Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2023

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 October 2023 [1].

Sagan standard

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 17:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recently realized that all of my FAs could be roughly construed as Southern history, so I hope this aphorism by the great and sorely missed Carl Sagan is a pleasant digression. It's pretty brief, so my goal is to have this promoted by November 9, so that it can appear as TFA on Sagan's birthday. ~ HAL333 17:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

Hi HAL333. So far as the coordinators are concerned, your JFK nom was a solo nomination, as is this one; and an "editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time". Given that I anticipate closing the JFK one soon I don't see that I need to be officious and archive this one as out of process, but if you could remember to check in with the coordinators prior to opening a second live nomination in future that would be appreciated. Cheers. @FAC coordinators: for info. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that - it won't happen again. ~ HAL333 21:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from UC

[edit]
  • It seems odd that there doesn't really seem to be any section discussing the response to, development of or criticism of Sagan's formulation (contrast for instance Occam's razor and Hitchens's razor. The Deming article cited seems to suggest that at least someone has critiqued the usefulness or limitations of the phrase as commonly understood.
Deming certainly does: see also from voorts below. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Might expand to a full review later, perhaps once others have had their say: this is very much not my specialist subject and I'm not sure how useful I can be at this stage. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist, I've expanded on criticism/nuance of the standard. Tell me how it looks. ~ HAL333 16:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: I apologize for the repeat pinging. Is there anything else that needs polishing? But if you don't feel able to support/oppose, no worries. ~ HAL333 20:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I'd missed your first. I haven't been able to give the article enough attention to vote sensibly on it: if I get the opportunity I'll try to change that, but please count me as an "abstain" from ignorance for now. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

voorts

[edit]

I have a few comments:

  • The application section only discusses science. Has the concept been applied outside of the (pseudo)sciences? If so, that needs to be discussed to meet the comprehensiveness criterion.
  • It's pretty much exclusively applied to science and the philosophy of science (it is a standard about evidence after all). I did find one paper that discusses it in the context of social media, but I feel that it would be undue weight to mention. ~ HAL333 19:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think additional sources can be consulted and cited. For example, the Deming article cites Goertzel & Goertzel, which seems to include an extended discussion of the standard based on Deming's quotes from it.
  • The article states "The phrase is commonly used in the context of paranormal and other pseudoscientific claims", but only cites two sources. I think a more comprehensive discussion is needed here.
  • Per UndercoverClassicist's note, I've found at least one criticism of the standard in this article. Perhaps take another look at articles citing some of the sources you've used (especially the Deming article).
  • "The standard has been described as being "at the heart of the scientific method" and is regarded as encapsulating the basic principles of scientific skepticism." - Since there's a quote, this requires an inline citation. Alternatively, paraphrase.
  • "It is also used in scientific literature when challenging research findings and proposals, such as during criticism of a newly asserted species of Amazonian tapir, stellar spectroscopy results, or public health data." "during criticism" is an awkward formulation. "Public health data" is also vague.
  • "A routinized form of this ..." It's unclear what the "this" being referred to is. Additionally, the paragraph containing that sentence could be rewritten ONEDOWN; throwing out terms like "null hypothesis" and "Bayesian priors" is a bit inaccessible for people who don't already know what those are.
  • "However, Sagan ..." It's not clear to me why this should begin with "However". I don't see a contrast with the last paragraph.
  • "Two 1978 articles quote physicist Philip Abelson—then the editor of Science—using the same phrasing as Truzzi." This is an incomplete sentence.
  • I'm not a huge fan of the passive voice. I change "quote" to "quoted" to make it more clear that it's a verb, which I think is probably the main source of confusion. Tell if if that works. ~ HAL333 19:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titles of works in references list need to be consistently capitalized per MOS:CONFORMTITLE.

Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed, unless otherwise noted. ~ HAL333 19:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few more notes:
  • I think "Analysis" should be its own heading and should be retitled "Analysis and criticism".
  • Shiffrin did not make the claim about confirmation bias attributed to him in the article. The paper cited is a discussion paper, and the person who made that claim is Suyog Chandramouli.
  • I don't state that Shiffrin made that claim, but I can see how it's unclear. I orginally attributed it to Chandramouli, but it was bit too choppy: "X said this. Y said that. Z said that." I've rearranged it. Tell me if it's any clearer. ~ HAL333 14:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's still a little unclear to me. For example, the paragraph begins, "Deming also noted that the standard can "suppress innovation and maintain orthodoxy", and then the next sentence does not attribute to a different author, making it seem as if that's still Deming's point. I know the X said this, Y said that can be a bit choppy, but I think more precision is still needed. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chandramouli also provides some interesting views on solutions to the problem posed by the Sagan standard, including "append[ing] to publications reviewers' thoughts on the plausibility of the purported claims based on current theories and their actual reasons for accepting submissions"; allowing for postpublication peer review; and allowing for versioning of articles to update analyses. Those might fit into the article somewhere.
    • There are also a few more perspectives in that discussion article, and some of those should be included in the article as well, in particular, Mary Murphy's views on gender/racial bias in applying ECREE (p. 272).
    • Have you searched through the writings of the authors in the discussion article to see if they've written more on the Sagan standard? Also, do the references cited in that article contain any additional information on the Sagan standard?
  • "It has been asserted that most scientific discoveries ..." – See MOS:WEASEL.
  • The cite for Evidence for Psi should use the chapter parameters in {{cite book}}.
  • Found another source that you might want to take a look at and incorporate.
voorts (talk/contributions) 20:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article should definitely be cited: ][https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11406-013-9500-z. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HAL333, have you finished responding to Voorts' comments? If so, could you pig them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
voorts, comments addressed unless otherwise noted. I've gone through JSTOR and Google Scholar, with no luck. ~ HAL333 16:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HAL333: A couple of responses above. Also, even if there's nothing new from Pigliucci, I recommend citing him in places where he supports other claims already made in the article for the sake of ensuring that readers can see that the articles exist. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts: Pigliucci has been incorporated — tell me if there's anything else that needs attention. Thanks, ~ HAL333 22:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I will wait for you to address @Shapeyness' comments below regarding incorporating the use of the standard in religious contexts, since that goes to some of my concerns regarding comprehensiveness. Please ping me when you've addressed that. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts: I addressed Shapeyness' comments as best I could. ~ HAL333 23:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @HAL333, for addressing those concerns. I support the nomination. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. ~ HAL333 17:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GWL

[edit]

Hey there, I have just an hour on my computer left, so this is a good choice to review! See invisible comments for section division. I also notice there's some comments on the comprehensiveness and writing above, so I'll support this nom once my comments are resolved + once I feel the comments above are resolved too. Also if you don't mind, I have an ongoing film PR. GeraldWL 10:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 04:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* Is the phrase needed to be italicized? I know words like Fuck do get it, but It was a dark and stormy night doesn't do this.
  • Removed.
  • "who used" --> "who first used" to indicate that's not the only place he used it
  • "according to Tressoldi"-- it's probably for the better if you state the full name in every first mention. As for "Voss et al.", in my opinion "It has also been" is a good replacement-- perhaps with a bit of paraphrasing, it's not necessary to attribute authors all the time.
  • Why is pseudoscientific linked in body but not in lead? Also using the pseudoscientific redirect will suffice instead of piping
  • Done.
  • Is evidence need to be linked? If so then explanation needs to be too, per articles like Logic
  • "Deming instead argues"-- since the name mention is only a sentence ago, suggest changing Deming here to the pronouns
  • Here you clarify who Sagan is, but one paragraph ago in the prev section you mentioned "Sagan" Per my point 3, full names must be in the first mention
  • "editor of Science" --> "editor of the journal Science", mostly concerning the screen readers
  • Remove Burden of proof from See also as it's already linked in body
  • Should it be mediums or media? Heard a lot of different explanations surrounding these two words.

Comments Oppose from RoySmith

[edit]
Except that the term clearly existed prior to our article. Here's the use of it in direct relation to the quote it refers to. Another from 2014. Oh, and here's an article from Space.com from 2010. So I'm not sure your claim of citogenesis works out.
Therefore, I think the above oppose should be ignored, as it doesn't relate to article content or quality whatsoever. SilverserenC 01:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thank Silver seren for finding these counter-examples, and yes, I do withdraw my opposition. RoySmith (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? The proper role of Sagan's dictum in astrobiology | Request PDF". ResearchGate. Retrieved 21 September 2023.
  2. ^ "Occam's razor | Origin, Examples, & Facts". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 21 September 2023.
  3. ^ "Definition of OCCAM'S RAZOR". merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 21 September 2023.
  4. ^ #author.fullName}. "Occam's razor". New Scientist. Retrieved 21 September 2023. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)
  5. ^ "Get to Know Occam's Razor, the 'Only Thing That Distinguishes Science From Religion'". Popular Mechanics. Retrieved 21 September 2023.
  6. ^ "The origin and popular use of Occam's razor". American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Retrieved 21 September 2023.
  7. ^ "How Occam's razor guides human decision-making". PubMed Central (PMC). Retrieved 21 September 2023.
  8. ^ "Explaining heritable variance in human character | bioRxiv". biorxiv.org. Retrieved 21 September 2023.
  9. ^ "Comment on Cox's "Uncertain Causation, Regulation, and the Courts": Supreme Court Economic Review: Vol 24". Supreme Court Economic Review. Retrieved 21 September 2023.

Spotcheck - pass

[edit]
  • according to psychologist Patrizio Tressoldi, "is at the heart of the scientific method, and a model for critical thinking, rational thought and skepticism everywhere".[6] supported
  • Tressoldi noted that the threshold of evidence is typically decided through consensus.[6] supported
  • This problem is less apparent in clinical medicine and psychology where statistical results can establish the strength of evidence.[6] supported
  • The French scholar Pierre-Simon Laplace, in essays (1810 and 1814) on the stability of the Solar System, wrote that "the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness".[6] supported
  • Sagan popularized the aphorism in his 1979 book Broca's Brain,[2][14] supported
  • Academic David Deming notes that it would be "impossible to base all rational thought and scientific methodology on an aphorism whose meaning is entirely subjective". ...[14] supported
  • He instead argues that "extraordinary evidence" should be regarded as a sufficient amount of evidence rather than evidence deemed of extraordinary quality.[14] I don't think this is supported on page 1320. But it is supported on page 1319: "For a claim to qualify as extraordinary there must exist overwhelming empirical data of the exact antithesis. Extraordinary evidence is not a separate category or type of evidence–it is an extraordinarily large number of observations."
  • Deming also noted that the standard can "suppress innovation and maintain orthodoxy".[16] supported
  • In his 1748 essay "Of Miracles", philosopher David Hume wrote that if "the fact ... partakes of the extraordinary and the marvelous ... the evidence ... received a diminution, greater or less, in proportion as the fact is more or less unusual" ... [26] supported
  • Psychologist Richard Shiffrin has argued that the standard should not be used to bar research from publication but to ascertain what is the best explanation for a phenomenon.[19] supported
  • Conversely, mathematical psychologist Eric-Jan Wagenmakers stated that extraordinary claims are often false and their publication "pollutes the literature".[20] supported
  • Sagan had first stated the eponymous standard in a 1977 interview with The Washington Post.[22] supported
  • Others had also put forward very similar ideas. Quote Investigator cites similar statements from Benjamin Bayly (in 1708), Arthur Ashley Sykes (1740), Beilby Porteus (1800), Elihu Palmer (1804), and William Craig Brownlee (1824), all of whom used it in the context of the extraordinary claims of Christian theology and the putative extraordinary evidence supplied by the Bible.[22] Supported for most part. I'm not sure that the last phrase about the Bible is supported for all of these authors. It's not essential so it might be best to remove it.

Phlsph7 (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
  • In the passage Tressoldi noted that the threshold of evidence is typically decided through consensus.[6] This problem is less apparent in clinical medicine and psychology where statistical results can establish the strength of evidence.[6] both sentences are covered by the same source. I suggest removing the first mention of [6] since the second one already covers both sentences.
  • The same applies to the following passage: Cognitive scientist and AI researcher Ben Goertzel believes that the phrase is utilized as a "rhetorical meme" without critical thought.[10] Philosopher Theodore Schick argued that "extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence" if it is the most adequate explanation.[10]
  • Kiely, John; Pickering, Craig; Halperin, Israel (2019). "Comment on "Biological Background of Block Periodized Endurance Training: A Review"". Sports Medicine. 49: 1475–1477. This is listed under books but cited as a journal.
  • Most journal articles lack identifiers like DOI or ISSN.
  • The titles of the sources are inconsistent concerning their usage of sentence case vs. title case.
  • ISBNs are inconsistent concerning their usage of hyphens.
  • Page ranges should use en dash (–), not the longer em dash (—).
  • WP:EARWIG shows no copyright violations (matches are due to quotes).
  • I didn't spot any close paraphrases.

Phlsph7 (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Phlsph7, all addressed. ~ HAL333 14:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HAL333: Thanks, it's looking good so far. For Deming 2016, I readded page 1320 since both pages are required to support the passage in question. I think the only remaining point is about the missing identifiers (like DOI or ISSN) for journal articles. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Phlsph7 - I was able to add DOIs for all but the two oldest articles. ~ HAL333 22:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC - Support

[edit]
Application
  • "The Sagan standard,[3][4][5]": these three sources are currently supporting three words, so I'm not sure what they are doing. Maybe move to the end?
  • "[3][4][5]": to avoid the citation overkill, it may be worth thinking about cite bundling to reduce the series of numbers?
  • You've not actually introduced us to what the standard is within the body. It may be worth a very quick introduction to what it is, and drop the text in the quotebox into a blockquote. (I didn't read the quote on my first readthrough, but it may just be me that's odd in not doing so.
Origin

If you're going to quote a well-published writer, then it's probably best to do it from as close to the original as possible, and not from someone who changes the spelling! Hume's writing uses "marvellous", not "marvelous"

Hope these help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat It did — thanks. ~ HAL333 14:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shapeyness

[edit]

Sources are surprisingly hard to find on this given its importance to scientific skepticism, but I think this article is pretty comprehensive. One thing that I think the article could give some space to that it doesn't currently is the use of the phrase in arguments against miracles or the existence of God. A few sources that you could use on this:

  • William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith (starting on page 273) - Craig's arguments are also discussed by Raphael Lataster here and in a Q&A post by Craig here
  • Robert Larmer's The Legitimacy of Miracle (starting on page 125)
  • Peter S. William's Getting at Jesus (starting on page 48)

Another more general source you might find useful is this chapter in Social and Conceptual Issues in Astrobiology. Apart from that, the only comment I have is that It is also frequently invoked in scientific literature to challenge research proposals, like a new species of Amazonian tapir, biparental inheritance of mitochondrial DNA, or a Holocene "mega-tsunami" is supported by primary sources, are there any secondary sources that discuss the role of the standard in relation to scientific claims that could be used instead? Shapeyness (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shapeyness, I appreciate the comments. I have incorporated Larmer and Craig's claims, however, William's seemed especially fringey. Despite having online accounts through two separate universities, I couldn't access the Lataster paper unfortunately. I had also previously come across the Astrobiology book, but again I can't access it (it's not on the Internet Archive either). What's interesting is that Sagan never actually used the standard in the context of religion: if he had, that aspect would likely be much more prominent in the literature. And, unfortunately, I haven't found a secondary sources that gives concrete examples of scientific applications. Tell me if anything else needs attention. ~ HAL333 23:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks HAL333, I don't think there is anything else that needs attention. I've added the Astrobiology source to cite It is also frequently invoked in scientific literature to challenge research proposals, hopefully that is ok! There are some other details from the chapter that could be used, but many of the points are covered in the article already. Therefore, all my comments have now been addressed, so I support the nomination. Shapeyness (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Could we have the page range for Goertzel & Goertzel,.
  • Done.
  • Is there a reason for this book not being in alphabetical order?
  • Add the ISBN to McMahon.
  • Done.
  • Truzzi: what makes Zetetic Scholar a high quality reliable source? It appears to be effectively self published.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, all addressed or otherwise responded to. Tell me if anything else needs polishing. ~ HAL333 01:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 October 2023 [4].

Fleetwood Park Racetrack

[edit]
Nominator(s): RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a horse racing track which existed during the late 1800s in what is now the Bronx borough of New York City. Almost all physical traces of the track are gone, although the name Fleetwood is still used in many ways in the area. RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Tentative support from Girth Summit

[edit]
  • Will give this a proper read through this weekend. My first impression is that the lead could be beefed up a little bit. At 13,559 characters, two paragraphs is compliant with MOS:LEADLENGTH, but I observe that they are two short paragraphs (both three sentences), and it is quite near the 15,000 character length where three paragraphs would be preferred. More to follow. Girth Summit (blether) 11:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've expanded the lede a bit.
      • Looks better.
  • "Fleetwood Park was a 19th-century harness racing (trotting) track..." Why is 'trotting' in parentheses? Unfamiliar as I am with horsey things in general, I first assumed that it was an alternative name for harness racing, but clicking on that article I see it is a type of harness racing. I wonder if this would be clearer to say something like 'harness racing track for trotting events' or some similar formulation? (Disregard this if that's how sources routinely refer to tracks like this - I may just be showing my ignorance.)
    • I'm also not an expert on horses, but the contemporaneous sources seem to use "harness racing" and "trotting" as synonyms.
      • OK.
  • "The most convenient way to get to the track..." - 'convenient' seems an odd word to use, there will inevitably have been some people who found other ways more convenient. I'd suggest either changing 'convenient' to 'common', or qualifying in some way ('The most convenient way for most visitors to get to the track...')
    • The source for this was Sun's Guide which said, "Fleetwood is easiest reached from Grand Central Station, by train to Melrose". I could add something like "according to Sun's Guide" if you think that would be useful.
      • Yes, I think that would be better.
        • Done.
  • "An 1897 New York City ordinance forbid the discharge of firearms..." I would use 'forbade' for past tense. Is that a AmEng versus BrEng thing?
    • Hmmm, I don't know the answer to that. I'll leave it for the grammarians to ponder.
      • I checked a few dictionaries, including Mirriam Webster, Oxford and Wiktionary. There seems to be general agreement that 'forbade' is the standard simple past tense in both AmEn and BrEn, with 'forbad' being a lesser-used alternate spelling.
        • Done.
  • "In 1895, the Harlem Railroad Company was also using the name Fleetwood in reference to a new rail station they were considering building in the area." This assertion seems to be supported by a citation to an 1855 publication; is it a typo in the date?
    • Fixed.
  • I'm a bit confused about the references in the history section to 'Mount Vernon'. The second paragraph of 'Prior to Fleetwood Park' gives me that there was a single area that was renamed a few times, including at one point 'Mount Vernon'. However, in the first paragraph of 'Post closure', it says that they considered opening a new track close to Mount Vernon, which makes me think that it's a different place. Could this apparent contradiction be clarified in some way for the benefit of readers who (like me) are almost completely unfamiliar with the local geography and history?
    • I'll need to think on that a bit. One thing I need to pin down for sure is whether the "Harlem Railroad Company" I refer to in the first section and the "Harlem River Railroad" I refer to later were two distinct companies. There were a lot of competing rail companies at the time, most of which underwent a series of bankruptcies and/or mergers and ultimately ended up either as part of what's now the NYC Subway or Metro-North. Part of the problem is that many of these companies had similar names, and the newspapers didn't always use the official names, so I'm not sure I'll be able to sort that out completely. I may end up having to hedge with some language in the article about this uncertainty.
    • Somewhat orthogonal to that, in Bronx County Bird Club, I created a map showing the location of various places mentioned in the article. Do you think it would be useful if I did the same here?
  • Should the quote by Cordova have a full stop/period at the end of it?
    • Fixed.
  • Can I suggest that there should be a paragraph break after "...the Empire City Trotting Club began operations at Yonkers Raceway." and before "Within a few years of Fleetwood closing..."? We seem to be shifting topic from the creation of a replacement track to the eventual fate of the old track.
  • Is there anything we can link 'Sun's Guide to New York' to, to let the reader know what this publication is? If not, a few words after its first mention might be useful - was it a general travel guide, a horse-racing publication, or whatever?
    • Nothing to link to, but I added an explanatory note. It is possble that it was related to The Sun (New York City), but that's just speculation.
      • The note helps.
  • Is the stuff about how much Robert Bonner paid for various horses telling us anything about this racetrack?
    • I think the value there is to highlight that the track was a plaything of the rich and famous.
      • Fair enough, I'd have probably left it out but I don't feel strongly about it.
  • What are 'transfer members'?
    • That I don't know. It's a term used in the cited financial report. Perhaps I should put it in quotes, as I did with "special day"? Nikkimaria had raised a similar point about what "assessment" meant in that same section.
      • Shame. Not sure what to do about that - I don't like using phrases that a general reader is likely not to understand without being able to point them at something to explain it.
        • Made it "transfer members", similar to I did with "special day"
  • I'm not a chemist, but I don't think that 'highly flammable' an accurate descriptor for nitroglycerin. It doesn't burn (react with oxygen in the air, producing flames), it's a contact explosive.
    • I removed "highly flamable".
  • One more general comment. I don't think I've seen an FA candidate before that is so extensively reliant on contemporaneous sourcing. The vast majority of the assertions are supported by 19th-century/early 20th century sources. I'm not going to oppose on those grounds - maybe it's more common than I think and I'm just not experienced enough in reviewing articles of this nature - but I'm always more comfortable when we're following modern sources and dipping into contemporaneous ones for extra details, quotation and the like. I'd have thought there must be some scholarship written in the last fifty years or so that touches on the history of this racetrack?

That's all from me for now. Girth Summit (blether) 12:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that when the couple of outstanding points above are ironed out one way or another, I'm likely to come down on supporting this. I am a bit uneasy about the lack of modern scholarly sources. I definitely want to support it - it's well-written, and an interesting read. I just have this nagging feeling that piecing articles together primarily from nineteenth-century press cuttings and early twentieth-century histories is really what professional historians should be doing, with us summarising their work in our articles. My first FA, Margaret Macpherson Grant, had to use a lot of contemporaneous sources too to get at a lot of the detail of her life, but I at benefited from this source, which despite being on a wordpres site was written by a scholar in a relevant field and has the backing of a UCL's British slavery project to give it some credibility: that helped tie everything together and provided a structure to hang the extra details on. If such a work doesn't exist for this racetrack then there's not much we can do about that, and I'm not going to stand in the way of it being promoted if other reviewers aren't concerned.

Girth Summit (blether) 16:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I think I've addressed all the points above, let me know if I missed anything. I'll keep looking for book-type sources, but I suspect I won't find any. Books that mention Fleetwood Park fall into two class. There's the Bronx history books, which mostly all just say the same thing: "There used to be this racetrack here where the rich and powerful of the time played with horses", And the books about horse racing, which seem to be mostly about the horses and their breeding and mostly just mention the track as having existed. RoySmith (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm new at this, but WP:FACR only requires "high-quality reliable sources". It doesn't say anything about how books are preferred over newspapers. And, yeah, I know, not all the rules are written down :-( RoySmith (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really 'we need a book', it's more 'we need to know what (if anything) modern scholars say, not just what journalists of the time said'. I guess my problem is that the further back in time we go to get sources, the more difficult it becomes to establish whether or not they are high quality and reliable. I'm not really thinking about this particular article here - it's pretty uncontroversial stuff, I don't seriously think that any of it is in real doubt. But speaking more generally, we don't treat all modern printed news sources as reliable - how confident can we be about a particular printed news sources from 100+ years ago?
The same goes for scholarship - my own (original) field of geology is an extreme example, but the Plate Tectonics Revolution in the middle of the 20th century pretty much changed everything about how geologists think about all sorts of processes like volcanoes, earthquakes and orogeny. Anything written on those subjects prior to 1970 is almost certain to have been superseded, and TBH we should really be looking for 21st-C sources because the field is evolving all the time. I've contributed to quite a few articles on the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, and the way historians think and write about them has changed markedly in the last fifty years or so. Details like 'this battle happened at this place on this day' haven't changed, but for discussions of motivations, political thought and so on, and even what the conflicts ought be be called, recent sources are needed if our articles are to reflect current thinking in 2023. (Again though, none of this really applies to this article.) Girth Summit (blether) 12:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, there seems to be precedent for newspaper-heavy FAs. I counted the number of {{cite news}}, {{cite book}}, etc, templates in all the pages under Category:Featured articles. Not perfect, for sure, but a reasonable first cut. I've uploaded the results (for all the ones with non-zero news) to User:RoySmith/fasources. Just spot-checking a few which seemed likely, Will P. Brady, Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House and 40 Wall Street all rely heavily on newspaper reports which I would call "historical", say the New York Times from 1899 or the El Paso Herald from 1919. RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That gives me some comfort. As I say, I'm happy to support if nobody else thinks this is an issue. Girth Summit (blether) 13:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit, as the person who nominated the U.S. Custom House and 40 Wall Street at FAC with large numbers of contemporaneous sources (although these two FAs also have some modern sources). my feeling is that such sources should be fine as long as these newspapers would also be considered reliable sources. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noting for the record that I'm withdrawing the 'tentative' part of my support - Epicgenuis's thorough review and comments on the sourcing have given me comfort, and I'm happy to support this article's promotion. Girth Summit (blether) 18:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]
Section 1
[edit]

Always love to see a NYC subject at FAC. I'm reserving a spot here and will comment later. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:
Hmm, I'm not sure what the right thing to do is here. 1 mile (1.6 km) certainly gets the conversion, but violates the style convention that you should spell out "one". Suggestions?
You could use the "spell" parameter, e.g. {{convert|1|mi|m|spell=in}} which produces one mile (1,600 m). Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • 1st paragraph: "The one-mile course described an unusual shape, with four turns in one direction and one in the other." - How come this isn't just "four turns to the left and one to the right?
It's only four to the left if you run it counterclockwise, and I haven't found anything that says it's always run in that direction. I'm more explicit about this in the first paragraph of Description.
Ah, I see. Never mind, then. Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd paragraph: "many wealthy businessmen of New York" - I feel like this can be rephrased as "many wealthy New York businessman".
Done.
  • 3rd paragraph: "with the shortfall being made up by annual assessments of the membership" - Like a property assessment, or a review of the membership.
The former, I've clarified that.
Description:
Done
  • 1st paragraph: "between 2nd and 5th Streets. This area lies between Webster and Sheridan Avenues and 165th and 167th Streets on the modern Bronx street grid." - Do you know whether 2nd and 5th Streets were renamed 165th and 167th, or do these streets not exist anymore?
Hmmm. It turns out the bit about 2nd and 5th street used to be sourced to an article in the Riverdale Press, which I eventually decided wasn't really a WP:RS so I dropped the source. Since the current source doesn't mention 2nd and 5th, I'll drop that too. FWIW, from looking at File:Map of the town of Morrisania, Westchester Co. N.Y. LOC 2004625898.jpg and comparing to the modern map, those streets only existed on the east side of Railroad Ave and I suspect got renumbered when the Bronx was annexed to NYC.
That makes sense. Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd paragraph: "Attendance at races could reach as many as 10,000 spectators" - I'd suggest "Attendance reached up to 10,000" or something similar.
Tweaked.
  • 2nd paragraph: "People also came by carriage from New York City" - Might be useful to note that NYC only comprised Manhattan at the time. This could otherwise be confusing, especially since the 3rd paragraph mentions NYC ordinances and that Fleetwood Park was exempted.
The annexation of the Bronx was in 1874; this is covered in Fleetwood Park era. I've changed "New York City" to "Manhattan" here.
That resolves my concern quite nicely (I was wondering more about why you were referring to the Bronx as though it was separate from NYC). Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd paragraph: "Fulton Market slip in Brooklyn and Peck slip in Manhattan" - Peck Slip is an actual street name and should probably be capitalized if it's being used in that context.
Done.
  • 3rd paragraph: "The exemption, however, was deleted from the ordinance in 1906" - I'd delete "however" as it's unnecessary in context. Same for "In 1890, however, the US Congress designated Chicago".
I've deleted the first one, but kept the second to emphasize that this event contrary to the original expectation.
I understand. Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Geology:
  • I noticed this section is quite short. Are there any other sources talking about the area's geology? Did it affect the racetrack at all?
I haven't see any, but I'll do some more looking. The essential point here is that the area of flat ground is what made this the right place to build a racetrack. For example, under Prior to Fleetwood Park: Horses had been raced near this location as early as 1750, on a racecourse built by Staats Long Morris, who took advantage of the relatively level land.
So, there's lots of modern sources that talk about the geology of the Bronx, but none that I could find go into the level of detail as this quote, and certainly don't explicitly reference Fleetwood Park as a location.
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Section 2
[edit]
Prior to Fleetwood Park:
  • 1st paragraph: "This location ... this area" - These might fall afoul of MOS:WHATPLACE so I'd rephrase them.
I've changed the first one (Special:Diff/1175526277), but if it's OK with you, I'd prefer to keep the second one ("this area") as is. I tried a few alternatives, but all of them sounded awkward, with circumlocutions like "the area which was originally southern Westchester but became the Bronx"). I don't think there's any real confusion about what area is being referred to, so leaving it as "this area" seems simplist. I can make another attempt if you like.
Fine by me. Epicgenius (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st paragraph: "The exact location of his track is unclear; it may have occupied the same area as the later Fleetwood Park track, or it may have been several blocks further north, possibly adjacent to what is now Claremont Park." - To confirm, this is what the LPC said?
Yup. Oddly enough, c.I750 there was a racecourse in the vicinity, established by Staats Long Morris, ... Some sources suggest that his course occupied some of the same land as the later track (McNamara 1984:220), while others place it just south of Claremont Park (almost one mile north of the project lots). I've added some {{rp}} templates.
  • 1st paragraph: "about 3 miles (4.8 km) north of Fleetwood Park ... about 3 miles (4.8 km) east of Fleetwood" - I would be more comfortable if we had citations for these (even a map would be fine).
That verbiage predates the map I added {{Fleetwood Park Racetrack/map}}. How about I delete all the stuff about distances in the text and just let the map stand on its own? This is all just to give the reader a sense of orientation as to where the various places are which are mentioned in the article, so it doesn't need to be exact.
  • 2nd paragraph: "Some sources still refer to the area" - Does this mean specifically the Encyclopedia of New York City, or did the Encyclopedia of NYC cite some sources saying this?
Clarified
Fleetwood Park era:
  • "The paper noted that $200,000 (equivalent to $6,100,000 in 2022)[37] had been invested in grading the terrain of the Morris estate to make it suitable for racing. A depression at the southeastern end had been filled and rocks at the northern end had to be removed by rock blasting and cutting." - This all happened in 1895?
  • I see the operation of this racetrack is further expounded upon in the next section.
I'm not sure if there's something you want me to do here. If so, let me know.
There is not. I was initially going to comment on the fact that this subsection is so short, but then I realized that "Operation", in a sense, contains all the information that should be in this section. Personally I would have five top-level sections (Description; Geology; History prior to Fleetwood Park; Fleetwood Park operation; Post-closure), but this is fine too. Epicgenius (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-closure:
  • 1st paragraph: "By the end of that month, the New York Driving Club had met to consider building a new track, with two possible locations under consideration." - I'd change this to something like "By the end of that month, the New York Driving Club had met to consider building a new track, identifying two possible locations", to remove the redundant use of the word "consider".
Reworded.
  • 2nd paragraph: "the club intended to issue bonds." - Do we know why?
The source doesn't say.
  • 2nd paragraph: "Despite these proclamations, by the end of 1898, it was announced that the new track would be built in Yonkers and operated by William H. Clark" - As well, do we know why?
The source does not go into those kinds of details.
  • 3rd paragraph: "This block is now the Clay Avenue Historic District" - This runs counter to MOS:DATED, so I'd say when the district was established instead.
Done
Operation:
  • 1st paragraph: "It argued that the single annual meeting was "not an important meeting", not being part of harness racing's Grand Circuit.[1]: 80  However, the track was admitted to the circuit the following year" - Do we know why it wasn't part of the Grand Circuit for 23 years but was admitted in 1893? Was that related to the Sun's Guide? Epicgenius (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added some material from the existing sources. Doesn't directly address your question, but it's in the ballpark. Oh, and beforey you ask, I intentionally didn't wikilink the city names because WP:SEAOFBLUE and it wouldn't really add anything useful anyway.
  • In the 2nd paragraph, do we have any membership statistics from before 1886 (i.e. in the first half of this racetrack's existence)?
I added a few more years; that's all I could find.
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
  • 2nd paragraph: I noticed there are four sentences about Grant, but he's relegated to the second half of the paragraph. If he was so important that a hotel and avenue were named after him, should he have his own paragraph? (In that case, this entire paragraph could be split out into its own section about notable attendees.) Epicgenius (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, dunno. Previous reviewers have been steadfast in pushing me to combine short paragraphs and sections into fewer longer ones. Let me know if you feel strongly about this, otherwise I'm inclined to leave it as is.
Actually, I tend to agree with these previous reviewers. I think you can just leave it. Epicgenius (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't gone into this in depth, but The New York Times should be italicized in the 4th paragraph.
Done
I know I promised to finish the review today, but unfortunately I'll have to look at the final section tomorrow, since I've been much busier than expected at work. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius:}, OK, I think I've responded to all of your points from this round. RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll have a look later today, or tomorrow, but I'm not really seeing much else to critique. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to the confusion, I ran across https://nyti.ms/46awUU8. This is an 1889 article stating, "A resolution to abandon the Grand Circuit was offered, but only received 14 votes". That's 3 years before they were admitted. I don't really have a clue what that means. Maybe it means, "abandon seeking entry to", but that's just speculation. I'll keep digging on that and if I find anything that's reliable, I'll add it to the article. RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the last few sections and only have the following comment:
  • Mishaps, 2nd paragraph: "40 stalls were destroyed" - should be "Forty" if you're beginning a sentence with a number
Done.
I see above that it is very difficult to find more recent scholarship about the racetrack (I found this and this. I will support this FAC since it doesn't seem like there's anything we can do about the lack of modern coverage. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

No spotcheck, looking at formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The use of LCCN, OCLC, and ISBN is inconsistent. Ref 1 uses OCLC (understandable, since there's no ISBN), but 2 uses LCCN, and 47 even uses OL. Add all or cut all for consistency
    • Done
  • Ref 11: what's this odd looking ark" number? I've never seen it before- should it be linked? Or is this something I'm just oblivious to? Do enlighten me!
  • Ref 12: If ref 9 has "Library of Congress: Chronicling America" in the via slot, then 12 should too
    • Done
  • The wide page range in ref 20 won't suffice for verifiability, especially since there's a quote; either split it into two and add the individual page numbers, or use Template:Rp
    • Done
  • All the NYT citations to TimesMachine articles need "subscription" in their access parameters
    • Done
  • Ref 44: format website as its title, not as a link
    • @MyCatIsAChonk: I don't understand. "Yonkers Raceway" is the title of the website. Not sure what you're asking me to change.
  • Ref 47: typo in "gossip"
    • Done
  • Why is Google Books linked in some of the citations' via parameters, but not in others?
    • Done
  • Refs 54, 81, 82 don't get a via?
    • Done
  • Ref 76 needs author
    • Done

RoySmith, done, great job MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass - for the Yonkers Raceway, the italicized website name was yonkers-raceway.info, and this was improper. I fixed it- if you oppose, feel free to revert. Also, if you get any extra time, would appreciate any comments at this FAC- thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary comment

[edit]

My commentary deals more on the positive side from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing perspective rather than from a technical Wikipedia analysis - although I have read through the commentary and corrections and I must say they are thorough and well accepted. I commended the effort that was appropriated to this article and wish that all our horse racing track articles would go through the microscope and be improved. Job well done to all involved.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Support from Serial #

[edit]

A recent discussion with Roy reminded me that they had their own candidate here already. Apologies for my tardiness at looking in, which I have been meaning to do since commenting on the article talk page a few weeks ago. My main concern then was the choppiness of the prose and the sentence-long sections/paras. Also, IIRC, a dearth of context and history. That, mind you, appears to have been dealt with, and it looks like some nice stuff has been done to the article since. However, it's a bit late here now, and there's a whisky to wrap oneself around, but I'll look at it again tomorrow and see what's been happening. Serial 17:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Back once again with the Renegade Master.
  • "Pigeon shooting": l/c
  • Link "schist"
  • Repetition of Jerome Park, perhaps link the second, it wouldn't be eggy.
  • Again, Morris Park three times; keep the first occasion, poss. even the second, but the last can be sth like "This course operated..."
  • "In 1899...": the following year
  • Link sulky on its first use.
  • Harlem River Speedway bit: relevance?
    • Trotting races moved to one of two places after Fleetwood Park closed: Yonkers Raceway and the Harlem River Speedway.
  • "The Sun's Guide to New York": should be swapped with the first mention of work, which abbreviated the title.
  • The guide: u/c G, as it's a (shortened title).
  • Repetition of "meeting": suggest "...single annual fixture was "not an important meeting", or equivalent.
    • "Meeting" is the canonical term that's used in horse racing, and the repetition follows the repetition in the source. If it's OK with you, I'd prefer to leave this as is.
  • Indeed, it's tricky to know what to link in the list of cities; perhaps best not to do so, as it would be a pretty subjective editorial choice. Basically, New York should never be linked, whereas Springfield, Mass., should always be (for obvious reasons!)
    • I'm not sure I follow. Linking all of these would be a severe case of WP:SEAOFBLUE, and just linking Springfield would make it stand out oddly. I'm inclined to leave it as is.
  • I think a new starting gun is probably worthy of commas rather than parentheses...
  • In hopes, tighter
    • I don't know what you're referring to here
  • Of course it would be undue to give each of those rich guys a mini-bio, but can a sentence be added showing why The Sun's Guide was justified in its claim; perhaps something like "...all millionaire businessmen and leading members of city society". At the moment the WP:READER only knows they're well-known but not why so.
    • The Sun's Guide is expressing an opinion. I don't see how it's appropriate for us to try to justify why they had that opinion.
  • I assume "bisect" is meant over "dissect"; it's hard to see one road cutting a race track into its component parts!
  • Something instead of "today": see MOS:REALTIME.
    • There's really only two time periods: the old street names that existed before this area was incorporated into the Bronx (100-ish years ago), and those after. MOS:REALTIME is concerned with things that might be true today but not tomorrow. I don't think that's an issue here. I could be more specific ("Across from what as of 2023 is called College Avenue") but that would be silly.
  • If me, "frequented by the jockeys"
  • Is "special day" a quote? If so, WP:MINREF.
  • [Excellent point that amidst the $1000s that were being spent on horses, no one forgot to get their money's worth out of the shite!]
  • "opened in 1873": I think "had opened..." as this is past historic by now.
  • 1873...1893. Tempted to suggest. "Twenty years later..." but.
  • Men dying, horses dying, $1000s worth of damage, and those are just mishaps?! "Accidents" must be more our style, surely (cf WP:EUPH)
    • Maybe, but while the fires were (I assume!) accidental, it just seems odd to put them under the heading of "Accidents". If you feel strongly about this, I'll change it, but lacking that, I'll leave it as is.
As I said, I had most of my say on the talk page; most of this is a comment on the reordering that has occurred and reflection since then. Nice article. Induced me to put on something apt. Like a drunken fuck on a Saturday night / Up came the bottle of smoke. Wooo-oh, etc. Cheers! Serial 16:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, other than as noted above, I've taken care of all of these. RoySmith (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to @Serial Number 54129 ping. RoySmith (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129 I'm not sure where things stand here. Are you OK with the changes I made or are there further changes you want me to do? RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for belatitudinous response Roy, I'm embracing weekend warrioririty at the moment. I stand by my view that 'Mishaps' is a clear euphemism, but acknowledge that my suggestion of 'Accidents' could be POV; as you say, they may well have been accidental, but actually, we don't know, so we shouldn't be telling the reader in our voice that they were. 'Incidents', though, squares the circle as it covers both meanings. My other main issue is with recentism; as it mentions 'today' in its list of proscribed uses, I assumed it would apply. But my MOS knowledge could always do with a second opinion; paging User:SandyGeorgia who will convince me either way, if she doesn't mind. My other concerns were merely with repetitive prose, use of brackets etc, small beer so fear not. Cheers Serial 13:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incidents is good, I've made that change. Let's see what Sandy says. RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been cogitating on this a bit and ended up changing "today's" to "the contemporary" (Special:Diff/1178638288). Does that help? RoySmith (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure cogitating in public is banned in several states. 'Contemporary' is excellent. Serial 20:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie

[edit]

Will drag myself around to this, in the next week. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891 I think at this point, all this is waiting on is a source to text spot check, so perhaps you could concentrate on that? Thanks. RoySmith (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's good. I hadn't commented yet because I wasn't finding much wrong with the prose, so can change tack. Expect this tomorrow and please ping relentlessly if not. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, man, you have no idea what peril you place yourself in by encouraging me to ping relentlessly :-) RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ping relentlessly as well? :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Double the pings can only lead me to working twice as fast, right? :D Eddie891 Talk Work 22:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of FAC, I feel obligated to point out, Gog, that you almost certainly can ping. I suspect, however, that you're asking if you may ping? RoySmith (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I must ask, "May I ping relentlessly, or should I ask permission first before I ping relentlessly?" ;) – Epicgenius (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No Roy, I think that you have misread that. What I meant was 'I am going to ping relentlessly, it sounds like fun.' :-)) Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Adding placeholder, will be finished probably tomorrow. JennyOz (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenny, were you still planning to comment? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian and RoySmith, yep, just have to look at changes since I did review. Sorry for delay. JennyOz (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RoySmith, thanks for this interesting article. There are lots of minor comments, suggestions and questions here. I do not usually make changes when reviewing FACs. I tend to be brief within my comments so pls let me know if you need any clarifications.

