl|grc|}} template for the Greek terms
  • show the junior emperor on the reverse, and senior emperor on the obverse optional, to help the reader, add who is who, e.g. "show the junior emperor (Staurakios) on the reverse, and senior emperor (Nikephoros) on the obverse" or similar
    Done.
  • the rank of despotes, whereas Nikephoros is given as basileus despotes at this time was not a rank as it became after Manuel I, but merely a title meaning 'lord'
    Done.
    Please use {{transl|grc|}} as well (and not {{lang|grc|}}!
  • one would expect miliarensia one would expect {{transl|grc|[[Miliaresion|miliaresia]]}}
    Done.
  • Empress Regnants 'Empress-regnants'
    Done
Legacy
  • occasionally being forced to make humiliating concessions to powerful enemies hmmm, this is very debatable. Most modern scholars would argue that the 'humiliating' concession was actually a success: yes, Nikephoros and Staurakios symbolically submitted to the Caliph, but in real terms, they lost nothing. The whole Abbasid invasion of 806 was a propaganda success for Harun, but in actual terms it accomplished very little, especially compared with all the effort expended.
Sources
  • Treadgold 1988 is underused, and I know why: the relevant sections were copied from other articles, on the Abbasid invasions. Nevertheless, this is the main up-to-date, easily available, English-language treatment of the period. Would much prefer to see this work used rather than Bury (still broadly valid but more than a bit out of date) and especially Venning & Harris, who offer nothing but a chronological compendium. In fact, I would advise against using Venning & Harris at all, apart from citing dates of events. To be blunt, Treadgold is a source that needs to be included to satisfy 1c of the FA criteria.
  • Summing up on some comments from above: please replace Venning & Harris, Foord, and, as far as possible, Finlay. Use at least Treadgold 1988.
  • Treadgold also has a good book on The Middle Byzantine Historians, which might be useful for discussing the sources and their biases for the Historiography section.
  • Specify the ODB articles used, with correct attribution (e.g. Hollingsworth for Staurakios' article)
  • Add location for Martindale 2001. Also, unless I am very much mistaken, Martindale is not the sole author of the work, but its editor.
    Yes, a lot of places seem to ascribe it to him as the author for the sake of simplicity, how would you recommend I go about it? Give British Academy as the author and Martindale as the editor?
    Just Martindale as the editor (like you would with Kazhdan in the ODB); unless you know the authors of the specific entries.
  • Add location for Ostrogorsky.
    Done.

Will continue with the 'Reign' section as soon as I can. Constantine ✍ 15:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Is the inclusion of Treadgold something you view to be too disruptive to take place in the FAC process (i.e. a fundamentally different article than that seen by earlier reviewers)? If so I am happy to withdraw and work on the article with your advice before re-nominating it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Iazyges Let me have a closer look at the rest of the article first. But the subject is of fairly limited scope, and even if we introduce Treadgold, I don't expect major changes in the content or the basic narrative. So this should be doable without too much disruption. Constantine ✍ 19:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's it for a first pass. Content-wise I think the article is fairly accurate and complete, but some fixes here and there are necessary. The biggest problem are the sources used (criterion 1c): some are not RS (Foord) or unsuitable (Venning & Harris), and the main half-way modern work focusing on the period (Treadgold 1988) is effectively not used. @Iazyges: feel free to ping me if you need access to sources. Constantine ✍ 10:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just leaving a note that I've become pretty busy IRL, but I should be able to get around to finishing this on Wednesday; should be done by the end of the week. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinator comment - I'm sorry, but as this one is over a month in with only a single support and an active oppose, this one will have to be archived within the next couple days if a sizable move towards a consensus to promote does not occur. Hog Farm Talk 00:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following up HF's comment, as there's been no new activity or resolution it's time to archive this and perform further work away from FAC, bringing back in a minimum of two weeks or later per usual practice. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 2 October 2022 [40].