Top matter

  • Reorder to: Short des / good article / lang format / date format

Info box

  • A Good Send Off - as a titled work should be italicised, though perhaps complete the title ie add ",_ Go!" I'm not sure whether attribution is necessary? (MOS:CREDITS)
  • same image - in its Alt, change "carriages" to carts or sulkies. Change "riders" to drivers
  • has Date opened as June 8, 1871 which is the Daters brothers' date but article has New York Driving Club starting 1881 and uses the Category 1881 establishments?
    • The racetrack and the club are distinct entities, with their own start dates. It's like the difference between The New York Yankees and Yankee Stadium.
      • I'm still confused - you are saying Ibox relates to location but article category 1881 est relates to club? So who named it specifically "Fleetwood Park Racetrack", Dater bros or NYDC... or, should article name be Fleetwood Park racetrack? I'm fine with staying confused, it's quite normal for me! JennyOz (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

  • The races were a popular form - but what races? may need to say 'The races held there were a ...'
    • Done, but I'm not convinced it's a positive change. We already know we're talking about a race track from the previous sentence. What other races could we possibly be referring to other than the ones held at that track?
  • drawing crowds as large as 10,000 from - spectators
  • The one-mile (1.6 km) course described an unusual shape - as an?
  • owner and publisher of the New York Ledger - add italics
  • brother David, who at one point served as president - not sure about "at one point". How about 'who was a president of the club.'
    • I changed it to "at one time", which I think properly expresses the temporal nature of things.
  • the track failed to turn a profit - idiomatic? the track was unprofitable
    • If you insist, but I think it's OK the way it is.
  • annually via financial assessments - from not via?

Description

  • adjacent to Sheridan Ave - spell Avenue (it's the only time it's abbreviated, except in a caption which is fine, article doesn't abbreviate Street anywhere)
  • The clubhouse, a French Second Empire-style building - swap hyphen to en dash (MOS:SUFFIXDASH)
  • had a view of the track from above - ? meaning elevated? do sources say it was multi-story?
  • A 1885 map shows it - An 1885
  • if run counter-clockwise - was that the normal direction? ie why "if"? perhaps 'four to the left and one to the right, in a counter-clockwise direction
    • I haven't been able to find any sources which specify which direction it was run. It's reasonable to assume it was always run in the same direction and that direction was counter-clockwise, but there's no source for that.
  • from which they made connections via horse-drawn coaches - (there exist on WP some who take offence at the use of "via" in such cases!) in or by?
    • I think those people are silly, but I changed it to "by" to appease them.
  • were considered as possible sites for an 1892 World's Fair.[17][18] The fair was to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus arriving in the New World. In 1890, however, the US Congress designated Chicago as the host city for the World's Columbian Exposition - best to add 'held in 1893' seeing a different year (unless "1892" is a typo. I can't access the two NYT refs.) Also "possible" is redundant?
    • I'm not sure there's anything to do here. Both of the sources cited say 1892. Our World's Columbian Exposition says, Dedication ceremonies for the fair were held on October 21, 1892, but the fairgrounds were not actually opened to the public until May 1, 1893, but I think it makes sense to just go with what the sources say.
  • tobogganing image caption - "Wood engraving on paper. 1888." should be a comma after "paper" rather than period?
  • same image "by Thure Thulstrup" - insert de per image and Thure de Thulstrup

Geology

  • geology of the region, J. D. Dana described - link James Dwight Dana
  • Quote has been superseded by Blockquote Template:Quote?
  • The limestone area No. 2 ... joins that - format ellipsis
  • region of Fleetwood Park ... The northern - format ellipsis
  • extremity ... two valleys - format ellipsis
  • then northward ... The high land - format ellipsis
    • I don't understand what you mean by "format ellipsis". Isn't MOS:ELLIPSIS saying to do what I've got?

History

  • Horses had been raced near the Fleetwood Park location - is "near" the right word when it goes on to say "it may have occupied the site which eventually became Fleetwood Park"? perhaps 'had been raced in the Fleetwood Park area'
  • Monticello was originally chosen as the name - quote marks per below?
  • were being placed which referred to the development as Fleetwood. - I am not sure about MOS:WORDSASWORDS but should this particular use of Fleetwood be italicized or quoted?
  • with a $2,500 (equivalent to $88,000 in 2022)[37] reduction in rent - annual rent?
    • Annual would be a reasonable assumption, but the source doesn't actually say that, so it would be a guess.
  • led to the track being closed the next year - the last year mentioned is 1896 so "next year" would be 1897, elsewhere closure is dated as January 1, 1898
    • The January 1, 1989 date is for "permanently closed". My understanding is that it was closed after the last race in 1897, but still held out some hope it would reopen, until Jan 1 1898 when it was made clear that it never would.
  • $5,300,000 in 2022)[37], the club intended - remove comma
  • the new track would be built in Yonkers and - link Yonkers?
  • side of the Harlem River, It was intended - swap comma to period
  • sulkies, ridden horses, and bicycles - maybe horseback riders instead of ridden horses?
    • "horseback riders" is indeed the phrase used in the source, but WP:CLOP.
  • Harlem River Speedway - has a redirect page. Even though it goes to the Drive article linked below, consider link for future?
  • a $5 million bread - format ellipsis
    • As above, I don't understand what this means.
  • By the 1910's, motorcar racing - remove apostrophe
  • In the mid 20th century it was - hyphen mid-20th
  • Within a few years of Fleetwood closing, - possessive gerund, I think should be "Within a few years of Fleetwood's closing,"
  • to their newly-purchased property - remove adverbial hyphen
  • Warren C. Dickerson-designed - swap hyphen to endash (MOS:SUFFIXDASH)
  • (twenty-eight Warren C. Dickerson-designed semi-detached houses, three apartment buildings, and one private residence) - Did Dickerson only design the semi-detached houses? If so, perhaps add 'plus' after "houses" to avoid ambiguity
  • first official street map of Morrisania published in 1871 -ambiguous, needs comma after Morrisania (ie not the first published for that year)

Operation

  • clubhouse image alt "raised on a earthen embankment" - an earthen
  • program image alt "Cover from printed programme for "Old Fleetwood" Grand" - US spellng program?
  • (one source says 1.25-mile (2.01 km)) - that might be better for flow if made a note? (and lede only mentions the one mile version)
    • I actaully tried to make this a note, but ran into technical problems getting a citation inside another citation. I'm not sure if it's a limitation of the template editor or the template, or something else. If you can find a way to make it work, I'm happy to do it.
  • oval by the New York Driving Club (NYDC) - misplaced/unused acronym? It is only used once? eg in next para the full name is used again
  • "For a time ... the most famous trotting track in the country" - format ellipsis
    • As above
  • up to nine clubs: PIttsburgh, - decap letter I
  • included upgrading the grand stand - consistency, two other places use one word ie grandstand (except quote)
  • A new starter, Frank Walker, - I can't access all of the NYT source but if the problem they were endeavouring to solve is related to what is discussed here Starting gate#Harness racing, maybe link it?
    • I agree that's likely, but the source just says "The engagement of Frank Walker as starter has given general satisfaction.", so I think adding the link would be WP:OR.
  • Members of the club included - Notable members?
    • I'm always hesitant to say "notable" because it sounds like the author trying too hard to justify that the article passes WP:GNG, which is indeed what goes on at WP:AfD. If you feel strongly about this, I'll be happy to make the change.
      • Well as it stands it is slightly ambiguous ie could be read as they were the only members? You could say noted/known/some. We don't have to justify GNG they are notable, we have solid articles on them? More like in some lists we say only notable (blue linked) people/items are allowed. But, no, I don't feel strongly one way or the other. JennyOz (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leonard Jerome - remove line break from end of following ref
    • I don't see what you're getting at.
  • Robert Bonner, owner and publisher of the New York Herald and trotting - Bonner owned the Ledger not NYH?
    • Good catch, thank you for spotting that.
  • "Grant was a skilled horseman who could ride, drive and train them as required." Sorry but two problems here. The link is a bit easteregg-ish? :Second problem is that there is no antecedent for "them" . Although it seems obvious from the word "horseman", grammatically it's amiss.
Perhaps reconstruct to 'Grant's skill with horses was well-known; he could ride, drive and train them as required.' or
'Grant was a recognized skilled horseman. He could ride, drive and train horses as required.' or similar tweaking.
  • frequented by the jockeys. - drivers not jockeys?
    • I agree "drivers" is probably more accurate, but the source uses "jockeys" ("Opposite his house was the Grant Hotel, where the jockeys often stayed.")
  • held seven world record times set - hyphenate compound modifier ie world-record times
  • prize money record - prize-money record
  • held a series of world record times - hyphenate
  • owned by [[John Malcolm Forbes|John Malcom Forbes]] - why have incorrect spelling visible? Is it because NYT ref 75 has a typo? If so, silently correct per MOS:TYPOFIX? The second ref 76 HoF has correct spelling.
  • Major expenses were ground rent - insert annual?
    • I think "annual" would make it sound like this was a recurring figure, year after year.
  • stall rent ($4,404, Inflation|index=US|value=4408 - which figure?
  • labor ($4,178, equivalent to $136,000 in 2022) but $4,404, equivalent to $13,000 in 2022 - ah, typo in year, 1983 should be 1893
  • racing track in Hartford, Connecticut - add geocomma after Connecticut
  • Two weeks later Joseph Simpson explained - ID him eg journalist/reporter and add 'in the same publication' (B&S)

Images

  • In OpenStreetMap caption, remove space before comma at "Morris Park , 7"
  • Grandstand and clubhouse. The Horseman, September 26, 1889. - titled work so italics
  • Grand circuit program, 1896 (New York) - add cap Circuit for consistency

Sources

That's it for now. I think I may have a couple more to come, will doublecheck my notes. Thanks for your patience!JennyOz (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Except as noted in-line above, all of these have been addressed. RoySmith (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JennyOz are you OK with the fixes I made so far, or are there additional changes you're looking for? RoySmith (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RoySmith, coincidentally your ping arrived as I was doing some tweaks. Let me know if you have any questions about them. Yep your fixes good and thanks for clarifying some things for me. I do have a couple more minor questions and comments. Nothing to stop me adding the S word but it's late here so will add them tomorrow.
When I previewed my changes, script warnings appeared: One or more {{cite report}} templates have maintenance messages; and One or more {{cite book}} templates have maintenance messages;. (Whatever is amiss pre-existed my edits.)
I hope you aren't finding the reviewing process too frustrating! Thanks. JennyOz (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've seen the template warnings. I haven't been able to figure out what they mean, but they don't seem to be causing any problems so I haven't worried about them. If anybody reading this has a deeper understanding of the template magic, I'd be grateful for input. RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked at WT:Citing sources#Citation template warnings? RoySmith (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Solved. RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's great! I'm not v good with code issues. JennyOz (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last tidbits...

I don't remember if I'd seen that particular one, but there's no shortage of them. The article used to have more, but I thought it was getting image-heavy and cut a few out to avoid layout problems. Maybe a gallery, or a {{Commons category}} would be useful? RoySmith (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Hello again, I just made a couple more minor tweaks. have also added some reply comments above - nothing to fuss about, but sometimes it's good for future for you to be able to say "this was discussed and clarified during the article's FAC review process." Wth that said I am happy to support promotion. This is a comprehensive article which goes to ensure this piece of Bronx history lives on. Nice working with you, JennyOz (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 October 2023 [5].

The One (Tamar Braxton song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The second single from Tamar Braxton's 2013 album Love and War, "The One" uses a sample of Mtume's "Juicy Fruit" (1983) and a portion of the Notorious B.I.G.'s "Juicy" (1994). These samples received criticism as derivative and overdone by past songs, although critics did have positive reviews for the single. "The One" was very recently certified Gold by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and by very recently I mean October 5, 2023 so now seems like an apt time to nominate it for a FAC.

Thank you to @Damien Linnane: for doing the GAN review all the way back in 2018. I have brought a few Tamar Braxton articles through the FAC process recently, with my last two being "My Man" and "Hot Sugar", but I plan on taking an extended break from music articles to focus on other subjects. As always, any comments would be greatly appreciated! Aoba47 (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)

[edit]
Comments
  • "The lyrics are about committed to a romantic partner" => "The lyrics are about being (or similar) committed to a romantic partner"
  • "The single peaked at number four on Billboard's Bubbling Under Hot 100, number 34 on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, and was" => "The single peaked at number four on Billboard's Bubbling Under Hot 100 and number 34 on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, and was"
  • "he explained that additional scrutiny was placed on the song since it seen" => "he explained that additional scrutiny was placed on the song since it was seen"
  • "The lyrics are being dedicated to a romantic partner" => "The lyrics are about being dedicated to a romantic partner"
  • "The lyrics [...] in which Braxton sings with what Vibe's Kathy Iandoli interpreted as breathy vocals" - don't think this really works. Maybe replace "in which" with simply "and"
  • "Braxton said it was based on going out on a date in high school; she likened to when" => "Braxton said it was based on going out on a date in high school; she likened it to when"
  • "Braxton performed "The One" at an industry showcase in Los Angeles.[note 5] For the song, she was accompanied by four male back-up dancers"=> "Braxton performed "The One" at an industry showcase in Los Angeles,[note 5] accompanied by four male back-up dancers" removes unnecessary verbiage
  • "Phoebe Robinson for Glamour praised the single as "breezy, easy, and catchy", comparing to a song of the summer" => "Phoebe Robinson for Glamour praised the single as "breezy, easy, and catchy", comparing it to a song of the summer"
  • That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for the review. It is always greatly appreciated. Apologies for the very, very dumb mistakes. I believe that I have addressed everything. Feel free to let me know if there is anything that needs further revision and improvement. Hope you are having a good start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NØ

[edit]
  • "Braxton co-wrote the song with its producer K.E. on the Track as well as with" - I believe you can do commas before and after "K.E. on the Track" since he is the sole producer and the word could only be referring to him.
  • "Epic Records and Streamline Records released it as the album's second single" - Very nitpicky but you can hide the word "Records" the first time and go with something like "Epic and Streamline Records released it ..."
  • "Critics praised "The One" as reminiscent of summer, but believed the samples had already been overused in past songs." - Either the comma can be removed here or you can change this to "reminiscent of summer, but they believed" (WP:CINS). There's a small issue related to that with the following sentence as well.
  • The article uses "LaShawn Daniels" but the note uses "LaShawn Daniel"
  • "Braxton would either suggest further revisions or change small parts" - Is the "would" part necessary?
  • "Donaldson recorded the track, and Gene Grimaldi mastered it, along with all the other tracks on Love and War, at the Oasis Mastering recording studio in Burbank." - This sentence has quite a few commas and might benefit from some type of splitting or rearrangement if possible.
  • I removed the part that Grimaldi mastered the rest of the album as well because I do not think it is really pertinent here and it would cut down on the awkwardness of the sentence, but I can revisit this again if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Braxton sings with what Vibe's Kathy Iandoli interpreted as breathy vocals" - I'd go with something simpler like "and Braxton sings with breathy vocals according to Vibe's Kathy Iandoli"
  • Assuming "TV" is still short for television in "WE TV", I am not sure it should be lowercased.
  • The channel's article seems to suggest they at least briefly branded as "Women's Entertainment" (which would make "WE" an initialism). I am honestly not that familiar with the channel and will leave this to your judgement.--NØ 15:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe Braxton's quote about the video being based on going out on a date in high school should appear earlier in the paragraph and not next to the critical reviews to avoid any confusion.
  • "It was the opening song for Braxton's 2014 Love and War Tour, and the same year, she sang it at the Essence Music Festival in New Orleans." - These might be better as different sentences since there does not seem to be a major connection between the performances.
  • Yoh Phillips appears to be a reputed critic (she has written for Rolling Stone) but do you think saying the song was well-received might be a non-subjective opinion and Tidal should not be used? I have no strong opinion on this and just wanted to bring this to your attention.
  • I agree it is not a subjective opinion. I attributed in the prose and pulled it as a quote to emphasize that it was the writer's personal opinion. I thought that it would be informative for readers as a writer would look back on this single years later and view it as well-received, and that it would pair well with K.E. on the Track's quote on why he thought the song did well. I would be more than willing to remove it, but I tried to go out of my way (i.e. attributing the writer/publication, using a direct quote) to avoid having this presented in Wikipedia's voice or as a fact (because "success" is very relative and I could see and understand why a lot of readers may not find this song to be that successful). Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The RIAA abbreviation does not need to be included since it is not used again.
  • I believe the certification table should have a caption as well. Unrelated to the review, but it is such a cool coincidence the song got certified just a few days before the FAC!
That should be it from my part. I had been prepping a review for this before the PR was archived so I am glad you decided to bring this to FAC anyways! I will read through the article again once these are addressed but should not have much to add.--NØ 15:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MaranoFan: Thank you for the review. I greatly appreciate it. I believe that I have addressed everything except for one point which I noted (and I would be more than happy to revise if necessary). I was on the fence about putting this article through the FAC process, but at the end of the day, the recent certification really inspired me to give it an attempt at least. I hope you are doing well, and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More than happy to support this article for promotion. I would appreciate any help with my nomination above (that article is much longer though so only if you have the time). Hope you are having a great week as well!--NØ 15:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and the help. I will look through your article later today. Aoba47 (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

Putting myself down here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go! As always, open to discussion on any points.
  • "did the backing vocals" maybe sub "performed backing vocals"? "did" sounds a little informal
  • Maybe link Mastering (audio)?
  • Nothing to gripe about through Music and Lyrics, and Release
  • "comparing it to a song of the summer" - not sure about the phrasing here. They didn't compare it to, they said it was one. Maybe "calling it one of their top 20 songs for that summer"?
  • "proved Braxton's capability to have" - bit awkward here. Maybe "Proved Braxton was capable of having"?
  • I suggest reorganizing the second paragraph in Reception a bit. We go from two sentences about the samples being overused, to someone who liked it, then someone who was ambivalent, then someone who really hated it. I think it might make more sense to cluster by attitude - start with X Y and Z who didn't like it, then segue into "however, A and B were less critical, saying blah blah".
  • In the same paragraph, we've also got Lipshutz getting into the vocals, which is not quite on-theme for the paragraph, which focuses on the samples
  • Paragraph 3 is mostly chart and streaming performance, but has a few random critical quotes. Can they be moved to the first paragraph?

Really, aside from the couple of things in the Reception section, there's not much to gripe about here. Well done :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Premeditated Chaos: Thank you for your review. I greatly appreciate it. I believe that I have addressed everything. I have rewritten most of the "Reception" section to hopefully be more cohesive. Let me know me if there is anything that can be improved, and I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

[edit]
  • Google Books says that the Weissman book was published by Routledge. I don't see a mention of Taylor & Francis anywhere.
  • Thank you for catching this one. I have corrected it here and when I used it in the "Hot Sugar" (song) article. I think that I probably just relied on the Google Books metadata, which lists Taylor & Francis as the publisher, without double-checking in the actual book. Apologies for that. Taylor & Francis are mentioned for copyright in the front matter, and that obviously does not make them the publisher for this book. Aoba47 (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The VH1 source (ref# 28) redirects to their Facebook page.
  • I am not having that issue on my end. I am adding in the link (here) just to make sure we are talking about the same source. It leads directly to the VH1 source for me, but I could mark the link as dead if there is still an issue so the archived link would take priority. Interestingly enough, when I was looking through this citation, I found that it did have an author (which was listed at the bottom of the page) so I have updated it accordingly. Aoba47 (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems to be a location thing. I suppose the website is not available here in Germany? When I opened it with a US VPN, it worked for me so I guess you could mark it as dead so everyone can access it. FrB.TG (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for pointing this out for me. I will be more mindful of this in the future. I find it interesting that certain websites are not available in other countries. I shouldn't be surprised though, but that is one of the many benefits of archiving citations. Hopefully, you can access the archived version. Aoba47 (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears you are using title case for the sources titles. Generally, small words like "and" (e.g. source 7, 35 etc.) and "in" (the PR Newswire source) are not capitalized unless they are the first or last word of the title. I understand you are reproducing them but MOS:CONFORMTITLE?
  • I fully admit that this is one of my weak spots, and I will actively work on improving it in the future. I believe that I have updated this, but apologies if some instances have still slipped through the cracks here. Aoba47 (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • PR Newswire is generally considered an unreliable source but I understand it's an official press release by Epic Records.
  • I can understand why PR Newswire is not considered reliable, but since it is an official press release by the record label, I thought it would be appropriate. I have found the same press release (here), but it was published by Sony Music Entertainment. That might be a better one, but I wanted to check in about it first before doing a substitution. Aoba47 (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is what I thought, but I wanted to check in first. I have swapped the sources, and I will be more mindful of finding alternatives for PR Newswire in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FrB.TG: Thank you for the review. I really do appreciate it. I have a quick question about the press release as I found the same one published by a more credible publisher, but I wanted to check in about it first before swapping things around. Also, apologies again in advance if I had missed anything with putting the citations in title case as again, I fully acknowledge that this is a weak spot for me. Hope you are having a good end to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Any reason why in the lead we get a precise date for the release of the single, but not the album?
  • The best thing I can think of is it would keep the lead focused on the single rather than the album, and the year could help to situate when the single came out in relation to the album (especially in situations like "No Excuses" (Meghan Trainor song) where a single came out two years before the parent album was released. I wish I had a more exact reason though, but that is my best guess at it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean that the date the album was released is not known? Or are you saying "The One" was released before the album? Or both? (I think you can see why I would prefer some clarity in the lead. And the article.)
I have added the album's exact release date to the lead and the article (with a citation in the latter case). Just to be clear, I do not have any issue with putting this information in. I can see how it is helpful and adding context and clarity is always beneficial. My response was focused on saying that all the song FAs I have seen do not put in the album's exact release in the lead, instead opting just for year. I do not know if there is an exact reason for this so I was just brainstorming different ideas. The album's exact release date is known and "The One" was one of the singles released prior to the album's release. Aoba47 (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional, work note 4 into the main text.
  • Perhaps link back-up dancers?
  • "he attributed the song's short length as preventing it from becoming stale". I don't think this is grammatical. Perhaps 'suggested' or 'felt' instead of "attributed"?
  • "The track was at number 88 on the Year-End version of the latter chart". Perhaps a footnote explaining that this is based on the cumulative sales for the year and not the "year-end" position?
  • Very good point. I have added a note and a citation for this part. I have gone with a 2012 Billboard article since I thought it would be best to go for a citation that was close to the single's release (i.e. 2013). Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. It's short, but as a non-subject expert it seems comprehensive. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good to me. Just the first point to go back and forth over. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Thank you for your patience with the review. I have added in the exact date in the lead as I do not understand that clarity and context are important. It is important to make sure readers have a clear understanding of the subject matter and to remove any sources of potential misinterpretation or confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't need patience. You are a very on-the-ball editor, I could only find a couple of minor nit picks, and you addressed those remarkably quickly. Thank you. It makes me want to review more of your nominations. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words. I try my best to stay on top of things, and I always appreciate more reviews and getting different perspectives. It helps to make me a better editor (or at least hopefully) and improves the article. Aoba47 (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

[edit]
  • "positive reviews from critics who positively" → I am positive this is repetitive :P
  • I found it really interesting how the article starts off with the producer first, and goes into Braxton later. This seems to be the right choice as the song was more his creation than Braxton's. However, a sentence or two giving context about where Braxton is in her career at the time of the recording seems to be missing
  • That makes sense. I added a part after the first mention of Love and War to try and encapsulate her past music career and how the album stood out as something she had more creative control on (or at least that is what she says). Please let me know if this needs to revisited though as I am open to moving it around to a different part. Aoba47 (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • note 2 starts with "Donaldson", but we aren't introduced to Donaldson yet
  • no genre and/or influences available?
  • Unfortunately, I could not find any sources that discuss the song's genre or even its influences. To be honest, most of the coverage focuses on the samples and a broad description of the song's premise. Reviewers did not really go further into the lyrics or the instruments or much in general, which is unfortunate and a tad odd. Aoba47 (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • wake you up", → but good and plenty." has quote outside of punctuation?
  • I put a period at the end of the first instance. I put punctuation on the inside of both quotes as they are complete sentences from the sources. It wouldn't make much sense to move the comma into the quotation marks as it is not a part of the quote. Aoba47 (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "praised the video's upbeat atmosphere" → praised the video's atmosphere as ubpeat
  • kathy Iandoli should not be listed as "Vibe's" as she is writing for Idolator
  • Tamar Braxton - Fillmore Miami Beach → Tamar Brazton – Filmore Miami Beach. there are a few other hyphens that should be converted to en dashes, and an em dash that should be converted to en dash per MOS:DASH
  • I have attempted to revise this, but I honestly know that I likely messed it up more. I am addressing these comments before bed, and for whatever reason, I am struggling to get this through my head. This has always been a weak spot for me so the timing of my responses probably does not help. Apologies in advance, and I would be more than willing to try again when I have a clear head (or at least hopefully). Aoba47 (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Khan is identified as "Yahoo! Contributor Network" in the review, which seems akin to a self-published source like WP:FORBESCON
  • That is a good catch, and I completely understand your concern. I did some digging on the author (Shehnaz Khan) and I believe she has the credentials to be considered notable. I noticed that on her Twitter account (here), she says she is a journalist for other publications. I did some further digging to verify that of course, and I found things like profiles on The Independent (here) and HuffPost (here) and articles in publications like Bustle (here).
  • Khan appears to be a freelance journalist. Just to be clear, I would be more than willing to remove this citation if necessary and if you believe this information is not enough to make this citation appropriate for a FA, but I just wanted to address this and check with you first before making any major changes. Besides, I know I messed up the dash stuff so I will likely be revisiting your comments again in the very near future. Aoba47 (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's okay to be a freelance journalist but it is not clear that the Yahoo! Contributor Network has editorial oversight processes. It seems to be similar to WP:FORBESCON and WP:HUFFPOCON. I don't feel that it has been demonstrated that Khan is a subject-matter expert in terms of music criticism. Heartfox (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Heartfox: That makes sense to me. I have removed Khan as I agree that editorial oversight is important, particularly when determining if a source is appropriate for a potential FA. I just wanted to double-check with you before removing it. Thank you for your patience with this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome as always, Heartfox (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Heartfox: Thank you for the review! I appreciate it as always. I have addressed everything, except for where noted above. Apologies again for not getting the dash parts. I am just being incredibly dense with it right now. It probably doesn't help that I am editing when I am tired and before sleeping. Please let me know if anything requires further improvement. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If you are interested, I don't know her is currently at DYK and GAN, and would benefit from your thoughts. Heartfox (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support and help with the article in general. I hope you are having a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Status update request

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Apologies for the ping. I was just curious if I could get a status update on this nomination. I just do not want it to get lost as more nominations are being added and this one is pushed further down the list. I hope you all have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty good, I expect we'll be looking to close this weekend. Start another if you like. Cheers, I.
Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 October 2023 [6].

Photograph of Mary

[edit]
Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a short article about American singer Trey Lorenz's second single "Photograph of Mary", produced by Walter Afanasieff and Mariah Carey. Heartfox (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • For the infobox image, I am unsure if Discogs is the best site for a source link as I have seen some questionable covers on the site. The archived version of the link also loads weirdly to me. I can see it for a moment, and then I get an error screen. Would it be possible to find an alternative for this link?
    Discogs has the highest-quality copy of the cover (ie outside of the jewel case), but it can also be found on Amazon.
    Good point. I think since there are other sources out there that validate this cover art's existence, then linking to the site with the highest-quality copy does makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about part of the lead's structure. Any reason why the sentence on the song's single release is put at the end of the first paragraph? From the articles I've read, it is more often put as the second sentence or one of the first ones. There is obviously not a set structure for these articles, but I was wondering about the rationale behind this choice?
    Moved to the second sentence
  • In the opening sentence for the "Background and release" section, Mariah Carey is described through her nationality, but the same is not done for Trey Lorenz so it is a touch inconsistent.
    Removed "American"
  • I have a question about this part, (forward to October 1992). I think it would be helpful to briefly provide some additional context and add when it was pushed forward from as it is not clear in the current wording. It could vary from anything to being pushed forward a week or two, a few months, or even from a 1993 release, and I think that clarification would help readers.
    Added
  • I have a clarification question about this part, (To support the single, Lorenz appeared on the BBC1 children's television show Going Live!). It seems, at least based on my reading of this part, that Lorenz did not perform the song at this show so how did his appearance promote this song? It is not immediately clear to me.
    I removed that and will add it to the album article later
  • I believe I already know the answer to this, but was there any further coverage on the music video other than it exists? I am guessing that would be a no, but I want to make sure.
    I couldn't find anything unfortunately
    That is what I had thought, but thank you for checking anyway. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a comment for this part, (It has a "na na na" hook resembling that in Elton John's 1970 single "Take Me to the Pilot"). This information is presented in Wikipedia's voice so it is stated as a fact, and I think it would be best to attribute this to the critic. I bring this up because a similar association is more clearly attributed in the prose in this sentence: (According to Music Week's Alan Jones, the song's beat is similar to songs by the group Soul II Soul.)
    Reworded
  • I would link mastering in this part, (conducted mastering at Masterdisk).
    Linked
  • The "Critical reception" section seems rather short. It may be a matter of personal preference, but since it is only a rather short paragraph, it may be beneficial to combine it with a different section, like the one for "Commercial performance".
    Yes as the second single from an obscure album there is not much extractable information from the minimal reviews. Some editors do not like combining critical and commercial sections so I will just leave it as is for now.
    That's fair. I think it just comes down to a matter of personal preference and I do respect the choice to keep these section separate. I will leave this up to other reviewers to discuss further. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, (Music & Media's Steve Morton and Billboard considered it), why is Larry Flick not attributed in the prose since it is credited as the editor in the citation?
    I don't know if he is the one writing all the reviews or just edited other anonymous writers' work
    For whatever reason, when I looked at this, my thought process went to the editors being the ones that wrote the reviewers, but you are right that this might not be the case so it is best to err on the side of caution. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would link Synclavier and Akai in the "Credits and personnel" section as I could see some readers being unfamiliar with them. I would also link items like mastering since more music-based jargon is often linked here to help readers unfamiliar with these terms.
    Linked

Great work and interesting choice. It seems like this song, and I would say Lorenz's music career as a whole, has largely been forgotten. I enjoyed reading through this article and as I am sure most people on here know, I do lean more toward the obscure stuff so that is probably why. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure I have not missed anything. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the helpful comments :) Heartfox (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the responses. I am glad that I could help. I will read the article again sometime tomorrow to just make sure that I have not missed anything. Have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have read through the article a few more times, and I could not find anything further to comment on. I support this FAC for promotion. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: thanks for the support. Sorry to bother you, but seeing as you have already looked at the infobox image, do you mind reviewing if the song sample is okay as a part of a media review if you have time? Best, Heartfox (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GWL

[edit]

This is a short one so there shouldn't be much comments from me. I've put invisible comments to divide my comments based on sections. GeraldWL 04:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 03:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* URL cites must have accessdates
  • Why? All of the URLs have archive dates which essentially act as access dates as they permanently confirm information (i.e. with proof, unlike access dates) in a static nature
  • For ref 38 I suggest making bullets:[1]
    Converted to template
  • Usually music articles as I see have external links like Discogs and MusicBrainz
    Per WP:EL external links should be "relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" and "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" should not be included. I am not seeing anything on Discogs and MusicBrainz that is warranted for inclusion but not already given in the article. I am personally opposed to including by default links to these databases. Of course, a consensus could form on the article's talk page but I am not adding them myself.
  • Remove "Single" in the alt text since it's repetitive to the subtitle "Single by Trey Lorenz"
    Removed
  • "In 1990, then-college student"-- this feels kinda awkward to read, suggest "In 1990 while in college, Trey..."
    Reworded
  • "The label promoted" --> "the label then promoted", to fix this paragraph's this happens, then this, then this flow
    Can you clarify what the problem is, wouldn't adding "then" make the flow worse?
    I'm not sure if I can explain properly, but this usually happens with film good articles "The film won this award. Then it won this award", and repeats it like 5x. Typically the way to resolve this is to introduce new wording to make it more engaging and not just A, B, C. I was thinking something like "In the United States, Epic issued "Photograph of Mary" .... It was then promoted to .... and released in the ...." Also as an additional note: "as a 7-inch vinyl" --> "on 7-inch vinyl".
    I agree but adding "then" in this instance implies that the radio promotion began after the physical release, which we don't know to be the case. Changed "as" to "on".
  • "1992. Epic released the song in the United Kingdom" --> "1992, and later released it in the United Kingdom"
    Done
  • "live on ITV's" --> "live on British television network ITV's"
    Reworded
  • Link music vid
    Linked
  • The attributions are all in past tense except for the last: "provide background vocals". Should it be this or provided?
    Changed to "provided"
  • "at The Record Plant in California"-- decaps "the"
    Done
  • "New York" --> New York City, for consistency w/ the infobox
    Done
  • "Masterdisk in New York" --> "Masterdisk, also in New York City"
    It is not clear if Masterdisk is in New York City or New York State
    It is in Peekskill, New York. I think it should be included to be consistent with the other location tags, plus the fact that the facility's article mentions the location should do without needing extra refs here. GeraldWL 03:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am seeing a 1997 Billboard article which indicates it was headquartered in Manhattan at the time. Changed "New York" to "Manhattan"
  • "produced R&B, hip hop, and house music remixes" --> "produced R&B, hip hop, and house music remixes of the single."
    Added
  • "on Cash Box R&B Singles"-- on the article it's "Cashbox"
    The magazine was known as "Cash Box" in 1992, not "Cashbox", and "Cash Box" is already bolded in the lead as an equivalent title so it shouldn't matter
  • "on the club chart"-- why not using the full name, Record Mirror Club Chart?
    Added
  • Link stuff in the tracklist paranthesis-- "Bass Hit Dub", "LP Version Edit"
    I don't think those are appropriate links. These are song titles, not nouns used in sentences. We don't know if "Dub" corresponds with the Dub music article. Like MOS:LINKSTYLE says, "Be conservative when linking within quotations; link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author."
  • "Recorded at The Plant Recording Studios ... The Record Plant (Los Angeles)"-- decaps the
    Done
  • "Mastered at Masterdisk (New York)"-- add City
    Unclear if Masterdisk is in New York City

References

  1. ^ References:
    • "Photograph of Mary" (7-inch vinyl single). Epic Records. 1992. 49 658954 7.
    • "Photograph of Mary" (cassette single). Epic Records. 1992.
    • "Photograph of Mary" (mini CD single). Epic Records Japan. 1992. ESDA-7127.
Thank you for the comments GWL, replied above. Heartfox (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That looks all good now, so I'm supporting. Good work! GeraldWL 03:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! I plan on getting to your PR this weekend. Heartfox (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! If it's too long of an article and you'd like to narrow down your focus, I'm looking to see what HAL333 meant by phrasing problems from Post-production and the sections after that. But I'll happily wait for any cmts you have! GeraldWL 04:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christhedude

[edit]

Nothing to add to what GWL wrote other than......

Thanks ChrisTheDude, Heartfox (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

[edit]
  • Source 14 - shouldn't the title be "Music: Trey Lorenz - Trey Lorenz (Epic)" since it's more specific? The reviews are all written by the same author but the article uses only the information from the critic's review of the song.
    Moved "reviews" to department parameter and added the suggested title
  • Quite a few offline sources; I will AGF on those. FrB.TG (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the source review, Heartfox (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "several others produced remixes." I am not sure this works. It seems to suggest that there might be a non-several others. Suggest losing "several".
    Removed "several"
  • Lead: "Epic Records issued it as the second single from the record in December 1992." Is "issued" synonymous with released? And could you point out where in the main article the isuue date of December is stated.
    Changed "issued" to "released". Sources for release dates of physical singles in the United States are virtually nonexistent pre-internet unless they were certified by the Recording Industry Association of America (and even then sometimes the dates are wrong). So the song's release to radio, which has an available citation supporting a specific month, is given as the issue date. This is stated in the body as "The label promoted it to urban contemporary radio stations in December 1992."
But "promote" in this context means, according to Wiktionary, "To advocate or urge on behalf of (something or someone); to attempt to popularize or sell by means of advertising or publicity." I took this to mean pre-release publicity. It doesn't unambiguously mean that radio stations had the whole song, much less were able to play it to the public. Above you use the phrase "release to radio", perhaps do the same in the article?
Changed "promoted" to "released"
  • " "Photograph of Mary" received positive reviews from American and British critics.[a]... and Dave Sholin called it a "winner" in the Gavin Report" Would this be the same Dave Sholin mentioned in note a? If so, I suggest removing one of the mentions.
    Removed duplicates from the note
  • In what way does reaching #18 on a US chart "not match" reaching #19 on the Canadian chart? Similarly, why does reaching #37 and #46 on other US charts mean it "fared better" than the #18 achievement?
    Added explanation, #18 is akin to #118.

What a nice little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. Heartfox (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. Just one pedantic quibble left. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 28 October 2023 [7].

1913–14 Gillingham F.C. season

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that last year (I only found out the other day) British football journalist Adam Hurrey tweeted that the proportion of football-related FAs on WP which are specifically about Gillingham F.C. amounts to "astonishing mind control, on a near-industrial scale". Well, here I am to control your minds some more (or something). Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MyCatIsAChonk

[edit]
  • The signing of two new forwards followed a season in which no player had scored more than five league goals for Gillingham, who had finished the campaign as the lowest-scoring team in the division. - might just be me, but "who" looks like it's referring to the new forwards; adding a semicolon would be more comprehensible (...five league goals for Gillingham; the club had finished...)
  • It would prove to be the only game Bailey missed all season - WP:INTOTHEWOULDS, use past tense
  • In the FA cup results table, the "Round" column isn't sorting numerically
  • Inflation price conversions like (equivalent to £160,000 in 2021) need to be referenced; not sure if the current ones support it, but I didn't see a ref to a calculator

ChrisTheDude, can't say I'm surprised that I have so few comments; great work MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: - all done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - also, if you get time, would appreciate any comments at this FAC; thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harrias

[edit]
  • "..had played in the Southern League since the competition's formation in 1894; the team had been promoted.." Not keen on the repetition of had, nor the framing it provides. Maybe replace "had been" with "was"?

Seriously, that's all I can find. The only other quibble I could bring up is that you have archive links for most of your references, but not #10, #43, #53 or #76. But look, I'm happy to support this off the bat, very little to fault, great work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Harrias: - thanks for your review and feedback. I amended the sentence you mention. Re: archives, those refs were added after someone else archived all the existing ones. I tried archiving again but the bot didn't make any changes. Maybe it's having one of its occasional "moments" this morning..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Pseud 14

[edit]

Image review – pass

[edit]

Not image related, but perhaps the Newspapers.com citations should use |url-access=limited, as a subscription is not required to view clips or those particular pages. SounderBruce 04:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NØ

[edit]
  • Is there anything that should be bolded in the lead, as is usually done with the first mention of the article subject? Although it is understandable if this is not the case since bolded + wikilinked text does look odd.
  • "As was the norm at the time, Gilligan had responsibility for team selection" - "Gilligan was responsible for team selection" might be preferable, unless that type of structure is not appropriate in British English
  • "Four days later, the team won 4–0 at home to the previous season's Southern League champions, Plymouth Argyle, but after scoring eight goals in two matches they then scored none at all in the next three" - A comma can be added before "they then scored none at all in the next three" probably.
That's all!--NØ 16:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • The image "Gillingham's goalkeeper Albert Bailey defending ..." Is it possible to tweak this so it is upright.
  • "Gillingham's performances during the first half of the season and at the end of 1913 they were 12th out of 20 teams in the league table." I suspect a word missing in the first part of that.
  • "heaviest defeat of the whole season." Does "whole" add anything?
It doesn't clarify at all, in that 'the season' already means, er, the season, and cannot reasonably be mistaken for something else, eg part of the season. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - fixed both this one and the other one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the attendance was the largest recorded crowd in front of which Gillingham had ever played." Consider including whether this was home or away, and the size of the crowd - if known.
  • Possibly link "home" and "away"?
  • "the largest of the entire season at Priestfield Road." Is "entire" needed?
  • "they had to play much of the second half with only ten men after Glen was injured." Perhaps a footnote explaining that substitutes were not a thing at the time?
  • "Cup match details": why give an abbreviation for "own goal" when it is not used?

You are getting good at these ;-) . Gog the Mild (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - thanks for your review and kind words. All done with a couple of exceptions (see above) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

[edit]
  • No issues with the formatting or quality of sources.
  • Spotchecks:
    • "On 20 September, they beat Southend United 4–2 at Priestfield Road; Bill Pepper replaced Albert Bailey, the team's regular goalkeeper, after the latter was taken ill." – Sourced to "Shrimpers' net well pierced by Gillingham". Fact is supported by the source, and no copyvio or close para-phrasing present.
    • "Swindon took a 2–0 lead early in the game and, although Hafekost scored a goal to reduce the deficit going into the half-time interval, Swindon added three more goals in the second half to win 5–1." – Sourced to "Swindon v. Gillingham". Fact is supported by the source, and no copyvio or close para-phrasing present.
    • "Gillingham again failed to score against Norwich City on 10 April; the game ended in another 0–0 draw." – Sourced to "Gillingham 0, Norwich 0". Fact is supported by the source, and no copyvio or close para-phrasing present.

Honestly, all looks great. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 October 2023 [8].

Duffield Memorial

[edit]
Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 06:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relatively inconspicuous, somewhat overgrown, and more than a hundred years old, the Duffield Memorial sits in the yard of a church nearly a millennium older. Overshadowed as it is, however, the memorial tells an interesting story. An early work by Herbert Maryon, it commemorates members of a prominent local family. At the time, it was considered "quite unique, at any rate in this neighbourhood", and even now, it is an "unusual example of Art Nouveau design in metal work".