Reign of Cleopatra

[edit]
Nominator(s): PericlesofAthens (talk), Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cleopatra. We all know her. We all (except the Romans) love her. An iconic figure, the queen of Egypt has been the center of attention over the few thousand years, primarily for her relationships with Caesar and Antony, and of course, her famous suicide. What many people don't know, however, are the facts and events of her reign. Starting from her accession at around the age of nineteen, Cleopatra's reign has seen it all: sibling marriage, sibling assassination, sibling exile, affairs with Roman leaders, etc. Despite being the last of her dynasty, Cleopatra's reign was highly effective and she succeeded in making long-needed reforms and brought in wealth from Egypt's extensive agricultural industry. If you're into that kind of stuff, this is your article.

Over the past few weeks, both myself and PericlesofAthens (but mostly the latter) have been working hard to bring this GA article up to FA status. After some deliberation, we are proud to present Reign of Cleopatra. We look forward to your feedback and support. Cheers! Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
    • at 10197 words the article length is a bit long and could benefit from more conciseness. Since there are multiple sub-articles, it's better to use summary style than to load the article with excessive detail.
    • Although technically only four paragraphs, all of them are quite long making the lead hard to get through for readers looking for a concise summary of the topic.
    • Another issue is the excessive number of notes. In general, notes like "For further information, see Burstein 2004, p. 76." are not typically used on Wikipedia. If you cite a page for a certain fact it is likely that further information can be found there, since Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarize the cited sources. Short quotations of references can be used to verify especially controversial information but you have some quite long quotes in the footnotes which, if important, are better phrased in our own words.
    • MOS:WTW avoid verbs like "claim", "observe", "note" to attribute a viewpoint (t · c) buidhe 17:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, @Buidhe. Thank you for reaching out about the article. For your first and second concerns, I have been in discussions with PericlesofAthens, who had this to say:

    "I thought that would be the case. I would point out the lead section for Reign of Cleopatra is roughly the size of Cleopatra, the latter of which is already a featured article. I think the lead looks entirely reasonable after the cuts we made, given the size of the article. I also find the complaint about the overall size of the article to be a somewhat moot point, since it is already a split/sibling article of Cleopatra and its size is entirely reasonable given the subject matter."

    I would like to point out that Wikipedia:Article size recommends 10,000 words for article length. Reign of Cleopatra is now only 33 words over the cap, which has not been a problem thus far (the article passed its GA review; the FA review of Cleopatra previously addressed the issue of article length). If you still feel strongly about the lead/article length, please let us know, but for now, Pericles and I think the respective lengths are acceptable given the many tumultuous events and confusion regarding Cleopatra's reign due to the time period. Your feedback is much appreciated, however: I have gone ahead and removed many of the notes and ambiguous words that you suggested for deletion. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

The Lead is way too long. Readers looking for a summary do not want to be confronted by a wall of text. Graham Beards (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and recommend withdrawal

[edit]

The article is, IMO, clearly not yet ready for FAC.

  • The article is too long and not written in (sufficiently) summary style. Given that we already have an article, an FA, on Cleopatra and an FA on the Death of Cleopatra, between them containing more than 17,500 words, I find the length of this one astonishing.
  • The lead is too long.
  • I agree with Buidhe re MOS:WTW.
Lest I also be referred to the comments above can I point out that Wikipedia:Article size does not recommend 10,000 words for article length; that the existence somewhere of an article of a certain length creates no precedence for any other to be the same length, least of all when the length breaches policy; that the object of splitting off sub-articles per Wikipedia:Article size#Splitting an article#Size guideline is to reduce the number of over-long articles, not to create more of them; and that even if all of these points can be overcome the article does not meet FA criteria 4. That one - or is it both? - of the nominators states that "I think the lead looks entirely reasonable ... given the size of the article and "I also find the complaint about the overall size of the article to be a somewhat moot point, since it is already a split/sibling article of Cleopatra and its size is entirely reasonable given the subject matter" strongly suggests that the article needs to go to PR prior being renominated. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Gog the Mild. Thank you for your input. I have already taken care of MOS:WTW, but as for your concerns over the lead and article length, I will look into it. At first, @PericlesofAthens and I were sure that given the controversial and complex subject, the lengths would be warranted, but seeing the massive backlash, I will try my best to cut down in certain areas. Once I have done so, would you mind taking another look and reconsider your opposition? Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, I would be happy to. But, if you now feel that you need to significantly slim the article, you are more or less accepting that the article as nominated was not FAC ready and so it should be withdrawn and the slimming done off-FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the pointers. I will go ahead and withdraw this nomination for a while until @PericlesofAthens and I have figured out a way to improve it. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2022 (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 October 2022 [41].

Sumitro Djojohadikusumo

[edit]
Nominator(s): Juxlos (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an Indonesian economist/politician/rebel/oligarch/aristocrat/statesman, depending on when and who you ask (well except "economist", everyone agrees on that), who formed Indonesia's economic policies from 1950 to 1957 and 1968 to the 1980s and arguably to this day. Recently passed through a GAR by Goldsztajn, who provided extensive additional sourcing. Sources are currently a mix of fine details from Indonesian language sources and academic but broader sourcing from various Indonesia scholars or economic historians. Juxlos (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias

[edit]

I'm going to look over this in the next day or so, and commenting here so I don't forget. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, but here we go. I haven't focused on wording or anything, but instead substance and clarity:

  • Would it be worth noting the years he was active in government in the first paragraph of the lead? I feel it would help give context to his era for those of us not familiar with the Sukarno and Suharto eras.
  • 1950 - 1978 good?
  • Same with this sentence: "After the handover of sovereignty in the Dutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference..." A year would be helpful.
  • Added
  • "In the leadup to the 3 July affair in 1946, Sumitro alongside Sjahrir and welfare minister Darmawan Mangunkusumo were kidnapped by disgruntled army units." This seems notable, but there's no mention of how or when he was released. Can you provide any information on that?
  • His role in it is marginal to say the least (several accounts of the incident only mentions "Sjahrir and others"), so I attempted to make a single sentence to summarize it.
  • The final paragraph of the "Diplomatic talks" section makes several references to debt in terms of guilders (6 billion guilders, 500 million guilders, 4.3 billion guilders). Is there any context for what type of value is being referred to here? I don't mean an inflation calculator or anything, but a reference to a contemporary state budget or something would help give an idea for the reader.
  • Maybe an USD conversion? The sources I use do not directly use a comparison, and the Indonesian currency at the time was unstable enough to be cut in half, plus the source gives an explicit USD figure.
That may be good, yeah.
  • "Within the group, Sumitro was considered an imporant When the federal "United Republic of Indonesia"..." I think there's something missing in that first half there (aside from the spelling of "imporant").
  • Botched copy paste of the previous version of the last sentence in the previous paragraph. removed.
  • I wonder if it would be better to move the "Death and funeral" sentences to the "Family and personal life" section, as it seem a little redundant to separate them, especially as the former is only two sentences long.
  • Fair enough. Did just that.
  • I also made a few minor grammatical edits myself, though nothing of substance was changed.