This article gives a thorough overview of the memorial and the surrounding context. It was thoroughly reviewed in March by KJP1; since then, TheShinji69 was able to take photos, and I've given the article another review. The article is at, or close to, the best possible version of itself, and so is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "roles as director and chairman of a range of businesses, including the Reliance Life Assurance Company, the London Board of the Norwich Union, the Chelmsford and Braintree Gas Companies, and the Chelmsford and Blackwater Navigation Company" He was director AND chairman of each of this, or should it be "or"?
  • 1918[footnotes]) Don't footnotes usually follow punctuation except in the case of a long dash?
  • Where is William Bartleet Duffield buried? France? Here? Do we know who ordered the monument and also had the second plaque affixed? Someone presumably paid. Do we know how much?
  • It's unclear. Another look at newspaper articles from the time, however, found an article about his probate that discusses leaving some of his estate to his niece, along with £100 for "a memento". That probably answers the question of who paid for it, and gives an idea of cost. (Although according to the Bank of England, that £100 is worth some £4,700 today—presumably there was some left over after the plaque.) I’ve added this to the article (in a footnote, since it's not definitive). Meanwhile, even a turn through the primary sources doesn't address where he was buried. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything that can be said about the drive to list the memorial?
Interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Wehwalt. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support with reservations on the issue of comprehensiveness, per my queries above. I will continue to monitor and hopefully I can make this a full support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on KJP1's comments, I'm going to withdraw my reservations, leaving my support. Very well done with what was available. Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RoySmith

[edit]
Lead section
[edit]
  • William Ward Duffield is a red link to W. W. Duffield, but other members of the family who are mentioned are left unlinked. Is there some reason to believe William Ward in particular is notable enough that he might merit an article in the future?
  • The memorial covers the grave. Is this a single grave in which Marianne, William Ward, and William Bartleet are all buried?
  • Yes, at least as to the first two. Per a newspaper article on W. W. Duffield's burial, "the interment [was] in the grave where the remains already rested of the late Mrs. Duffield", and per a 1912 article on the memorial, it was "erected … over the grave of Mr. and Mrs. Duffield". As noted above, however, it's unclear whether William Bartleet Duffield was also buried there, or simply commemorated there. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starting with The memorial covers the grave... There's three sentences in a row of the form "fact 1 and fact 2", which sounds stilted. Maybe something like "The Art Nouveau memorial, comprised of edging and a vertical cross, covers the grave. The edging consists of riveted sections of copper alloy sheet metal which follow the rectangular perimeter of the plot, connected by short pillars at each corner. The cross is of the celtic wheel variety, decorated in relief with a leaflike motif." Well, you get the idea. Longer sentences will flow better, and try not to repeat the same sentence structure over and over. Also try to avoid repeated words, such as in "The cross is a Celtic wheel cross".
  • Works of Herbert Maryon says the memorial is "Bronze", this article says it's a copper alloy. Bronze is indeed a copper alloy, but why not just call it bronze here?
Just to clarify, I see that the source used calls it "copper alloy", but it's worth exploring why Works of Herbert Maryon calls it "bronze" and reconcile the differences.
  • Newspapers at the time termed the memorial "very fine" and "quite unique" for the area,[1][2] and in 2022 it was designated a Grade II listed building. this is an odd juxtaposition of things that happened 100 years ago and something that happened recently. For the lead, I'd mention the Grade II listing and leave out the minor newspaper quotes.
  • The article is quite short (DYK check says 5979 readable prose). MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests one or two paragraphs for under 15k. and this is 1/3 of that, so I'd say trim the lead to about half its current length, covering the most important facts from the main body. For example, I'd note that it's Grade II listed, but leave all the details for later.
The Duffields
[edit]
  • William Ward Duffield was born on 25 November 1820 to James Duffield, I assume James had the assistance of his wife in this. Do we know her name or anything about her?
  • Somewhat surprisingly, there's very little information on either James Duffield or his presumed wife. The father is likely the Mr. James Duffield who died in 1830, leaving "a widow and large family to bewail", but it's not definitive, and articles about the family don't seem to mention the mother. There are also mentions of a James Duffield and Joanna Ward Duffield (buried in the same churchyard as the Duffield Memorial) but, again, it's supposition based on primary sources. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • He went on to become a successful solicitor, who is "He"? William Ward or James?
  • including as clerk Drop the "as".
  • His private positions included a number of roles, drop the "a number of roles", just tell us what they were. As before, in and as chairman, no need for "as". You can "Be X" or "Serve as X", but don't mix the idioms.
  • Duffield married Marianne Bartleet, there's a lot of Duffields being discussed; be explicit about which one you're talking about in this sentence.
  • three surviving children: William Bartleet Duffield (1861–1918[8][9][10]), Arthur Stewart Duffield (1867–1930[11][12]), and Florence Marion Duffield No need to keep saying "Duffield". I'd write this as "three surviving children: William Bartleet (1861–1918[8][9][10]), Arthur Stewart (1867–1930[11][12]), and Florence Marion". I suppose we can infer gender from their first names, but that can sometimes be tricky, so perhaps " sons William Bartleet (...) and Arthur Stewart (...), and daughter Florence Marion"?
Herbert Maryon
[edit]
  • It's good to give some explanation of who this guy is beyond "he designed the thing", but this level of detail into Maryon's resume seems excessive. Are there some parts of his prior experience which would be particularly relevant to gaining the skills needed for this design?
  • I thought for some time about how to possibly refocus this section, but I don't think there are many viable options. The sources about Maryon's early life say what he did and what he made, but don't focus on his style of work—the type of information that might be worth expounding upon in an article on one of his works. As it is, however, the sentence is only one six-sentence paragraph. It packs a lot in, but, as his long article goes to show, there's a lot to pack in. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Description
[edit]
  • 75 metres (246 ft) per MOS:UNCERTAINTY, you can't convert a measurement with two significant figures into one with three. It should be "75 metres (250 ft). I believe {{convert}} has a parameter to control that.
  • As above, saying "bronze" rather than "copper alloy" would seem to make more sense, unless there's some good reason not to do so. In which case, maybe Works of Herbert Maryon needs fixing :-)
  • The cross ... features a Celtic wheel cross avoid repetition of "cross".
  • a medallion, now removed... Do we know why or when it was removed?
  • Two copper plaques are riveted ... The west-facing plaque Avoid repeating "plaque". Perhaps "... the west-facing one"?
History
[edit]
  • The organisation cited historic interest, architectural interest avoid repetition of "interest".
  • Historic England termed the memorial "an unusual example of churchyard memorial design that is also memorial to prominent local citizen William Ward Duffield and his son you can't do anything about HE's repetition of "memorial", but at least don't compound it with another one of your own :-)
[edit]

I'm not sure this section adds anything. The first image ("Plaque on the front of the Duffield Memorial's pedestal") could be incorporated into the main body, and "St. Mary's churchyard (Duffield Memorial not visible)" doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of the memorial, since it's not visible in the photo.

Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
General organization
[edit]

I'm a little concerned that as much space is given to peripheral topics (the entire Background section) as is to the main topic. In particular (as I noted above), I think the Herbert Maryon section could be trimmed considerably. I'd also move the Description section up closer to the top of the article, since that's the main topic.

The only way to move up the "Description" section would be to place it above the "Background" section, which would be difficult; the point of the background is to lay the context for the piece, so we know who is being memorialized, and who is making the work. As to the length of the comparative sections, meanwhile, we're somewhat constrained by the sources. The lives of the Duffields and Maryon are sourced in detail, while we have less to go on with the memorial. But I think this is balanced out by the way in which the background section remains high level, while the sections on the memorial and its history go into scrupulous detail. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your detailed comment, RoySmith. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GWL

[edit]

Interesting article. I'll take a look at what I see so far, then take other editors' comments for consideration after my comments are resolved. I've put invisible comments to divide my comments based on sections. GeraldWL 08:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 03:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* Would be great if infobox img caption states when the img is taken "(pictured XXXX)"
  • Is there any way in which the gallery imgs are placable at the body?
  • Images need alt text. Per W3C, "Note that it does not necessarily describe the visual characteristics of the image itself but must convey the same meaning as the image."
  • Are there no columns for the Times ref?
  • Ah, I didn't know the Obituary was the column name. AFAIK Times refs always have an alphabetical column, like p. 27 col. E, or something like that. It's alright, though. GeraldWL 07:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be great if all Newspaper.com refs have a "via Newspapers.com" using the via parameter
  • Link to whatever edging means here, it could mean several things
  • I took a look at both edge and edging but neither seem to have anything on point—and, as your invisible comment goes to show, some that are very much not on point. We could perhaps include a link to edging on Wiktionary, but that suffers from the same problem, i.e., there are a number of definitions, only one of which is what is meant here. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If sheet metal is linked here, should be too in infobox
  • "The cross is a Celtic wheel cross"-- repetition of cross --> "The cross is in the Celtic wheel style"
  • Why not paraphrase the third para? If it's too short then it can be merged with para 2.
  • "Chelmsford-based", "London-based"
  • "included [...], including [...], including"-- repetition. first "including" could be changed to "such as", second "including" to "like"
  • Why are some names redlinked, some not?
  • As noted above, the two that are red linked are the two that I thought clearly met the notability guideline. Others might also, but there was enough coverage on those two in particular that red links seemed worthwhile. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dup link for Uni of Reading
  • My bad!
  • "After the Second World War"-- comma
  • "Sutton Hoo ship-burial led to his appointment"-- WP:SEAOFBLUE
  • Link Church of St Mary
  • Duplicate refs of [1][2][3]
  • Would love to have a footnote for LUX PERPETUA LUCEAT EIS (translation), and link AIX LES BAINS
  • I found this by Oxford that contains a translation, though I don't think you need to delve deep into the phrase, worrying it might go offtopic.
  • Dup refs of [3] in paras 2, 3, 4
  • Dup refs [1][2]
  • I would love for a brief descriptor of what a Grade II listed building means.
  • Dup refs [3]
  • In the listed building article, Grade II is given asterisk but why not here?
  • Grade II and Grade II* are different things. Grade II signifies "buildings that are of special interest", and the asterisk indicates "particularly important buildings of more than special interest". Why they couldn't simplify things by just doing Grades I/II/III is beyond me. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks very much for your comments, Gerald Waldo Luis. I believe I've addressed everything above, with a single exception—for the Latin, let's give it a day or two to see if I can get the source, otherwise I'll use the website you found. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'll wait until you've reached a conclusion on the source. Also additional comment, should there be a hatnote to Duffield War Memorial?
Thanks, Gerald Waldo Luis. Added a line cited to the book, and added a hat note as suggested. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest putting just the page where the translation is present; you don't want people looking for 10ish pages just to get to that point :") GeraldWL 07:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Gerald Waldo Luis, each page cited actually contains the English translation, just under a different denomination. The more important point that's being conveyed, I think, is the ubiquity of that line. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1

[edit]

Enjoyed this article at GAN, and not much to add here, certainly nothing to stand in the way of my Support. KJP1 (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "a Grade II listed building, noting its "unusual" style of churchyard memorial and Art Nouveau metal work" - for me this reads a little awkwardly. Could the "of churchyard memorial" be dropped without loss?
Background: The Duffields
  • "become a successful solicitor, founding the Chelmsford-based firm Duffield and Son, and the London-based firm Duffield, Bruty and Co." - perhaps, to avoid the duplication of "firm", "become a successful solicitor, founding two law firms, Duffield and Son in Chelmsford and Duffield, Bruty and Co. in London."?
Herbert Maryon
  • Noting the comment above re. length, personally I don't find the detail on Maryon excessive. It's a meaty paragraph, to be sure, but it is only a paragraph. However, if trimming was wanted, the last sentence could be compressed; "A second career as a conservator at the British Museum saw him work on the Sutton Hoo ship-burial, for which he was awarded the Order of the British Empire."
  • I've tried to shorten it a little bit. (See also my response to RoySmith's comments.) I've left the final sentence as is, however, lest it make it seem as if his nearly two-decade stint at the BM involved only Sutton Hoo. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensiveness
  • Noting the very fair point on comprehensiveness, I think the nominator has done the best job that can be done with the sources available. I agree there are unanswered questions; "why Maryon?" / "what happened to the medallion?" etc., but this is a recurring issue when trying to write about "minor" buildings/structures. Personally, I think it meets 1(b) and (c), in that it says all that can be said, drawing on all the available sourcing.
Images and External links
  • Given the excellent images the article now has, for which many thanks, I'm not sure the link to the deprecated Find a Grave is necessary, but it's not a deal-breaker for me.
  • I take your point, and was close to removing the link as a result. But I do think there's some value in an article that's about a grave linking to the the Find a Grave entry about that grave, similar to how a biography might link to its subject's personal website—not for its reliability, but for its relevance. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Suppport from Tim riley

[edit]

Not much to quibble about that I can see.

  • Historic England is blue-linked in the main text but not in the lead.
  • The paragraph on Herbert Maryon has his surname five times – the third and fourth could as well be "he", smoothing the prose.
  • On my screen (though perhaps not on others) the two inscriptions don't line up with each other, which looks a bit messy. (Just tried it on my laptop as well: they're still skew-whiff there too.)
  • Although readers will know roughly what the size and shape of a typical grave is, it would be good to specify the precise dimensions of Maryon's work here.
  • From the point of view of septuagenarian eyesight, the pictures, particularly the second and third, are on the small side. Of course one can click on them for a larger version, but even so, I think they could be a bit bigger in the article.

I hope these points are helpful. Tim riley talk 08:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much, Tim riley. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Responses are wholly convincing. Happy to support: a good read, well and widely sourced, evidently balanced and comprehensive and well illustrated. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 21:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Excellent article. Just a few comments from me:

Lead
  • Does 'its "unusual" design' need what look like scare quotes? It's a common enough single word that we don't need to quote. (Or broaden the quote)
Description
  • Is it in "an Art Nouveau style" or "the Art Nouveau style"?
History
  • "For group value": I have no idea what this means, but the rest of the sentence works without it

Hope these help - SchroCat (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SchroCat. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

voorts

[edit]

Seeing no major issues, I support, with three notes:

  • The section on Herbert Maryon is currently a sea of blue. I think you can get rid of the links to Reading, Berkshire, the first and second world wars, the OBE, ship-burial, and 1956 birthday honors, which aren't really that relevant to the article content.
  • There is a lot of blue, to be sure, although the sea-of-blue guideline identifies it as a problem only when the links are directly next to each other. I've gotten this down to only one instance (Sutton Hoo ship-burial), which is unavoidable—the same double link appears in pretty much ever related article. (Separately, note that Reading was linked per a comment above; personally, I'm largely indifferent to that link.) --Usernameunique (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a bit. Reading was linked per a comment above.

  • The second paragraph of the history section can be condensed by paraphrasing the quotes.
  • I condensed those lines in the lead, as per comments above, but I think there's some value in quoting them in full in the body, especially given that Historic England doesn't provide much information on the designation to begin with. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move explanatory note 5 up to the first mention of "group value".

Great work. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Voorts. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Theramin

[edit]

Not sure when or why we started to swamp the FAC TOC with subheadings, but the TOC is an unreadable mess now anyway so I'll just do the same as everyone else.

I have a few comments. Given the nature of them, this may be better on the article's talk page, but I'll press on here.

On a general level, the article is quite short, so we can try to mine information more fully from the available sources.

For example, from the listing entry, we could mention that the riveted copper alloy sheets of the metal cross are formed around a masonry core (currently, the omission of any mention of an internal supporting structure in our article seems to imply to me that it is a freestanding metal object).

Does this line not say that? That was the intent behind it, but I can try to make it more clear. The memorial is placed over the grave of the Duffields, which is made of brick. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have one source (an old newspaper) saying of Mrs Duffield's oak coffin: "the interment was made in a brick grave" - but does that mean a burial shaft lined with brick, or a grave plot with a low brick surround, or an area covered with a more substantial brick superstructure? And then we have a more recent source saying the memorial is made from "sheet metal in rivetted sections formed around a masonry core" or "rivetted metal plate with raised seams encasing a masonry core", plus "kerbs of the same construction". I suspect this means the standing cross is formed around a stone or brick core, distinct from and standing above the grave. Perhaps the metal kerb covers an original brick surround, but I'd be surprised if the only masonry elements were the bricks in place at the time of Mrs Duffield's funeral. I could be wrong, but the sources don't say one way or the other, so I don't think we can assume the masonry referred to later is the same as the brick referred to before.
But this was really by way of example. I dare say some of the sources could do with a close reading to check that no other details are omitted. Theramin (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And is there any record of what was shown on the medallion that has been removed? Any old pictures of the memorial or the graveyard? Or any record of when and why it was removed? Does it still exist somewhere, in the church perhaps, or was it just stolen or lost?

Nothing, unfortunately. And emailing the church elicited no response. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources that discuss the stylistic development of Maryon's known works before and after - the flared base, for example, or use of copper. The list of Works of Herbert Maryon have some similar elements. The base of the Winged Victory, and the flaring of the copper casket. The flared stem and lettering of the silver cup. The wheel cross on his war memorials.

Those are interesting observations. Unfortunately, there aren't really any works that discuss his artistic style or development; other than the facts of where he was at what dates and (to a certain extent) what he made, there isn't much to go on. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Broomfield source mentions WWD's schooling at Chelmsford Grammar School where he was later a governor, and his legal training as an articled clerk with Charles Parker in Chelmsford. Apologies, but I am about to dive into social history again.

Digression
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I think that was Charles George Parker (1780–1847) who was the son of John Oxley Parker; his brother the land agent Christopher Comyns Parker has an entry in the ODNB.[9] Christopher's son Charles Alfred Parker formed Strutt & Parker with Edward Gerald Strutt (who was a son of the second Baron Rayleigh). The land agent aspect becomes relevant again shortly, but if nothing else this shows that Duffield was well connected with the Essex gentry.

WWD seems to have started in legal practice on his own account in 1846 (if I am right, note death of his training principal in 1847: I have no proof but I suspect WWD may have taken over Parker's practice). At some point he entered into a partnership with William John Bruty (died 1925, aged 92, so Duffield must have practised alone or with others for a while until Bruty was old enough), with offices in London (Tokenhouse Yard, then New Broad Street) and Chelmsford and Waltham Abbey, which was dissolved "by mutual consent" and reformed as two separate partnerships in 1900, one for "Duffield Son and Smee" (with ASD and Thomas John Smee) in Chelmsford, and a separate one continuing as "Duffield, Bruty & Co" for the Bruty, and WWD and ASD, and other partners, in London and Waltham Abbey.[10]

The two separate firms continued for some time: Duffield, Bruty & Co seems to have lasted until at least 1972, just after the death of Sir Edgar Henry Newton, 2nd Baronet, when there is a mention in the Law Society Gazette of "Nash Field & Co incorporating Duffield Bruty & Co at 9 Devereux Court" which firm was also practising under the name of "Duffield Bruty & Co" in Waltham Cross and Hoddesdon. I suspect a successor firm continues today based in Hoddesdon under the name Duffield Harrison LLP. The firm claims to have been formed in 1843.[11]

Meanwhile, the Chelmsford firm of Duffield and Son continued until recently, becoming Duffield Welch[12] then Duffield Stunt and merging into Backhouse Solicitors as recently as 2015.[13] The successor law firm claims ancestry back to 1799, which may date back to the time of Charles Parker or even before.

The Duffield Stunt name continued as a separate estate agency until the business was acquired by Charles David Casson in 2017.[14] Now the name is little more than memory in Chelmsford, apart from Duffield Road past Great Baddow High School. The grand old office at 95 High Street has long been left behind to become a coffee shop, but the names continue to exist on Duke Street in Google Streetview.[15]

I'm not suggesting you need all of this by any means, and it is at best tangential to the memorial, but to some extent it goes to the social position of the Duffields, and some indication of the longevity of the law firms might be nice.

Those are all interesting points. I've dug further into the history of the firms; Duffield, Bruty & Co survived with name unchanged until 1989, when it became Duffield Harrison, as you say. I don't think Duffield Welch is related, but the remaining history of Duffield & Son is also as you say; acquired 2015, name fully extinguished 2017. This is now all added to the article, with cites. Otherwise, there is certainly more than enough material to write an article on William Ward Duffield, which is where I think some of your excellent research above belongs. It's fascinating to see the interconnection between all the different people and entities. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mention Reliance Life and Norwich Union separately. Well, Norwich Union acquired the business of Reliance Life around 1893,[16] which explains why WWD ended up on the London board of the latter. (The London offices of Reliance Life - which had a successful business in East Anglia, particularly Essex - still stand today at 70 King William Street - the curved building on the corner beside St Clement's, Eastcheap.)

Good catch. Happily, I've found an obituary of Duffield which specifically mentions that his position changed from Reliance to Norwich with the acquisition. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm delighted that you've made a link between the wider Duffield family and Maryon in Reading. That has narrowed a significant gap, although without sources for a commission it remains a little tenuous. This may be irrelevant, and they may not be related to our Herbert, but there do seem to be some Maryons in Chelmsford around this time. For example, look who is mentioned together here under "Chelmsford Corn Exchange Company".[17]

I've added a paragraph on the background of the Maryons. This adds two specific details. First, Maryon wrote a letter to Walter Duffield in 1915, so they clearly knew each other. Second, the S. W. Maryon who knew W. W. Duffield (nice find) is a somewhat distant relation; the 1895 family tree by Herbert Maryon's brother had a good idea of the relationship, but could not definitively nail it down (an inability which led to a cutting review). It's thus doubtful that there was a close connection between Herbert and S. W. Maryon. Beyond those specifics, however, the paragraph adds to the larger socio-historical point, which I think you're driving at, that the Maryons and Duffields, as a whole, were most likely known to each other. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that is a bit of an half-digested brain dump. I don't expect you to pick through it all, but perhaps there are some nuggets to pull out, or trains of thought to follow. Failing that, you can remain tightly focused on these delightful 111 year old bits of copper, about which we know very little. Theramin (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Theramin. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. All good, and I'm content to support, although further development of the article after this FAC concludes would be welcome, as always, as and when further sources come to light. Theramin (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

All images are appropriately licenced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spot-check upon request. Is "Bruce, Ian (2001). The Loving Eye and Skilful Hand: The Keswick School of Industrial Arts. Carlisle:" a reliable source? I see a lot here is sourced to newspaper articles, particularly regional/local ones - are these high-quality reliable sources? Source formatting is consistent and the necessary information is there. Does Newspapers.com need archive links? Google Books doesn't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Bruce 2001 is reliable; it's one of the only serious looks at the Keswick School of Industrial Arts, and is also relied on in the featured article Herbert Maryon. The newspapers are also reliable—they're primarily used to talk about the Duffields, for whom regional contemporaneous news accounts would be the primary reliable source of information. As for the archived links, I've decided it's a losing battle; InternetArchiveBoy automatically adds them, so even if they're removed now, at some point they'll be back. I do see value in the archives newspapers.com links, though; it's conceivable that, at some point, they could stop providing free viewing of clips. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernameunique: You can use {{cbignore}} to prevent bots from readding links. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gonna ask @Cyberpower678: and @Harej: whether we can stop the bot from archiving Google Books. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, just checking that we are still waiting on this one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the bot incorrectly adding archive links seems like an issue for the bot and not FAC and while I am always iffy on using British newspapers as a source, I don't think that my view on them has widespread backing on Wikipedia. I don't have a good feeling about using "cbignore" because that one excludes the bot from the entire article rather than just the few sources it is breaking, though, but this also isn't a FAC issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So is that a pass Jo-Jo, however reluctantly? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 26 October 2023 [18].

C. O. Brocato

[edit]
Nominator(s): BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With my first featured article nomination out of 850 articles created, may I present to you C. O. Brocato. I first found out about Brocato last June when I noticed he was one of the candidates for the Pro Football Hall of Fame and saw he did not have an article. This was one of my favorites to write and I believe it is one of my best works. A little bit about Brocato:

From Louisiana, Brocato attended St. John's High School and was the football team captain while playing fullback and placekicker. After graduating from St. John's, he attended Baylor University and became known as one of the best placekickers under pressure in the U.S. (while receiving the nickname "The Foot" ) for his making of several game-winning kicks which helped lead Baylor to their first major bowl game. He was chosen in the National Football League Draft after his college career but was considered too small and opted to enter coaching instead of trying to make a team.

After assisting the Haynesville High School team for a time he was named head coach at St. John's High School, where he had graduated from. He led them to several championships and some of the best teams in school history; in his third year, he led them to their first winning season since he had captained them as a player — which was featured as a WP:DYK hook. Following his time at St. John's (renamed to Jesuit during his stint there), Brocato coached college football as an assistant with the Northern Arizona Lumberjacks and Texas–Arlington Mavericks before resigning in 1973 to enter the scouting ranks, which he was best known for.

Brocato was a scout from 1974 until his death at 85 in 2015 – all but four of those years with the Houston Oilers / Tennessee Oilers / Titans. He became regarded as one of the greatest scouts in football history for his extensive research on every player and for his mentoring of many others in the field. He drove across the country and added around 20,000 miles (32,000 km) per year to his car to do his research on NFL prospects – even going into his 70s. He also invented several NFL Scouting Combine events, including the three-cone drill – which is considered a key test for players nowadays. He was responsible for the Oilers / Titans' drafting of four Pro Football Hall of Fame players – including Earl Campbell, one of the best players of all time – and many of those whom Brocato worked with have advocated for his induction into the Hall of Fame as well. He has been a candidate for the hall on several occasions and was a semifinalist the past two years; the NFL also recently named an award in his honor, given to those who have "dedicated a lifetime of service to the scouting community".

I have had several users with FA experience review the article, including Gonzo fan2007 (who also reviewed it for DYK and WP:GA), Cbl62 and PCN02WPS. Also note that I intend on using this for the WikiCup, so I would appreciate if this could be finished by the end of October. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination

[edit]
It is done here and you don't need to do anything other than respond to any points raised as and when it happens. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS

[edit]

Gonzo_fan2007

[edit]
Resolved Comments by Gonzo_fan2007
*Scout (sport) should be linked in the lead and the body of the article.
    • Done.
  • In the first sentence, his work as a scout and coach just take pre-eminence over his brief playing career. Per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, we should try to get his nationality in the lead. Recommend rewriting to Cosimo O. Brocato Jr. (October 31, 1929 – September 1, 2015) was an American scout, coach and football player
    • Done.
  • The Houston / Tennessee Oilers / Titans part is confusing. I would just change to the Tennessee Titans or add a note explanation that the team changed locations and names during his tenure.
    • Note added.
  • In the lead, you use the acronym NFL in the first paragraph (as part of 1953 NFL draft) but then define it in the second paragraph. You just define the acronym once and then use the acronym the rest of the way (MOS:ACRO).
    • Done, I think?
  • I know later on in the article you discuss who considers him "one of the greatest scouts in football history", but it would be nice to touch on that in the league such as His colleagues considered him one of...
    • Done.
  • Texas Longhorn football is linked twice in the body of the article.
    • Fixed.
  • standout comes across as a bit of a weasel word. Either delete or reword. The second sentence makes it known that he was successful during his high school playing career.
    • Deleted.
  • Versus Arkansas in their third game, recommend "Against" instead of "Versus" as a more natural beginning to a sentence.
    • Done.
  • crucial match-up, "match-up" isn't the word generally used in American football. Recommend just "game".
    • Done.
  • He later missed all three against Texas, but rebounded by a six-for-six showing against Wake Forest, for clarity, I would recommend adding "extra points" after "three"
    • Done.
  • Bowl game should be linked
    • Done.
  • while playing on defense, remove "on"
    • Done.
  • He was also a baseball player at Baylor, being a backup catcher to Larry Isbell.[21] He additionally was a boxer during his time at the school and competed at several local Golden Gloves tournaments. sounds clunky with "also" and "additionally". Can you say something like "In addition to college football, Brocato played baseball and was a boxer. He was the backup catcher to Larry Isbell for the baseball team and completed in several Golden Glove tournaments as a boxer." Or something like that?
    • Done.
  • He signed his first contract on May 5, combine with the previous sentence.
    • Done.
  • He used the Winged-T offense probably worthy of saying "Brocato" again.
    • Done.
  • They then won five straight games to finish the season, the use of "then" after the previous sentence would make it appear that they won six total games. I would delete "then".
    • Done.
  • Brocato would add over 20,000 miles to his vehicle every year – even going into his 70s – to scout players, watching them in practice, in games, at pro days and at the NFL Scouting Combine, then interviewing coaches, trainers, team staff and family members, after which he would watch more film of the player, sort of a run-on sentence, recommend splitting into two.
    • Done.
  • Moment of silence is probably an overlink at this point. The English words "moment" and "silence" are clear enough to convey the meaning without a hyperlink and this topic isn't essential to understand Brocato.
    • De-linked.
  • There were suggestions to coach George Sauer that he find a new person, who made these suggestions? And recommend clarifying what you mean by "person"? Someone off the street, or another teammate?
    • The source (same as above) says "And no placement kicker had a poorer beginning In the Bears' 1951 opener with University of Houston, Brocato tried two, missed two. His efforts resembled the type of kicks you'd expect from a 10-year-old kid on the corner lot. Baylor won 19-0 with soph Jimmy Davenport kicking the only extra point. Sidewalk quarterbacks suggested that Coach George Sauer find himself a placement kicker for use in the close games sure to come. Sauer's answer was that Brocato would do all right - if the holder did a better job of taking the snaphack and teeing the pigskin properly. So Brocato and his holder Francis (Cotton) Davidson went back to work." I'm not quite sure who exactly is meant by sidewalk quarterback, do you understand it? As for the other part, I would assume it to be another teammate - would changing it to "new player" work?
  • including one that won the game 21–20., was this a walk-off extra point? Or did it just provide the difference. If the latter, then I would just reword to "during a 21-20 victory" or something like that.
  • one of the best kickers when under pressure, explain what pressure means here. Aren't kickers always under pressure?

That's all I got. Please ping me when you are ready for me to come back and take a look. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I copyedited a little as I read through; please feel free to revert anything you disagree with.

  • Suggest saying in the lead that Haynesville High School is in Louisiana.
    • Done.
  • "three-of-four": I was surprised to see the hyphens; is this standard in AmEng? I see the hyphens are used repeatedly later in the article; they look quite odd to my eyes.
  • "successfully attempted" is used twice in two sentences.
    • Changed.
  • "He converted both extra points against SMU, which was the margin of victory in the 14–13 win." "Both" implies two points, but the margin was three.
  • "In addition to college football, Brocato played baseball and was a boxer. He was the backup catcher to Larry Isbell on the baseball team and competed at several Golden Gloves tournaments as a boxer." Suggest "In addition to playing college football, Brocato was the backup catcher to Larry Isbell on the baseball team and competed at several Golden Gloves tournaments as a boxer."
    • Changed.
  • "He left the team in August after being told by coach Joe Stydahar that he was not heavy enough—Brocato weighed 185 pounds (84 kg)—to play professionally, with the intention to get a master's degree and then enter coaching." If we know Stydahar told him this in August (rather than only knowing he left in August) how about "In August the coach, Joe Stydahar, told him that at 185 pounds (84 kg) he was not heavy enough to play professionally, and Brocato left the team, intending to get a master's degree and then enter coaching." If we only know he left in August I'd suggest something similar, but move the "in August" to "Brocato left the team in August".
    • Changed.
  • "When Cosmo smiled it was ear to ear": I thought this might be a typo but I see from the clipping that it's not, or at least if so it's a typo in the original. It's used twice in the original, but I think it's a typo there; some Googling has convinced me it was never used publicly as a general name for him. I would suggest adding {{sic}} after it in the quote.
    • Changed.
  • Per MOS:DASH you can have spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes, but not both in the same article.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WikiOriginal-9

[edit]
  • Do you think "Houston Oilers / Tennessee Oilers / Tennessee Titans" would be better, or no?
    • Eh, I kinda feel like its long enough already with "Houston / Tennessee Oilers / Titans" - I think with the note that's been added it should be alright.
  • Who is Tom Kelly in the image caption? Perhaps it should just say "with a player"?
    • Changed to "with a player"
  • "He missed all but one of his five attempts" Is that extra points or field goals or both combined?
    • Extra points, it appears - clarified.
  • Should we cite his height and weight in the infobox? It's from Pro Football Archives. We usually don't put citations in the infobox for players but this is a FA candidate. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't see anymore issues. I didn't do a full source review but I expect that's been done by this point. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
Source formatting is mostly consistent and all necessary information is there. I notice there is a preeetty strong reliance on newspaper sources here - are there no biographies?

Since a spot-check has been asked for and with the caveat that this isn't a topic I am familiar with (I've always thought that American football and baseball are the same thing):

Unrelated to spotchecking, but "St. John's was renamed to Jesuit High School in 1960" should probably be mentioned much earlier in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Currently we are waiting for a pass or fail from Jo-Jo. Once that happens one of the coordinators will have a more detailed look at things. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot to ask a few questions, they are in now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Responded to each of them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry for asking what seems like trivial questions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: That's alright though, is this considered a source review pass? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be heading in the right direction but I'd prefer to wait a little longer to see if it attracts another general review or two before I look at it with a view to closing. FrB.TG (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: Noting that since the prior comment it has gotten another support. Just wondering if sufficient work has been done or should I try to find another reviewer, as I've been really hoping to get this done in time for the WikiCup (end of the month). BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BeanieFan, yes this is next on my list to go over for possible closure so sit tight. That is unless one of my fellow coordinators beats me to it. FrB.TG (talk) 07:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 October 2023 [19].

550 Madison Avenue

[edit]
Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the old AT&T Building, later the Sony Tower, in New York City. Built in 1984, the skyscraper has a distinctive marble exterior with a huge entrance arch at the base and a Chippendale-like notch on its roof. A bold architectural statement for its time, 550 Madison Ave. was seen as a panacea to New York City's mid-1970s fiscal crisis. It went through two owners in two decades and became an official NYC landmark in 2018 following a controversial plan to significantly modify the building's exterior and lobby.

This page became a Good Article two years ago after a Good Article review by A person in Georgia, for which I am very grateful. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

[edit]

I really enjoy these NYC architecture entries. Comments soon. ~ HAL333 03:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HAL333, just wondering if you were still intending to review this one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HAL333, if you have any comments, it would be much appreciated. As Gog mentioned two days ago, this nomination is unfortunately at risk of being archived due to a lack of commentary. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Here's what I got:

  • In the paragraph starting Prior to 19th-century..., you might want to change the second use of "19th century" to 1800s as "century" is used quite a bit. Feel free not to - it's almost inconsequential.
  • by the middle of the 20th century --> "by the mid-20th century" for concision
  • If it's not ungainly, you might want to mention that some describe it as the world's first postmodern skyscraper.
  • was headquartered at 195 Broadway in Lower Manhattan since 1916 --> "had been headquartered at 195 Broadway in Lower Manhattan since 1916"
  • maintenance costs on the headquarters seems like odd phrasing, maybe change to "maintenance costs on its headquarters"
  • African-American shouldn't be hyphenated
  • threatened a strike. prompting IBM to hire two additional foremen
  • Sony Wonder Technology Lab - was this always the full name for the exhibit? If so, I might name it as such in its first mention.

Again, feel free to ignore any of the stylistic prose nitpicks. Very well done. ~ HAL333 18:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @HAL333, I've now addressed all of these. I was reluctant to use "1800s" since that might refer to the first decade of the 19th century, but since no other decades of the 19th century are mentioned in the article, I ultimately went with that phrasing anyway. Also, Sony Wonder Technology Lab was indeed the full name of the exhibit. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
I'm not sure all architectural terms with which the reader may be unfamiliar have been linked, such as "spandrels" "shear walls/tubes" "mullions" "capitals".
Also cladding.
"There was initially no retail space on the Madison Avenue front because, according to critic Nory Miller, "AT&T didn't want a front door sandwiched between a drug store and a lingerie shop."[44]" Did this change? "Initially" implies a change.
"repudiated claims" Is anything stronger than "denied" really needed?
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Wehwalt. I've addressed all three of these points now - I added some links, removed "initially", and changed "repudiated" to "denied". – Epicgenius (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The presence of the atrium not only allowed additional floor area but also was aligned with the atrium in the IBM Building at 590 Madison Avenue" What was the practical effect of this? Did it form a continuous public space?
  • "of a rebuilt annex to the west." If this is the one rebuilt in the early 2020s, then you've referred to it previously and it should be "the" rebuilt annex etc.
  • "inscriptions on the pavers" What kind? Is this the sort where you spend to have your name inscribed on a brick?
  • You refer to the amenity space created on the 7th floor twice, with slightly varying description, and once is "by 2020", the conversion is taking place, and the other mentions the renovation in the early 2020s. I'd check for consistency, plus be sure you need to mention it twice.
  • " Johnson/Burgee recalled that" reads a bit oddly.
  • "swap some of the expensive materials with cheaper materials" I might simplify "substitute cheaper materials"
  • "from the cash-strapped AT&T" I might delete the "the"
    • This proposed modification feels awkward, since it would change the sentence to "purchase the building from [adjective] AT&T". If the adjective were something like "defunct", it would sound even more strange ("from defunct AT&T" would sound like it's missing a word). Epicgenius (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in comparison to" maybe substitute "given"?
  • " regarded the changes as akin to a television commercial in exchange for a public benefit." I'm not sure what's being said here.
    • It was worded awkwardly. The visitor said, "my impression is that it's like commercials on television. If Sony wants to maintain the space, they're using the commercials to pay for it." This seems to me like commercial sponsorship, so I've changed it accordingly. Epicgenius (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Nearly four 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) 21:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a shame. I suppose that buildings in NYC are not a popular topic among FAC reviewers, but I will see what I can do with regards to convincing additional people to review this. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally it really depends on how much reviewers can commit. A longer FAC might have fewer chances of reviewing.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Would I be allowed to nominate another FAC soon? This has five prose supports, an image review, and a source review, though LunaEatsTuna has stated that he intends to review the article. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeing passes for either sources or images. I have queried both of them, let's see what they say. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, it seems like both the image and source reviewers have responded. May I nominate another FAC while LunaEatsTuna leaves his comments below? – Epicgenius (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by ZKang123

[edit]

I shall review this article.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • The building consists of a 647-foot-tall (197-metre), – wouldn't "The building is a..." be more appropriate? I would understand if the building consists of more than that office tower
  • Simmons Architects... not Simons Architects? I might still have a redlink ready.
  • At the base of the building is a large entrance arch facing east toward Madison Avenue – A large entrance arch at the base of the building faces east toward Madison Avenue
  • A pedestrian atrium... was also included in the design – was? The atrium no longer exists?
  • Oh, I see at the end it's now replaced by an outdoor plaza. Does the plaza still connect the 55th and 56th Streets midblock? If so, I just say "An outdoor plaza connecting 55th and 56th Streets midblock, formerly a pedestrian atrium in the original design, enabled the building to rise higher without the use of setbacks." Or other rewording to simplify the sentence.
  • The building has received much attention ever since its design was first announced in March 1978. – probably elaborate why? What sort of attention (negative/positive/mixed)?
    • The commentary was mixed. Many people did not like the design of the structure, particularly the broken pediment at the roof, when it was built; other critics appreciated this quality. I've changed it. Epicgenius (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Site and architecture:

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your initial comments ZKang123. I've fixed all of these now. Epicgenius (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History

Impact:

That's all I can find.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review ZKang123. I've now addressed all of these. Epicgenius (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to give my support.--ZKang123 (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Don't use fixed px size
Hi Nikkimaria, how is this one looking? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spot-check upon request. I presume that Progressive Architecture is a reliable source? What make Emporis and Inc reliable sources? I don't think that The New York Times, The Washington Post and Wall Street Journal need an ISSN. https://www.dezeen.com/2020/01/08/snohetta-public-garden-att-building-new-york-city/# needs a byline. I find it somewhat odd that the WSJ items or "After This, Buildings May Never Look the Same" don't appear to exist on Google searches. Reuters should probably be italicized. I see a few commercial/business websites used, but I think they are adequate for the information presented. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review @Jo-Jo Eumerus. I will look at these later, but as a quick note, the WSJ sources and "After This, Buildings May Never Look the Same" source are hosted on ProQuest, which is subscription-only. There's no specific webpage for these sources, but I copied the citation data verbatim from ProQuest. Epicgenius (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, here are my responses:
  • Progressive Architecture - This was a reliable source in its field; while no longer published, it was an established magazine with editorial oversight.
  • Inc.com - This is also an established magazine, with editorial oversight as well, though I do have to wonder why the magazine's "About" page leads to the home page of its parent company.
  • Emporis - This database is defunct, but there was a RSP discussion about this a few years ago, which seems to indicate that it is marginally reliable (with some content that was suggested by users and vetted by staff). The source is also used in a couple of other FAs such as 40 Wall Street. Regardless, I've removed the reference as it is permanently defunct.
  • Although these sources technically are famous enough to not really need an ISSN, I have added them anyway for consistency with similar articles. I have also added ISSNs to the other publications used in the article, where applicable, for consistency within this article.
  • I added a byline to Dezeen.
  • As mentioned above, all of these sources are hosted on ProQuest, e.g. "After This, Buildings May Never Look the Same". Johnson, Philip.  Newsday (1940-), Nassau ed.; Long Island, N.Y.. 12 Nov 1978: B5. Usually you should still be able to see metadata for these sources.
  • I am treating Reuters as a news agency rather than as a newspaper. Hence I used the |agency= parameter, which does not italicize the name of the agency (the |work= parameter does italicize the work's name).
– Epicgenius (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, how are you feeling about this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this passes, with the usual caveat of not my area of expertise and that I didn't spot-check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie (Support)

[edit]

Taking a peek. There's not a lot left to take a look at, but there are a few areas I found that could have been easily missed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "647-foot-tall (197-metre), 37-story office tower" missing an <sp=us> here?
Site
  • "4- and 5-story residences" spell out "four" and "five"
Architecture
  • "The acoustic ceilings were manufactured by the Industrial Acoustics Company, which manufactured" manufactured manufactured
  • "The atrium's presence allowed additional floor area, and it directly faced the atrium of the IBM Building at 590 Madison Avenue." Does the presence face the atrium?
History
  • "AT&T's longtime advertising agency N. W. Ayer & Son displayed a" is the bolded part not an appositive requiring commas?
  • "The arcade space was to be converted into retail space and, in exchange, the atrium was to be expanded with new planters and public seating" there's a WP:CINS issue hiding here! (comma after "retail space" needed, or replace with a semicolon which is probably the better call in this structure)
  • "Sony bought out the Quilted Giraffe's lease and the restaurant closed at the end of 1992." here too
Impact
  • "Paul Goldberger called it "post-modernism's major monument", but felt..." Another CinS
  • "and the Atlanta Constitution quoted various architects who said the design "couldn't possibly succeed" and was "a tragedy" if taken seriously, Conversely, The Baltimore Sun" comma into start of next sentence.
  • "Susan Doubliet wrote for Progressive Architecture that the building was "more pleasure to passers-by than anyone would have predicted", while also stating that "more was expected" of the disorganized design." Another CinS
    Thanks Sammi. I've fixed all of these now. Epicgenius (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support with all issues addressed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LunaEatsTuna

[edit]

First FA review but I'll give it a go this week. Pls no archive. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 17:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely the second-worst FA review ever written but anyways:
  • What does granite for other sources mean?
  • This is probably personal taste but, compared to the rest of the article, "The architects had wanted the windows to be deeper, but this was not possible due to the high cost of the granite" sounds, like, 'blocky' to me. Could it possibly be rephrased to something like "The architects had originally desired deeper windows, but this was not …" instead?
  • "The arcade measured 60 feet high; it was conceived as a 100-foot-high space but was downsized "for reasons of scale"", IMO something like "The arcade, initially conceived as a 100-foot-high space, was downsized to its final height of 60 feet for "reasons of scale"" has better flow.
  • "There are 45 granite columns within the arcade" – may be a dumb question from someone lives in a yurt, but do these serve a structural or decorative purpose?
  • "One of the previous buildings on the site, the Delman Building at 558 Madison Avenue, had contained a similar broken pediment" – I feel like contained is too unnecessary here.
  • "Spirit of Communication (also Golden Boy), a 20,000-pound (9,100-kilogram) bronze statue that stood atop AT&T's previous headquarters at 195 Broadway, was removed from that building in 1981 and relocated to 550 Madison Avenue's main lobby in 1983" reads quite awkwardly for me with its current wording.
  • Really nitpicking here, but IMO "The atrium also includes a waterfall and seating, as well as circular floor pavers …" using synonyms for additionally twice in the same sentence like this is a bit odd. Is there anyway to perhaps combine these?
  • I would combine the first two sentences of § Construction for smoother flow.
Ja! I'll be over tonight sorry, been preoccupied with uni. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 17:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "workers had to climbed through the shear tubes to complete the sky lobby before installed the steel crane" – speaks for itself.
  • "The project had a single construction manager, Frank Briscoe" – not familiar with building titles so IDK what this entails precisely, but could this perhaps be rephrased in the vein of "The construction was managed by Frank Briscoe"?
  • "the union whose workers were constructing the building—threatened to strike" – did they say why?
  • "In early 1984, AT&T indicated that" – why indicated?
  • "Having decreased in size substantially" – recommend "Having substantially decreased in size".
  • ""unquestionably an improvement" not only aesthetically, but also functionally" – I would do ""unquestionably an improvement" both aesthetically and functionally" (or something like that) for better formality.
  • "The company name was prominently displayed in Sony Plaza: the company logo“ – massive pedantry but I would find a way to rephrase to avoid using company twice in such close succession.
@Epicgenius: Done—that should be all from me. I did in fact read § Impact as well but everything looks good to go for me there. Happy to support after you make these few changes. Thanks for the motivation, ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 23:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the review, LunaEatsTuna, and I'm glad this motivated you. I have now fixed all of the above issues (the workers apparently threatened to strike because of fears about black workers taking over job sites). Briscoe was specifically a "construction manager". Epicgenius (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on the changes, happy now to support this article for FA status. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 14:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vat

[edit]

Putting down a marker. It's long, but I don't see any prominent issues on a quick skim. Will read in-depth and comment soon. Vaticidalprophet 17:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very little to say here. I've made some tiny copyedits.