Overall a solid article, and seems comprehensive and not difficult to follow. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaiser matias: Issues addressed. Juxlos (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also to note, I added a couple sentences based off a 1999 interview in "Legacy". Mostly, it was about him addressing his own legacy and image really late in life. Juxlos (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great thanks for the update. If you adjust the financial detail above, I'm good here. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The USD has been added ($1.13 billion). Juxlos (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful, and I'm happy to support. Well done. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • For the first two points - should I just use "thumb"?
  • Some images are missing alts
  • I am unfamiliar with alts - what do you mean?
  • File:First_Indonesian_Delegation_United_Nations.jpg: who is the original author of this work, and what is its status in the US?
  • I had assumed it was an Indonesian official photograph, but turns out it's cropped from a LIFE magazine 1948 photo. Not in the PD yet, unfortunately, so removed.
  • 1973 publication by Indonesian government. URAA tag added.
@Nikkimaria: Some points addressed, and some questions. Juxlos (talk) 05:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Alts added and handled the fixed px sizes. Juxlos (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • Citations 17 and 18 have error messages.
  • Forgot to add the book in question. Fixed.
  • "was an Indonesian economist and politician. One of the country's most influential economists". Repetition of economist. Maybe "was an Indonesian politician and one of the country's most influential economists"
  • Changed
  • "Returning to Indonesia following the conclusion of the Second World War, he was thereafter assigned to the country's diplomatic mission in the United States" This implies that Indonesia was independent. You should clarify that it was then the Dutch East Indies. Also you say here in the US, but below in London.
  • The term “independent” is a can of worms between 17 August 1945 and 27 December 1949, but "Indonesia" was already an accepted term for the Indies for a while then and they were used colloquially. The Dutch certainly did not have much control over the region in 1945. I would maintain the term. Alternatively, I can say “return to Java” - still true, but no controversy on naming.
  • "He joined the new Republican government, becoming an assistant to Prime Minister Sutan Sjahrir and later worked at the Ministry of Finance.[16] In late June 1946, as part of the leadup to the 3 July affair," This again assumes too much knowledge in the reader. Did the Dutch allow the new goveernment? What was the 3 July affair?
  • “Did the Dutch allow the new government?” - no, and they fought a war over it. Independence wars tend to be like that. I suppose I’ll have to mention how this government is (about to be in mid-1945) fighting the Dutch?
  • Added "declared itself independent from Dutch colonial rule" - sufficient?
  • Added
  • Reordered the section on the 3 July stuff.
  • " During the political wrangling and coup attempt that followed, the group was first relocated to Yogyakarta before being released after the coup failed when Sukarno refused the demands." Coup attempt by who? What ws Sukarno's position and how was he in a position to refuse demands? You have not previously mentioned him in the main text.
  • Elaborated on the coup and gave Sukarno his title.
  • "Due to the Dutch embargo on Indonesian trade". Why were the Dutch embargoing trade? Was Indonesia independent at that point?
  • "the Republican city of Cirebon". What does republican city mean? Were some cities supporting independence and some the Dutch?
  • Clarified both points.
  • It is much clearer now, but see one point above.
  • Also "Sumitro (far left), in the Dutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference." You mean far left standing? You should say so.
  • Seated, actually. He's partly out from the picture but his nametag and face is there.
  • @Dudley Miles: I do not have the information, unfortunately, source says 1946. Maybe one of the sources I only have partial access to contains it, but not at the moment. Helps that the delegation didn't exactly travel on jet planes back then. Juxlos (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In his biography, Sumitro claimed" If he was doing the claiming, then it must have been an autobiography, not a biography.
  • Changed
  • "he was rejected due to his age". Rejected due to age normally means too old, but in this case must mean too young, so you should say so.
  • Changed
  • "Sumitro noted that he continued to fundraise for the cause of Republican Spain". "stated" would be better than "noted". Also "continued" implies you have mentioned fundraising previously, but you have not.
  • Changed
  • "he helped provide aid to a number of stranded Indonesian sailors in Rotterdam, as the Perhimpoenan Indonesia association itself took part in the Dutch resistance mostly by distributing anti-Nazi pamphlets." This seems to connect two separate statement. What does "as" mean here? Maybe "he helped provide aid to a number of stranded Indonesian sailors in Rotterdam, and joined the Perhimpoenan Indonesia association, which supported the Dutch resistance mostly by distributing anti-Nazi pamphlets."
  • Sumitro wasn't part of the organization. I decided to include it there as I felt it gave some contrast.
  • "(after the Natsir Cabinet's collapse)". So he left office with the cabinet's collapse but his plan was accepted? You should clarify. (I see that you say below that he left office.)
  • Reworded. Better?
  • "which he would later utilize to form economic policies when he returned to being a government minister". "form" is an odd word here. Maybe draft or develop.
  • Changed
  • "To diversify the views of Indonesian economists, whose education at that time was still dominated by European curriculum, Sumitro arranged for an exchange program sponsored by the Ford Foundation whereas American professors would teach in Indonesia and Indonesian students would spend several years in the United States," I suggest "broaden the knowledge" instead of "diversify the views". Also "whereas" should be "whereby".
  • Fixed
  • "to produce a recommendation" Surely recommendations, not just one recommendation?
  • Well, it was one document, but it did have multiple recommendations self-evidently
  • "Schacht's report called for much increased foreign investment and advisory". What does "advisory" mean here? It does not make sense.
  • "Expertise" is probably a better term?
  • "In the Wilopo Cabinet, Sumitro was given the office of Minister of Finance". When?
  • Gave date
  • "accused the policies to be an indirect attempt at forcing the capital flight of Dutch firms". This is ungrammatical and unclear. You can accuse a person, not a policy.
  • "Claimed that the policies were an indirect attempt" - more appropriate?
  • "it was decided to abolish the Benteng program in order to increase domestic production". If I understood correctly, you described the Benteng program as restricting imports in order to increase domestic production, but now you say it was abolished to increase domestic production. This is confusing.
  • I described Benteng as a trade policy aimed at giving more share of the economy to native Indonesian importers in contrast to Chinese Indonesian ones, not to increase production.
  • "Sumitro lobbied for the development of Indonesian human capital in exchange for a number of fiscal incentives". I do not understand this.
  • Better now? Reworded it.
  • "many of the leaders under Banteng Council" "many of the leaders of the Banteng Council"?
  • Fixed
  • "Following the resignation of Mohammad Hatta from the office of vice president in December 1956, the movement received significant support from regional civilian leaders" Why was the resignation of Hatta significant? You need to explain.
  • "replacement of Abdul Haris Nasution in the military". As above. Why was he significant?
  • I could not quite put the context in the prose appropriately, so I put it in a note instead.
  • "Following the fall of Sukarno and the ascent of Suharto as president" You should give the date.
  • Added year
  • He was abroad at the time and I could not find anything about his comments/reaction to it. One infers “good riddance”, but [citation needed].
  • "He was also influenced by the Fabian Society of the London School of Economics." Of the LSE is wrong. The society founded the LSE as one of its many activities - it was not of the LSE.
  • Removed the LSE then
  • "While politically under PSI". What does this mean?
  • Member of PSI. Reworded.
  • "Sumitro's parents with his four children, 1963." Were his parents still alive in 1963? Do you mean Sumitro and his wife with their children?
  • Yes, his mother and father. Explicitly from the source of the image.

Coordinator comment

[edit]

More than six weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination attracts significant further movement 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) 20:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to time this out now and archive it, but I will give it another 24 hours. See if you can get some movement towards a consensus to promote by then. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: mind speeding up the review a bit? Juxlos (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but time is up on this one. I am archiving it and the usual two-week hiatus will apply.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 2 October 2022 [42].

1981 World Snooker Championship

[edit]
Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the the first of the six World Snooker Championships won by Steve Davis, who went on to dominate the sport in the 1980s. Viewers of TV snooker in the UK will likely be familiar with scenes of Davis's manager Barry Hearn bounding into the arena, lifting Davis in celebration. Losing finalist Doug Mountjoy set a championship record break of 145. Cliff Thorburn's petulant behaviour in the semi-final, stemming from his frustration at the behaviour of Davis and his fans, was well covered in sources. Thanks in advance for suggestions to improve the article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments Support by Henni147

[edit]

I am a big snookerfan myself and have worked on tournament articles at German wiki already, so I'd like to contribute to this FAC review. I'll start with linking and inline-citations:

Extended content
  • Lead section:
    • I'd say, there is no need to link "Engand" here, as it is a commonly known place.
    • The link to "frames" should contain the "s" letter at the end as well.
  • Overview section:
    • I would change "Birmingham, England" to "Birmingham in England" and remove the link from "England" to avoid MOS:SEAOFBLUE.
    • Insert a link to "West Bromwich", which is not a commonly known place outside the UK.
  • Qualifying round:
    • Insert link to Stockport and maybe Bristol as well.
    • "best-of-seventeen" → change to best-of-17.
    • Wrong order of citations after "few days before entries closed.[16][5]"
    • Personally, I would remove the link from "nervous breakdown", but that's probably a matter of taste.
  • First round:
    • "at the tournament,[5] as did Knowles,[19] and Martin.[5]" → change to "at the tournament, as did Knowles and Martin.[5][19]"
    • Wrong order of citations after "after being tied at 5–6, 6–6, and 8–8.[19][15]: 50–54"
  • Second round:
    • Maybe try to change wording of "reigning world billiards champion Fred Davis" to avoid the two side-by-side links.
  • Qualifying matches:
    • Wrong order of citations after "and at Romiley Forum, Stockport.[45][15]:12"
  • Place the section about century breaks at the end of the article before the notes section, to make it uniform in structure with other snooker tournament articles.