  • The lead mentions a 2020s redevelopment, which I'm gathering is the one subsectioned as "Olayan redevelopment" (a section that actually talks a little more about the 2010s). Could some context be given in the lead so readers interested in this redevelopment specifically can find the right section on the TOC?
  • When the plans were announced in 1978, Johnson said this would make 550 Madison Avenue the city's "most energy-efficient structure". Did they make it energy-efficient or did he just think they would? This is 45 years ago; how is it in terms of energy efficiency by modern standards?
    • As far as I know, Johnson merely thought the presence of the glass would make the building energy-efficient. As of 2020, the building scored 89/100 on a citywide energy-efficiency report card, but this was published during the renovation. I've added that detail to the article. Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The space is supported by 45 granite columns weighing 50 short tons (45 long tons; 45 t) apiece. The granite columns are designed to resemble load-bearing columns; they use thicker stone to represent solidity, and they contained notches to represent depth. I'm confused by this. Are they load-bearing columns (per "supported by") or not (per "designed to resemble")? The second sentence switches between past and present tense; do they still have notches or were they filled in or something? Are the notches decorative or functional somehow (I guess this is a sub-question of whether the columns themselves are)?
    • The notches are still there, but they are decorative. Within these granite "columns" are steel columns that do support the ceiling above. However, the steel columns have a smaller cross-section than the granite piers around them; the granite cladding is purely decorative. Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could this be clarified a little more? There's no mention of steel columns in the article. I think the explanation of what specific appearance the fake joints give (rather than just that it's "consistent") is also worth clarifying, if possible. Vaticidalprophet 16:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vaticidalprophet, I have done this. The specific wording used in the article is "steel frame", which is also the description used by the sources. The fake joints were merely intended to resemble the real ones. In images like this one, it's hard to tell which joints are actually gaps between panels, versus which joints were just carved into panels to resemble real gaps. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The granite panels contain real and false joints to give a consistent appearance could use some clarification on what this means, as the linked article is jargony. Also, three "contains" in quick succession -- are these all the best possible word choice?
    • I've reworded the uses of "contain". Basically, the facade is made of multiple rectangular panels (since it's impossible to fabricate it in one piece), and the joints are the gaps between each panel. The panels themselves are also divided up by fake joints, but they don't extend through the entirety of the panel, like the real joints do. The fake joints make it seem like the panel is divided into several smaller masonry blocks. I have remedied this too. Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet 15:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments vat. I've fixed all of these now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support now. Vaticidalprophet 17:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 October 2023 [20].

Liz Truss

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Liz Truss, the shortest-serving prime minister of the United Kingdom so far, beginning her premiership exactly one year ago today. The article went through an immensely helpful peer review which closed yesterday, after I'd rewritten it from scratch in August. This is my first FAC, so apologies if anything has been done wrong; that's on me. BLP writing is tricky, and I think I've struck a decent balance between brevity and comprehensiveness, but I look forward to all your comments pointing out the contrary. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: - Am I clear to add this to the image and source review requests page? Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Looks like you'll be closing this one. The image and source reviews are both completed, and I've gathered a healthy number of supports, so hopefully this one'll be a promotion. Could you hold off until 25 October, to allow for a few would-be-last-minute reviewers to comment, and—for purely superficial reasons—so that this article's candidacy can line up seamlessly with the one-year anniversary of the premiership? Then again, I'm not the one to tell you how to do your job: do as you wish. Thanks, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tim. If you ping me on the second half of the 24th to remind me, then assuming I have not already archived it I shall see what I can do. You sure that you wouldn't prefer the bragging rights of getting it promoted within a year, rather than on 366 days? (PS I assume you are aware that you have "Email me" switched off?) Gog the Mild (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either's fine, just neatness that it was nominated on 6 Sep, and, to the reviewers' credit, it's been timed pretty well to be the complete fifty days. Re bragging, the entire FAC community can joke that "this FAC lasted as long as she did *wink wink* *nudge nudge*". You're right that I've not connected my email to my WP account, just something I never thought to do. If you want, I'll drop a ping on Tuesday. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild - Forgot to ping yesterday, sorry. Hopefully all is tied up now. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

When the nominator mentioned this overhaul, the much respected Johnbod expressed reservations about putting the article up so soon after the event. I take the point, but here we are and I think I must comment. I commented at PR and will have one last look before returning here in the next few days. Tim riley talk 21:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After a last perusal – and it certainly will be a last perusal, as I have no wish to be reminded of this person ever again – I am happy to support the elevation of the article. I could do with fewer mugshots of Truss, but that's just my view. If the article is promoted it will need more vigilance than most in the months and years ahead, I think, to make sure it continues to reflect current developments and sources, but for now I am satisfied that it meets the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 16:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim, for comments both here and at PR. As new sources are created and Truss's life progresses, I'll make sure that the article adequately reflects both. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

I know very little about British politics, so bear with me...

Lead
[edit]
  • "In 1996, she joined the Conservative Party." This isn't in the body, so is unsourced.
Last line of "Early life and education".
  • "in the aftermath of the 2017 general election, was demoted to chief secretary to the Treasury." Subject missing. Consider splitting long sentence in two.
Done with a semicolon, let me know if this is still an issue.
  • " Johnson, who had resigned in an earlier government crisis" In the crisis, or because of it? Just checking...
Because of it. Amended.
  • " Her government then announced large-scale borrowing and tax cuts, which were widely criticised and largely reversed after financial instability; facing mounting criticism and loss of confidence in her leadership, Truss announced her resignation as leader of the Conservative Party." Consider splitting long sentence in two at the semicolon.
Done.
  • "Sunak was elected unopposed as her successor, and succeeded her as prime minister." Drop the comma.
Done.
Early life and education
[edit]
  • Truss was known by her middle name Elizabeth Why the italics?
It's the done thing, is it not? WP:WORDSASWORDS, I think, is the relevant authority on this. Not exactly sure if this applies to names though.
  • "the family moved to Paisley, Renfrewshire when Truss was four years old," Parenthetical comma after Renfrewshire
Done.
  • "Truss praised the Canadian curriculum and the attitude that it was "really good to be top of the class", which she contrasted to her education at Roundhay." Can we be a bit more explicit about this? Roundhay did not value excellence? And was Truss near the top of her class?
I think Truss was slagging off Roundhay (aka lying to prove a point), and I think that, like all schools, it would have valued excellence. I'm on the fence about this one, but if you insist I could add something, although I don't know what it could be.
  • "During her time as a Lib Dem, Truss supported the legalisation of cannabis and the abolition of the monarchy,[27][28] and campaigned against the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994." You haven't defined the abbreviation Lib Dem, although it is fairly obvious; suggest not using it. And did Truss change her opinions on these matters?
Fixed re Lib Dem. Not sure about Truss's opinion on either in later life: if I were to speculate, I'd say that she would support the legalisation of cannabis because of her small-state credentials, but I've no idea. With the monarchy, who knows.
Professional career
[edit]
  • "From 1996 to 2000, Truss worked for Shell plc," She worked for Royal Dutch Shell plc; it changed its name in 2022. Do we really need the "plc"? And do we know what kind of work she did for them?
    Shell fixed. Source doesn't say what she did; quoting the source, it says: "Truss took her accountancy qualifications and moved into the spare room of a fellow Shell graduate". I guess that she was an accountant, but hard to be sure.
  • "She co-authored The Value of Mathematics,[35] Fit for Purpose,[36] A New Level,[35] Back To Black,[37][38] and other reports." Citation required.
    Done.
  • " having been introduced to the branch by her friend and future MP, Jackie Doyle-Price.[39][30] During this time, Truss met her future husband Hugh O'Leary at a reception at the Greenwich Conservative Association,[30] with whom she has two children: Frances (born 2006) and Liberty (born 2008)." Do we have to use "future" twice in as many sentences? And her children were with Hugh, not the Greenwich Conservative Association, right? And do we know the sex of her children?
    Fixed.
  • "In January 2005, Sue Catling, the parliamentary candidate for the Calder Valley constituency, was forced to resign by the local Conservative Association after an affair with the association's chairman;[49] Catling claimed that the members of the party that had opposed her were sexist, saying that she was "accused of everything except murder and paedophilia"." Did the affair have anything to do with her resignation?
    Yes. Changed "and" to "because of".
  • "Beginning in 2004, Truss embarked on an 18-month-long affair with the Conservative MP Mark Field" I take it that we are contrasting Sue with Liz here. Did Truss have any other affairs of note?
    No. The fact that Catling and Truss both had affairs is a coincidence, although the book does emphasis the ironic value of the two.
    I'm not familiar with British politics, but in Australia we had a politician called Gladys Berejiklian who had an affair with a another politician widely suspected to be a crook. She was a canny politician and realised that the media were far more interested in her sexual peccadillos than her ethical ones, so she went on shock-jock radio with salacious details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'some in the association asking for a local candidate and saying that she had been "parachuted in"" Was she? Did the national organisation impose Truss on the local body?
    Not really. MPs in the UK are selected by members of the constituency (local) branch of the party from a shortlist of candidates which are drawn up, also by, I assume, the local branch (although not the members). The Taliban weren't the sharpest tools in the shed.
    In Australia it is not uncommon for parties to impose a candidate on the local branch ("parachuting in"). Our preferential voting system means that it is more important for a candidate to appeal to the electorate than the party faithful. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Truss was elected as an MP in the 2010 general election, amongst other Conservatives;" There usually are more than one elected at each election I hear. (Where's EEng?)
  • Awkward wording fixed. There may not be more that one Tory elected at the next election, the way they're handling the RAAC crisis.
  • " the FEG" Define the abbrevoiation before you use it. Yes, I know. Do it anyway. MOS:ACRO1STUSE: "Unless specified in the "Exceptions" section below, an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page"
    Done.
  • "the top rate of tax to 40 pence" I think you mean 40 pence in the quid?
    Yes, that's a UK-ism that we often do: say "45p" or "20p" for tax thresholds. Fixed.
  • Link carbon tax
    Done.
  • "Truss soon became well known amongst members of parliament in Norfolk for her frequent photo ops,[71] but was well-respected amongst Conservative MPs, who recognised her as dedicated and hard-working;[72] one of her staff members said that Truss's "attention to the local stuff was just superb". Since it is a staff member and not an MP, this is a non-sequitur. Start a new sentence instead of the semicolon.
    Done. More soon.
Ministerial career
[edit]
  • "Truss wrote a white paper—More Great Childcare[82]—which would increase the maximum number of children childminders could look after at a time, from three to four," It think that the paper would not do this, but the policy.
Clarified.
  • he told Truss "this is my phone number" Colon after Truss
Done.
  • Suggest splitting "the first paragraph of Environment secretary (2014–2016) at "During her two years in the department"
Done.
  • "Truss made a speech in which she said "we import two-thirds of our cheese. That. Is. A. Dis-grace" Strange formatting here.
Hard to get across how she said it, which was the main reason she was mocked. The Times used "That. Is. A. Dis. grace" which would've looked even weirder. You can watch her say it here.
  • " "in December, I'll be in Beijing, opening up new pork markets". Um, China is the world's biggest producer of pork.
Take it up with The Truss.
  • "in Australia she made unscripted comments on their free trade negotiations with the UK, both events to the dismay of Downing Street officials." The unscripted remarks or the free trade negotiations with Australia?
The remarks. Not sure if I can express that in the sentence though, I'd thought it was clear.
  • " the NFU" Another abbreviation.
Fixed.
  • "Downing Street expected her resignation, but Truss later privately decided against it." How is that even possible?
In the UK, Downing Street sometimes puts people on "resignation watch" if they're known to be disloyal or against a certain policy.
  • "including Partygate, which resulted in he and the chancellor Rishi Sunak" "him"
Done.
  • "DUP" this time you have to look under the link. (Doesn't mean a thing to me tho')
Fixed.
Premiership (September–October 2022)
[edit]
  • " and began to appoint her cabinet that day" Aren't ministers appointed by the King?
    Technically, but "recommended that the King appoint her cabinet" is a bit too literal.
    I would suggest "selected" instead of "appointed". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hawkeye7 - done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and prompted a response from the Bank of England." Any idea what that was. (My guess: put their fingers in their ears and went ting-a-ling-a-loo.)
    Yes, quite a bit actually; didn't want to be unequal by picking and choosing their measures, so I've added a link.
  • "Truss has supported Taiwan in the context of deteriorating cross-strait relations" I have no idea what this means
    Me neither. A third editor left this for you and I to figure out. Maybe the readers can crack that nut. Added a link.
  • "condemned the Chinese government's treatment of the Uyghur people as "genocide"." Hahaha. Takes the cake for lack of self-awareness.
  • "she called Saudi Arabia an ally but said she was not "condoning" the country's policies." Any idea what policies? (Allying with the UK I presume.)
    Added, after looking at the source.

If you are trying to make her sound vacuous and guileless you have succeeded. (Nice touch: the images of her first and last speeches still wearing the same outfit.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments @Hawkeye7. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie

[edit]

More of a copyedit that should be easy to handle. The phrase "an idiot, full of sound and fury / Signifying nothing" comes to mind, but reliable sources (especially the book kind) seem to generally take a pretty dim view of the subject. Ping me when done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Truss was the parliamentary under-secretary of state for childcare and education from 2012 to 2014, before Cameron appointed her secretary of state for the environment, food and rural affairs in a cabinet reshuffle. The comma after "2014" is unneeded.
    Done
Early life
  • She applied for Merton College, but was instead listed as a candidate for the all-women's St Hilda's College User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences: the comma here is unneeded.
    Done
  • During her time as a Liberal Democrat, Truss supported the legalisation of cannabis and the abolition of the monarchy, and campaigned against the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The second comma here is unneeded. (The part after the ", and" is not a standalone sentence.
    Done
Political career
  • During this time, Truss met her future husband Hugh O'Leary at a reception at the Greenwich Conservative Association, with whom she has two daughters: Frances (born 2006) and Liberty (born 2008). Did Liz have two daughters with the Greenwich Conservative Association? Restructure this sentence so the "with" clause comes directly after "Hugh O'Leary".
    Done
  • Another book, Britannia Unchained was published in September 2012. Complete the appositive with a comma after "Unchained"
    Done
  • Truss soon became well known amongst members of parliament in Norfolk for her frequent photo ops, but was well-respected amongst Conservative MPs, who recognised her as dedicated and hard-working. The comma after "ops" is unneeded.
    Fixed.
Ministerial career
  • In September 2012, Truss was appointed as parliamentary under-secretary of state for education, and stepped back from the leadership of the FEG, with Kwarteng taking her place. Remove comma
    Done (I'm assuming you mean the second).
  • the deputy prime minister Nick Clegg held a meeting with Truss, who told her that "some of this is fine", but the maximum childminder increase went "much too far", and advised her to revise the proposal
    • Reverse the order of Clegg and Truss before the first comma so that Truss isn't telling Truss something.
    • The last two commas need to go
    Done both.
  • Truss also announced proposals to reform A-levels by concentrating exams at the end of two-year courses, and said that the UK should attempt to "out-educate" countries in Asia. Remove comma
    Done.
  • Originally, Truss was to be made a minister of state, before Cameron changed his mind on the morning of the reshuffle Before comma
    Done.
  • May's decision to appoint her was criticised by the minister of state for justice Edward Faulks who resigned from the government Add a comma after Faulks
    Done.
  • she ruled herself out the day after May announced her resignation, and subsequently endorsed the former foreign secretary Boris Johnson Remove comma
    Done.
  • it was thought she might have been appointed chancellor or business secretary, but was instead promoted to the position of secretary of state for international trade and president of the Board of Trade add "she" after "but" to keep the comma
    Done.
  • On her first trip to the US, Truss met with her American counterpart Robert Lighthizer, where she gave a speech comma after counterpart, and is Lighthizer a place? ;)
    Fixed.
  • Instead, she had focussed on joining the CPTPP Maybe split this long sentence after "and New Zealand"?
    Done.
  • Truss became the second woman to occupy the office, and kept the post of equalities minister Remove comma
    Done.
  • Reportedly a difficult meeting, Lavrov described communicating with Truss as "like talking to a deaf person". Maybe The meeting was reportedly difficult; Lavrov described communicating with Truss as "like talking to a deaf person".
    Done, I didn't like that sentence either.
  • the plan was criticised by the European Commission, but was received well by the European Research Group and the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party Remove comma
    Done.
  • he decided against it, and instead selected Nadhim Zahawi as Sunak's replacement Remove comma
    Done.
  • Johnson's premiership proved untenable however and, on 7 July, he announced try Johnson's premiership proved untenable, however, and on 7 July, he announced
    Done.
  • She pledged to cut taxes if elected, and said she would "fight the election as a Conservative and govern as a Conservative", and that she would also take "immediate action to help people deal with the cost of living" Remove both commas and maybe change "and that she would also take" to just "and take"
    Done.
Premiership
  • 6 September 2022, and began to select her cabinet ministers no need for this comma
    Fixed.
  • the package was to be funded by borrowing, and was intended to stimulate growth Remove comma
    Done.
  • replacing him with Jeremy Hunt on 14 October, who reversed many of the remaining policies announced in the mini-budget, leading to further instability; because of Truss's perceived weakness, Hunt was described as the de facto prime minister. Did 14 October reverse many of the policies or Jeremy Hunt? Consider changing "October, who" to "October. Hunt"
    Done.
  • She was succeeded by Sunak as leader of the Conservative Party on 24 October, and advised the King to appoint him as the new prime minister on 25 October Remove the comma
    Done.
  • Sunak went on to further reverse many of the economic measures she had made as prime minister, but retained Hunt as chancellor. Remove comma
    Done.
  • Truss, who remains in the Commons as a backbencher, submitted the list of her resignation honours in 2023, which are yet to be approved Maybe Truss, who remains in the Commons as a backbencher, submitted in 2023, the list of her resignation honours, which are yet to be approved
    Done.
Political positions
  • She has also suggested that the UK should not ignore the history of the British Empire, but should embrace the country's history "warts and all" Remove comma
    Done.
  • She voted for gay marriage and has never voted against LGBT rights, but has moved to limit transgender rights Remove comma
    Done.
  • Truss has supported Taiwan in the context of deteriorating cross-strait relations, but, citing precedent, said that she would not visit the island as prime minister, and condemned the Chinese government's treatment of the Uyghur people as "genocide". Remove the commas after "relations" and "minister"
    Done.

@Sammi Brie - Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie - Anything else? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will support. The copy has been cleaned up. (Note: Claiming for WikiCup points.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from UndercoverClassicist

[edit]