That's it at first visit. I will take a look at the prose text and content later. I hope, the notes are helpful. Henni147 (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this, Henni147. I've addressed all of these. For the point about Birmingham, it's now in the text as "Birmingham, England", which is consistent with some of the other cities mentioned. (In case you're interested, there's a WikiProject for Snooker.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a smart solution indeed. Thanks for the changes. I removed some duplicate inline-citations in accordance with WP:REPCITE and added a link to "best-of", because casual readers may not know how that match format works. I hope, that's okay. We also used to remove spacing from sources/citations to keep the markup size of the article as small as necessary, but every author has individual preferences (some don't like cluttered citation templates), so I leave that choice to you.
I will take a closer look at the content and wording now and give a quick feedback here. Henni147 (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from Henni147
Content and wording/formatting remarks:

  • Lead section:
    • "[...] was a ranking professional snooker tournament" → might sound better in wording as "[...] was a professional snooker ranking tournament" or even better "[...] was a professional ranking tournament in snooker" to avoid side-by-side links.
    • "Despite not winning major tournament since the 1978 World Snooker Championship" → the word "any" is somehow missing here.
    • "The tournament was the 1981 edition of the World Snooker Championship" → Since the year has been mentioned in the previous sentences already, this is no new information to the reader. It might be more constructive to replace "1981 edition" with "54th edition" or whichever edition it was.
    • I would also add the information that it's an annual tournament in the lead. It makes a big difference if the players have a chance to participate every year or just every two or four years. This is probably more relevant for the reader than the inauguration year of the event.
    • "The 1981 tournament was the fifth consecutive World Snooker Championship to take place at the Crucible Theatre since the first championship held there in 1977." → This sentence can be condensed to "The 1981 tournament was the fifth consecutive world championship to take place at the Crucible Theatre since 1977." It's a bit more reader-friendly.
    • "[...] top seed in the tournament was Cliff Thorburn" → I would definitely add "[...] top seed in the tournament was Canadian player Cliff Thorburn". It is rare to have overseas (especially Canadian) players in snooker, so I think the nationality is worth to be noted. It might be also good to mention that Steve Davis is from England.
      • I'll wait and see what other reviewers think - generally the advice is to remove mentions of nationalities rather than include them, but as Thorbun was the first world champion from outside the UK (apart from Horace Lindrum), there is a case for mentioning this here. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In the other semi-final, Doug Mountjoy defeated second seed Ray Reardon 16–10." → "In the other semi-final, which was an all-Welsh duel, Doug Mountjoy defeated second seed Ray Reardon 16–10." Again, it's quite special to have a semi-final at Worlds, where both players are from Wales.
  • Qualifying:
    • "All qualifying matches were scheduled across the best-of-17 frames." → This wording might be more clear for casual readers: "All qualifying matches were scheduled in best-of-17 playoff format with the first player to win nine frames."
  • First round:
    • "[...] and were the best-of-19 frames." → Better use the wording from the FAC article about the 1985 World Championship: "[...] and were played as best-of-19 frames."
    • Usually the mentioned players in this article get a short introduction like "David Taylor, the 1968 World Amateur Champion", which is very nice for deeper understanding. However, Tony Meo and John Virgo just get dropped in the first round section without any information why their match or the players themselves were notable. Same with Kirk Stevens and John Dunning. I would either add something there to point out the relevance or skip those match results.
      • I had a look at doing this, but for now I've stuck with descriptions that were used in contemporary reports. For Knowles and Dunning for example, it's hard to find something succinct and interesting to add. For qualifying, I've only overed some results, but it feels to me like all first round matches should be mentioned in the text. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Werbeniuk" is neither linked nor introduced with full name. Both should be added.
  • Second round:
    • "[...] and were the best-of-25 frames." → See comment on first round section.
    • "Davis led 6–2 against Higgins after their first session" → There is no need to link here, but I would at least write the players' full name at their first appearance in the section (Steve Davis and Alex Higgins). There are multiple snooker players with the same family name, so it's good to make clear whom the text refers to.
    • Same with Mountjoy, Miles, Thorburn, Griffiths, and Meo in the second, Stevens in the third as well as Werbeniuk, Reardon, and Spencer in the last paragraph → add their first names at first mentioning in the section. For a reader like me who hadn't been born in 1981 yet, many of these players are still unfamiliar.
    • The first paragraph of the second round section should better cover the match between Davis and Higgins only (which is the most detailed), and the Mountjoy–Charlton match be moved to the second paragraph.
    • "He went on to lead 9–6,[19] and won 13–7 to reach his first world championship quarter-final since 1977." → Does "he" refer to Mountjoy or Charlton? Better change "he" to "Mountjoy" to avoid confusion.
  • Quarter finals:
    • Since this section is quite short, it might be worth considering to merge it with the second round, which was played in best-of-25 format as well. Then there is no need to introduce all players in that section with full name again.
  • Semi-finals:
  • Final