Much admiration for taking on a big, visible and no doubt high-maintenance article, though I'm not sure I'll thank you for digging up the memories of its subject. I'm afraid there's quite a lot here, partly because of the nature of the article: it's important that we get this sort of thing right and are seen to do so, particularly from an NPOV... PoV. Please do not take that as any sort of judgement on the quality of the article or your work: there's most definitely a path to Support for me here and I'm happy to work with you on the points below. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim comment (separated for readability)
Christ, this is a lot. I'll do some tonight, some tomorrow. Watch this space. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist - At long last, I think I'm done with your comments. I've not responded to each one individually, so this is a catch-all reply to acknowledge that I've seen and actioned them. Have a look to see if there's anything I've missed or anything you're not satisfied with. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist? - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: all handled and a well-worked article on a demanding subject. Thank you, Tim, for your forbearance with a lengthy and often nit-picky review. I think it's important that we get it right when do these "big" articles, especially BLP ones, and this one is a credit to the encyclopaedia and its nominator. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, both for the massive chunk of your time you've put into this, finding new sources for your comments and finally for the support. That's the level of FAC commentary we should be aspiring to. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved matters
  • demoted to chief secretary to the Treasury: given how little about the various cabinet etc ranks is codified, are we absolutely sure that demoted is a matter of verifiable fact?
    It's what the news sources and Out of the Blue says, so I don't see why not.
  • After May resigned in 2019: I'd give a month; otherwise, it's awkward to have year-less references to July and September immediately afterwards.
    Done.
  • she subsequently took on the additional role of minister for women and equalities in September: elegant variation, but sandwiched between two "Johnson appointed..." or similar, this reads as if she somehow did it behind Johnson's back.
    Done, albeit with a bit of a split infinitive: "was subsequently given".
  • large-scale borrowing and tax cuts: not quite clear if cuts to both borrowing and taxes, or additional borrowing to pay for tax cuts.
    Fixed.
  • their first son, named Matthew, had died: any reason not to cut named?
    Done.
  • was known by her middle name Elizabeth since: as she only has one, this would normally be bracketed with commas: her middle name, Elizabeth, since...
    Done.
  • Per MOS:OVERLINK, we don't generally link current national capitals (Warsaw).
    Fixed.
  • Consider specifying that Renfrewshire is in Scotland: perhaps "Paisley in the Scottish Borders"?
    Tacked on "in Scotland".
  • she later said in 2022 that at the school "I saw kids ... being let down",: awkward grammatically with the I: suggest simply starting the quote a word later: she later said in 2022 that, at the school, she "saw..."
    Yeah, why not. Done.
  • she contrasted to her education at Roundhay: contrasted to reads wrongly to me: I'd prefer contrasted with (as would Google Ngrams, but I'm not particularly sure.
    Done.
  • She applied for Merton College: you apply to a college.
    D'oh! Fixed.
  • she was accepted for Merton: accepted by is, I think, best.
    Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lib Dems: not sure the abbreviated form is quite encyclopaedic. As it's only the once, I'd spell this out in full; if we're going to keep the abbreviation, we should really gloss it earlier.
    Fixed.
  • By 1996, Truss was involved in Conservative Party politics: covers a multitude of sins: can we be any more specific?
    My elegant variation has failed to charm; rephrased.
  • as a Chartered Management Accountant (ACMA): isn't ACMA the professional body, rather than the job itself?
    Removed.
  • Why Cable & Wireless plc here but Cable & Wireless in the lead?
    Sloppiness. Fixed.
  • Suggest explaining that George Robertson is more than just a C&W colleague (somewhat per MOS:NOFORCELINK).
    I had thought about that, but had no idea if I should have introduced his as defence sec or Lab peer or whatever; I've gone for the latter.
    Yes, he'd had quite a career (and had fairly recently left as SecGen of NATO): as this article is about Truss rather than Robertson, I think you've done a good job. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite initially supporting single-sex services being restricted on the basis of biological sex, she later said in February 2022 that the government was not interested in enacting such a measure: the source seems to be talking specifically about toilets; does it expand that to enough breadth for the phrasing we have here?
    Rephrased.
  • to reduce economic dependency on China and Russia: reduce its economic dependency?
    Done.
  • In response to the cost of living and energy supply crises: suggest a rephrase to be a) more comprehensible to non-British readers for whom "the cost of living crisis" may not mean much, and b) more durable in a future time when, we hope, the phrase will have faded from the collective consciousness (compare "the war", which needs a qualifier now in a way that it didn't in 1946).
    Fixed.
  • Done.
  • households, businesses and public-sector organisations: does this actually exclude anyone? If not, would cut.
    Very good point, although I worry that the readers would ask who it affected and if it excluded anybody.
  • I'm not sure they would: we would be fine writing "to cut taxes", and not being specific implies that it affected more-or-less everyone. Certainly, in the lead, brevity is a virtue to a much greater extent than in the body: this is quite a lot of words that seem to add little to the meaning. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • which were widely criticised and largely reversed after financial instability: similarly: were they criticised before or only after the financial instability?
    Err ... fixed, I hope.
  • It's still a bit unclear, though I think justifiable as long as both the criticism and the reversal followed the instability. If not, suggest something like "which led to financial instability and were largely reversed after widespread criticism". UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trimmed.
  • Facing mounting criticism and loss of confidence in her leadership, Truss announced her resignation as leader of the Conservative Party: suggest giving a date in the lead, as this is a vitally important event.
    Done-zo.
  • Done at the start of the paragraph.
  • action to tackle the UK's "falling competitiveness": as this is a very partisan description, I think we need "what she/Reform/the lunatic fringe called the UK's 'falling competitiveness'" or similar.
    Source isn't of any help here, it just says "urgent action to deal with Britain's falling competitiveness". Whether this is Cole and Heale talking, I don't know. Sorry about that (thanks for "lunatic fringe" by the way, that gave me a laugh. I'm in two minds about putting it in the article itself).
  • Could rephrase or could attribute: this seems like one of those cases where we have a source that doesn't have to follow WP:NPOV: sadly, that doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to do so, but does mean that we have to be a little cautious in using that source's material. Otherwise, has another (less supportive) source looked at her time at Reform? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pffffffft... I really don't know. Added "what Reform perceived as". I know. Not great. But the best there is.
  • with whom she has two daughters: Frances (born 2006) and Liberty (born 2008).: we don't currently have a Personal Life section, but adding one would fix the chronological and subject-matter awkwardness with this: a similar issue arises with her parents' divorce, which could be similarly solved.
I really don't want to, I'm sorry. "Personal life" sections are trivia magnets. Other similar bios, like Benjamin Disraeli and Neville Chamberlain don't have one either.
That's reasonable; I don't think there's enough here or elsewhere to really upset the chronology. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truss unsuccessfully stood for election twice in Greenwich London Borough Council for Vanbrugh ward in 1998 and Blackheath Westcombe in 2002.: colon after Greenwich: she only stood once in 1998.
Done.
  • recalled in 2022 that "she said: suggest "[Truss] said...", or simply that Truss said "....
Done.
  • 3.2 per cent swing to Conservative: to the Conservatives, although to Labour would have been fine.
Done.
  • she was selected for the constituency of South West Norfolk by members of the local Conservative Association: don't local CAs select (at least finally) all candidates? If so, suggest cutting.
You're right, but kept only because it's mentioned further down.
Reasonable enough, particularly in light of "misled". UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why King's Lynn, Norfolk but simply Thetford? A slight rephrase to the beginning of this long sentence could clarify that all of these things were constituency matters.
Removed "Norfolk" and clarified that these things relate to her constituency.
  • On which, suggest rephrasing the title "Parliamentary career" to "First backbench period" or similar: it's currently not mutually exclusive with the subsequent "Ministerial career", but really needs to be.
Just changed to "backbencher"; I don't think there's any risk of confusion with her current era.
Agreed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would give a date for After the Coalition: previously is a little confusing here.
Contextualised.
Any reason not to swap the order of the two, so that she authors the book with these people, then they join the FEG?
  • a grouping of over 30 Conservative MPs: any reason not to be more precise? More generally, I'd expect some statement of what the group was here, rather than simply how big it was.
Added "Thatcherite", which is in the source (sort of) and is even in the Free Enterprise Group's article itself.
Done both.
  • Another book, Britannia Unchained, was published in September 2: by the same authors?
Yes. Fixed.
  • well known amongst members of parliament in Norfolk for her frequent photo ops but was well-respected: the first approach to hyphenation is correct: cut it in well respected.
Done. (by the way, that wasn't me.)
  • expressing concern about an overreliance on calculators: the noun phrase is a bit clunky; who was over-relying on them, and was that a fact or Truss's opinion?
Fixed.
  • golden generation: explain where this epithet comes from.
Done.
  • some becoming ministers: reads as a little redundant (some became PM!).
Cut.
  • Cameron becoming the prime minister: more natural without the the
Agreed.
  • a reference to activists living mostly in rural areas: is this quite accurate (that is, were the Mail specifically aware that urban Norfolkites had no problem with Truss?) or are we giving the Mail too much credit: perhaps more a reference to Norfolk's association with (mostly sugar beet) farming?
I don't think the Mail was trying to imply anything about the urban pop or Norfolk's farming contributions or anything like that; you might be reading a bit too much into it ;). I think they were just mocking the mostly rural county.
Yes, I agree: in which case, a reference to activists living mostly in rural areas needs to become something like "a reference to stereotypes about Norfolk being a county of farmers.". UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • after an active Conservative campaign: what exactly does this mean, and contrast with? Do we normally expect the Tories to make passive campaigns?
Source says she was "a hardworking Conservative ... Truss certainly was an active candidate ... in public there was only praise for Truss's campaigning skills". I note that the source also mentions that the Yorkshire Post described her campaign as "Blitzkreig", which I hope is good enough.
Now that we've got that second quote, I'd cut active for brevity and to put the weight of the sentence on its Schwerpunkt (sorry). UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • following an hour-and-a-half wait: I'd lean towards cutting this as well, though that's in ignorance of what wait means here: do we mean ninety minutes of debate, or of awkward silence while... something?... happened?
Again, not sure about this one. I think ripping it out bleeding would fatally wound the rest of the sentence.
I'd cut to something like On 16 November, the motion was put to the association: following a debate which included an "impassioned" speech from Truss, it was defeated by 132 votes to 37. Certainly, I'm not sure about the current framing, which is clear that we have speech -> ninety minute wait -> result: does the source exclude that the speech was part of a ninety-minute debate/discussion? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your phrasing looks fine to me, so I've replaced it with that, but replaced "debate" with "making their arguments".
  • in which an influx of other Conservatives became MPs: at present, a bit banal (this happens every election, whether or not the Tories actually win), but could rephrase to give a sense of the number of new Tory MPs.
OK, done.
Why "over 90"? We know the exact number (148 first-time Tory MPs, see here, p215), and it's quite a lot bigger than 90. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was basing it on Cameron's majority, which was 96. Now fixed.
  • time, at a reception at the Greenwich Conservative Association Truss: comma after Association.
Done.
I can't see it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, because I forgot. Now done.
Done.
  • which was considered "impressive".: crying out for a [by whom?].
Fixed.
  • Truss was pleased with the appointment: her own, or Kwarteng's?
Fixed.
  • In January 2013, Truss wrote a white paper—More Great Childcare—which proposed increasing the maximum number of children childminders could look after at a time, from three to four, which was intended to reduce the cost of childcare: this is a bit of a run-on sentence; I would try to compress and split it.
Done.
  • with The Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee : I'm not a fan of false titles: either the Guardian columnist... or Polly Toynbee, a columnist for The Guardian....
Missed that one. Changed.
  • attempt to "out-educate" countries in Asia: a big place; was she any more specific?
She wasn't, no. Knowing Liz, she probably thought it was just one country.
  • In July, during the 2014 cabinet reshuffle, Truss: better as In July 2014, during a cabinet reshuffle, Truss...
Agreed.
  • Originally, Truss was to be made a minister of state before Cameron changed his mind on the morning of the reshuffle: not quite grammatically: should be Truss was originally to be made a minister of state, but (before is workable in that situation but, grammatically at least, leaves open the reading that the original plan was for Cameron to change his mind).
This sentence really has been through the wars. Reverted back to its almost exact prior phrasing.
  • ; nevertheless, he told Truss: "this is my phone number. Ring me any time you want help": better as a paraphrase, perhaps: "he gave her his phone number and offered his support"?
Yep.
  • Perhaps worth explaining about TB; at the moment, both Patterson and Owen look a bit like swivel-eyed badger haters.
Done.
  • cut taxpayer subsidies: simply subsidies? Taxpayer in this context is slightly non-neutral: it has nice fuzzy connotations of saving people money, vs. for example government subsidies or state support.
Just put "subsidies".
  • introduce plain packaging for cigarettes: introduce isn't quite the point: suggest something more like mandate.
Done.
  • As the elected leader of the Conservative Party: cut elected, as unelected leaders (like Sunak) of majority parties are appointed PM too.
Done.
  • held positions in the Great Offices of State.: simply held any of the Great Offices of State? I'm not sure what a "position in" those offices is, as distinct from the office itself.
Done.
  • Truss ordered black clothes from Greenwich in the event of her death: should clarify to the Queen's death, but in the event is almost certainly not correct (it means "at the time that X happened"). Do we mean "in anticipation of"? Not sure what the significance of Greenwich is here?
Done, fixed, clarified (divorced, beheaded, survived).
  • A witness said that "[Truss] knew it would be that day but she had to go to the Commons to pretend everything was normal".: this sentence sits a bit oddly and doesn't seem to say a whole lot: would suggest cutting.
Removed.
  • The quote from Truss's speech about HMQ is both slightly long and yet very much not the whole story. Is there a particular reason to choose that quote, or to quote at all?
I know this isn't what you've said, but I've lengthened the quote and put it into a block. Should justify its existence a bit more that way, and tell the story a bit more too.
Yes, I like this one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • a two-year cap on the price of domestic energy supplies —the Energy Price Guarantee— which was planned to cap average household energy bills at £2,500 per year: briefer as "a two-year cap of £2,500..."?}}
Done.
  • the basic rate of income tax and stamp duty: I think this is a) the basic rate of income tax and b) stamp duty, in which case I'd reverse them ("cutting stamp duty and the basic rate of...") to be clear that there's no basic rate of stamp duty.
Yep, done.
  • rises in national insurance: NI has previously been capitalised; why not here? Similarly, why LC on Income Tax, Stamp Duty and Corporation Tax, which seem to follow the same rule, whatever we decide that to be?
Capitalised. Given that National Insurance is all caps in its article, whilst income and corporation tax isn't, should probably be like that here too.
  • She has also suggested that the UK should not ignore the history of the British Empire: this is a bit loaded; it's a phrase that doesn't quite mean what it says on the tin. Suggest reworking to contextualise the "warts and all" comment alongside the ongoing debate on Rhodes, Colston etc.
    Can't find it in the cited source, but added context for the speech.
  • I'm still a bit uncomfortable with parroting her phrasing: to her "we shouldn't forget the British Empire" means "we should generally be proud of the British Empire and stop going on about all those genocides". In particular, the line "It’s time to dump the baggage holding us back" makes this rather clear. I'm not sure I have a great answer here but I do think that finding another source as to the conversation she was joining here would be helpful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll admit I don't see the relevance of Truss's views on the empire. This seems more trouble than it's worth, and I've removed it.
  • This is the first time we've introduced Labour, although about their third mention.
Cut "the opposition".
  • Truss instructed Kwarteng to reverse the abolition of the 45 per cent income tax additional rate on 3 October: slightly ambiguous: did she instruct him on 3 October or instruct him (on 1 October?) to do it on the 3rd?
Fixed.
  • The box quote in the "Government crisis" shifts the left margin, which isn't ideal from an accessibility point of view.
Fixed.
  • by the leader of the opposition Keir Starmer: comma after opposition.
Done.
  • Given that this is a summary article, I think WP:NOFULLTEXT applies to Truss's statement: it makes up about a third of the section summarising our article on the entire government crisis.
I really don't know about this one. I see similar examples on Neville Chamberlain, and given that this is really the only good place to have the full text, I lean towards keeping it. We're used as a reference work, and we should probably keep the full version for completeness. NOFULLTEXT says "If out of copyright, shorter texts ... are usually included in their article". I get this article isn't Resignation speech of Liz Truss, but it is the appropriate venue. It doesn't risk the article being overlong and people can skip it if they'd like.
Very reasonable. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • advised the King to appoint him as the new prime minister on 25 October: see earlier comment on instructing Kwarteng.
Fixed.
  • Truss campaigned for issues including the retention of the Tornado GR4 fleet at RAF Marham in her constituency; the replacement of the old aircraft with around 150 new F-35 strike fighters: do I read this correctly that she first campaigned for the Tornados to be kept, then for them to be replaced?
I think she wanted the keep the airbase but replace the old fighters. Clarified.
Two thoughts: one, is that clear in the source, and two, if we want to keep the airbase but not the fighters, we can't say that we're keeping a Tornado airbase: need something like the retention of the RAF Marham airbase in her constituency and the replacement of its Tornado GR4 aircraft with around 150 new F-35 strike fighters. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest rephrasing dualling to a more transparent and more international alternative (MOS:COMMONALITY)
I've no idea what that is; I hope the link's enough. Feel free to have a stab yourself.
Stabbed, but please feel free to unstab. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Your phrasing looks nice and slick to me. Was worried you'd shoehorn in an Americanism, which you avoided.
  • the energy cap and tax plan announcements: we haven't actually said that Truss raised taxes (she could have borrowed the money).
? "tax plan announcements" meaning the mini-budget.
Ah! I hadn't understood, as we haven't actually mentioned the mini-budget yet. Might be worth a look. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully resolved by adding "the", which makes a distinction between the EPG and the mini-budget.
Looking at this with slightly fresher eyes, I think the problem is that we've talked about the tax plan announcements as if the reader should know that these existed. I assume you've taken as implied or obvious that the EPG would require some sort of tax plan in order to pay for it, but that isn't spelled out and so leads to some confusion. Otherwise, are we suggesting that Truss already had the mini-budget "in the gun" on 8 September, but chose to delay its announcement to put the focus on the EPG? If so, I'd suggest starting this whole section with a few sentences setting out that Truss's planned response to the cost of living crisis had two components: firstly, the energy price guarantee, and secondly, the mini-budget, which consisted of tax cuts funded by borrowing, and that she decided to announce the guarantee first. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 45 per cent: I like this phrasing, but we previously used the more awkward if perhaps intuitive "forty pence in the pound" (or similar): suggest picking one?
Dunno. I enjoy consistency probably more than the next man, but I think we should be good if we've already established what "45 per cent" means. I won't object if you ask again, though.
I don't think this is really a problem, as such. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other key appointments: who says that these ones were key (and that the others weren't)?
Removed.
Not yet. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another case of me typing here first and fixing the article second. Done now.
  • On 10 September...: commas, rather than semicolons, needed in this sentence. Could also be cut in two for the two different days.
Yep, done.
We're inconsistent, particularly here, on whether to follow a fronted date like that with a comma (we do for 10 September but not for 19 September). Suggest picking a lane: I'd use one but I know that User:Tim riley would dissent. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw one of Tim's edits castigating the "AmE-style comma". Picked most of them out now; retained the ones that are helpful, like "proved untenable, however, and on 7 July, he announced [...]".
Yes, where the comma'd-out bit is in the middle of a sentence ("periphrastic"), that's a different thing: most varieties of English would insist on both commas around however in that and similar contexts. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not including: excluding?
Done.
  • Capitalisation in source titles is a little inconsistent: most books use title case and most other sources use sentence, but Bogdanor uses title case except for the a, Diamond et al is very variable, as is Worthy and a few of the web sources.
Fixed.
  • It was received badly by financial markets because of its inclusion of temporary spending measures whilst tax rates were permanently cut, blamed for the pound falling to its lowest ever rate against the US dollar, (US$1.033) and prompted a response from the Bank of England: a difficult run-on sentence: in particular, the last part needs a work, as was is governing the whole thing, leaving us with the implies and was prompted a response. Suggest while rather than whilst when using in the sense of although.
Tweaked.
Would now amend It was received badly to The mini-budget was received badly..., as we've had a long sentence and somewhat lost that grammatical subject. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, done.
  • The short length of her premiership was the subject of much ridicule: it isn't clear here, but should be clarified, that the livestream started (quite a while) before her resignation.
Done.
including a livestream of a head of lettuce comparing the shelf-life of the vegetable to her remaining tenure which had been started the week prior: was it the livestream or the tenure that started a week prior? We could have a livestream, started the week before..., but I wonder whether we've buried the key detail here: that the organisers wanted to see if Truss would be able to remain in office before the lettuce went off. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
How about something like "which recorded a head of lettuce and invited viewers to speculate if Truss would remain in office long enough for it to go off?" I must admit I'm struggling to find a good non-BrE-specific way of saying "go off" ("go bad" is AmerE). UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked - try "wilted".
That's perfect. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • a claim which was heavily criticised by former Roundhay pupils: not sure about the word heavily here: is it more journalistic than encyclopaedic? What (verifiable) factual information is it conveying that wouldn't be communicated with was criticised by former Roundhay pupils?
    When you look at the sources, it become evident that it was indeed "heavy" criticism. One of her classmates even publicly called her "a lying bitch who told lies about our school". Obviously I did not want to put that in the article, but you get the picture.
    I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm questioning whether it's verifiable in our sense. Understand the desire to keep that rather vicious line out of a BLP article, but would suggest cutting the adverb. Perhaps "criticised as inaccurate" to clarify what their problem was? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • the chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond for £104 million: commas around Philip Hammond. Are we sure on the reluctantly which follows?
Done. Source says "Hammond folded" and that he "never knowingly opened his purse".
Happy with that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In November 2016, Truss was again criticised: why again? She hasn't been criticised, in this article at least, for a while; again (!) my inclination would be to cut the editorialising and let the facts speak for themselves.
Done, although I reject that it is editorialising; she was criticised just four sentences ago.
  • was later remarked to have "[torn] the place up", turning it into an "economic department", working "in a very dispassionate, calm way": this doesn't strike me as a particularly neutral assessment: whose is it? More broadly, what is an economic department in this context?
An aide said it; clarified.
I'm still not clear on what exactly an "economic" department is. Appreciate that someone said it, but I'm not sure we can echo it unless we can make it comprehensible. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • Link and spell out EU on first body mention (an EU ban on...).
Done.
  • "we import two-thirds of our cheese. That. Is. A. Dis-grace" : this is punctuated as for speech, which transfers awkwardly into encyclopaedic prose. Two thirds should almost certainly be unhyphenated, but I'd suggest rephrasing to something like "labelled it a 'disgrace' that Britain imported two thirds of its cheese".
Done the first, but the quote is arguably too famous to bastardise.
It's a famous quote, but I'm really not comfortable using non-standard orthography to effectively mimic someone's style of speaking. It's analogous to echoing an accent in speech ("a spokesman for the Turnip Taleban said 'oi'm not very 'appy with 'er!'"), which is somewhere between unclear and offensive. MOS:CONFORM would have us turn this into standard orthography without comment: we've already added the useful context that her delivery was felt to be enthusiastic, and could add something to the effect that it was also seen as stilted. At minimum, we need the grammatically standard That is a disgrace. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done: still think it should be punctuated, which is how respectable publications like Britannica and The Times do it.
  • thousand–year: an endash; should be a hyphen.
Done.
  • the minister of state for justice Edward Faulks: fine if there's more than one; if not, comma after justice.
Done.
  • have the clout to be able to stand up to the prime minister when necessary, on behalf of the judges: a minefield for punctuation: is the comma placed there in a printed source?
Yes.
  • Other Conservative members of Parliament also criticised Truss's appointment owing to her lack of legal experience: cut the also, given that Faulks didn't (here) mention her lack of legal experience.
Done.
  • Truss's supporters accused one of the MPs, Bob Neill, of "thinly veiled misogyny": do we know who actually gave that quote?
No, it was "a source close to Truss".
Which often means Truss herself, at least eventually, but you've said what we can from the source. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18-month-long affair: simply 18-month?
Done.
  • Catling claimed that the members of the party that had opposed her were sexist, saying that she was "accused of everything except murder and paedophilia: it's a great quote, but is it really WP:DUEWEIGHT in this place? I can see that Truss's selection somewhat undercuts it (are we suggesting that they chose a woman purely to rebut this accusation?). Separately, I think we need an and before "saying", as the quoted material doesn't explicitly talk about sexism.
Done the last bit; as this is probably the only time Catling will ever get to be immortalised on the 'pedia, I'm reluctant to banish her to "article history". If you insist though, I'll axe her.
Hm: do we have enough in the source for had, out of sexism, "accused [her] of everything except murder and paedophilia"? I can see the argument that the similarities/contrasts between Catling and Truss are important to this bit of the story, and it's useful to foreshadow how vicious constituency Tory parties could be to women accused of affairs, as Truss is about to be on the sharp end of that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to, but frustratingly neither sources quite make the connexion.
  • Suggest very briefly explaining what it meant to trigger Article 50.
Done.
  • Truss was enraged and called the demotion "incredibly unfair" and was "seething for a good couple of days": I've made this point a few times, but whose quote is the second one?
Fixed.
Done.
  • using it "like her own personal think tank" : you can probably guess this one...
Fixed.
  • the defence secretary Gavin Williamson: comma before Gavin.
Done.
  • which included blackmailing Truss: I'm very uncomfortable about the word blackmailing in this (BLP) context, particularly given that blackmail is a crime and this would not be described by that crime.
Fixed, understand the BLP concern.
Done.
  • using it "like her own personal think tank" : you can probably guess this one...
Fixed.
  • The speech, which also mocked Michael Gove: Truss's speech or Williamson's?
Truss's, fixed.
Done.
  • Comma off Sajid Javid and Jeremy Hunt.
Done.
  • Truss had sought opinion amongst colleagues on whether she could plausibly stand: "plausibly" isn't quite the right word here: that implies that she was asking them if there was a reasonable probability of it happening, where she was asking them if it was a good idea. Suggest "credibly"?
Done.
  • Before May's resignation announcement...: a very long sentence. Suggest a cut after courted media attention.
Fixed.
  • maths classes: a mix of EngVar: maths lessons in BrE, but strongly suggest mathematics in encyclopaedic writing.
Would still strongly advise lessons instead of classes in a British English article: are you particularly attached to the current phrasing? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, now done.
  • her father, a professor of pure mathematics at the University of Leeds, calling her such: I'm not sure that calling her such is quite right. Presumably, he called her "Elizabeth", but we've just said that everyone did, so that shouldn't be a surprise. On the other, we could be saying that he called her "Elizabeth" (in the sense of giving her the name), but as it was already her (middle) name, we'd expect that of her parents. It sounds to me like we're saying that her father started calling her "Elizabeth" rather than "Mary", and then everyone else followed suit, but I think a small rephrase is in order to really get that across.
    Fixed.
  • Same problem, I'm afraid (if we're saying that she was known as "Elizabeth", we're saying that most people used that name on a regular basis). Perhaps "her father , a professor..., called her by her middle name "Elizabeth", which became her preferred name in early childhood"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, think it's fixed now. Used "Liz" rather than "Truss" to avoid confusion with John Truss. Also semicoloned the following sentence with that one, as they are related.
I know it's her common name, but "Liz" reads as informal: I think she would be equally unambiguous and perhaps strike a better tone. Not a major issue. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truss instead elected to go to Oxford in a "bout of teenage rebellion": this quote really needs attribution: I presume it's Truss? "what she later called..."?
    Her biographers, actually. Her bio isn't mentioned above, so might be confusing for readers, but it's up to you.
    I think that one definitely needs attribution: presumably, her biographers didn't ask her at the time, so either this is retrospect in an interview or, more likely, they're guessing. One assumes she had other reasons to apply to Oxford: it would have been much more rebellious to join the circus. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Attributed. Using surnames seems to be the standard way of attribution in articles, even if the authors are never mentioned themselves.
Normally, we do that on second mention: it's customary to introduce them first ("her biographers, Cole and Heale"). Some writers would use their full names on first mention, but that's a matter of style. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • a net gain of just one seat: just is slightly editorialising: would cut. Given Hague's resignation, presumably this was viewed as a disappointment: can we say and cite as much?
Done the first; book doesn't say, really, and can't turn up many sources via Google.
See here p. 230: a nice quote "the 2001 election was disappointing for Conservatives almost everywhere, and particularly so in Wales." Less explicitly here p63 and 64, but a useful comment that Hague made a major hash of things and that Tories agreed as much. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
We should always be able to tell in the text who gave a certain quotation: it isn't clear, at least to me, who called the result "disappointing". This is a phrasing issue more than a substantive one: just needs a slight rework to clarify. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed, adding more to that sentence would make it way too long. I know "Bennie" wouldn't do, and "Following the election, which saw the Conservatives make a net gain of one seat and the resignation of the party leader William Hague after the result which, as the political scientist Lynn G Bennie explains, was "disappointing" for the Conservatives, Truss supported the former defence secretary Michael Portillo's unsuccessful leadership campaign" obviously isn't good either.
Happy with that: the other option is to split into something like The Conservatives made a net gain of one seat, which was considered a disappointment:(cite Bennie) their leader, William Hague, resigned. Truss supported the unsuccessful campaign of the former defence secretary Michael Portillo to succeed him. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considered a disappointment by whom, UC? Jokes aside, now fixed.
  • Suggest briefly explaining what the A-List is (most readers will assume that it only means the general, metaphorical sense of being an "A-lister") per NOFORCELINK.
Done.
The list had practical/institutional significance as well as simply being a list of names, but I can understand the appeal of brevity here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does this still need to be fixed? Ask only as it's not in the "Resolved matters" box.
If you're aware of the trade-off being made and happy that the article currently strikes the correct balance, I'm happy to consider this one resolved. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The press was widely hostile to the plan, including The Daily Telegraph and The Times; the former claimed that prices would not fall: better as The press, including ..., was widely.... Is it worth clarifying for non-UK readers that those papers, particularly the Telegraph, would generally be expected to support Conservative policies?
Done both.
Now a false title: suggest Conservative-leaning papers like... UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • Truss ignored Clegg and pushed ahead with the plan, angering Clegg and causing him to block the proposals: this reads as if Clegg blocked the plan out of spite at being ignored, whereas he made it fairly clear that he was never going to allow them through.
Clarified.
I think we still have the same implication. Do we really need "angering Clegg"? Was our source really in a position to know whether Clegg (who is a generally mild-mannered chap) was angry, peeved, frustrated, or indeed emotional at all? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think he was: the source has "enrage[d]" and "apoplectic". The Beeb says "Mr Clegg's spokesman said he 'remains to be persuaded' that changing the ratios, as originally envisaged by Tory education minister Liz Truss, was a good idea"; bit weaselly, but still implies that Clegg was not happy.
Those are indeed strong terms: seems reasonable to gesture towards them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • recent horse meat scandal: recent is ambiguous (recent then or recent now?): suggest "2013 horse meat scandal".
Changed to "then-recent".
Not a major problem as such, but why not simply use the date? Then-recent is both more verbose and less precise. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Explain briefly what Flood Re is.
Done.
I'm afraid I still had to look up what a "levy and pool system" is (and whether it was somewhere to go in your chevvy to drink whiskey and wine). Isn't it fundamentally a scheme to provide flood insurance to high-risk homes? That would seem like the lead that we've somewhat buried here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
Sorry to keep picking at this one, but insurance doesn't protect anything; it insures it so that its destruction is made good to its owner. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • successive deep cuts under the coalition government, affecting prisons and blamed for their rising rates of violence owing to a drop in the number of prison officers: deep cuts is a bit of a MOS:IDIOM and perhaps editorialising (as a little way above, what is the verifiable information distinguishing cuts from deep cuts?). This sentence could do with a rephrase for clarity: something like "cuts under the coalition government, which had been blamed for a drop in the number of prison officers and for rising rates of violence in prisons".
Source says the cuts were deep too.
Right, but the source doesn't have to follow MOS:IDIOM and we do; they're also not bound by WP:VERIFY, and we are. An encyclopaedia is inevitably going to have to make some content and stylistic decisions differently from the publications that we reference when writing it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, reluctantly. I still think we need to reflect the fact that Osborne's cuts were extensive: see this, this and this.
Extensive is better than deep from an idiom (and cliché-avoidance) perspective. I'd note that the Guardian makes no secret of being an anti-Tory paper and that the Law Gazette is published by the Law Society, which had a lot of skin in the game in relation to the cuts to the MoJ: I'm not averse to finding a source to say that these cuts were or are considered extensive, but neither of those would really pass the bar of neutrality required to do so. We'd really want something a bit more academic and dispassionate than a newspaper. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian, simply giving facts and figures as they do in that article with remarkably restrained partisan spin: "Having sliced around £800m a year – about 10% overall – off the annual MoJ budget during the last parliament [...]": is not really at risk of being deemed a non-neutral source. I wouldn't cite anything stronger than that to any known to be left-leaning paper. If The Guardian said "Liz Truss is the worst prime minister since Eden", I wouldn't put in the article "Truss is regarded to be the worst prime minister since 1957", which would obviously be non-neutral.
  • nevertheless, he and Truss were reported to have a good relationship: is he Hammond or Kwarteng?
Rephrased.
  • only seven per cent recognising her in March 2019: can we be clear on whether this is e.g. recognising her name, or being able to recognise a photograph, or saying hello to her in Thetford?
Source only says "only 7 per cent or one in every fourteen people would recognise her on the street".
  • Truss gave a speech criticising regulations that got in the way of people's lives: not NPOV phrasing: the characterisation as regulations that [get] in the way of people's lives is ideological (and Truss's). Phrases like "what she called" are our friends here.
Fixed.
Perhaps more encyclopaedic as something like "criticising the amount of regulation in British [whatever it was - industry, life, poultry farming]"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Noting that this has been done rather differently, but now superseded by another comment. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • blocked your pay: grammatically, fits better as "blocked [their] pay".
Fixed some of the others, but maintain that "your" gives more of the threatening effect Williamson was hoping for.
It might, but it isn't grammatical: we've integrated the quotation into the sentence, so it needs to integrate into the sentence syntactically as well. Perhaps threatening to write "Liz Truss blocked your pay" to everyone in the British Armed Forces? Essentially, we need to turn it into a quotation that stands alone grammatically. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • an "incendiary" speech: the usual. It sounds from what follows that this means "offensive" rather than "energising", but that's not clear at this point.
Clarified, but you're right: it was a bit of both, and by the looks of things really annoyed Downing Street. If you've ever seen The Thick of It, Truss got a very Malcolm Tucker-like response.
  • their free trade negotiations: I would hyphenate free-trade (it's the trade that was free, not the negotiations).
Done.
  • Truss continued her documentation of trips through her social media: is this notable? It would be surprising if a cabinet minister didn't post their official trips on Twitter.
The bio and Britannica point it out: "as trade secretary, Truss met with international business and political leaders, traveling widely and exhaustively documenting those trips on Instagram", and until she became PM, it was probably what Truss was best known for.
  • Truss's pursuit of a trade deal with the US concerned the National Farmers' Union (NFU), which worried about an influx of lower-quality food products if passed; the NFU, along with The Mail on Sunday, campaigned against such a deal that spring: can we phrase this more neutrally and verifiably (did our source ask all the farmers how they had felt?) via what the NFU leadership said in public and when?
Fixed.
  • The COVID-19 lockdowns eliminated international travel, with Truss attending virtual meetings; as a result, she became closer to her family: the with clause doesn't quite read as grammatical. Needs a bit of a rework: I'd also question whether she became closer to her family is really encyclopaedic or verifiable (who said?). Another part of me wonders whether we'd include the same in an article about a male politician.
Tweaked. Not sure what you're implying with regards to the "male politician" bit; I can add it to O'Leary's article too, if you like.
  • The link on "early 2021" breaks the principle of least astonishment for me: if we're saying that Biden's election is the important factor here, we should say so in the text.
Removed.
  • The Australia deal, finalised in December was described: comma after December. Who described it?
Done both.
  • she had started to ingratiate herself with the parliamentary party in the event of a leadership election: not the right phrasing: she had done it whether or not an election happened. In anticipation of?
Done.
  • an National Insurance increase: a National Insurance increase. Capitalisation on NI is inconsistent in this article.
Resolved a few days ago.
  • but Truss later privately decided against it: I'd cut privately; by not resigning, she decided publicly too.
Done.
  • Any reason not to put a full stop after "Fall of Kabul"?
Sure, why not.
  • negotiating the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe at the UN General Assembly: perhaps worth a slight rephrase to clarify that she wasn't released at the UN General Assembly.
Done.
  • Truss became preoccupied with: another of these very psychoanalytical phrases, and perhaps an implicit criticism.
Fixed.
  • the first minister to do so: the first British minister?
Nice catch.
  • Before and during the immediate aftermath of the invasion: not quite grammatical: suggest before the invasion and during its immediate aftermath.
Done.
  • she stated that they would end: the sanctions, not the leaders, so sanctions would end is slightly better.
Fixed.
  • and on 7 July, he announced: either comma after and or delete the comma after July.
Done.
  • She pledged to cut taxes if elected: could cut if elected.
Done.
  • Suggest cutting the first "and" (currently after if elected).
Done.
  • she appreciated that winning over the membership required not detailed policy proposals but the creation of a mood": I'd replace she with [Truss] for clarity.
Done, why not.
  • She voted for gay marriage and has never voted against LGBT rights but has moved to limit transgender rights: does LGBT include the T in this sentence? If so, is that statement simply a reflection that she's never had the chance to vote against transgender rights?
    Rephrased.
  • On this page, I can't see that she's ever been called upon to vote on transgender rights, or indeed much on LGBT issues: the only relevant vote is that she voted in favour of equal marriage in NI. I think "has never voted against LGBT rights" is therefore a bit weaselly and too strong to hang on that single vote: would replace with a straightforward statement of what she voted for. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't own the books, unlike Out of the Blue (and Into the Red) and The Fall of Boris Johnson; they might be useful for some people, but I won't protest if they're removed.
That's exactly what this section should be used for, in my view: is there any way to access them via e.g. Google Books, Amazon previews or the Resource Exchange? UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books turns up dry for After Brexit, but does have Johnson at 10. From a skim, I see Truss is only mentioned in the second last page of the preview, regarding the NI Protocol. Doesn't even have the page number either. Not worth the faff, IMO. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist - Regarding Johnson at 10, just managed to pick up a copy. Will put in some refs shortly. Also, the penultimate paragraph of the entire books reads: "To all the anonymous and meticulous writers of Wikipedia, thank you. We guess that more authors rely on your work than is acknowledged." Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Scott 2021 is now uncited.
  • Restate "Truss" rather than "she" at the beginning of a new section.
This is the fault of an edit-warring user (will not say who but is easy to find by looking at the recent article history). Fixed, again.
  • which as of September 2023 are: commas: which, as of September 2023, are...
Done.
  • Explain what the Institute for Government is.
Done.
  • Despite her reduced confidence from the demotion, she bounced back and began to contribute to the department: this is getting a bit too far into Truss's head for an encyclopaedia: bounced back in particular is a phrase that needs to bounce its way back into a newspaper article or stump speech.
Didn't like "bounced back" either, but was struggling to think of a good alternative. Now replaced.
Cliché is resolved but I'm still concerned about the extensive attempts to retrace Truss's inner mental state. Frankly, I'm not sure that anything in Despite her reduced confidence from the demotion, Truss rebounded and began to contribute to the department is truly encyclopaedic (the first part is unknowable, the second is fairly trivial). I'm not sure much would be lost if we simply started that sentence at "According to a Treasury worker...".
From the source: "demoted and demoralised, Truss took up her post on Monday morning, licking her wounds", "Truss was convinced by Baroness Shephard to dust herself down", "she wanted to be a team player ... she wanted to contribute as a minister", "the move [to chief secretary] shook Truss's confidence in her abilities", "she has a bounce back factor like Tigger" and "her confidence had been knocked a lot and she didn't really have anything to do". Important for comprehensiveness that we reflect this. I've rephrased it a bit, though.
It's important for comprehensiveness if we think the source had some insight here: otherwise, we're just repeating guesswork or fanciful reconstruction. At least officially, Truss had no involvement in Cole and Heale's book, and it's difficult to see how anyone else could have any authority at all to make such detailed psychological pronouncements. There's also an element of WP:NOT here: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and so needs to be written like one, not like whatever its sources are (e.g., when our sources are newspapers, we don't adopt the stylistic and content choices that newspapers do). UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Truss was interviewed by C&H for the book. Don't care enough—in fact, don't have the energy left—to die on this hill. Attributed and, hopefully, resolved.
  • Before Truss's arrival, the Ministry of Justice's budget had been subjected to successive cuts under the coalition government. This affected prisons and was blamed for their rising rates of violence owing to a drop in the number of prison officers.: a few things here. Firstly, this affected prisons reads as stating the obvious if you know what the MoJ did (and affected is a bit weaselly: affected how?) I'd suggest a slight reemphasis to The budget of the Ministry of Justice, among whose responsibilities was the administration of prisons, had been subjected... This was blamed for the rising rate of prison violence. However, there are four steps in this argument: 1) The MoJ budget was cut, 2) This meant cuts to the prison budget, 3) This caused a decline in the number of prison officers, 4) This made prisons more violent. It's not clear from the current phrasing how many of those are a matter of unquestionable fact (I'd suggest 1 and 2) and how many are a matter of popular or journalistic opinion (almost certainly 3 and 4). More generally, I'm very uneasy about a "was regarded" statement which is cited to a single primary and partisan source: if you try hard enough, you can find a newspaper arguing just about anything, regardless of whether the idea has any real traction outside its pages.
After carefully re-reading this, I believe everything to be addressed, and have included a rock-solid secondary source.
Happy here, assuming good faith on the source (unusually, Google Books doesn't even search this part of the text). Thank you for your patience with it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truss lobbied the chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond for £104 million: comma off Philip Hammond; we only had one.
Done.
  • was instead listed as a candidate for the all-women's St Hilda's College: are we talking about the pool system (only really explained in our Cambridge article, but Oxford does a similar thing) here? If so, I'd explain a bit: as we've currently written it, this sounds like something usual or some kind of mistake, but is in fact an eminently normal part of the process.
    Not sure; sadly I was never accepted into Oxford nor Cambridge, probably because I didn't apply. Contextualised a bit.
  • My issue is with "instead listed as a candidate": that sounds like a mistake (and probably isn't accurate: pooled candidates aren't listed as candidates for anywhere, but picked up by the college that wants them). Do we have the phrasing from the source? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a change to "was chosen as a candidate": the same concern stands, and I'd really like to know how the source put it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably going to end up leaking the whole book soon:
    "Summoned before the intimidating ‘five don grill’, in an interview process that ended up lasting days, Truss faced a barrage of eclectic political, philosophical and economic questions from the quintet of Oxford tutors. One of her challenges included writing an essay about Greek philosophy, about which she knew nothing. To her dismay, she was then pooled to the all-women St Hilda’s to be interviewed – a sign that the dons thought Truss wasn’t good enough for Merton."
    Tim O'Doherty (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perfect (I'm sure Truss would approve of the leaking) - pooled is the technical term for this process, so use that ("she was instead pooled to St Hilda's"), and link to the redirect Winter Pool. If you want, you could include a footnote to summarise the pool system (something like "Under the pool system, colleges can nominate unsuccessful applicants for consideration by others; these these candidates may then be accepted by, or "pooled to", a college other than the one to which they applied."). The second interview is a normal part of the process and happens whether you're pooled or not. It's not ideal that the redirect is currently Cambridge-only, but the systems are similar enough and it's quite possible that someone will write the proper article at some point. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. By the way, this FAC (159K bytes) is now longer than the article itself (153K). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Briefly introduce Ed Vaizey: presumably, lots of other people had opinions about this speech: why name-check him?
Described by Cole as "ultra-Govite"; know by now you won't let that fly, so described him as a "Gove ally".
Slightly journalistic in phrasing: suggest Ed Vaizey, an ally of Gove's; and Gove himself. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • the blunders she had made on her previous international trips: blunders seems a very strong word for how we've described these so far.
Changed.
"Mistakes" is a matter of opinion: we should surely assume that she meant to say what she said, even if from her bosses' point of view it was unwelcome. Perhaps "feared she would be dismissed because of her unpopular comments on..."?
Changed.
  • During her time at the department: we've moved around Whitehall a bit, so I'd restate which department.
Done.
I don't think "the international trade department" is really a term that exists; would use the name, especially as it's practically identical. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed.
  • Instead, she had focussed: the had makes the chronology awkward here. Had she already been doing this during 2020?
Not really, more of a 2021 thing.
OK, so had should be cut, as it implies that the focus predated early 2021. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gone.
  • Spell out United Nations on first use (UN General Assembly).
Done.
  • a visit to Estonia where, like Margaret Thatcher, she was photographed in a tank, generating both praise and mockery.: two points of ambiguity here: was Thatcher photographed in Estonia, and was Thatcher both praised and mocked?
Rephrased.
It still sounds as if Thatcher was photographed in Estonia; the Thatcher photo was taken in (West) Germany. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • to "catch the Kremlin off guard": you guessed it...
Annoyingly, Cole and Heale do they same: quote it without any real attribution.
We can't do that, unfortunately (another case where they don't have to follow the MOS and we do): on the other hand, it's a pretty common idiom and, given that we can't say who said it, little is lost by simply rephrasing it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Truss strongly advocated: I'd cut strongly as ambiguous ("with conviction" or "with competence"?) and editorialising.
Have to disagree here: Truss did indeed strongly advocate for them.
How do we WP:VERIFY whether she advocated strongly or only ordinarily - what's the empirical, factual difference that could be objectively proved to someone who disagrees? Without getting too philosophical, there are plenty of true statements that are not encyclopaedic. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.* liberate goods produced in Great Britain from the "unnecessary bureaucracy" entering Northern Ireland: another one that needs attribution for a real political edge: there were good reasons why the bureaucracy was necessary, at least from the EU's point of view. "Liberate" is similarly too loaded a word for us to use here in Wikipedia's voice.
Fixed. Removed "the" so that it implies only some of the bureaucracy was unnecessary.
Still not attributed: "what she called..."? Reads almost as scare quotes at the moment. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Digging a bit deeper, I assume they got the quote from her speech here "The bill will put in place the necessary measures to lessen the burden on east–west trade and to ensure the people of Northern Ireland are able to access the same benefits as the people of Great Britain. The bill will ensure that goods moving and staying within the UK are freed of unnecessary bureaucracy through our new 'green channel'." Fixed.
Great work. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truss received 50 votes on the first of Conservative MPs' five ballots: MOS:FIGURES would like consistency here: '5 ballots', given what follows.
OK, although I was under the impression 1-9 are words and 10+ are not.
What's important here is that the MOS doesn't want us to move between words and figures in the same chunk of text. As we have with Truss receiving 113 votes to Sunak's 137 a moment later, and phrasing those in words would be hideous, all numbers in that section should be in figures. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done per the MoS, but that looks, in my opinion, even worse.
  • Her cabinet was notably composed almost entirely of those who had supported her during the leadership contest: cut notably: if it were not notable, we wouldn't be saying it.
Done.
  • wrote that "Trussonomics" was effectively dead: we can quote "effectively dead" if Islam wrote it (and tut at the BBC's standards of prose), but otherwise, we should act on MOS:CLICHE and rephrase.
Done. On an unrelated point, wonder why Trussonomics is used way more than Johnsonomics or Sunakomics.
  • She called Saudi Arabia an ally: of her, or of Britain?
Clarified.
  • Truss was tipped for promotion: adjust per MOS:CLICHE.
It's not that bad, is it? "Tipped for promotion" IMO isn't an idiom, just slightly more descriptive language, like "scotch rumours" or "culled ministers". Nothing wrong with that.
All of those are idioms; as you say, it's not that bad if no good alternative can be found (though I'd strongly argue against culled ministers as likely to badly mislead a non-native speaker). What do you think of "widely expected to be promoted"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still prefer "tipped for promotion" but I won't fight you on this. Changed.
  • Suggest clarifying who the ERG are, as the name implies that they have some connection with the EU (MOS:NOFORCELINK).
Done.
Still not really clarified, I'm afraid, and now an unhappy double bluelink. Suggest slowing the prose, breaking up some sentences and adding a brief explanatory clause. We could similarly do with introducing the DUP by where they're from and where they sit politically. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
Almost there, but I do think it's parliamentary Conservative party rather than Conservative parliamentary party (it's the parliamentary bit of the Conservative party, not the Conservative bit of the non-existent parliamentary party). UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • as Hammond was "quite a closed, centrally controlling chancellor": this really needs attribution and an extremely strong justification, as it's BLP in a very prominent article.
Done.
I'm still not quite happy here, I'm afraid. Firstly, the sentence no longer quite works grammatically: she wasn't left out because Kwarteng thought Hammond was centralising. Secondly, the framing still takes as fact that Hammond was centralising, and then undercuts itself by acknowledging that this is only a very partisan opinion. Do Cole and Heale say that she was left out of decisions, or is that Kwarteng too? UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they do. I tried switching around the "according to Kwarteng" but the sentence doesn't work that way.
Sadly, it doesn't work as it is, either. Suggest something like "was largely left out of decisions by Hammond, who was described by Kwarteng as..." UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
Needs the comma before who, but sorted for all intents and purposes. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • said she would "fight the election as a Conservative and govern as a Conservative" and take "immediate action to help people deal with the cost of living".: given the long quote, reads much better as and would take
Done.
  • that spring: per MOS:SEASONS, best to find another way of saying this.
Knew I'd get pulled up on this sooner or later. Source says spring too, doesn't give a specific month. MOS:SEASONS IMO makes very little sense; its rationale is "the seasons are six months apart in the northern and southern hemispheres", which falls apart when you consider that as this unambiguously takes place in the UK, saying "spring" is no different to saying "March", "April", "May" or "June" 2020. "[...] campaigned against such a deal in the northern spring" is absolute rubbish, pedantic, useless prose.
It would be. Sometimes, we can't avoid it, though there are other problems (when exactly does summer start, for example? If you ask a schoolteacher, the Summer Term is April-June...). I think we might be in the best place we can be: "during the first months of her tenure" might work, but is very slightly OR. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still prefer "spring": a Norfolk paper seems to pin the timeline at May 2020: see this, this, this, and most explicitly this.
If there's evidence for "May", I'd go with that, as long as you're happy that the evidence holds up. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • becoming the first British minister to do so since the 2018 Salisbury poisonings: does do so mean to meet Lavrov or to meet Lavrov in Moscow? Presumably the former, in which case I would change it to "meet him".
Actually the latter: expecting a copyright strike soon, but: "In early February Truss travelled to Moscow to meet her counterpart Sergey Lavrov: the first time a British minister had travelled there since the Salisbury attacks in 2018".
Fixed.
  • Suggest briefly explaining the connection between the 1922 committee and the leadership election.
Done.
Not really, I'm afraid: we now have an uncited footnote which doesn't really make clear to anyone who doesn't already know that the 1922 committee was in charge of the leadership election. This book (p202) gives you a citation for the 1922 committee as "the parliamentary party's governing body", this one (p86) gives you "[the committee] has an eighteen-strong executive committee charged with overseeing the election of new leaders". Would suggest taking, rephrasing as needed, and citing the key bits from both. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the appointment of Kwarteng as chancellor of the Exchequer: caps on both words, and on the preceding (Prime Minister) and following posts: they are titles, not descriptions (see MOS:JOB.
  • I'm a little uncomfortable with the way that quoteboxes have been used in this article. Strictly speaking (per the template page), their use at all in articles is discouraged; granted, there are plenty of FAs that ignore that advice, but they give huge prominence to a relatively small amount of text and therefore there are substantial WP:NPOV concerns around what we choose to give that prominence to. As a whole, they come across as slightly sardonic in hindsight, particularly the "be good at maths" pullout, perhaps the Shephard quotation and certainly the rather faint praise from Cameron and Kwarteng. The Walker quote is highly non-NPOV and I think would need a very strong justification of prominence in HQRS on Truss to stand where it is.
    Walker quote slashed; it was emphasised in her biography, which was why it's there, plus I think we need to capture the zeitgeist of the Truss weeks. Maths quote incorporated into the text. I'd like to keep Truss's closer colleagues' quotes, if that's alright, as I really do think they provide some valuable insight.
  • Right. Going through each of them:
  • Glover quote: Seems justified to me, decent insight and also pulled out at the start of the bio.
  • Cameron quote: Yeah, think it's fair, given that it would stick out a bit if put into prose.
  • Shephard quote: Am not overly attached to this one: gone.
  • Kwarteng quote: Given that they were quite close friends for over ten years, Kwarteng will have a unique insight; think this one is also fair.
  • Walker quote: like I said, I do think it's important we capture the chaos of Truss's very rapid collapse, and this is the go-to quote for that.
What do you propose? "Attacked" seems worse.
I'd always err on the side of the literal (as would the MoS): were criticised. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. "Criticised" twice in fifteen words is a bit repetitive: any good synonyms?
How about changing the first one to was accused of failing to support..., which is also slightly more neutral: current phrasing says that it's a fact that she "failed". UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.


Early life and education
[edit]
  • Would delete to her dismay: it's unnecessarily psychoanalytical for an encyclopaedia, and it's better to show that she was unhappy with this through her complaint than to tell the reader that it was so. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • During a previous unsuccessful bid for the LDYS executive, the party's leader, Paddy Ashdown, said Truss was "a good debater and is utterly fearless: could do with a slight rephrase to be clear that Ashdown wasn't standing for the LDYS. Was he endorsing her at the time?
    Fixed.
No, source neglects to mention. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Another point, but comma off unsuccessful: she only had one unsuccessful bid. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Professional career
[edit]

I'm not sure about the political/professional division here. Politics is a profession and she is certainly a professional politician; conversely, her time at Reform is hard to describe as totally outside her political activity. Suggest renaming to "career", rolling the two sections together and moving the second into the appropriate chronological place.

  • Suggest explaining the key arguments of at least some of her Reform publications.
    Will get back to you on this once I have a source that tells me.

That's all for tonight @UndercoverClassicist. Thanks for the comprehensive—and, from looking at 29,000 bytes added to my watchlist—stomach-churning review. Will address the rest tomorrow. Much appreciated, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work: mostly simply resolved, a few replies. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Political career
[edit]
  • the motion was put to the association, with both sides making their case in front of the members, : suggest cutting the second clause: this section is already pretty long for something that ultimately had little consequence, and we can generally take as read that people discuss motions before voting on them.
On the fence about this one, might look back later if you want to push it.
Happy to circle back. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ministerial career
[edit]
  • criticising regulations which she believed affected British people's lifestyles: this still needs a bit of work, I'm afraid: the issue clearly wasn't that they affected people's lives for the better. Nor did she, I suspect, say that regulation should not affect people's lives. Perhaps "arguing for reduced regulation in... [whatever it was]"?
Re "whatever it was": source doesn't say, merely that they are regulations which affect people's lives. That's it. Directly use Truss's quote, as, as ever with her, she cannot give a coherent speech to save her life and I cannot make sense of it without bordering on OR.
Hm - do we have the quotation in context? Could always go for "arguing for reduced regulation in the British economy" or similar, or "British life" if we think she's talking about smoking bans as well as food standards. I sympathise with the problem! UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She's inconsistent about what it is she's attacking, but her main target looks like measures tackling obesity. Added another portion of her speech; not exactly jumping with joy at adding another quote though.
I would shed no tears over that quote if removed and paraphrased: unfortunately, Truss's incoherency rather infects the sentence it's been transplanted into. I don't think it would be OR to say that she was criticising government efforts to discourage unhealthy eating and alcohol consumption: it might be OR to say that she was opposing the "sugar tax" and minimum unit pricing. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. By the way, apologies for my reduced productivity in wiki-circles, had another busy spell last week. Will try to finish off your comments soon, as well as finishing my review of Temple of Apollo Palatinus. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On another note in the same section: quoting anonymous sources is a little dangerous, especially in a BLP context. Do we have anything other than the unnamed Treasury worker behind this idea - put another way, can we be sure that we're not simply repeating workplace bloviating or gossip?
That quote seems fine, as he (or she)'s just describing how Truss went about things. Shows really that Truss just could not understand she wasn't able to treat everything like student politics, which really came back to bite her last year.
It does, if it's legitimate: however, since it's anonymous, there's no guarantee that it really shows anything, as we have no way to verify that the source had any knowledge or indeed was anything more than a figment of Cole or Heale's imagination. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Err... I don't think Cole and Heale were fabricating a quote, or the person saying the quote, or lying about the position of the quotee-in-question for almost no reason. I believe it's genuine.
I've no reason to doubt their integrity either, but AGF doesn't really go too far where BLP is concerned (it wouldn't in a responsible newspaper, either): we need something a bit more like "trust, but verify". This isn't a deal-breaking point for me at the moment, but I'm going to leave it here and chew on it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dominic Cummings, Johnson's chief adviser, saying that Truss was "the only minister I shouted at in Number 10": I'm a bit uncomfortable taking Dominic 'Just Testing My Eyes' Cummings so uncritically at his word: he very much had an agenda in making this comment.
Changed it so Cummings' comment isn't treated as gospel.
This now takes us into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch: we've gone too far the other way. Perhaps "later wrote that"? More generally, you could contextualise (perhaps citing this article? that Cummings was an opponent of Truss's later leadership campaign and made these comments during it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done re "claiming". Not sure about the latter: bit synth-y, is it not?
Yes, a bit, but any time we do anything other than blindly follow a single source, we're doing something synth-y. The question is whether we're making a conclusion that's not supported by the sources. Understand the concern here and I think your solution is a perfectly good one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May be a bit of a tangent. Happy to concede, should you ask again.
  • Amid mounting pressure on Johnson in lieu of the Chris Pincher scandal: in lieu of means instead of: we mean in the wake of, but MOS:IDIOM would prefer following. Mounting pressure is a bit of a cliché and a bit journalistic, I think.
Fixed first, think the second is OK.
It's not a hard rule, but MOS:CLICHE has Clichés and idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions. There's also Orwell's well-trodden dictum to never write a figure of speech that you are used to seeing in print. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The pressure was mounting on Johnson, and there's no shame on Wikipedia for expressing that. Calling a spade a spade more often than not is a wise thing to do.
Well, in a literal sense, it wasn't: it remained approximately 1 atm almost wherever he went. The problem isn't with saying that Johnson was under increasing pressure, or that Johnson's approval rating was falling and he was losing the loyalty of his colleagues: it's with finding a direct way of saying so. However, with that said, it's a common phrase and not a make-or-break issue on its own. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • on 5 July Sunak and Javid resigned within minutes of each other, with Johnson again considering giving Truss the chancellorship; he decided against it and instead selected Nadhim Zahawi as Sunak's replacement: This blurs the chronology. Would split after other and then write another main clause: Johnson considered... but decided against it...
Done.
  • it was a "matter of hours, not days": I'm not going to press for attribution here, as it's not important and probably not even a direct quote, but the it was is very much a MOS:IDIOM. Perhaps she was likely to survive "a matter of..."?
Done.
  • was blamed for the pound falling to its lowest ever rate against the US dollar, (US$1.033): the comma is out of place here (should be after the brackets).
Comma removed (happened one year ago today too).
  • The mini-budget was received badly by financial markets because of its inclusion of temporary spending measures whilst permanently cutting tax rates: we need this sentence to balance: we start with a noun phrase (its inclusion) and then go on to a participle one (permanently cutting...). Suggest "because it included [only?] temporary spending measures but permanently cut tax rates". Would then make a full stop and start a fresh sentence.
This is another sentence which has become a patchwork of multiple reviewers' ideas. Fixed.
  • Spell out IMF.
Done.
  • senior politicians Michael Gove and Grant Shapps: fix false title.
Fixed.
  • the 45 per cent rate of tax : this is specifically income tax, isn't it?
Fixed.
  • with her personal approval rating recorded as nine per cent: this links directly to one survey, and surveys are notorious for having a) a range and b) outliers. We should contextualise this statement more so that we're not putting more weight on the source than it can support.
Done.
Post-premiership
[edit]
  • Caps on "Prime Minister" (MOS:JOB).
Isn't it the opposite? "Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, grand duke, lord mayor, pope, bishop, abbot, prime minister, leader of the opposition, chief financial officer, and executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically [...]).
This is the wonderfully-worded exception: When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description. Essentially, when you're talking about kings, presidents or popes in the abstract, it's lower-case, but when you're talking about a specific person or the title itself, it's capitalised. The table below is probably the most helpful thing: we're in the territory of Theresa May became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 2016, not Theresa May was the prime minister of the United Kingdom (notice the the). UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know: "Queen" not "queen" when talking about Elizabeth II, etc. Still think that "Prime Minister" looks really strange. The MoS, as a whole, is a really strange diktat. However, I won't protest should you change it yourself. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid there's quite a lot of these in the article: suggest giving it a good look through with that table in mind. The MoS may be a strange master but it is one of the FA criteria: I'm sympathetic to a WP:IAR argument to break it if a specific situation dictates, but I'm not sure there's one here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think either we change all of them or none of them, not mix "prime minister" and "Prime Minister" for reasons too subtle for readers to understand. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS makes a definite distinction, even if it's a relatively subtle one. I don't think we can ignore a MoS standard because we think it's too complicated. There are plenty of other words (see king and god, off the top of my head) where we use variable capitalisation and doing otherwise would be jarring to readers. To me, WP:IAR would need a rationale that applies specifically to this context: if the argument is that the MoS simply isn't right or simply isn't good, that discussion needs to be had beyond this article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want to push this I'll do it, even though (I warn you) it's going to look pretty disgusting. Will go through it with the table. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist - Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really ugly one: I must admit I've got myself tied in some knots here. Part of the issue is the MoS phrasing a formal title for a specific entity: clearly, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is just that, but I'm not sure whether prime minister on its own clears the bar for formal (the FA Alec Douglas-Home thinks it does; the FA Richard Nixon does not). We then have e.g. Defence Secretary, which I'd argue is not the formal title (because the title Secretary of State for Defence exists), but then e.g. Minister for Equalities, which probably is the formal title because no 'proper' one exists. The one case it unambiguously needs to be capitalised is when someone is actually being addressed by the title, so I've put that one back into caps: happy to leave this where it is or for you to make a call on those questions. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would discount the Disraeli and Douglas-Home articles, as they use "Prime Minister" willy-nilly anyway. I don't get why "deputy prime minister" has been capp'd, though: isn't the formal title "Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom"? And then, when preceded by "the" or "a", "the deputy prime minister of the United Kingdom"? And then, for example, "Hello, Deputy Prime Minister!" when referring to, say, Dowden? Think that one should be lowercased, anyway. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DPM was a mistake; I'd capitalised the titles in that paragraph, then had a second thought on the word formal, but missed that one. When preceded by the, should definitely be lowercase in most situations. Equally definitely uppercase when it's "Hello, Deputy Prime Minister", as it's then a substitute for someone's name and has become a proper noun. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rightie. Gone through the article again, thinking, for example, where I would apply "King" instead of "king": only found two examples: the Brady and Falconer quotes (Brady referring to Truss, Falconer referring to May). Otherwise, I think it's just too much. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Political positions
[edit]
  • Since the referendum, Truss has supported Brexit; in 2017 she publicly stated that she had changed her mind: a little unclear: it sounds as if she has supported Brexit, but changed her mind (against Brexit) in 2017.
Fixed.
Not sure it is: it's now ungrammatical (since needs to be followed by a present-tense or stative-perfect verb). How about something like "since the referendum, she has supported Brexit, and publicly stated in 2017 that she had renounced her previous pro-EU beliefs"?
Done, but not with "she had renounced her previous pro-EU beliefs" - bit journo, I think, so just "changed her mind"; I think the reader can infer what she changed her mind on.
Notes, sources etc
[edit]
  • Some publication names are linked, others are not. In footnotes and bibliographies, the standard is for consistency: unlike in the body, we don't just link on first use.
Links added.
  • Book titles should really be in title case, as we've done for Truss's own books in the body and bibliography.
Done.

SC

[edit]

Putting down a marker for now - will wait until UC has done their usual excellent review. - SchroCat (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC) My turn now, I guess. I'll make a start now. Would be just too mean to throw in an oppose (even for a joke) at this stage...? - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been gone over in some detail by several reviewers, so unless I make it clear, the following are suggestions, rather than obstacles to my support

Lead
  • "history of the United Kingdom": you've full named the UK, so you can have just UK here
Changed to "British history"
  • "She remains in the House of Commons as a backbencher." I would add "As at 2023" at the beginning of this, just to help the readers
Done.
Early life
  • "since early childhood": from, rather than since?
Fixed.
  • "a Conservative in 2010, ...Her parents divorced in 2003. In 1977 Truss": this jumping around jars a little – you could move to a more chronological run without problems
Not sure here ... understand it's not chronological, but putting in, for example, her parents' 2003 divorce in the middle of "Career" (fka "Professional career") might stick out a bit. Happy to concede, should you ask again.
  • It's "teenage rebellion" to go to Oxford, not Cambridge? And then she moans about ging to a college she didn't want? It's no bloody wonder I don't like or trust her!
I remember that during her campaign, people said we shouldn't have a PM whose name sounds like "mistrust" ... luckily, we didn't have her very long. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done down to trade secretary: will be back shortly. – SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC) Finishing off:[reply]

International trade secretary
  • "Truss's attempted US trade deal was accepted as futile": this is rather oddly worded – it suggests it the deal was accepted, but also says it was futile? Do you mean that Truss accepted her attempts for a new US trade deal were futile?
Fixed.
Foreign secretary
  • "the move was despite, according to the historian Anthony Seldon, Johnson finding Truss "flaky"." I stumbled over this a little. It would be better having "according to the historian Anthony Seldon" after the "flaky"
Done.
  • The Democratic Unionist Party is centre-right?? Its social and economic policies are not 'centrist' and I think just "right wing" would be more suitable
Our article variously describes them as right-wing and centre-right: chose centre-right as the milder term, but switched now. I know the DUP's a bit backwards on things like abortion and gay marriage, but also not big fans of the Tories either (eh, Theresa?).
Government crisis
  • "he was described as the de facto prime minister": I think it's probably best to say who described him as such (I did read one description that said he was the adult brought in to clear up the mess made by naïve children, but didn't say he was a DF PM)
Done.
Political positions
  • "Truss spoke against gender self-identification": was this also in 2021? If not, you may want to put a year on it, given the transitory nature of her views on many issues.
Yeah, 2021. On a related note, a French paper described her as "une girouette de fer", or "The Iron Weathercock". I was in France for a good portion of the 2022 leadership election, so that's a big part of what I remember from it. Watched quite a few of the debates and hustings too, madness how some thought she came across at all well.

That's my lot. - SchroCat (talk) 12:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

I live in Australia, but spent much of the period that Truss was PM in the UK (on holiday) last year. I'd like to offer the following comments, focused mainly on the coverage of her period as PM:

  • I don't think that two almost-identical photos of Truss are needed at the start of the 'Premiership (September–October 2022)' section. It is well known that she only lasted as PM for a few weeks, so obviously her appearance didn't change.
A different reviewer has said that the images were "a nice touch", and I agree, although it's not one of my inventions. I'd like to keep it.
None of the other articles on recent British PMs have this, and I don't understand the rationale here. Photo galleries are discouraged per WP:GALLERY unless they're necessary, which I don't think is the case for this article. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but no other recent prime minister has only lasted 49 days either. Forgive me, but I can't say with all honesty that I believe two images is excessive.
I don't see the logic here. The purpose of these images seems to be to mock the subject of the article: I'm shifting to oppose due to concerns over neutrality. I suspect it won't be a particularly long-lasting oppose, but I really disagree with this attitude in any articles, and especially a BLP. Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Please note that it wasn't intended to mock anybody.
Thanks, I'm moving back to comments and will continue a full review. Nick-D (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

\*The para starting with 'As the leader of the Conservative Party' notes Truss' appointments of key ministers. My understanding is that these mainly came from the same wing of the Conservative Party, which attracted commentary and criticism (including that a lack of diversity and the 'best and brightest' contributed to poor decisions being made) - it would be good to note this alignment.

Alright, done.
  • I'd suggest deleting the statement Truss made in response to the Queen's death. It doesn't really add anything, and may have been drafted years in advance as part of the extensive planning for this event.
It wasn't. Truss and her advisors wrote it in a hurry, and Truss was given some notes "written clearly in 1960".
  • The material on the death of the Queen doesn't note the impact this had on Truss' agenda; the famous 'lettuce' article in The Economist noted that the period of mourning had meant that Truss was unable to do anything substantive for several weeks of her short period as PM. The lead notes this, but without supporting citations, so it should be briefly covered later in the article with references.
Done.
  • "costing between 70 and £140 billion" - over what period (annually or two years?), and why was there such a huge difference in the estimates?
Two years: sources I have access to don't say about the latter.
The source cited [21] says that is the estimate made by some company. The mini-budget papers [22] put the cost at 31 Billion pounds in 2022-23, and state that it wasn't possible to provide a longer-term estimate at this time. I'd suggest revising the text here. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • "On 23 September, Kwarteng announced a controversial mini-budget" - the media coverage I've seen states that Truss was heavily involved in developing this set of policies; this should be briefly noted.
Done.
  • "and prompted a response from the Bank of England" - what was this response? (the impact this had on people should also be noted; I remember seeing people lined up outside banks as mortgage rates were suddenly being hiked)
Was linked per above discussion, feel that anything more may be a little out of scope for the biography on Truss. If you insist, I'll try something, though.
My memory of the news reports at the time was it was the interest rate increases that were the main response, and basically destroyed Truss politically. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was more the parliamentary party which murdered her chances, rather than the angry hoi-polloi.
This comment hasn't been actioned. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now done.
  • "The mini-budget was criticised by the IMF... ' - I'd suggest also noting the public's views, which as I understand it were highly negative from the get-go
I'd like to, but I cannot find a single good source discussing it: not in the sources section, not from a cursory Google search, not from anything. It all focusses on the reactions of markets and organisations like the IMF.
[23] looks useful, and other sources are discussed at September 2022 United Kingdom mini-budget#Opinion polling Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
I don't see where. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the public reaction was also broadly negative.[215][216][217]"
  • Two sentences in a row with semi-colons in the 'Government crisis and resignation' section leads to somewhat breathless prose; I'd suggest tweaking here.
Done.
  • The article notes that Truss ended up as the least popular PM - am I correct in thinking that she was unpopular with the public from the start of her term? I'd suggest adding a bit of text noting what the trend was.
Dunno, may be a bit non-neutral.
Why would that be non-neutral? There was quite a bit of discussion of this following the end of her prime ministership (e.g. that the Conservatives had picked an unpopular candidate, who then became even more unpopular). Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that Sunak? "the Conservative Party faces a landslide defeat whether it picks Rishi Sunak or Boris Johnson as its next leader".
Again, really having difficulty finding a source that discusses Truss's parliamentary attendance in any detail.
I think I saw a story in The Guardian recently saying she'd only attended parliament a handful of times, but I'm struggling to find it; I may be mistaken Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Chipping in): There is data on the votes she's attended and where she was absent here. Even though her appearances have been patchy at best, drawing any conclusions from it in the article would be OR. - SchroCat (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D - Sorry for that. I've done some of the things you've said, but I apologise for the number of your comments I've not been able to execute. If you'd like to pursue anything further, go ahead; if you want to support, that'd be appreciated too, although I don't want to pressure you on either. Thanks for the review, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D - I think I've done everything I can now; please check to see if I've missed anything. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few other comments:

Merton: done to avoid egregious sandwiching. Others to make the images more readable. Now standardised.
  • Given this is a BLP of a fairly young ex-PM who remains in Parliament, a section on her post-prime minstership life and career seems in order, even though there's probably not much to note as yet.
Will do soon.
  • Why did Truss' parents move to Warsaw in 1977? Was this due to their political beliefs, or some other reason?
Source doesn't say, sorry.
  • "When Truss was 12 she and her family spent a year in Burnaby, British Columbia" - why did they move there?
Her father worked there.
  • "A classmate recalled Truss as being "very smart" and that she was "confident, chatty, [and] tried to get to know everyone"" - not sure what the value of this is given it's one person's recollection (in 2022?) of Truss aged roughly 18 many years before
Removed.
  • "she then complained to both colleges" - what did she complain about?
The she had been listed for St Hilda's. Clarified.
I'd suggest tweaking the wording here, as this remains unclear. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In January 2008, after losing her first two elections..." this material would work better if moved after the material on these elctions
Will do tomorrow, as it is a fairly complex edit.
The edit hasn't improved things here - I'd suggest moving this to later in the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Truss unsuccessfully stood for election twice in Greenwich London Borough Council: for Vanbrugh ward in 1998 and Blackheath Westcombe in 2002" - were these positions the Conservatives had a realistic chance of winning? - particularly to put Alex Grant's comment in perspective. Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, source gives absolutely no information on the Tories' chances.

Pinging Nick-D. Hopefully I can win you over soon. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments:

  • "In January 2013, Truss wrote a white paper" - this would have been written by the relevant department(s), and then released on Truss' authority. White Papers are major projects for the civil service, and ministers rarely write anything personally.
You'd have thought, but apparently Truss did write it herself.
Is that in Cole & Heale 2022? None of the other sources say so. If Cole & Heale did say that, I'd suggest tweaking the wording here to note that she "personally wrote" the white paper or similar, as this really is extremely unusual. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D - Made it clear it was Truss who wrote it: "in which she [...]". Thanks for the review, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The press, including Conservative-leaning papers..." this sentence is a bit complex and would work better as two sentences.
Done.
  • "Truss was called into a meeting with the deputy prime minister Nick Clegg" - this makes it sound like she was added to the meeting after it commenced, which is a bit unusual (and would be quite embarrasing) for ministers: is this what the source says?
No. Amended.
  • "Truss was later remarked" - the grammar is a bit off here. More broadly, I don't see the value of quoting the assessments of Truss' staff of her, as these are obviously non-neutral (e.g. the staff member would have been intimately involved in the work they're praising). Can experts or political correspondents assessments be noted instead?
Removed.
  • "In March 2015 Truss was one of two cabinet ministers to vote against the government's proposal to mandate plain packaging for cigarettes" - did she do this as part of a parliamentary vote, or in the relevant Cabinet discussion? My understanding is that if it was the former she would have needed to resign given the principle of Cabinet solidarity.
According to Public Whip, it was a parliamentary vote: "11 Mar 2015, Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015 ... Rebel"
British politics is wild: an Australian cabinet minister who did this would be sacked if they didn't resign first. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and blamed for their rising rates of violence..." - the grammar is a bit off here
Fixed.
  • " them multiplication questions" - I suspect this should be "multiple questions", but a stronger term might be more appropriate (it's OK for ministers to question civil servants and their advice, but I presume that the issue here is that Truss was going over the top or generating low value work)
Ha, it really is "multiplication": Truss was very keen on quizzing employees on their maths.
  • "in particular, she attacked colleagues who she said should realise "that it's not macho just to demand more money"..." this results in a very long and over-complex sentence which I had difficulty understanding
Trimmed.
  • "; in Australia she made..." - this is a separate issue, so should be a separate sentence.
Done.
  • "Truss continued her documentation of trips through her social media" - this is a bit clunky, and it's hardly unusual for politicians to aggressively use social media: was Truss really unusual in doing so?
Yeah, Britannica makes it very explicit, and so does her biography; before 2022, it's what she was best known for in the UK: being media-savvy.
Sure, but the wording remains clunky. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping in: what about continued to document her trips through social media? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her early actions as foreign secretary..." - this sentence is over-long
Split up with semicolons.
Still too long. At very least split the bit about Estonia out into another sentence given it's on a somewhat different topic. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "became occupied with" - bit unclear
Fixed.
  • "The meeting was reportedly difficult; Lavrov described communicating with Truss as "like talking to a deaf person"" - this implies that the failure of the meeting was Truss' fault. It seems much more likely to have been Lavrov's fault given he was running interference for the war Russia was about to launch. Note that Lavrov has been targeted with sanctions by the UK and many other countries for his key role in the war.
Source says that Lavrov apparently wasn't that influential at all regarding the war: "Truss left with the impression Lavrov was actually isolated from Putin's decision making and was nothing more than a 'super-annuated spokesman' ... it was clear from that lunch he is not very influential, he wasn't one of the key instigators ... he didn't know what was planned ... he was clueless". Nevertheless, I've made Lavrov's botched communications clear too.
I still dislike this text. Lavrov is not a reliable source on anything, and the new text further blames Truss. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added.

Nick-D. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D - still here? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I haven't had much Wikipedia time over the last week: I've replied above. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D - Done all, bar the election sentence. Can't think of a good way to integrate it into text further down: any suggestions? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest not having separate 'Council candidatures' and ' Parliamentary candidatures' sections, but rather tweaking this into a single section on her candidacies before that in which she successfully entered parliament. This would solve a few problems with how the chronology is presented here, as it jumps around a bit. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and the support Nick-D: council and parliamentary candidature secs now merged in this FAC's 418th(!) answered request. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Andrew D.

[edit]

There's a fundamental problem with this topic. FA requires topics to be reasonably complete and stable but the subject is still an active politician and so there is continuing fresh coverage of her activities and faction – see The Trussites are plotting their comeback, for example. Other politicians such as Churchill and Johnson have made comebacks and so it's not over until it's over. The result of next general election will be significant. And it will take even longer for the final verdict of history on her economic and other positions. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Chipping in) We already have FAs of living public figures - Bob Dylan, for instance. The stability requirement means that the article shouldn't be a work in progress and shouldn't be subject to edit wars, not that everything that is going to happen in relation to the topic has already happened. Otherwise, articles like History of evolutionary thought or Sustainable energy, about topics which are never going to "end" and are always likely to have updates and new developments, could never be FAs. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take your point but this topic still seems too much of a work-in-progress and hostage to fortune. Three examples:
  1. The article's talk page explains that "This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism."
  2. The article says "Truss ... submitted in 2023 the list of her resignation honours which as of September are yet to be approved."
  3. She was in the news recently, announcing a forthcoming book, Ten Years To Save The West. This is planned to be published in April. The article says nothing about this and can't do much with it until it's published. Perhaps there will be big revelations or perhaps not. We will have to wait and see.
Andrew🐉(talk) 11:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly close off: part of a larger debate on the suitability of BLPs as FAs. See WT:FAC#BLPs at FAC for reference: rough consensus that FA BLPs are fine. If anyone else wants to comment, go ahead. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: it may sound a little pedantic, but FAs are based on passing the featured article criteria. Are you, Andrew and SN 54129, formally opposing on the basis this article breaches one or more of those criteria (and if so, which one(s))? Neither of you have opposed yet (and you may not feel like doing so - that is entirely up to you), but this is a moot point if not. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SchroCat: Re. the criteria, my grandmother knows how to suck eggs! Since neither of us has opposed, what's the point in asking if we are opposing? I hope it's not also pedantic to point out that, at FAC, one may criticise without opposing. SN54129 12:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, linking to user talk pages doesn't activate the ping: see WP:ECHO. Only User: Cheers, SN54129 12:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware you don't have to oppose (indeed, I said you may not feel like doing that), and you are free to criticise, but the comments do not lead to any suggestions to change the article, so they are moot. All that matters on this page is whether the article reaches FA standard based on the criteria. If neither of you are going to oppose, the comments can be ignored and the review continue. If there are opposes, then it changes the nature of the page and whether others consider it worthwhile starting a review. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment was tentative but if I had to chose a formal position, then I'd currently pick oppose. As a constructive path forward, I'd suggest tackling Premiership of Liz Truss first as that topic is not so open-ended. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson, @Serial Number 54129 - Not exactly actionable for the moment, I'm afraid. Of course, when Truss publishes her memoirs/leaflet/inane ramblings then I will attempt to incorporate the source, inkeeping with WP:SPS. If Truss loses her seat (unlikely, it is true-blue Norfolk) or her life develops and new scholarly analysis of her legacy and premiership is written, then I will update the article; I'm not going to sit back and watch it decay. I note that there is a precedent for this: Gordon Brown, GA'd in 2006(! - that was when he was chancellor!) George W. Bush, GA'd 2007, Obama and McCain were both FAs before the 2008 election had even happened; it was the same with Hillary Clinton. Elizabeth II became featured whilst still alive, the same story for Charles III's GA nomination. Truss will not be making a comeback to politics, and she has said that she has no ambitions for a Cabinet role; Sunak would be out of his nut to appoint her. So, as far as I see it, it will just be a case of incorporating new sources and facts as they appear, which will be infrequent (by the way Serial, some people I know would be flattered that you consider 48 to be "young", makes me feel quite a bit better about my time on this earth). Best, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Of course 48 is young! Quoth the septuagenarian Riley). Unlike my dear friend SchroCat I am not in two minds about the point at issue. If an article, as it stands, on anyone, alive or dead, meets the FA criteria it deserves to be elevated. What happens thereafter (e.g. if per impossibile the main author fails to keep the text up to date), its status can easily be reviewed. Tim riley talk 18:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At age 48, Churchill still had his years in the wilderness ahead of him and then went on to become PM twice. And now Biden is planning a second term at age 80... Andrew🐉(talk) 11:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Biden still holds his office, and a continuation of it isn't anything extraordinary. Churchill, despite the hash he made in Gallipoli, still had a good chance of becoming PM; something Truss, after her spectacular implosion, has no longer. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 11:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget Churchill made a complete fubar of the economy (possibly to the same depth as Truss), in 1925, when he restored the gold standard. He was 51 at the time. It looks like (from the FAC talk page) that there is a consensus that BLPs are fine as FAs, so there is nothing actionable here, from an FAC point of view, at least, but it's an interesting point. My personal preference when doing an FA write-up is to follow the ODNB practice not to have an entry until five years after their death, but WP is a different beast to the DNB and it looks like this FCA should continue. - SchroCat (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it could happen to Lazarus, it could happen to Liz? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Liz Truss is in the news again today. She's made a speech at the Institute of Government in which she claims that things would be better if her policies had been maintained. And that the OBR was to blame for rocking the boat (note btw, that I started the article about the OBR and it's good to see it's still a thing). The Guardian says that it was their coverage wot dunnit while the OBR is returning fire and Mark Carney is joining the blame game too.
So, clearly she's not going quietly and the forthcoming book will presumably continue in this vein. Until the dust settles, I still reckon that this is more suitable for ITN than TFA.
Andrew🐉(talk) 15:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the objection. Jonathan Agnew, Tommy Amaker, Billy Bates, Theoren Fleury, Chris Gragg, Nikita Filatov, Iwan Roberts, Ian Thorpe, Fatima Whitbread, Amy Adams, Ben Affleck, Nancy Cartwright, Leonardo DiCaprio, John Oliver, Emma Stone, Lady Gaga, Katrina Kaif, Christopher Nolan, Kirsten Dunst, Cillian Murphy and especially J. K. Rowling are all examples of BLP FAs which will constantly need to be updated. If you want, you can go on a crusade to delist all of them; however, they are all extremely high-quality articles and meet each FA criterion. This "BLPs can't be FAs" attack line has no basis in reality whatsoever. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1, although rather than using a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I would simply ask Andrew which of the FA criteria this article violates. As far as I can see, he has yet to provide an example. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The formal criteria are 1b (comprehensive) and 1e (stable). Today's speech is not covered in the article and its impact will take some days to establish. And there's clearly more to come. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to cover her speech in the article, though. That is WP:RECENTISM. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

voorts

[edit]

Staking a claim. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. Just a few comments:

  • Truss was known by her middle name, Elizabeth, since early childhood with her father, a professor of pure mathematics at the University of Leeds, using it on a regular basis, which she preferred; after being given a badge with "Mary" on it on her first day of school, Truss had asked her teacher that it be changed. This sentence is (1) way too long, (2) has a few awkward constructions, and (3) has tense issues.
Fixed.
  • In 1977 Truss and her parents moved to Warsaw, Poland
Done.
  • the family moved to Paisley, Renfrewshire, in Scotland
Done.
  • when Truss was four years old,. with Truss attendinged West Primary School.
Shortened, but not with a full stop as "Truss attended West Primary School." is a really stubby sentence.
  • she later said in 2022 that at the school she "saw kids ... being let down", a claim which was criticised as inaccurate by former Roundhay pupils. "Let down" about what?
Clarified.
  • the Labour peer George Robertson
I would, but I know Tim would be annoyed at me for introducing a false title. This goes for the other similar comments; apparently it's more AmE than BrE.
  • where she advocated for greater effort on countering serious and organised crime Change "greater effort" to something like "more focus" (although I don't quite like that either; maybe you can come up with something better).
Done.
  • She co-authored The Value of Mathematics ... Get rid of the Oxford comma before the last item in the list.
Done.
  • After two failed attempts running for Greenwich London Borough Council This can be cut because that's already established in the paragraph.
Done.
  • described as "Blitzkreig". How was it a Blitzkreig?
Clarified (with apologies to UndercoverClassicist).
  • Shortly after her selection, some members of the constituency association objected to Truss's selection because of her failure to declare her affair with Field.
I'd rather not do this one, sentence becomes a bit stilted without.
  • would later reach a high ranks in government.
Done.
  • some of her earliest contributions to parliamentary discourse were on the subject of education. Move this before the sentence it currently follows.
Done.
  • which proposed increasing the maximum number of children childminders could look after at a time from three to four, intended to as a means of reduce theing childcare costs
Done.
  • met with the deputy prime minister Nick Clegg
See above.
  • went "much too far", and advised
Done.
  • angering Clegg, who then blocked the proposals
Done.
  • approving planning for the Thames Tideway Tunnel, and development of Flood Re
Done.
  • Truss lobbied the chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond
See above.
  • lacked legal expertise, and called for her
Done.
  • making decision-making processes first "making" should not be there.
Hangover from draftwork. Fixed.
  • In June 2018 Truss gave a speech criticising the amount of regulations whichthat she believed affected British people's lifestyles
Done.
  • {{sought the opinion amongstof her colleagues}}
Done.
  • as a result, she became closer to her family. I would cut this.
You're not the first to ask. Done, reluctantly.
  • CPTPP should be Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses. Remove the Oxford comma at the end of the same sentence.
Done all three.
  • the New Zealand deal was agreed to shortly thereafter
Done.
  • for the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe
Done.
  • by the Eurosceptic European Research Group wikilink Eurosceptic.
Done.
  • However, Johnson's premiership proved untenable however
Done (this is probably the most commented on sentence in the article: I think this is the fourth time now(!) ).
  • It really bothers me that the Rs don't line up in her leadership logo. I know you can't fix that, but it's bad graphic design IMO.
If only that were the only thing wrong with her campaign.
  • With the appointment of Kwarteng as chancellor of the Exchequer, James Cleverly as foreign secretary, and Suella Braverman as home secretary
Done.
  • Robert Buckland as Wales secretary, and James Heappey
Done.
  • in the anticipation of the Queen's death
Done, another draftwork hangover: used to be "in the event of".
  • Britain is the great country it is today because of her. ...
Done.
  • because of its inclusion of temporary spending measures while permanently cutting tax rates were permanently cut
Done.
  • the US president Joe Biden
See above.
  • I'm not really that keyed into British politics, but it seems to me that § Political positions should be significantly expanded, with an explanation of specific policies she has supported from her earlier times in office to the present, for it to be comprehensive.
Will do.

That's all for now. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will do in a few hours, unfortunately time got away from me this morning. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support on quality of prose, with the caveat that I believe that the "Political positions" section will likely need to be expanded for the article to be comprehensive; however, I don't know enough about British politics to weigh in on precisely what more is needed. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Political positions" now expanded, thanks for the review. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Airship

[edit]

As usual, these are suggestions, not demands. Feel free to refuse with adequate justification.

  • The time-layout of the first lead paragraph is somewhat unintuitive; the second to fourth sentences proceed in reverse chronological order. If nothing else, I would personally combine the last two sentences: The member of Parliament (MP) for South West Norfolk since 2010, Truss previously held ....
Done.
  • Truss was known by her middle name, Elizabeth, since early childhood with her father, a professor of pure mathematics at the University of Leeds, using it on a regular basis, which she preferred; I'm not really one to talk, but even I think that there are too many commas here. Perhaps the father's job could be moved to his introduction in the first sentence of the section?
Ha, your comments overlap a bit with voorts. I made an attempt when addressing his comments: please say if it still needs to be changed.
  • Perhaps join the first two paragraphs at the start of the "Career" section?
Done.
  • Catling claimed that the members of the party that had opposed her were sexist and said that she was "accused of everything except murder and paedophilia" is this relevant?
Err, I think so. Provides some foreshadowing for what Truss is about to suffer.
  • Truss, who was selected as the candidate for the seat, narrowly lost to the Labour incumbent after a Conservative campaign which The Yorkshire Post described as "Blitzkreig". Blitzkreig in what sense? My first thought was speedy, but how can a campaign be speedy? Maybe intelligent and taking the initiative, and not reliant on tanks/weirdly hostile to Poles and Belgians?
voorts overlap again. Now "active Conservative campaign".
  • "shortly after the following year's election." Month?
Annoyingly the source doesn't say, possibly because Truss wasn't documenting her affair's chronology and these things tend to be a bit hazy.
  • "promising potential candidates" fairly sure this is a tautology.
Fixed.
  • The Daily Telegraph and The Times, were largely hostile to the plan. The former claimed that prices would not fall, with the Guardian columnist I would include the Telegraph's opinion on prices in the same sentence, and leave the Guardian's columnist to a separate sentence.
Added, and Guardian ref split off with semicolon.
  • Sajid Javid is mentioned thrice in the article, all with his full name, but the latter without a link. Is that intentional?
Yeah, didn't want the link again and people might've forgotten who "Javid" is; nevertheless, two thirds of the "Sajid"s are now gone.

More to come. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find the image choice and positioning a bit odd. There are two official portraits from three years apart in consecutive sections—it's a bit disconcerting, and IMO one of them should be removed. Then you have no images from either her opening or resignation speech—I would definitely expect the latter to be included as what she is primarily remembered for.
  • "with the awkward, stilted delivery leading her to be mocked" is itself a bit awkward and stilted; I would suggest rephrasing.
  • "The cuts negatively affected the prisons, being blamed for their rising rates" is also awkward. I would cut the "negatively affected bit" i.e. "the cuts were blamed for rising violence rates in prisons".

Honestly, this is an excellent article, so I feel I can support even without waiting for the amendments above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 - Done, barring one point: a different reviewer told me that the previous images of her first and last speeches were non-neutral, so I'd taken them out; feel free to ask if you'd like them in. The same reviewer asked me to remove the "upright" param in most of the images, which I've now restored to address your concerns over positioning. Fixed the other things you mentioned too. Thanks for the review and your support. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could consider replacing the quote box (though the quote is fairly famous) with a non-portrait image such as File:Prime Minister Liz Truss announces her resignation.jpg - this is a striking photo, with similar versions being used by the news media (the fact that no-one had time to sweep the leaves in the background tells an interesting story by itself!). Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review by RoySmith

[edit]
  • The first thing that strikes me is she smiled more when she held lower office :-)
  • File:Official portrait of Liz Truss (cropped).jpg I'm not convinced this is properly licensed. The permission statement on commons says This image, originally posted to Flickr, is currently not available on Flickr under the license specified on this page. However, please see English: All content is Crown copyright and re-usable under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated.. The image was downloaded from https://www.flickr.com/photos/number10gov/52377585500, which states "Some rights reserved", which falls under the "except where otherwise stated" clause. That links to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/ which I don't believe is acceptable.
A different version appeared on the Main Page in the ITN section after she'd resigned. Must've gone through a check then, so I've replaced it with that version.
I assume you're talking about File:Liz Truss official portrait (cropped)2.jpg. The commons page for that says it was downloaded from https://www.gov.uk/government/people/elizabeth-truss, which doesn't currently have the photo. I tried looking in archive.org for snapshots from around the right time, but no better luck there. So I'm not sure where that leaves us. I will state that trusting that ITN must've done a proper vetting job so we don't have to doesn't seem like a powerful argument. RoySmith (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, any reason why CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 DEED isn't acceptable? We've followed everything there, i.e. we've attributed it and it's non-commercial. Looks above board to me.
The original image is licensed for non-commercial use, but our commons page asserts that it's under OGL 3.0, which allows commercial use. We can't re-license an image with fewer constraints than it originally had. RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 DEED also doesn't allow derivatives, so our crops are contrary to that license. RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the photo back, hopefully fixed now with correct licensing. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had to change it back because the licensing was already correct. Please see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Official portrait of Liz Truss.jpg. This work was previously nominated for deletion based on RoySmith's concerns but was kept. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Genuinely don't know what I need to do anymore. The change looked fine to me; would be a lot simpler if UGWA had uploaded it in the first place. If it's correct as is though, fine. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty I feel your pain. It would seem that I accidentally stepped into a licensing minefield that I'm not really qualified to navigate, so I'll defer to people who understand this stuff better than I do. RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping in - the OGL allows us to "adapt" the information, and cropping would certainly be covered by that: cropping an image is pretty universally held not to meet the standard of originality/creativity that would be required to create a new copyright, so any crop of an image is governed by the same copyright rules as the original. If we can show that the original image is covered by the OGL, we ought to be OK. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the same image? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a crop of the same image (facial expression is identical and earrings reflect in precisely the same way): theoretically, therefore, a crop of that one to Truss's face would be under the OGL. Technically speaking, ours is a crop of the "mother" image: again, technically speaking, the UK government don't have the right to release their own crop under OGL unless they also have the right to (and do simultaneously) release the original, since they are covered by the same copyright. There would seem to be at least an overwhelming presumption that the image we're using is OGL. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a crop of the same image, surely that doesn't affect the license at all?
It is an official portrait, see this.
Cheers.
According to The Guardian, the photo was taken by Frank Augstein, and then published in the said tweet (or X?) by No. 10. Think that the license should cover that.
Taken by Stefan Rousseau, who is not a US government employee. Replaced.
Done.

@RoySmith - Licensing alright now? Not to rush, just seeing if anything else needs done before you give the all-clear. Thanks for the review, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty I know this isn't what you want to hear, but as I said above a couple of times, I'm out of my depth here, so I'm going to leave this to somebody else who has a better understanding of both the licensing and what FA requries. RoySmith (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith - Ah right, thanks. Sorry, I didn't clock your above reply: my bad. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get an update on this? Everything looks fixed, justified or explained over to me, and the licenses seem good and problem images replaced: User:Nikkimaria, I don't want to add to what I imagine to be a busy schedule, but can you have another look to see if this has now passed? Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Official_portrait_of_Liz_Truss_(cropped).jpg: given the discussion above I'm confident enough this is okay to pass it, but I'd suggest documenting some of what was discussed on the image page for future reference. Similarly File:Elizabeth_truss2014.jpg
Not exactly sure how to do that, so I've given links to the discussions there. Feel free to change it if I've done it wrong.
Switched out both for archive links.

Ping User:Nikkimaria. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: sorry to be pinging you as much as I have recently, this hopefully being the last time: I've done everything, I think, so could you, when you have time available, have a very last look over the images and give your stamp of approval (or not, if there are still issues)? Fingers crossed, we are within spitting distance of promotion. Best, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear any changes have been made to File:Official_portrait_of_Elizabeth_Truss_crop_2.jpg? Once that's fixed this should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sh*t! Did the other version of the similarly named File:Liz Truss official portrait (cropped)2.jpg instead. My mistake, now fixed. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Thebiguglyalien

[edit]

I'll have the source review done within the next few days. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Books and journals:

  • This article leans very heavily on Cole & Heale (2022). This is somewhat alleviated by the fact that some of its uses are coupled with other citations, but it's still quite a lot. Is this the only high quality biography of Truss that exists right now? I realize that this is a big ask, but I would strongly recommend finding another source, whether a book or a reasonably comprehensive journal article, that covers her life at least from 1975 to 2021 (you already have a good variety of sources for 2022, of course). Even without adding any info to the article, just another source for supporting citations to confirm some Cole & Heale statements would go a long way to strengthen this article's sourcing. Though if you do happen to see new info in another biography, all the better.
Is this the only high quality biography of Truss that exists right now? - yeah, sort of. Like others have said, will replace some sources when they become available. I note that 2 thirds of the article are non-Cole and Heale sources, which is a similar ratio to FA Neville Chamberlain, with 93 out of 248 refs going to Self 2006.
  • I don't like that Fit for Purpose is only cited to itself. Is it due if no secondary sources have mentioned it?
I could do a secondary source, but it would probably be Cole and Heale ...
That's fine. It's not like it's tilting the balance of the article by adding another citation. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no, FFP isn't mentioned in C&H. Not sure about removing it though, as it does make the article more complete.

News:

  • Bond (2014): Title doesn't match the source's current title
Fixed.
  • Forsyth (2012): Dead link, dead archive link
Internet Archive doesn't work on this one, not sure if there's anything more I can do here.
Can it be removed or replaced? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed, same info is in the book anyway.
  • In full: Prime Minister Liz Truss... (2022): Should not be marked as dead
Fixed.
  • McAuley (2022): I get a tabloid-y impression from Liverpool Echo.
Unfortunately, we have no great sources on Truss's stance on LBGT rights. So, this is "best available", I suppose.
  • McGee (2022a): Should not be marked as dead.
Fixed.
  • McGee (2022b): Should not be marked as dead.
Fixed.
  • Pengelly (2022): I don't know if this source is helpful. For the claim that it was criticized by former students, we're essentially analyzing this primary source of one instance to confirm it. If the other two sources already say it, then that should be fine.
Removed.
  • Perry (2023): Retrieval date is missing. But overall this seems like an opinion source used to cite a contentious claim, and I recommend replacing it.
I did remove it but it got added back shortly after. I doubt the reliability of "PinkNews" in any case. Removed, again.
  • Reshuffle at a glance... (2014): Should not be marked as dead.
Fixed.
  • Steerpike (2022): The Spectator is not considered generally reliable due to its opinionated nature, and I don't recommend using it to attribute Truss's beliefs.
Used a primary (but better) source.
  • Stone (2022): Should not be marked as dead.
Fixed.
  • Thomas (2022a): Should not be marked as dead.
Fixed.
  • Thomas (2022b): Should not be marked as dead.
Fixed.
  • Toynbee (2013): This is correctly attributed, but I don't know if this opinion piece is due at all. It's better to use sources that talk about the disagreement rather than the primary source for the disagreement.
Removed.
  • Walker et al (2022): Should not be marked as dead.
Fixed.
  • Wheeler & Francis (2022): Links to a different (updated?) article
Marked as "dead".

Websites and others:

  • Pullig & León-Ledesma (2022) – I'd want stronger sourcing for this claim.
Disagree here, sorry. I think this was recommended to me at PR as a "scholarly" source.
  • What makes Local Elections Archive Project a reliable source?
Replaced.
  • Wallenfeldt (2023) – I don't know how other editors feel about this, but I'm not comfortable with Encyclopaedia Britannica as a source at FAC.
Removed

Later I'll look more closely at the text of the sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • One other note on formatting: Jones & Norton (2014) should have an edition number. It looks like the 8th edition was used.
Missed this one when answering the others. Fixed. Also an opportunity to ping you. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks:

  • Allen (2023) – I don't see where it supports Balmoral castle.
Added ref.
  • Bogdanor (2022) – Checked all five uses:
    • Does page 566 support "with the number of votes cast for her increasing in each"?
Yes, the statement is sort of spread out across the page.
    • Page 570 only supports that Hunt reversed the tax-cuts, not "many of the remaining policies announced in the mini-budget, leading to further instability"
No, but the other one does: "With the negative reaction to this plan being immediate, Truss began cutting bits of the mini budget, but this only further increased the economic and political instability".
    • Page 570 only supports that she made the decision on 20 October, not the rest of the sentence.
Good spot: fixed.
  • Diamond et al (2023) – Checked all three uses:
    • I don't see that Sunak kept Hunt. Does Hickson & William support this?
Yes.
    • Does this source support that the plan involved borrowing, or is that only in one of the other sources?
No, Marsh 2023.
  • Kutllovci (2022) – This doesn't associate instability with Hunt's actions. Also, while this seems well-researched, I don't like that it's labeled "satirical" and uses a less academic tone, particularly for a source supporting a strong claim like this.
It associates instability with the u-turns, which Hunt was responsible for. Where is it labelled "satirical"? It calls Truss "unremarkable", but it's not like that disqualifies it from being a good source. Again, it was recommended to me at PR.
  • Marsh (2023) – Checked all five uses:
    • Page 120 doesn't support the quote. I'm assuming Cole & Heale does?
Yes.
    • Page 122 doesn't say she was the 15th PM under Elizabeth II.
Fixed.
    • Does Page 122 support "was to be funded by borrowing and was intended to stimulate growth"?
Yes: "The £45bn Truss-Kwarteng 'plan for growth' [...] £45bn of debt-fuelled tax cuts..."
  • Middleton (2023) – Checked all five uses:
    • Does Page 13 support 20 July?
Not explicitly, but it does go into detail about the vote. Backed up with another source.
    • I don't see Balmoral on Page 9.
Good spot again. Overlaps with other query, but fixed.
  • Mason (2014) – I don't see that this supports anything it's supposed to.
It supports the bits about maths in Asia.
  • McSmith (2014b) – Good.
  • Scott (2022) – Good.
  • Stratton (2013) – I'm assuming the other sources support "angered".
Yes, see my response to UC above: has words like "apoplectic".
  • "Ukraine war: Liz Truss says Russia sanctions should end only after withdrawal". BBC News. – Good.

Tim O'Doherty. The news/web sources that I checked look okay. I have reservations about the citations to journals that I checked and how they're used. There are a lot of places where the sources don't seem to support what they're supposed to. It looks like about half of the journal citations I checked have some aspect that's not supported by the source. Now it's possible that I seriously missed a lot of things that verify the content, especially in the more technical areas. But I don't know that this article can pass a source review without a serious reworking to ensure that the WP:text-source integrity is spotless. It has to be assumed that other sources, including Cole & Heale, have a similar ratio of unsupported claims. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that I was just very unlucky you picking the sources you did: you used pretty much all of the "bad" ones. I was very careful with Cole and Heale: I reread it every time to made sure that it was supporting what it was meant to, that it was the right page, etc. Thanks for the review, hopefully all fixed now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's obligatory that I have to say "ideally there shouldn't be any 'bad' ones". But soon I'll go through again and do a few more spot checks and see it holds up. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well yeah, ideally not. But we're all human, we all make mistakes; for example, not citing the Balmoral claim because it was such a simple fact. Looking forward to your further analysis. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All right, you've justified much of what I listed, and you fixed the few minor issues. I also haven't found any copyvio or close paraphrasing.

  • On several of the book sources, I noticed that the editors are listed as the authors. If the chapter is written by a different author, then the author and the chapter should be included in the reference as well as the editors.
Are there any where the chapter author is different from the editor? Not being glib, genuine question.
Aylott & Bolin (2020), Bennie (2002), and Jones & Norton (2014) are the ones I noticed, but a check over all of them wouldn't hurt. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done: you got them all anyway. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also want to ask about Bale (2023) in further reading. What's its relevance to Truss?
Looks at the leadership of May, Johnson, Truss and (so far) Sunak: I don't have it, but could be interesting for others.