Some more general comments:

  • The sections about the match summaries are sometimes a bit exhausting to read due to the excessive repetition of terms like "frame", "session", "won", etc. I am aware that it's impossible to skip them, but it might be worth a try to rephrase some paragraphs a bit, and make them more reader-friendly. This is especially important if someone plans to record a spoken version of this article. I realized myself how much it helps to improve the overall quality of the prose part if you read the full thing aloud once.
    • I'll have a think about this, but I agree. Generally the advice from reviewers is to keep "frame" and "session" for precision, and we also avoid some of the word commonly used in books and newspapers like "beat", "crushed", etc., which cuts down the availability of different words a bit. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, of course. I didn't think of replacing snooker terms like "frame", but rather using the following little tricks: If the word "won" appears many times in the same paragraph, one or two of them can be turned around. Instead of writing "player X won", you can re-phrase the sentence to "player Y lost". Other possibilities are "player X took the lead with", "player X extended his lead to", "player Y trailed player X by" etc. Some of those suggestions can also be used to re-phrase sentences that use the term "frame". I think, this should give a rough idea how the prose can be polished and made more reader-friendly with little effort. Henni147 (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table with the tournament final statistics doesn't satisfy all criteria of MOS:DTAB and MOS:ACCESS at the moment. Especially column headers in the middle of a table are problematic for the navigation with screen readers, and should be avoided (see MOS:COLHEAD). Maybe it's best if you use the formatting of the table from the 1985 World Snooker Championship article, which passed the FAC review in 2020.

That's it at second read. I can also do a source/reference check, but that will take a bit of time. Unfortunately, with spelling, grammar, and punctuation I am no big help, since English is only my third language. I definitely recommend to ask someone else for a detailed feedback there. Overall, the article looks very promising and I do think that it has the potential for FAC promotion. Nice job. Henni147 (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your careful and constructive review. I've made a start on addressing the points. If you do have the time and interest to conduct a source review, I can provide copies of any sources that you don't have access to, via Wikipedia email. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose: I have made a quick run with Earwig's Copyvio Detector, and the result looks good for online sources with just 6.5% similarity at max. I prefer to leave the copyright check with print sources to experts who are more familiar with the rules than me. However, if no one's willing to take on the task within the next one or two weeks, I can try it myself too. I hope, that solution is okay for you.
Note: If you need any help with the adjustment of the "final" stats table, feel free to ping me. I will also take another look at the article, when you're finished with all checks. Best wishes Henni147 (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose: Update: I think, apart from the "Final" table (waiting for consensus on the snooker project page) the page looks good now, so I'll give my support for FAC. Best wishes Henni147 (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A week later and no action. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to archive this one. Hog Farm Talk 00:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 3 October 2022 [43].

Hollow Moon

[edit]
Nominator(s): Feoffer (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about long-discredited conjectures that the Moon might be hollow or otherwise artificial, and how science was able to disprove them. Feoffer (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate to just snowclose this? Peer review sounds like what I was looking for more than FAC. Feoffer (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, one of the other FAC coordinators can close it. @FAC coordinators: Hog Farm Talk 01:06, 3 October 2022 (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/October_2022&oldid=1118584020"