More spot checks of book and journal sources:

  • Aylott & Bolin (2020): I'm confused as to what purpose this citation serves. It's cited in the footnote defining the 1922 Committee, but I don't see any definition on this page.
Here? There is. Page 212? We could broaden it to 202 though, where it is slightly more explicit.
I see a mention, but as someone who had never heard of the 1922 Committee, I still have no idea what it is after reading that page. Citing it to 202 as well should work. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Bennie (2002): I can't view this page through Google Books, but the previous page indicates that this is about results by country, not the whole UK election. Is this assumption correct?
Yes and no: the country bit continues, but sums up the national mood in the Wales section "disappointing almost everywhere"; there's a link in the "Resolved comments" section of UC's comments, if you want to look there (you can Ctrl+F "230").
  • Fall (2020) – Good.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that BUA: done most now. Shortly before your comments, I went through a chunk of the article and didn't find any discrepancies, just widened the scope of one of the book refs to make it a bit more "solid". Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien - Think everything should now be fixed. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing. Spot checks didn't turn up any copyright violations or close paraphrasing, but Earwig identified two phrases that should be reworded:
  • "During her time as a Liberal Democrat, Truss supported the legalisation of cannabis and the abolition of the monarchy"
  • "Truss denied she had failed to defend the judges"
There are no other copyvio or close paraphrasing issues in anything else I checked, and the text-source integrity issues ended up being justified or easily fixed. This should be the last step. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass source review. Any potential concerns have been explained or addressed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks biguglyalien. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • "in her last year at the university, she resigned from the LDYS." Is it known which year this was?
1996 was her last year at uni, but I'm not sure whether it means the "school year": 1995–1996, or just 1996.
Me too. One assumes some time between November 1995 and July 1996 is meant. But a reader has to read the following sentence to gain some idea of when is meant, and even then doesn't know which year. "However, by November 1995, Truss had become critical of the Liberal Democrats, as she "realised the Tory Party was saying quite sane things"; in her last year at the university, she resigned from the LDYS.[22] By 1996, Truss had joined the Conservative Party." → 'However, by November 1995, Truss had become critical of the Liberal Democrats, as she "realised the Tory Party was saying quite sane things".[22] By 1996, Truss had resigned from the Liberal Democrats and joined the Conservative Party.' would seem to actually convey more information. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno. I'm not wedded to that prose, and as it contains the same information (Truss leaves the Lib Dems in 1995/96 and joins the Tories in 1996), still without disambiguating the year she did actually leave, I'm leaning towards keeping the existing version. They're both equally understandable, and the reader can infer the basics: Truss becomes disenchanted with her party sometime around the end of her education, and joined the Tories either the year or year after. We've already said that she "graduated in 1996". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike phrasing which requires a reader to have read and be able to recall previous prose to be fully comprehensible. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The information is only five short sentences before and the date she joined the Conservatives is immediately after. I get that you'd do it differently, but, in the words of a different reviewer, "I'm me and you're you". The information, I think, isn't going to be lost on readers, especially when it carries the same information as before. If you feel that strongly though, go ahead and change it and I won't stand in your way. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a Chartered Management Accountant." Why the upper-case initial letters? Similarly for some of "as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party", "held various Cabinet positions"
Re CMA, is a position from this organisation; not sure whether we should abandon the caps, but I've erred on the side of caution and kept them. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and ConLeader are both per MOS:JOB. "Cabinet" per what is most commonly used in POLUK articles, like "Parliament". I had a discussion with Tim r about this in August: here.
Many, even most, organisations like to capitalise things important to them. Their preferences, even if copied elsewhere, do not override the MoS. Surely we would say "the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants" but "a chartered management accountant". Or, arguably better for readers unaware of what "chartered means in this context, 'a fully qualified management accountant' or similar. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including an "impassioned" speech from Truss". The MoS states "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
Fixed.
  • Infobox: why is her father named and not her mother?
Isn't that parameter for notable relatives? I.e. people with their own articles? Correct me if I'm wrong.
I cannot find this in Template:Infobox officeholder. Is it in some other policy? (I am not aware of it, but am not a biography expert.) Gog the Mild (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning was based on this line in Template:Infobox person: Names of parents; include only if they are independently notable or particularly relevant. Not a policy, but still a decent rule of thumb: Priscilla Grasby has no article. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox instructions carry a fair bit of weight. For some reason that instruction is not included in the instructions for the infobox you used, but you make a good case. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she called for reform in several policy areas including childcare, mathematics, education and ..." Is there some way of indicating that she advocated for the reform of mathematics in the context of education? Otherwise she comes across as even more of a fruitcake than is justified.
Changed to "mathematics in education"; that seems to be what irked her most, so should be justified in the lead.
  • Reference 201 does not link to a citation.
Dammit. Fixed.
  • Why no publisher locations for Aylott et al, Bassett et al and Bale?
Will look in soon.
Done: two UKs and a Switzerland.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Optional: I would be inclined to add the splendid note 3 to the lead, or you are liable to get endless quibbles and even changes from Medieval history nerds. Such as myself.
Tried to by naming the refs, but efns are a different breed than NoteTags, so I'm not sure how to repeat it without creating two identical notes; feel free to have a stab yourself. (By the way, endless quibbles? Have you read this FAC?) :)
  • Why does the article not state how long she was prime minister for? (49 days) You give this for Canning. And state it in the lead.
Subject of debate on talk last year. 49 full days maybe, but resigned on her fiftieth day. I'd say 49 (or possibly 44, when her government became a lame duck) but the consensus is the pedantic "she was prime minister during fifty days". Put "fiftieth".
  • The Merton College image created a sandwich at most settings I tried. Move it down?
Got rid of the sidebar instead, the navboxes do fine on their own.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The MoS, in WP:HOWCITE says "Citations for books typically include ... place of publication". This is usually understood to mean the "place" the publisher gives on the title page, rather than the country that place is or was in. Why are you using the country? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. Watch this space. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply removed them all. Consistency in the style of referencing comes first and I can't see that the locations are essential to our readers finding the book in question. Some, like Aylott, give a tangle of street names and buildings. No way that I can see to maintain a style consistent with the others. As always, feel free to have a shot yourself. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's fine.


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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 October 2023 [24].

Sir William Gordon-Cumming, 4th Baronet

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon-Cumming was the key figure in the Royal baccarat scandal. A friend of the Prince of Wales for 20 years, he was accused of cheating at cards which brought to an end his military career and social life. From the viewpoint of the 21st century, he is an odious individual with few redeeming features, but even back in his lifetime there are people who would have agreed with that. - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Tim and Tim as PR attendees who asked to be nudged when we got to FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

My few quibbles were dealt with during the peer review. On rereading for FAC I have found nothing else to fuss about. Meets the FA criteria in my view: cogent, balanced, well illustrated, nice range of sources, and a good read. It's under 2,000 words, but well covers all that needs covering. Tim riley talk 13:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim O'Doherty

[edit]

Chipped in at PR; the article has changed very little from my review at that point in time, adjusted only to fit Tim R's comments: therefore, support on prose and comprehensiveness, will let others do image/source formatting etc. reviews. An enjoyable read on a thoroughly unpleasant character whom I knew nothing about beforehand. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from UC

[edit]
  • Anne Pitcairn née Campbell (died 1888): MOS:BIRTHDATE doesn't like the brackets here: if her date of death is important, it should be in flowing text.
  • Should any of G-C's illustrious relatives be included under the |relatives= parameter in the infobox?
    I don't think so - there's a navbox at the foot of the page and links in the body to baronetcy, and everyone else is a bit too far removed from WGC to give any beneficial information about the subject himself. - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Very fair. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though the estates totalled 38,500 acres (156 km2), they yielded poor revenues; the annual income from the estates in around 1890 has been described as either £60,000 or £80,000.: the inflation template explains this as over seven million quid, even at a conservative estimate. Maybe I need to ask for a pay rise, but I'm struggling to see that as anything other than a fortune. There's a bit of a grammar mixup in that footnote as well, caused I think by the text duplicating what the template automatically writes.
    I agree it's a significant figure, but possibly not as much as it could be for 38,000 acres if it were on more fertile or profitable lands. We're only following the source in the description here. - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I sympathise with the unhelpfulness of the source: as it's written, this is pretty confusing. Perhaps some more context, from additional sources if necessary, would help: was that a particularly meagre income for a man of G-C's social standing? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone the other way and removed "poor revenues" (which they obviously weren't) to "poor quality land", which is supported by the extant source and the second source I've added. - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that "Dallas" ought to be clear in context, but you might still think about giving some sort of clarification: perhaps "the village of Dallas"?
  • Scots Fusilier Guards (later the Scots Guards: presumably we have a precise date for the later?
  • He was promoted to regimental lieutenant and to the rank of captain in the army: this comes up a few times: I'm not clear on quite how this double-ranking system worked, and it would be helpful to have a brief explanation.
    Still to do; it was relatively common for the time, but I'm not sure whether it's a brevet rank or not, I'll have to clarify. - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now done - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • on the death of her son, Napoléon: I'd certainly put this comma in, but I know your usual attitude to them: was this one a typo?
    No, I actually meant this one! - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • with the Guards Camel Regiment in the Desert Column: do the GCR rate a redlink (sounds like a particularly interesting article)? Separately, I'd explain what the Desert Column was.
    Redlink: A quick Google Book search shows there's a number of references, so added
    Desert Column: still to do - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC) Done - SchroCat (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • regimental major: see above on double ranking; as there's such thing as a "brigade major" (=chief of staff), I'd suggest a separate rephrase here to be clear that he was just one of many majors.
    Still to do, as above - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now done - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Rocky Mountains in the US: spell out United States on first mention.
    Don't need to per MOS:Abbreviations#Exceptions - it's one that's so common everyone knows it. - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough: there's always another MoS page I haven't come across! UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    However, from that page: Using United States instead of an acronym is often better formal writing style, and is an opportunity for commonality. Don't need to, but there's advantages in doing so. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wild Men & Wild Beasts. Scenes in Camp and Jungle: I know it was usual at the time, but this reads very oddly with the full stop. Usual practice nowadays is to give subtitles after a colon: I'd suggest doing that per MOS:CONFORM. I notice that this has already been done in the bibliography.
  • He insisted they had been mistaken, and explained that he played the coup de trois system of betting: reading this, I got the strong impression that G-C was innocent, or at least that the whole thing could have been an honest mistake. Then, I read a very able editor's account of the Royal baccarat scandal, and was left in no doubt that he had cheated. Could we bring the two more into line?
    Still to do. I wouldn't say he definitely did or didn't cheat: the family members seemed sure he did, but he was equally defiant that he didn't. I'll try and work on this a little though. - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reworked this bit to make the timeline, actions and responsibilities a little more clear. How does it look now? - SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure if he cheated, but I suppose that's the point. It could possibly be slightly clearer as to why what he did was cheating, but I think it's probably clear enough to anyone who has a vague idea of what's going on in a card game (which is however a far higher bar than e.g. WP:POPE). On the other hand, I'm not totally clear why it wasn't a trivial matter to sort out: the bone of contention seems to have been whether the additional £5 was part of the next stake or being passed off as part of his original stake. Wouldn't it have been obvious which by how much he asked the "losers" to pay up? Appreciate that this is more likely an ambiguity in the events than in their retelling here. Out of interest, has anyone ever suggested that G-C was stitched up by the others out of (understandable) personal animosity, or that this played a role in why all concerned seem to have sided against him? Separately, is it worth including the titbit from the main article that playing baccarat at all was technically illegal? UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even further to this, I'm increasingly confused: it sounds like he was accused of adding £5 to his own stake when he was winning - surely then he could only have additionally "won" his own £5 and so made no profit? I'm not sure I really understand how he would have benefitted from the alleged crime. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rework this a bit, but he was accused of adding to his stake after he won, but before he was paid, so he was risking £5 on the hand, but being paid for a £10 gamble, thus increasing his winnings. - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah: paid by the banker, by the other players or similar? This isn't just a case of everyone puts their money into the "pot", and the winner wins the pot? UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 'illegal' bit added. - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As is the fact he increased his winnings directly from the bank. - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • undertaking never to play cards again in return for a pledge that no-one present would speak of the incident again: can we fix the repeated again?
  • he demanded a retraction from five of the house party: seems odd not to mention which five (presumably the PoW was excluded?)
  • The trial closed the following week, after the judge's summing up "had been unacceptably biased", according to Tomes: this isn't quite grammatical: we need something like The trial closed the following week: the judge's summing up was "unacceptably biased", according to Tomes
  • The jury deliberated for only 13 minutes: MOS:FIGURES allows both, but most style guides would encourage words for numbers under 21. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • convinced in the innocence of his client: convinced of, I think.
  • the leader in The Times stated that ... in his 1918 memoirs, wrote that: at least the second that is wrong here: it should only really introduce an indirect statement, though it works fine enough if the direct statement is indistinguishable from an indirect expression of it. The second of these definitely isn't, though, and the first is a borderline case.
  • As a result of the scandal, Gordon-Cumming was dismissed from the army the day after the trial: the source (which is primary) doesn't actually say that this had anything to do with the scandal.
  • Why doesn't the Marlborough Club get a link when the other three do? I know it would be red, but precedent seems to establish that it should have an article.
  • who had stood by him throughout the trial: minor, but consider a rephrase per MOS:IDIOM, as the surface reading (that she stood physically adjacent to him while in court) is untrue.
  • The same day he married his American fiancée, the heiress Florence Garner, who had stood by him throughout the trial although Gordon-Cumming twice offered to break off their engagement because of the scandal: he offered this twice within (at most) two days? I'm a little unsure on the chronology, but it seems like a whirlwind 48 hours for him.
    I'm sure it was a rare couple of days for him, but the source doesn't clarify when WGC made the offer to break the engagement. - SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Royal baccarat scandal seems to suggest that he made his first offer in early-ish January, just after the prince refused to meet him and G-C undertook to take legal action, and his second on 10 June. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - I was checking in the wrong source for the info. Now added - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the locals from near his estate had decorated the station and pulled the carriage through the streets by hand: we need some sort of punctuation or rephrasing to break these two clauses, given that decorated is governed by had but pulled isn't.
  • The prince: I think we should reiterate which prince we're talking about here: he hasn't been mentioned in this section.
  • Edward wrote to his son: do we know which one?
  • He later told his daughter that "among a host of acquaintances I thought I had perhaps twenty friends. Not one of them ever spoke to me again": as above, drop the that.
  • Others of his friends only relented after the death of the prince, who was by that stage Edward VII: give the year of Edward's death in the text so that readers don't have to check it.
  • with a reduced household of seven: does household here mean "servants"?
  • the middle class society: hyphenate middle-class as a compound modifier.
  • Not sure about chronic as an adjective for infidelity: it's a little bit of a metaphor and I worry that its connotations of disease (cf. chronic alcoholism) are very slightly exculpatory.
  • the Labour Party politician Ramsay MacDonald: could he do with a slightly more grandiose introduction? He would have been leader of the party by that point, I think.
    Former and future leader in 1916: Arthur Henderson was leader for most of the First World War. - SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Any value in stating either of those? I can see an argument either for "Labour politician and former leader", as that reinforces the size of the fight G-C was potentially picking and avoids the foresight bias of "future PM": on the other hand, the latter is how he will be mostly known to readers. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone with "the former leader of the Labour Party", although I suspect that someone will try and shoehorn in "and future PM" at some point! - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major Alexander Penrose Gordon-Cumming, MC.: per MOS:POSTNOM, we don't generally give post-nominals in body text, impressive though these are, except for the subject of the article or where the post-nominals themselves are the object of discussion.
  • Tomes' first name is given on second mention.
  • a womaniser, particularly with married women: can this be rephrased to avoid the repetition?

All the straightforward ones done. Still a few bits to do that need a little research and/or thought, but these should be sorted soon. Many thanks for the comments so far - you have, as always, tetigisti-ed the rem with these. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few more, I'm afraid: increasingly small nits.

  • née Campbell: this never looked right to me: I think it should be in brackets (as it would be if replaced with the English "born"), or perhaps comma-ed off.
  • Gordon-Cumming was educated at Eton and Wellington colleges: Very optional: is it worth giving some context here: perhaps educated at the English boarding schools of Eton and Wellington, or making some reference to the fact that these were probably the two most elite schools in the country?
  • I'd like to see Florence Garner's name in the lead: I know she's only a minor character, but it feels ugly to reduce her simply to "an American heiress". It's a relatively short lead and I think there's space to share the limelight: there's also value in consciously pushing against the unfortunate tendency in this site and others to downplay the prominence of women, particularly wives, in the stories we tell.
  • chief of the Clan Cumming: I don't think the Scots at least generally use the the here ("chief of Clan Cumming").
  • has been described as: not sure this is quite the right phrase for an income: perhaps listed as or given as.
  • renamed to the Scots Guards: I don't think we want the to.
  • The long bluelink on "purchased an ensign's commission" takes away the chance to link "ensign", which I think would be a good idea as the rank is no longer used (except in strange Guards contexts).
  • The inconsistency of and in the title Wild Men & Wild Beasts: Scenes in Camp and Jungle bothers me, though I can see an argument either way for applying or not applying MOS:CONFORM.
    I know there's an inconsistency, but as it's the published title, I think we need to adhere to the original. - SchroCat (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC) (ps, as a pointless aside, this isn't technically CONFORM, which is for quotes, but MOS:CONFORMTITLE ... which is exactly the same set of rules, but for titles) - SchroCat (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we do: I see MOS:CONFORMTITLE as giving us licence to make titles conform to our orthographic standards, and then MOS:& has Quotations may be cautiously modified, especially for consistency where different editions are quoted, as modern editions of old texts routinely replace ampersands with and (just as they replace other disused glyphs, ligatures, and abbreviations). In other words, I think the MoS is pretty clear that the mere fact of its being original is no obstacle to replacing it with and, though it certainly doesn't mandate doing so. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done—albeit reluctantly. - SchroCat (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gordon-Cumming was invited: by whom?
  • two Lycett Greens, Stanley Wilson, Berkeley Levett and Mary Wilson: as we haven't introduced these people in this article, I'd give at least the names and relationship of the two Lycett Greens, and contemplate introducing these characters a little.
    I've introduced all them much earlier, along with others who were present. Too much, or does it give a better idea now?
    Ah yes, my oversight. Perhaps "both Lycett Greens" or "Ethel and Edward Lycett Green"? The phrasing "two Lycett Greens" just reads slightly oddly (as if Lycett Greens are an interchangeable commodity?) UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No oversight - I only added them there after your comment! The commodities are now separately named. - SchroCat (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's right that we can only learn that the trial was held at the Royal Courts of Justice by mousing over a link: the principle of least surprise seems to be, well, surprised here.
  • The Prince of Wales was present, and sat on a red leather chair on a raised platform between the judge and the witness box; his appearance was the first time since 1411 that an heir to the throne had appeared involuntarily in court: could we explain why he was involuntarily in court (had he been summoned as a witness?)
  • according to Gordon-Cumming's biographer, Jason Tomes: it might help head off a charge of bias to gesture towards Tomes' being a much later biographer.
    I've added that he was the biographer for the ONDB - does that work? If not, I can always say he was WGC's biographer in the 2010 entry in the ONDB? - SchroCat (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd put the year in, at least in approximate terms ("biographer in the 2010 edition of the..."): to me, that's the important thing; that he's a much later scholar rather than a personal friend, as it wasn't totally uncommon for "great men" of the period to have biographies written by sympathetic literary acquaintances. However, to quote a wise editor, I'm me and you're you: I think the current solution does enough to establish Tomes' credentials. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK: done anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • would not be asked to Marlborough House: we haven't actually said where or what this was, at least not in this article.
    Still to do - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the couple had five children, but it was an unhappy relationship: better grammatically as their relationship was unhappy?
  • I notice we've cited his Times obituary: is there anything interesting in there that would be useful to a reader in reconstructing how he and his actions were viewed by the time of his death?
  • Would put an Oxford comma after Gordonstoun near Elgin in "Early Life", as Gordonstoun is near Elgin but not particularly near Dallas.
  • Wilson's wife, Mary, their son, Stanley Wilson, and their daughter, Ethel and her husband, Edward Lycett Green, who was the son of the local manufacturer: the and after Wilson makes things a bit clunky: probably best to replace with as well as or similar. What do you mean by "the local manufacturer"?

Nothing to apologise for: I enjoy your comments and the effect they have on the article! Will attend to these shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All done again, except where flagged up. Happy to have more of these to go through, but will also go through some of the other sticking points too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi UndercoverClassicist, I've done all of these now, but happy to hear any more, or hear comments on anything above you still think it outstanding. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Placeholder for now. Will finish and add my few comments tomorrow. JennyOz (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent - thanks JennyOz - I look forward to them! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Schrocat. Lovely chap you have written about! I intentionally did not look at the main scandal article while doing this part of my review. I will do after any replies here.

Lede

  • "adventurer" is used twice in first para
  • he sued five members of the host family - but Levett was not related to the hosts?
  • but the judgement went against - no middle e in court judgments (at WP:SPELLING "judgement is preferred in British English (except in the sense of a judge's decision, in which case judgment is preferred)". Which spelling do sources have?
    Done all the above. - SchroCat (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

Military career

  • suffered from asthma - is suffered an accepted euphemism? had will do?
  • was blind in one eye - no explanation available? born/injury?
  • 1877) in 1868 - tad unsmooth - (renamed in 1877 the Scots Guards)?
  • mentioned in dispatches - spelt despatches in UK?
  • He also found time for independent adventure - independent travel and adventure?
  • a hunter will need to take on an - would need?
    Done all the above. - SchroCat (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Royal baccarat scandal

  • In September 1890 Arthur Wilson - link Arthur Wilson (shipping magnate)?
  • their son, Stanley Wilson - link Stanley Wilson (British politician)
  • Edward Lycett Green, who was the son of a local manufacturer - bit more than "a local manufacturer", ie is Sir Edward Green, 1st Baronet?
  • Captain Arthur Somerset - not this delightful fellow Lord Henry Arthur George Somerset? He was head of the prince's stables, his article calls him Lord Arthur Somerset (not Henry) tho he may have been 'out of the country' at the time?- or just a coincidence
    Just a coincidence, I think. I can't see any connection between the two in the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • thus increasing the money paid to him by the bank - maybe a piped link here to Banker (card player) will help tie prince the dealer as also 'the bank' (Again, I haven't read the scandal page yet.)
  • On the first night of play, Stanley Wilson thought he saw Gordon-Cumming add two red £5 counters onto his stake after the hand had finished, but before the winnings had been paid, thus increasing the money paid to him by the bank—a method of cheating known in casinos as la poussette; he alerted Levett, sitting next to him, and both men thought they saw Gordon-Cumming repeat the act on the next hand. - is that too long? (even though well-punctuated!) Maybe new sentence at "he alerted ..."
  • After two evenings of play - should it be 'After the second evening of play...'?
  • Lycett Green, Stanley Wilson and Edward and Arthur Somerset accused - I thought on first reading that Edward referred to PoW - maybe swap to 'Arthur and Edward Somerset'?
Actually, considering there are 6 different Edwards in the story, (Prince, Lycett Green, Somerset, Clarke, Grayson, and the current prince), that was the only trigger of confusion ... but...
  • maybe up at "Several members of Edward's inner circle". which follows so soon after "Edward Lycett Green", "Edward's" could be 'Several members of the prince's inner circle'
  • Somerset accused Gordon-Cumming - confronted and accused?
  • on the nights of Monday and Tuesday the 8th and 9th - not a problem but what sort of "weekends" do you enjoy over there???
    Long and enjoyable ones (if you happen to be uber rich and a playmate of royalty!) - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • £5,000 against each of them - damages?
  • the judge's summing up was "unacceptably biased" - biased towards/against whom?
  • The jury deliberated for only thirteen minutes before finding in favour of the defendants; their decision was greeted... - maybe 'its' for the jury instead of "their" (or do we not speak of a jury as a singular entity?)
    It's a BrEng thing: we interchange its and their for groups - groups are made of individuals, so we're happy with either, is the logic. - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The jury deliberated for only thirteen minutes before finding in favour - actual date helpful?
  • prolonged hissing from some members - clarify hissing aimed at the jury's decision or at Gordon-Cumming?
  • The day after judgement was passed - spelling per my question above
  • remained convinced of the innocence of his client and, in his 1918 memoirs, wrote "I believe the verdict was wrong, and that Sir William Gordon-Cumming was innocent" - repetitive? not sure what to suggest, "convinced of the innocence of his client" to 'convinced the jury erred' or 'convinced of his clent's version/explanation...
    Done all the above. - SchroCat (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

  • the day after the trial - concluded
  • was Gordon-Cummings's best man - remove s on Cumming
  • locals from near his estate had decorated the station, and pulled the couple's carriage through the streets by hand - ambiguous? did they bring it empty to the station or does it mean they greeted them at the station then conveyed them from there by hand?
  • The Prince of Wales was determined Gordon-Cumming should remain ostracised and he let it be known that anyone who acknowledged Gordon-Cumming or accepted invitations to shoot at the two Scottish estates he owned - ambiguous? perhaps 'The Prince of Wales was determined Gordon-Cumming should remain ostracised and he let it be known that anyone who acknowledged him or accepted invitations to shoot at the two Scottish estates Gordon-Cumming owned
  • acknowledged at court - pipe link Royal court seeing story previously talking of the legal institution
    Done all the above. - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Later life

Private life

  • William Cavendish-Bentinck, 6th Duke of Portland, a friend of Gordon-Cumming, wrote of him - add colon?
  • The writer Elma Napier, Gordon-Cumming's daughter - he had more than one so 'a daughter of' or 'one of Gordon-Cumming's daughters'
  • and he admitted that "all the married women try me" - is "admitted" the right word here? He sounds like the sort of cad who'd boast about it.
  • he visited Harriet Street where - that's the Belgravia property? need to add 'in Harriet Street' before Belgravia?
  • After Gordon-Cumming's death in 1930, his house at Gordonstoun was obtained by Kurt Hahn, who turned it into the eponymous school. - hmm, depending on intention of link to Gordonstoun I mentioned above, would this be better as something like 'his estate near Elgin was obtained by Kurt Hahn, who founded the Gordonstoun School there'? (Gordonstoun was the name of the estate rather than a house?)
    As far as I can tell, it was both house and estate. - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done all the above. - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • a. equates to approximately equivalent to - are both "to"s intentional?
  • c. at Khartoum, Sudan during - geocomma after Sudan
  • j. again after the judgement had been given - same spelling question
    Done this section - SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • Arnold, Catharine - authorlink
  • Neillands, Robin - authorlink
  • Matthew and Tomes - not contesting but why is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography considered a journal?
    Done this section - SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Succession box

Poss cats

That's me for now. As mentioned, once I hear back from you I'll read the scandal article to see if I have any further questions. JennyOz (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks JennyOz. All sorted, I think. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SchroCat. I've looked at changes and read scandal article and see nothing else to annoy you with. Happy to s'port. JennyOz (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JennyOz - as appreciated as always. Sorry it was on such an odious individual, but hopefully one of my next ones will be a nicer person! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire! Articles about ratbags are interesting. That he cheated with women (even friends' wives and mistresses) was a far less social transgression than possibly cheating at cards is an interesting reflection. He should have been sent downunder and we could have turned him into an upstanding, god-fearing fellow like Mr Oxford! JennyOz (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there was enough wild game for him to hunt to keep him busy downunder! By a bit of a coincidence my next subject (another of those who disturbed Victoria's peace) is one someone who ended up in Oz too, although a slightly less auspicious character than Oxford! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • Sources are of good quality
  • Spot checks: 12, 13, 27, 53 -okay
    fn 64: page no longer exists - see if it can be restored from archive

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

[edit]

Staking out a spot. ~ HAL333 21:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my belated comments:
  • There's a sea of blue issue with "boarding schools Eton" but it's not a big deal
  • where he would stalk tigers on foot --> "where he stalked tigers on foot" for concision
  • hunting in the Rocky Mountains in the US and in India, where he would stalk tigers on foot — I have to assume he hunted cougars/mountain lions in the Rockies, not tigers. Unless they were were imported and released on some kind of exotic game ranch
  • In a serial list following a colon, would an "and" be needed before "Levett"?
  • Where is this?
  • "where entry was by ticket only" - what does this mean exactly?
  • "In 1916 Gordon-Cumming ensured that the former leader of the Labour Party, Ramsay MacDonald, had his membership rescinded from the Moray Golf Club because of the latter's opposition to the First World War." — could you clarify what this golf club has to do with the Labor leader and WWI?
  • If it doesn't make it too awkward, could you include equivalent USD value for the prices in the footnotes?
That's all I got. Well written. ~ HAL333 20:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Hal. Just one question above, where I'm not sure where it refers to. - SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hal - all now sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Books: There is a Magnus either side of McHugh. I think that one only gets to use one convention per list.
  • Clark: The OCLC is 837472347.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 22 October 2023 [25].

Appalachian Spring

[edit]
Nominator(s): MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Graham's ballet technique was one of the first American styles of dance, and it was beautifully executed in Appalachian Spring, a ballet commissioned for Graham and the composer Aaron Copland. Graham's unique choreography and the suites created from Copland's serene score remain essential in the American repertoire. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado

[edit]

One of my favourites. First impression is: a well-written article.

  • §Background: last para: "bizarre scenes" (or whatever phrase is used in the source) should be quoted so it is not in Wikipedia's voice.
  • §Commission and composition
    • is "composing on the music" American usage? It seems incorrect to this British reader, I would expect "composing the music".
    • "and the rest of the community attends a revival meeting": perhaps American usage again? I would expect "the rest ... attend ...".
    • "Despite a new December deadline": It would be clearer to say "December 1943 deadline" here, since presumably "fall 1944" is meant after "spring of 1944" in the previous sentence.

More later. -- Mirokado (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed- no, those aren't AmE spellings, just typos on my part, thanks for catching them! Clarified everything else MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • §Commission and composition: "The original scenario...": I'm familiar with the music but not the ballet, so it was a bit confusing that the main characters first mentioned in the content are not those mentioned in the lead. This is clarified later, but an extra clue here would be helpful. The shortest way of doing this would be to say "... used characters (later changed) based on..." or similar.
  • §Production:
    • Perhaps "collaborator with" is better than "collaborator of".
    • Quote "Fear of the Night" and any other references to episodes.
  • §Premiere and reception: "Copland himself took a modest opinion...": "had a modest opinion", we have an opinion but take a stance or position.
  • §Later performances: "Lynn Garafola compared Copland and Graham's collaborations to that of Stravinsky and Diaghilev": should be "... collaboration to that of ...". (I have verified that the reference provided supports this content).
  • Referencing: multiple-page ranges need the |pp= param in sfn.

More later. -- Mirokado (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed, added an efn for the first comment instead of parentheses- many thanks again! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • §Later performances: have there been any notable performances of the ballet outside the U.S that we can mention? The current para has only U.S. performances.
  • §Themes: "Crist describes this as an embodiment of the link between wars among generations: as World War II was linked to the Civil War, the Bride brings together the life on the homefront in the 19th and 20th centuries." I'm not at all sure what is meant by "World War II was linked to the Civil War". Unless there is a causal link I am unaware of, I think we should rephrase this sentence to reflect similarity of circumstance and experience rather than any direct link. (I have verified that the reference provided supports this content, so I am also disagreeing with how Crist has made her point).
  • §Instrumentation: the layout of the columns is weird (on my system using Chrome on linux with a largish monitor): the columns in the first group are widely spaced and in the second group, the first column is wide and the second and third are narrower but seem to start where the second column of the first group ended. I don't see anything obviously wrong with the source, so some investigation is needed.
    Thanks. I have tweaked further so that both first columns are 38% wide and the final column takes the remaining space. The columns line up and the total specified width does not exceeed 100%. -- Mirokado (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More later. -- Mirokado (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded the themes issue, and I think I got the columns thing fixed, let me know if it's still displaying wrong on your end. For the foreign performances: I can find very little info about performances. Most of the info I did get about performances was, as you noticed, from US newspapers. I can't find anything about a European or Asian premiere; I did find this 1946 article about a London performance of the suite, but it doesn't explicitly state that it's the European premiere. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not much we can add about performances without sources. This section would need to be updated if more information becomes available. -- Mirokado (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • §Prologue: the description moves from present tense to past tense. I think it needs to stay in the present tense apart from "The four Followers join the Revivalist, who has observed the land with the Pioneer Woman." which is correct so.
  • §Eden Valley:
    • "Halfway, the music calms down...": "Half way through, ..." would I think read better.
    • "... cued by a short phrase by a woodwind.": "... cued by a short phrase from a woodwind." would avoid repetition of "by".
  • §Wedding day:
    • "The music becomes heavier for and the jagged rhythms return ...": "The music becomes heavier for a while and ..."?
    • 'The second part of "Wedding Day" depicted the "old fashion charivari" mentioned in the scripts.' Is this referring to something which was later removed? If so we need to clarify, for example "Originally, the second part..." and perhaps say what replaced it. Otherwise, "depicts" should be in the present.
  • §Interlude: present tense tweaks needed here too.

More later. -- Mirokado (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all - the tense should be all good, and the charivari thing was supposed to be present tense, thanks for spotting that! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have just checked with some other articles about musical works, and generally the present tense is used, so I think a few more tweaks may be needed. If it seems too complicated to describe the changes, I may make a few (more) copyedits and you are welcome to change further, discuss here or whatever. -- Mirokado (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • §Commission and composition: "old fashion charivari" needs some context here. We could wl Charivari#North America which says "In some communities the ritual served as a gentle spoof of the newlyweds, intended to disrupt for a while any sexual activities that might be under way." Since that is half way through the section, I suggest an efn as well as the wikilink.
  • §Interlude:
    • "greatly connected": I think "strongly connected" would be better.
    • "..., the Followers following along.": well of course they are, it's their job! Can we rephrase, perhaps "..., accompanied by the Followers."?
  • §Fear in the Night, ...:
    • "... he warns the couple of their love." The problem is presumably the impending separation, or whatever, not their love itself. Is it possible to rephrase this?
    • "His agonized, frenzied dance was informed by the experiences of Peter Sparling, a dancer in the company who would dance the role in later productions." What experiences – the linked article does not give any clues? The article says he danced with Graham from 1973–1987, so was he really involved with her in 1944 or thereabouts? If he influenced later productions, we could say "has been informed" rather than "was informed".

More later. -- Mirokado (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all- I just linked the charivari because I couldn't find a citation for an efn. I clarified the Sparling fact, but that may be dangerously OR-y, since the article uses rather vague language. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Your changes are often better than my suggestions. -- Mirokado (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it; I'm impressed by the fine details you're catching. Still working on my encyclopedic tone! Also, I think I;ve fixed the past/present tense issue- details about the music/dance are present tense, and details about Copland's composition of it are in past tense- let me know if I missed any. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the distinction we need to make: for music/dance we use the narrative present tense, which may mean we use a past tense for something like what the music has just accomplished. For what Copland or Graham intended and so on, we use the past tense. "Copland achieves this ..." is fine in the present tense. I'll continue our discussion in further bullet points below. -- Mirokado (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. -- Mirokado (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the thorough review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something I have just noticed which will not affect my support one way or the other:

Well, this was per a consistency comment by Gerald below. Some of the pubs were linked, some weren't- I opted to link them all because there is no option to delink Oxford Press in Template:Cite Grove. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether publishers are linked or not seems to me neither here nor there, and for obscure publishers it might be helpful – but who decides that? Anyway, it is possible to have {{Cite Grove}} emit output without linking the publisher: {{cite Grove|last1=Lerner|first1=Neil|date=2018|title=Aaron Copland|doi=10.1093/omo/9781561592630.013.3000000119|publisher=Oxford University Press}} gives: Lerner, Neil (2018). "Aaron Copland". Grove Music Online (8th ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/omo/9781561592630.013.3000000119. ISBN 978-1-56159-263-0.. This method of overriding the template's default behaviour is not obvious; it's a fortuitous byproduct of its implementation as a wrapper template. BTW, I'm not recommending that this should be done here, only pointing out that it can be done. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying! @Mirokado, if you feel the pubs should all be delinked, I don't feel too strongly about them, but leaving them is no net negative in my eyes. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Michael for the clarification. I would prefer that the publishers be unlinked in general. Linking one or two for a good reason such as "not well known" would not imply an inconsistent format. Most articles do not link all the publishers and our featured articles should present good examples for editors to follow elsewhere in Wikipedia. user:MyCatIsAChonk: I will be happy to make this change if you ask me to. -- Mirokado (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mirokado, I very much appreciate that- go right ahead. I've gotten a bit busy IRL, so this is very much appreciated. If you ever need a future review for DYK, GAN, FAC, FLC, etc, I'd be happy to help. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- Mirokado (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Weak support from ZKang123

[edit]

I will take a look at this. I had studied the composition before in my A levels days, and I might have some understanding of the ballet.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • "Appalachian Spring is a ballet and orchestral work by the American composer Aaron Copland and the choreographer Martha Graham."
    • From my understanding, Aaron Copland composed the music while Graham did the ballet choreography. This article talks about both the music and the ballet. The way its ordered at the moment seems to imply the choreographer was involved in composing.
    • I will rewrite to "Appalachian Spring is a ballet and orchestral work by American composer Aaron Copland, with the original choreography by Martha Graham."
  • "It was composed for Graham upon a commission by Elizabeth Sprague Coolidge" – "Commissioned by Elizabeth Sprague Coolidge, Copland composed the ballet for Graham"
  • "The work was very successful after its 1944 premiere, winning Copland the Pulitzer Prize for Music the following year." – "The music saw its success in the 1944 premiere, earning Aaron Copland the Pulitzer Prize for Music in the subsequent year."
  • Wikilink Great Depression
  • "Copland's political ideals began shifting further left" – "Copland's political ideals aligned towards the left"
    • Also wikilinke "left"
  • Remove the semi-colon with a comma.
  • "as a result, he had the idea to create ordinary music for the public, music that was easy and accessible enough for the general citizen to understand."
    • "As a result, he began composing ordinary music that were easy and accessible enough for the general citizen."
  • "He used this idea" – "He incorporated this concept"
  • ", and the final result drew from a number of the revisions." – I find this clause irrelevant after you mentioned of various revisions before

Background and commission:

  • I have to admit you included a bit too much of Copland's backstory into this article. I would simplify further to focus more on his compositional tutelage and cut away stuff about his family (which I can read further in the composer's biography).
    • E.g. "The Copland family lived above their Brooklyn department store, which his parents spent much of their time managing; as a result, Copland was entrusted to the care of his older siblings." – this could be removed and skip over to him being close to his sister
    • "Exposed him" – "introduced him"
  • "consisted of" – remove of
  • "Copland wrote much of the composition on the West Coast" – I'm curious, why was he on the West Coast? If I recall he's from New York
  • "an Indian girl to represent the land" – would clarify Native American instead of Indian. Also might wikilink Native American
  • "contained an extra episode" – "included an extra episode"
  • "the premiere was pushed to the fall." – I guess of 1944?

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All have been implemented; I replied above if I didn't implement the comment in its full form. Thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Production, reception:

  • "the Daughter, now the Bride", "the Citizen, now the Husbandman" – would rather write "the Daughter to the Bride; the Citizen to the Husbandman" etc
  • "Four Followers of the Revivalist were added to the cast for a total of nine dancers." – So there are nine dancers in total overall? Or 13?
  • For the last two paragraphs of the production subsection, as it's more about the commentary and comments by critics, why is it in this section instead of the reception section? I will keep the parts of the intentions, then shift the actors' performances to the reception section.
  • Wikilink "The New York Times critic". Also John Martin

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed! On point three: these sentences are supposed to describe the choreography. I had a hard time deciding what counted as a review and what was effectively describing the dance, so I've cut some things. Let me know what you think- thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also fixed native american and added the west coast fact- thanks for finding that source! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before I go on, may I know why the music and plot sections combined? I don't see as such for The Rite of Spring and The Firebird, though also for Petrushka (ballet).--ZKang123 (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123, there is no particular reason to divide the two sections. The story and the music are closely connected, and explaining them at the same time is intuitive and helpful. Philip 2018 explains the plot and music the same way (though, with less detail). MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I tried modeling much of this article and The Firebird after The Rite's article, since The Rite is a FA. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks for the above explanation. And yes, I can see the parallels made, though bear in mind they are slightly older FAs. Continuing.

Music and plot:

  • "Suddenly, an energetic melody" – "A sudden energetic melody". Or just remove suddenly and write "burst forth" instead of "come forth"
  • "Swing-like" – further elaborate how the melody is "swing-like". Like, is it the rhythm, or the intervals?
  • Might also show an example of "jagged rhythms". Like, is it a dotted quaver - semiquaver?
    • The sources don't really elaborate on this. Pollack also describes the rhythms as "mov[ing] jaggedly"; based on my knowledge of the score, I can say that "jagged" is describing the 3/4, 2/4, to 5/8 metre change, but I can't find a source that reflects this; and, IMO, adding another musical excerpt would be a bit extensive, but if you think it's needed, I'm not vehemently opposed MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "caring melody" – "soothing melody"?
  • You mention of a duet (Eden Valley). You didn't mention what instrument was playing the energetic opening of this movement. Further elaborate. Or is this duet referring more to the ballet than the music? If so, then duo
  • "this time with louder and more forceful strings" – "this time accompanied by louder and more forceful strings"
  • "Copland achieves this by relating the music to American folk themes" – might further elaborate on other inspirations and folk elements incoporated
  • "such as the harmony or which instruments are playing" – "such as the harmony and the instrumentation."
  • "The music of "Fear of the Night" jolts and twitches, similar to the "Gun Battle" in Billy the Kid." – Jolts and twitches... I guess in mode (angry, sad etc)?
  • "becomes rushing and agitated" – "becomes rushed and agitated"
  • I might also note the slower tempo and harmonies (is it tonal and/or dissonant?) in "The Lord's Day" subsection
  • I recall in my American music studies about the "openness" of the ballet to reflect the "prairie" of the American countryside, with the wider range of notes and notably also illustrated through the longer-held notes for the slower sections. I'm not sure of the source, but I think you can relook into your sources. Optional if you can't find it.
    • I can find a good bit of information regarding the association of the prairie with Billy the Kid, but nothing about Appalachian Spring. There's certainly some level of association between Copland's Americana music and the idea of the Wild West, but the writings I found talked about Billy the Kid instead. Certainly a good point though- thanks for bringing it up! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No other prose problems in the suites and recordings section.

That's all for me.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other minor points.

I am able to offer a weak support. I personally think this article would fare better at GAN than FAC as it still requires some work, and could see better writing by someone more familiar with American music. Understandably, this is also a rather modern piece which might not have sufficient coverage or commentary just yet and also more for a general audience than someone studying music.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough then. I appreciate the shift, and thank you for the full review. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • What's the copyright status of the music itself?
  • File:Coolidge_Auditorium_under_construction.jpg: where is this believed to have been published in 1925?
@Nikkimaria, I'm not sure what you mean by 2D tagged- can you clarify? The LOC website for the Coolidge Auditorium photo says it was published in 1925, and it was very likely published in the US since it was taken by a capitol architect. The music is under copyright internationally, but I believe the use is minimal, as in other FAs about copyrighted works like Short Symphony and Symphony No. 3 (Górecki). MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PD-scan is based on mechanical reproduction of a 2D work - it can't be used for 3D works.
The LOC website says "published/created" - we don't know whether that means published and created, or just created, without more information.
Brief quotations from non-free works are allowed, but inline citation is required. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: for the pulitzer medal, I added PD-coin, because I can't find anything else that would fit it. If this isn't proper, please let me know what is needed to verify that it's PD.
Coolidge auditorium: I am having an extremely difficult time finding information about this photo's provenance. The LOC listing says its found in a published guide called "Washingtonia Photographs". The (thankfully public domain) guide can be found online, but the page that mentions this photograph doesn't actually display the photo (see LOT 4021). Though it mentions a name on the back, I cannot find any information about a "John Crane", so the death date is unknown too. PD-US-unpublished won't work, since anonymous works must be created over 120 years ago to be PD, but I also can't prove its publication. Does the mention in "Washingtonia Photographs" qualify?
Added citations for the musical quotations. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A simple mention without the image doesn't qualify, no - have you found any publication of the actual image? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, no, I have not. The only place I can find it is in the LOC exhibit linked under sources. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. You've stated that it was taken by a capitol architect - is that certain? I see "probably secured from" at the given source. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I didn't think "probably secured from" was sufficient- do you think it's enough to say it's PD since it's taken by a US gov't employee? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No - unfortunately without more information I don't think we can use it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Cut MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, does the image review pass? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GWL

[edit]

Hey there! As an appreciation for the plethora of comments you put on my PR, I thought perhaps this would be a fun little QPQ. I've put invisible comments to divide my comments based on sections. GeraldWL 07:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 03:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* Shortdescs must be as brief as possible, with the majority of articles having 40 or less characters. I think here, "music" can be dropped since the music is part of the ballet.
  • I think there should be a repeat of "Appalachian Spring" replacing "the ballet" in "The ballet follows the Bride" and "The ballet features eight episodes".
  • Shouldn't it be "in the United States"?
  • Link ragtime
  • "his left-wing political stances strengthened"-- Left-wing political stances, no need for pipe
  • "This "ordinary music" idea is certainly present"-- certainly sounds pretty subjective and essayistic, I think it can be replaced by other words, but removing it doesn't really change the intended message.
  • "about Medea" --> "about the Greek mythology figure Medea"
  • "Graham's east-coast-based work"-- the article doesn't hyphenate and decapitalize east coast
  • If my point on Medea was to be done, then Greek mythology in "drew from Greek mythology and French poetry" should be unlinked
  • There's a more specific Slavery during the American Civil War
  • Just wanna say, I love these meta footnotes, it gives the article a specific touch!
  • If you were to list all eight episodes with individual refs, I don't think ref 44 is needed in "The final scenario featured eight episodes".
  • You start off number 1, 3, and 4 with the title, but then repeat it, e.g. "Prologue: Graham did not want "Prologue" to be long". It can be resolved with "Prologue: Graham did not want this chapter to be long".
  • "spring of 1944 [...] fall of 1944." "Avoid the use of seasons [...] as such uses are ambiguous".
  • "a Japanese-American sculptor"-- I don't think Jap-Am is needed, like how you don't state Copland is Lithuanian-American.
  • "combined with Copland winning"
  • If you linked Pennsyl, then Hawaii, Tennessee, Indiana, and Florida should also be linked.
  • Link Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky.
@Gerald Waldo Luis: I think I've gotten everything; if I didn't respond to a comment, I implemented/fixed it without question. Thank you so much for the thorough read-through! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome! I've responded to two comments, you can notice them by my signature. GeraldWL 04:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis Fixed both MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

I am pleased with changes made in response to remarks in the PR, and will read it once more as if I hadn't seen it before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

  • In the pic caption, I'd give the full name with a link, - this is not her article with her full name on top.

Lead

  • "The music saw its success in the 1944 premiere", - it may be my language, but can't imagine the music "seeing" anything ;)
  • "most well-known works" - same, why is this not "best-known works", and - more important - what will a reader think who never heard any of Copland's music, just came for the dance?
  • "the Bride, a brave woman; the Husbandman, who is to marry the Bride; the Pioneer Woman, the mother of the Bride; and the Revivalist, an evangelist ..." - that reads a bit unfair:
    • the Bride is brave, but the others have no character
    • that the Husbandman is to marry the Bride comes as no surprise, while it has indeed to be explained that the Pioneer Woman is her mother
    Perhaps just the role names in the lead, and (more) detail later?
  • Chronology: somehow it irritates me that, after having read details about the ballet's production, we get to the composer's background and style (before the commission). If the commission went to him because of it, it should be mentioned sooner.
  • I also think that there's much detail of Copland's background but almost nothing about Graham's.

Background

  • Just by size, here as well is much more detail given to him than to her. Much of that detail it is not particularly related to creating a ballet, such as the name of his theory teacher (just as an example).
    • I cut the unnecessary info about Copland. IMO, what's left is important to understanding why the ballet's score is so simplistic with modernist touches; if you still think some is unnecessary, go ahead and just cut it, I trust your instinct. For Graham's background, there wasn't too much that was needed to explain the context- the mention of American Document explains her like of American themes and general style, and the commissioning fact helps one understand why she wanted to commission Appalachian Spring. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commission

Production

Premiere

  • "on January 23" - please add year
  • There's no hint at a U.S. tour in the section header, nor in the lead?

Themes

  • Why not beginning first?
  • "The lyrics of "Simple Gifts" had a connection to the ballet's themes of war and peace: "'Tis the gift to be simple, 'tis the gift to be free"." - Why "had"? And what's the connection?

Music and plot

  • I suggest to use one set of character names for this section, either those from the "final" scenario, or those assigned in the first performance.

I'll look at this more closely later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt, all have been fixed except a few that I responded to above- thank you very much! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, appreciated! - I was busy all day yesterday to improve a biography, and am behind with a few more, - patience please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One quick reply: we have only one image of Bach, and he is old, and therefore we have few of his works showing an image of the composer. We have many of Rossini, and it was fun to assign them to his operas by time frame, and further even with a smile for the buffa and serious for the seria ;) - Some editors absolutely want an image of the composer, and others think it has nothing to do in a work's article. I don't like old Handel being pictured in his youthful works, but can't prevent it for articles I didn't write. Take Rinaldo. Not too long ago, that even was the first image you saw, because it came with the side navbox. Now deleted. If you never saw that you didn't miss much ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You make a fair point- cut then. I worry about the lack of illustration in that section, but there's not much to be added. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Before going over the responses (which I all read) I'll read to the end.

Prologue

  • "a shepherd-flute like reiteration of the triad" - is a second hyphen perhaps missing?

Eden Valley

Wedding Day

  • please fix "The uneven rhythms disappear are replaced by consistent eighth notes".

Fear ...

  • "As the music begins to calm, the chorale returns as the Husbandman briefly comes back" - too much "as", no?

Suites

Recording

That's it for now, I'll be back. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC) New run across, with a few new comments below. I accept all your previous replies (even if I would probably do some things differently if "my" article).[reply]

Lead

  • link suite, please
  • How about Graham and her background first, as the ballet idea was more, and first, related to her?
  • I believe that first performance, reception, tour and recordings deserve a little summary, - more important to me for this article than four links to his other successful pieces.

Background

  • I don't believe we need the background of what he all did for financial stability in such detail.

Commission and composition

Production

  • something went missing in "Despite being set during in such a scenario, the choreography does not explicitly depict a wedding"
  • "The Bride's movements featured quick patterns that stayed within an imaginary box around her." - I don't understand the box, but ignore if I'm the only one.

Initial run

  • ref order after "public"

Later

  • Licensing - is there a link to that kind of creator's rights?
  • It's probably just one of "my" personal issues, but I try to avoid this "under" (someone, someone's baton ...), suggesting hierarchy. We talk almost 2000 here, with a bit more colleague atmosphere than subordination, - one hopes.
  • What is the fine difference betweenn the MGD company and the MGD center, - why two links I mean. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any links to the MGD center present- am I missing something? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that section, piped "Martha Graham Center". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt, I'm not sure what to clarify. The dance company is for actual performing and the center includes her estate and the dance school with her name. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's something I can understand, thank you ;) - Perhaps bring as much clarity into the introduction of the Center? --GA
@Gerda Arendt, all addressed- I don't think there's any link for licensing that makes sense for this, so I think it's fine as is. Thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord question

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: , three and a half supports and it's been over 21 days- may I open another nomination? Thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not, it also needs to have passed image and source reviews. Ask again once it has. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, image and source reviews have passed- now may I? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may. (Apologies for the delay, I have been away. You may get a swifter response from {{@FAC)) in future.) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spot-check only on request and qualifying that I am not familiar with the article topic. The archive links for Dickinson, Peter (2016) and Salas, Juan Orrego (Autumn 1948) are probably unnecessary and somewhat inconsistent with the use of archives elsewhere in this article. The sources in the "Sources" section include some choreographers; are these "high-quality reliable sources"? It seems like the source formatting is consistent and the necessary information is available. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, cut archive links. I don't see why the choreographer-written sources would be low quality since they're either about dance or memoirs of people involved with the production. de Mille 1991 is used for choreography and the production's film history. That's the only source I can find that matches your description- are there others you're concerned about? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of the few sources whose authors have linked Wikipedia pages that call them choreographers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, in that case, de Mille is the only one, and I've stated my case for her above. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not the only source - Martha Graham is another one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus Whoops, forgot about that- but, still, Blood Memory is a memoir. The citations to it are used to support details about Graham's life and how she produced the ballet. IMO, this usage is appropriate and a "high-quality reliable source" for details about her life. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, to clarify, does the source review pass? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with the abovementioned two caveats. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phlsph7

[edit]

This is not my field of expertise so I'll focus mainly on some general observations without properly assessing things like factual accuracy, undue weight, and comprehensiveness.

  • WP:EARWIG shows a few matches. One is a pdf-file containing a simple copy-paste of our article and the others are due to quotations.
  • All passages in the body of the article have references.
  • Some references use the short citation style and are listed in the subsection "Sources" while others present the full source in the citation and are not listed in the subsection "Sources". Maybe there is a good reason for this. If not, consistency would be better.
  • Some of the sfn-templates use the parameter "p" when the parameter "pp" should be used because they refer to several pages, e.g. Fauser 2017, p. 40–41. and Fauser 2017, p. 74–75..
  • "19th-century" has a hyphen when used as an adjective:
    • The ballet takes place in a small settlement in 19th century Pennsylvania.
    • story of Medea but set in 19th century New England.
    • couple in a small 19th century Pennsylvania settlement.
  • and fit with the popular stereotypes about the wild west.: "wild west" should be uppercase
  • In addition, Lincoln Portrait (1942) and Fanfare for the Common Man (1942) received widespread acclaim for its American themes, replace "its" with "their"
  • the rest of the community attend a revival meeting. I think this should be "attends".
  • Hawkins was more stiff replace "more stiff" with "stiffer"
  • the Bride brings together the life on the homefront in the 19th and 20th centuries This sentence could benefit from a slight rephrasing for clarity. Would the Bride represents the common experiences of people living on the homefront during the 19th and 20th centuries be better?
  • Fragmented "stingers", as Fauser called them, makes the fast section the most replace "makes" with "make"
  • The demonstration scares the Bride and sends her in a turmoil I think "sends her into turmoil" would be better
  • The suite for orchestra premiered October of that year add "in" before "October"
  • a film of the ballet was made with Graham in the lead roll replace "roll" with "role"
  • In 1942, Coolidge commissioned Copland to compose a ballet for Graham. The 1st lead paragraph already states that Coolidge commissioned it so I don't think it needs to be repeated in the 2nd lead paragraph.
  • The initial scenario devised by the choreographer was revised many times by both Copland and Graham. This sentence is formulated as if "the choreographer" refers to someone else than Graham. Maybe replace it with "Graham".
  • The first part of the 2nd lead paragraph discusses background information. Would it make sense to make the relation between this background information and the work itself more explicit?

Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7, thank you very much for the review! Replied to one above, and on your last point- I'm not too sure what you mean, but I added something that I think matches your suggestion. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One example of what I meant was that the paragraph talks about other Americana ballets by Copland but does not mention that Appalachian Spring also belongs to this style. I was thinking about something along the following lines: Appalachian Spring is characterized by Graham's unique technique of dance, which she invented... It further incorporates relatable and accessible music characteristic of the Americana style, which Copland... But take this more as a neutral point to consider than a required change since you are more familiar with the topic and this type of article to decide whether this would be an improvement.
Overall, the article seems to be in great shape. A few more observations:
  • During the depression, his left-wing political stances strengthened, motivated by addressing replace "depression" with "Great Depression"
  • distinguishing Copland as one of the most versatile composers of the 20th century Is there wide academic consensus on this point or should this be attributed?
  • Furthermore, the subsequent "Day of Wrath" episode can be seen as the Husbandman leaving for war, clarified by the closing waves of goodbye. I'm not sure what to make of the last phrase "clarified by the closing waves of goodbye". What about replacing it with a sentence like "This is reflected in its final scene, which features waves of goodbye"?
  • Moment of Crisis: The women of the town gather and suggest "a barely suppressed hysteria". This sentence could be clarified. I assume their behavior suggests hysteria. What about The women of the town gather, their behavior suggesting "a barely suppressed hysteria."
Phlsph7 (talk) 10:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7, all addressed, and I tried changing some stuff in the lead- take a look and let me know if it's what you meant. As for the second point: I do not know if this needs another ref. That statement is currently referenced to Pollack's book, which I formerly accessed through Internet Archive, but access to it has now been removed (probably due to the lawsuit) and the Google Books preview doesn't include the referenced page. Though, I'm quite sure I would not have referenced something unsupported in the source. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether Pollack is a primary source on this claim (making his own assessment) or a secondary source (reporting a widespread opinion in the academic discourse). In the second case, there is no problem. In the first case, one solution would be to attribute the claim to Pollack. Another might be to weaken the claim, maybe something like "distinguishing Copland's versatility as a composer". Phlsph7 (talk) 08:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7, weakened the claim as suggested, thanks for that MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, looks good now. I think all the main points have been addressed and I'm happy to support this nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the thorough review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 22 October 2023 [26].

Incapillo

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a volcanic caldera in the central Andes. It is not particularly remarkable or well-known, but it has been described as one of the highest of its kind - and so are the mountains that surround it. It was active during the past 520,000 years and there might be residual heat available. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

[edit]

Geographical features like this are always stunning to me, especially good photos; the photo here makes it look almost miniature, if not for the hill on the left. Excited to review!

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I got nothing else, most of my comments are due to my lack of knowledge on geology; but, always good to have a clueless person to give feedback ;) excellent work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Point 3: I believe it means 0.49-0.55 million years ago and 0.47-0.55 million years ago -- in layman English terms, "0.52 million years ago, give or take 0.03 million years." Would that be easier to understand? 267 06:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I understand- thanks for clarifying! I think your rephrasing would be more understandable to a general audience, but JoJo can use whatever is the wiki standard. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I worry that this format will be mistaken for a date range/length when it's a point in time. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 16:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense then- all done, happy to support! Also, if you get any time, would appreciate any comments at this FAC- thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GWL

[edit]

Hey! Great to be reviewing another of your FACs, I remember doing one ages ago but can't seem to know which one. Anyways, take a look at the invisible comments for my cmts divided by sec. Alot of my comments are just minor stuff, so it should be a quick one. GeraldWL 06:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, that should be it! The links problem is admittedly a tiny one and shouldn't really affect my view on this FAC. Overall it's good stuff, so am happy to support! Also if you'd like, I'm looking for people to comment on my PR. GeraldWL 10:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from GeraldWL 10:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* The WP article of La Rioja capitalizes "Province"-- though I think decapitalized version is also okay, I guess I'm just confused at the difference

Comments by Thebiguglyalien

[edit]

Another reviewer who has only limited knowledge of geology.

General notes:

  • Overall, my biggest concern is that there's a lot of technical language in this article. Effort should be made to WP:Make technical articles understandable. I suggest doing a full pass over the article to change technical wording to non-technical wording as much as you can. And when that's not possible, then try to insert simple explanations so the layman can follow along.
  • Decimals should be written in numeral form.

Lead:

Geography and structure:

Geology:

Climate, hydrology and vegetation:

  • This seems a little short to have its own section. Is there more than can be said about these aspects? If not, could this be organized in a way that the information is part of a larger section?
    Yeah, I prefer not to merge as there isn't a good section to add it to. The only information we have is very general and does not pertain specifically to Incapillo, only to this region. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with an upper altitude limit of 4,300–5,000 metres" – Does this mean that this is the highest that any vegetation can appear? It's unclear.
    Clarified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geologic history:

  • This section feels like it's throwing numbers and statistics at me. Not sure how avoidable this is, but it does affect readability. It's possible that a lot of the measurements here could be put in a table, although that would depend on what the measurements are and whether they're comparable.
    Yeah, it's not avoidable, really - when discussing history there will be a lot of dates. I don't think this kind of information is well-suited for a table, it's too much prose. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's some way to even break up the text a little bit so the numbers are less frequent or more spaced out, that would go a long way to improving readability. Some things here look like they would work well for a table, like "Volume of ignimbrite / 20.4 km3". But again, I'm not necessarily saying that it's the only solution. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not convinced that several small tables are better for readability. Here we might just have to take the text as it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or less likely by changes in the tectonic context" – Is this an alternative theory that contradicts the previous one? If so, it should probably be introduced in its own sentence specifying that it's another explanation.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me once everything has been addressed or if you have any other thoughts regarding these comments. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've handled comments, except as noted. Re: technical language, I'm afraid that as a connoisseur of the technical terms I can't spot the problematic ones myself; I'll footnote some of them to this source. Also, at the risk of sounding stupid but I don't get what the decimal comment is proposing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked things over and replied to a few points above. If I haven't replied to it, assume it's good to go. For the decimals I just mean write "3.1" instead of "three point one"; it's not an integer, so it doesn't need to be spelled out. Once the rest of the comments here are addressed, I'll do one more scan of the article for language that might be overly technical. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find that specific example but it seems to me like spelling out even simple digits makes this less readable, so I backed out some of the spelling ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done one more quick scan of the article. Most of the technical terms can stay, especially since many of them are wikilinked for further context. Just a few more things to look at:

I'll support promotion if all of these are changed or justified. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I'm satisfied with the changes, and I support promoting this to FA. If you or any of the reviewers here are interested, I currently have an open FAC. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: UndercoverClassicist

[edit]

Pass: All have free-use licenses which check out nicely, and good to see alt text throughout. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that I've seen this, but I can't process it until tomorrow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rush, but thanks for the notification. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Could that be clarified in the article?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "occurred first at Monte Pissis between 6.5 and 3.5 million years ago (mya). Later volcanism occurred south of Incapillo 4.7±0.5 mya". A (very) large part of the second range is not "Later" than the first. 0.7 my of it cannot be "Later".
  • "1.9±0.2 mya. Later, andesitic-rhyolitic volcanism formed ignimbrites and lava domes 2.9±0.4 – 1.1±0.4 mya". This "Later" has the same issue.
    Mended. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that a sentence or two early on explaining what ignimbrite is and how it is formed would be helpful.
    I think these explanations are better left to footnotes (and there is currently one), they are distracting when in-text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, how is this one going? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Ian, this got lost in the mix. There is one minor issue for Jo-Jo to sort, but I don't see why that should stand in the way of my supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Sources are reliable. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • Some inconsistencies in parameter use for journals and websites:
    • The publisher parameter is used in FNs 13 & 26 and in Kay & Mpodozis (2000), but not elsewhere.
    • You use a domain name rather than a website name for Kay & Mpodozis (2000).
    • You give a location for FN13 and Kay & Mpodozis (2000) but not elsewhere.
    • FN 26 does not use the website/work parameter.
  • It looks like cite GVP generates a publisher; I would think that's not ideal, but it's not this article's problem.

Links all work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on a question: is there a reasoning behind which sources are in the sources section, and which are simply defined in the reflist? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29, those are called short footnotes or sfn, they are used when there are too many pages cited in an article towards the source. Learn more at Template:Sfn. GeraldWL 14:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think AirshipJungleman29 is familiar with sfn; in this case I think Jo-Jo has chosen to use shortened footnotes when a source is used more than once. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike, just checking that you consider this to be "consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes", especially "consistently"? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a style I would use myself, because I think it looks odd, but since (if I've interpreted Jo-Jo's intentions correctly) there is a well-defined rule and it's consistently applied, I don't think it contravenes anything in WP:FACR. The other points I list above are issues, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, I see that on my one-week hiatus I missed this thing. In order:
  • The publisher thing is deliberate; only non-journals need it.
  • Changed.
  • Resolved.
  • I think it'd be duplicative relative to the other parameters.
The style thing is deliberate, but it's not something I use (anymore) except on some of the older articles I've written. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. Fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment – Jo-Jo Eumerus, please make sure to resolve Gog's final concern. I spotted two WP:SEAOFBLUE links ("Incapillo is a Pleistocene caldera" and "The Nazca plate subducts beneath the South American plate"). It would be nice if you could find a way to avoid the links appearing as a single one, but none of these issues are worth delaying promotion over. FrB.TG (talk) 05:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 20 October 2023 [27].

Raffles Place MRT station

[edit]
Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 06:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After City Hall MRT station got promoted to FA, I shall also take this chance to nominate its brother station Raffles Place. All aboard! ZKang123 (talk) 06:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GWL

[edit]

Congrats on CH's FA! Am reserving a spot here, will get through tomorrow. GeraldWL 10:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And incoming comments! I've put invisible comments to divide my comments based on sections. GeraldWL 09:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 08:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* "the centre of Singapore's financial district"-- Central Area, Singapore?

MyCatIsAChonk

[edit]

Will review, but don't want to reiterate GWL's points- let me know when you've addressed theirs and I'll continue with mine MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • City Hall station is linked twice in the lead
  • While the boulders were hard, they were easily broken. - IMO, not necessary to include
  • Ground treatment of the soil began on 28 May 1984 and completed by April the following year - "was" completed the following year...
  • These murals on vitreous enamel panels depicts scenes of Singapore's history - might be reading this wrong, but I don't think depicts should be plural
  • The "Information portfolio" source in the Bibliography has no sfns pointing to it
    • It's actually for another piece of info I forgot to include, or accidentally deleted. Just added in.--ZKang123 (talk)

ZKang123, that's it, nice job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - lovely work! Also, if you get time, I'd appreciate any comments at this FAC. Thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thebiguglyalien

[edit]

I'll have a review written within the next few days. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General notes:

  • The prose is choppy in some parts of the article. Look for areas where the prose reads like: "This is a statement. This is another statement. The next statement is this one." These areas need to flow a little better before it meets FA's prose requirement in my opinion. Careful use of transitions and compound or complex sentences do a lot to improve readability.
  • "Due to" is used a lot. I suggest changing some of these to "because". It's simpler and clearer, and it avoids repetition of the same phrase.
  • The article mostly cuts off with the station's opening in 1987. Have there been no major changes of any sort since then?
  • Try to replace, wikilink, or define technical terms when possible.

Lead:

  • The article doesn't say that Raffles Place is "the centre of Singapore's financial district"

History:

Station construction:

Construction of tunnels:

Station details:

  • Do the images here need to be 300px? This section doesn't seem quite long enough to warrant two images this large. Alternatively, given how similar these images are, it might be better just to keep one of them.
  • The station code and the walking distance appear to be added randomly in a paragraph about the routes.
  • Don't use pronouns like "it" when starting a new paragraph, as there's no noun for it to refer to. The first time the station is mentioned in a paragraph, refer to it as "Raffles Place" or "the station".
  • "A few days before the opening" – Of Raffles Place or of Tanah Merah? Tarah Merah is the last station that was mentioned.
    • Clarified it's the MRT extension.
  • "have to alight" – Not sure what this means
  • "Another brass sculpture" – This is the only brass sculpture mentioned in the article
  • "from the Chinese junks" – Can this by clarified or wikilinked?

Ping me if you feel that you've addressed all of the comments or if you have any thoughts about any of them. Once the article is ready, I can go over the prose again. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

[edit]

Just a few notes for now. I will conduct further spotchecks in a bit. SounderBruce 19:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: fixed the title cases as much as I could using the title case converter and cross-checking with MOS.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SounderBruce, how is this one looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks on a sample of eight citations were completed and look good. I do have one more concern: there are no citations given for the inflation/currency conversions. Once this is addressed, I'm happy to pass this on sourcing, ZKang123. SounderBruce 19:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The inflated values basically use the in-wiki template (example:{{Formatnum:{{To USD|{{Inflation|SG|70.7|1984}}|SGP|year=2019|r=0}}}}).--ZKang123 (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be an inline citation to both the inflation converter (provided by {{inflation-fn}}) and currency conversion. SounderBruce 00:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rectified above problem.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed. SounderBruce 06:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

No mission-critical issues here, though recommend consistency on alt text. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, which images doesn't have alt text? @UndercoverClassicist:?--ZKang123 (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, all have it: not sure what I missed there. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Also fixed up the other issues.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 20 October 2023 [28].

Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands

[edit]
Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC), Mick gold[reply]

Lasting for over 11 minutes, Bob Dylan’s song "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands" occupied an entire side of his 1966 double album Blonde on Blonde. It has polarised music critics. Thanks in advance for any suggestions for improvements to the article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]

Apologies in advance as I am unable to do a full review for this FAC at the moment, but I did want to make two drive-by comments:

  • I am uncertain about the structure of the lead's second paragraph. From my understanding the lead is supposed to be an overview of the article as a whole. I do not think spotlighting specific critics and quoting them here is the most ideal approach as it reads less like an overview to me.
  • I would move the "Live performances, cover versions, and legacy" section over the "Personnel" section. In my experience, the "Personnel" section is placed after the sections with prose.
@Aoba47: I've reworked the lead, please let me know what you think. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While the lead looks better, I still do not think it is necessary to have specific reviews by individuals (i.e. Wilfrid Mellers, Michael Gray, Roger Waters) here. The lead should be an overview of the article so I would instead put an overview on how the song was received and leave these specific people and their specific opinions/reviews in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; I think it's wise to set out the song's polarised critical reception, and to gesture briefly at why each side loves or hates it, but (in particular) the weight given to Michael Gray's changing opinion over time isn't right for this part of the article. Like a Rolling Stone does a good job of summarising lots of critical responses in the lead (though they're all positive); as far as I can see, very few other song FAs attempt to do much more than give a brief summary of the song's importance in the lead, generally relying on sales figures, chart positions and placements in critical rankings to give an impression of its quality.
(Another note while I remember: Bible is always capitalised.) UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies again for the drive-by comments and being unable to commit to a full review, but I still wanted to raise this to your attention regardless. Best of luck with this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist

[edit]

A few comments, perhaps a little short of a full review. My main worry at the moment is the primary-source analysis and criticism, which is currently presented in quite an unstructured way that leaves it open to a charge of editorialising. Giving the reader some more help in pulling out the narrative threads in the article would do a lot for its comprehensibility and accessibility.

First round
  • It's a little strange that there's only one image in this article, it's a portrait of a man... and it isn't Dylan! A contemporary image of him would be useful, as would one of Sara Dylan. Has anyone ever suggested that anyone else was the sad-eyed lady?
  • I couldn't find a usable image of Sara Dylan. I've added some more images; one of which refers to Baez as a candidate for the Sad Eyed Lady - I'll be expanding on this in the section currently called "Presumed allusions to Sara Lownds" but which will become something like "Subject". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparing with the FAs on Like a Rolling Stone and Watching the River Flow, I don't see much on the music (as opposed to the lyrics) in this article: time signature, tempo, key and so on would all be useful additions.
  • Somewhat a matter of taste, but I'd avoid false titles like "Literary critic Christopher Ricks": go instead for "the literary critic...".
  • Most similar high-quality articles have a short snippet of audio, justified under fair use: can we find or make one for this one?
  • The lead seems very short, given the length of the article: the idea of a lead is to stand as a possible substitute for the whole article, and there's a lot in the body text (things that stand out include Dylan's own perception of the song and its literary allusions) not mentioned there.
  • On a similar note, a few judicious quotations from critics are fine and welcome, but I'd suggest adopting a more synthesising approach in the lead to pick out overall trends in critical reception and the sort of grounds on which they have criticised and praised the song. I had a look at two other Dylan-song FAs (Like a Rolling Stone and Watching the River Flow), which both adopt this approach. There's definitely WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on Michael Gray at the moment: the lead on my screen is just over ten lines, of which he gets three to himself.
  • There's a few points where the tone and phrasing sound more like music journalism than encyclopaedic writing. The cream of Nashville session players: per [[MOS:IDIOM], should be rephrased more directly. Dylan counted off and the musicians fell in, as he attempted his epic composition: fell in is similarly an idiom, and attempted his epic composition is, I think, a little flowery for this setting.
  • Do we need all four lines of Buttrey's quotation? WP:PRIMARY discourages lengthy quotes from primary sources.
  • Although some participants later recalled that only a single happened, four takes of the song were recorded, three of which were complete: given that we're saying that this recollection was false, I think we need to frame this a bit differently: putting the incorrect account first gives it undue prominence, while the verb recalled implies true information.
  • The first take version: this and similar should be hyphenated as a compound modifier: first-take version. Most significantly, this should really apply to Sad-Eyed Lady: there's a case for not doing it in the title of the song, as Dylan doesn't (well, doesn't usually), but it should be done when we're talking about the sad-eyed lady. See also sheet-metal memories.
  • Scholarship that is being treated as "live" (that is, being used to help us understand the song itself, rather than the history of criticism on it) should be recounted in the present tense: "Gray writes... he considers...". I would suggest another verb than thinks: we know what he has written, states or concludes, which are all usual when referring to a text, but thinks is a bit close to mind-reading.
  • The fourth take was released on Blonde on Blonde, Dylan's seventh studio album, on June 20, 1966.: this sentence (and the wikilink) are placed oddly, since we obliquely introduced Blonde on Blonde at the start of this section.
  • Per MOS:NUMBER, there should be a consistent system as to which numbers are written in figures and which are spelled out: see The fourth take was released on Blonde on Blonde, Dylan's seventh studio album, on June 20, 1966. The recording session was released in its entirety on the 18-disc Collector's Edition of The Bootleg Series Vol. 12: The Cutting Edge 1965–1966 in 2015, with the first take of the song also appearing on the 6-disc version of that album.
  • Short quotations which fit into the sentence structure generally shouldn't be capitalised. It would read better if a little more work were done to integrate them: for example, Dylan played the song to his biographer Robert Shelton shortly after recording it, and called it "the best song [he had] ever written". There's a lot of capitalised direct quotes in this article, and at this scale it does detract from the prose quality and readability.
  • Be wary of verbs like confessed, which add editorial colour not supported by the sources. I wouldn't include something like [laughs] in a direct quotation: if the laughter is important, go for something like "Dylan said... and laughed".
  • a paean to his wife: we've got elegant variation going on here, as well as slightly subjective language with paean: give the song's title in this first part. I'd suggest describing it more simply as, well, a song.
  • Ian Bell's quotation is grammatically and meaningfully incomplete: what does Bell think of those people?
  • The subtitle Presumed allusions to Sara Lownds seems to suggest that it's not clear whether the song is about Lownds, but we've previously (in the lead, most strongly) presented this as a settled fact. I'm not sure it is quite settled, but we need to think about how the sources allow us to situate it. I'd strongly suggest bringing Lester Bands up into this part of the article.
  • The Wilentz material needs to be put into greater context: what does he mean by "the days when he asked questions and supplied answers" (do Dylan's songs ever provide all the answers? We never find out how many roads or what might be the way out of here...)? Is the Blake comparison being made by Wilentz or Wikipedia? We've introduced Wilentz as a historian: what gives him the authority to be listened to about music?
  • Ricks writes that "Dolores moves ...'To a tune that enthralls and entices', as does 'Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands.": the quote marks need a look here.
  • Can we put the Swinburne quotation directly next to a Dylan one that echoes it?
Honestly, I liked the comparison when I first saw it, but thinking hard about it, I'm not sure how much water it holds. Both are rhetorical questions about a mysterious woman, but Swinburne's is a series of them, while Dylan only actually asks one; Swinburne's is all about past experience and knowledge, while Dylan's is all about present mystery and beauty; the imagery in Swinburne's is very concrete while that in Dylan is very surreal. The "vibe" is definitely there, and I don't think there's anything wrong with this as a case study, but is there another example that holds up better under more formal, objective analysis? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the individual lines in Ricks are Dylan's. From Swinburne, Ricks comments "But again like the song, Swinburne's poem has recourse to questions that are stingingly unanswerable:" and quotes "Who gave thee thy wisdom? what stories/ That stung thee, what visions that smote?/ Wert thou pure and a maiden, Dolores,/ When desire took thee first by the throat?/ What bud was the shell of a blossom That all men may smell to and pluck?/ What milk fed thee first at what bosom?/ What sins gave thee suck?!" He then quotes a dozen Dylan questions from the song. I've amended the Dylan quotebox contents, and mentioned Ricks. I've also slightly reduced the direct quotation from Ricks. I find Dylan's Visions of Sin fairly impenetrable, to be honest. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biblical quotations should be cited in footnotes, like any other source: inline parenthetical citation is no longer encouraged.
  • Is Organist Kooper Al Kooper? In his (?) quotation, we've given the song's title in italics; we've normally used double-quotes.
I didn't see his full name given, but might have simply missed it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Bangs describe his own review as Perhaps the most hostile critique of "Sad Eyed Lady"? If not, we need a secondary source that does to say that in Wikipedia's voice.
  • The subheading "More ambivalent responses" reads to me as euphemistic: most of these assessments are straightforwardly negative, and the hedge of "more ambivalent" isn't echoed in "favourable responses" further up.
  • The sections on critical reception are tricky to work through: I'd like to see more organisation that leads the reader through the different critical views and presents the individual critics in a more logical order. At the moment, it reads like a fairly chaotic hodge-podge of everything that's been written on the song.
  • I wouldn't use sic for anything other than a straightforward error, generally of grammar: chronologically it lasts nearly 20 minutes reads more like hyperbole than a mistake to me.
  • The italics have gone awry in the third paragraph of "Live performances...".
  • For the cover versions, we can use the song itself as evidence for its length, so there's no need to be approximate on the timings (the Old Crow Medicine Show version is 9:27, for instance). I'm not sure about the critical comments section: firstly, these need to be attributed in the text, but presumably they're not all the comments critics have made, so there's an easy charge of WP:OR or cherrypicking to make in terms of the selection here. On a separate issue, the punctuation is pretty wonky in that column.
  • Note B is uncited: is it OR?
  • There's quite a lot of inconsistency in the formatting of titles in the bibliography, as well as with author links. I'd suggest another title than References, given that it doesn't actually contain any references (those are the footnotes): either Bibliography, [Printed] Sources or similar.
Hope the review is useful: I'll keep an eye on this page but please feel free to ping me to take another look at anything. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for taking so long to get back to you, UndercoverClassicist. I have amended the lead a bit, but I'm planning to revise it again once the rest of the article is more settled. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem: WP:NOHURRY and all that. The article's definitely on the up already. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: I've reworked the lead, please let me know what you think. One thing I haven't done is include an audio sample in the article. There's a link to the track in the infobox, and I wasn't sure what a short clip could be used to illustrate - but I'm open to any suggestions. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead could still do with a bit of love, with a particular eye on repetition and precision of language. I'm also not sure it really has enough meat to stand in as a summary of the article itself, which is what MOS:LEAD would like it to be. A good way to start is by thinking of what the key takeaway is for the reader in each section or couple of paragraphs: is that information in the lead? UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: I've had another go at the lead, taking out repetition and attempting to summarise some of the the content of the article. Thanks again. Reagards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The bit about Baez and Havens seems to have been said twice in slightly different ways. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my incompetence, UndercoverClassicist. I can hardly believe it, but there it was. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BennyOnTheLoose, how are you getting on with these? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are only a couple of points I haven't replied to, Gog the Mild. I'll have a proper look through in the next day or so. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UndercoverClassicist I'd forgotten about the point relating to Swinburne. Hopefully I've now replied to all of your points above. Thanks again. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - will take a look when I can, hopefully over the next few days. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:UndercoverClassicist, how's it going? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again, I'm nearly there but there's one or two things that need a look. More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the clock": MOS:IDIOM is a bit unhappy: suggest a link to Wiktionary.
  • Noting that Dylan's claims in "Sara" to have written "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands" in the Chelsea Hotel: wonky grammar here: simply Noting Dylan's claims...?
  • Suggest linking "speed trip" in the quote to the drug.
  • the phrase "Spanish manners: we need some explanation of what this has to do with Baez, who isn't Spanish.
  • Presumably it's a nod to her Mexican father?
UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Blake poem Tyger or The Tyger? We're inconsistent.
  • Perhaps link "madonna"?
  • Ricks writes ..." Ricks makes the point ... Ricks describes: could we look at the structure here to reduce this repetition? More generally, has anyone other than Ricks looked at this song from a literary perspective?
  • The Ezekiel quote is dropped in a bit awkwardly: precede with "such as" or similar?
  • The bit on Ezekiel gets quite confusing towards the end: in particular, I'm not sure what to make of there is a force that can outwait the kings of Tyrus: "the Lord, he who speaks through his prophet Ezekiel of the doom to come. I assume Ricks is making some kind of correspondence point here: is Dylan/the narrator meant to represent Ezekiel, and the Lady... Tyrus, maybe?
  • Ralph Gleason wrote in the San Francisco Examiner that "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands" was "a ghostly enigma. Allen Ginsberg said it stands as a good poem all by itself, which is praise of the first rank.: the embedded quote is awkward. I'd be tempted to pull it out: "he quoted Allen Ginsberg [explain who he was and what sort of poetry he wrote] as saying..." or similar.
  • In a retospective review: is there such thing as a non-retrospective review? Isn't review just French for retrospect?
  • Gill notes that, though the song has its share of enigmatic imagery, there is no trace of the jokey nihilism that marks out much of the rest of Blonde on Blonde: not sure about 'notes' for a very subjective statement.
  • Bob Dylan's Poetics: How the Songs Work (2020), the parenthesesed date is a bit close to parenthetical citation to me, and that's depreciated. If the year is really important, "his 2020 book, Bob Dylan's Poetics..."
  • which "soars" when sung by Dylan.": we need he says or similar. I think the second quote mark is a mistake.
  • Is it worth being clear that Clive James was many things, but not really a music critic?
  • Link Danny Boy to the song.
  • We sometimes fall into simply condensing critical reviews rather than making use of them for the article's own purposes. This is particularly apparent in the Ross review, and perhaps with the Ricks one further up. Suggest taking a bit of a step back and thinking about what we want to get out of the source, and then looking to see if there's any way to restructure the sections so that they are led by the narrative of our article rather than the critical one. It's often better if we can pick out themes and ideas and then discuss how they pop up in multiple critics, rather than ever getting too closely attached to any one source for many sentences at a time.
  • The italics on (pictured in 1966) read oddly to me: I know we do them for TFA, but I don't think we really do them anywhere else. Happy to be corrected.
  • Renaldo And Clara,: decap and.
  • Don't link Baez down here; she's already linked far above.
Note that the duplink rule in the MoS has been recently amended. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I'm struggling to fully parse what's changed: it looks to me like it's no longer recommended to link first in the lead, then on first mention in the body, but to only have the link once in the whole article, unless duplinking makes things clearer? UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My reading is that second - or further! - links are permissible in the main body if it can reasonably be argued that this helps the reader. A fairly subtle tweak, but a move away from having to use IAR in such cases. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative French band Phoenix: false title, but we'd generally put the nationality before the genre ("Rock American band Bon Jovi"?)
  • Do we have any idea what Waits was going on about with "takes me out to the meadow"?
  • Odd to introduce Roger Waters but not Howard Stern.
  • Performers, adapted from That Thin, Wild Mercury Sound: Dylan, Nashville, and the Making of Blonde on Blonde: this seems like "under the hood" stuff to me: I would simply write "Performers" as an L3 subhead and cite each one to note 81. That way, if another source somehow comes along which identifies another performer, it can be added with no problem. Same for the Technical section.
Hi Benny, I agree with UCC. You seem to be trying t give the source in line. Not actually "wrong", but to my eye UCC's suggestion seems smoother. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Gog. Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BennyOnTheLoose, how are you getting on with addressing UCC's comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild I have a bit to do on the Ricks and Ross critical reviews (including the part about references to Ezekiel). I've been going through some additional sources and should be able to amend the article in the next couple of days. I think jut about everything else has been addressed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UndercoverClassicist - I've reworked the Ricks/Ezekiel para to hopefully give it a bit more context. For Ross, I think condensing it a bit means that Heylin's comments more logically follow. Once again, I really appreciate your detailed attention and helpful advice. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The new version is nicely written. I'm not quite seeing the connection between Tyrus and Ezekiel in the current framing, and it seems a shame to lose the previous material about Tyrus: Tyrus is described as "a merchant of the people for many isles"; this chapter of Ezekiel lists the many commodities and luxuries which Tyrus trades in, including silver, gold, spices, precious stones, emeralds, ebony and ivory. Thus, for Ricks, Tyrus is "one huge warehouse of hubris". The Tyrus verse presents the kings as tempters; it's not difficult to infer that they represent the seduction of "the world" and its tendency to get out of control (But who among them really wants just to kiss you?). Obviously, it's important not to go into OR here, but I think Ricks was onto something there.
UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UndercoverClassicist I've restored the part you mentioned, and attempted to include what I think is Ricks's point. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I think we're there, and even I have (almost) run out of nits to pick. Nice work and an impressive article: I've never given the original too much time (I'm firmly of the view that the best Dylan songs aren't sung by Dylan) but will certainly be going back to it with fresh ears. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks again, UndercoverClassicist. You've really helped improve the article, and I've learnt some lessons. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for nearly three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

No spotcheck needed, focusing on formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 7's title is missing a space before the date
  • Ref 16 is missing a work/website/publisher
  • Ref 31: no date/year? Also, there's a difference between the quote and the sentence; the sentence is saying it was written for his wife, but the quote is saying the song is about his wife
  • Where are all these news articles from? If they're from a database like ProQuest or Newspapers.com, I do suggest adding links or using the ProQuest template in the "id" parameter
  • Ref 59 date is wrong
  • No ISBN for Williams 1969? If not, I suggest adding an OCLC

Done with the review, excellent job keeping consistency in the Bibliography. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, MyCatIsAChonk. Hopefully all the issues above are resolved. Let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MyCatIsAChonk. Can I just check whether your "Support" above represents a pass for the source review, a support from a regular review, or both. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild, is there a difference? If so, I've been doing something wrong, and I apologize for any confusion- in any case, I verify that the sources are appropriately formatted and reliable. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a source review. Which is what I had thought you had done. Thanks for confirming. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MyCatIsAChonk, for no reason that I know of, it's usual when doing a general review against the FA criteria to give a bolded "support", but for the source and image reviews to give a bolded "pass". Perhaps it helps the coordinators keep them separate. When someone puts a bolded "support" on what appears to be a source review, as you just did, it might be the case that they mean "the source review has passed and I am also supporting this article on all the FA criteria" -- there are some reviewers who will do that. That's why Gog was asking. These aren't rules; they're just habits that have developed here at FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now I see- thank you for clarifying! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • The lead says the first take was released on Blonde on Blonde; the body says it was the fourth take.
    Corrected to fourth take in the lead.
  • I see "polarised"; shouldn't the article be in American English?
  • "literary allusions in "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands" which encompass William Blake's "The Tyger", Algernon Swinburne's "Dolores", and verses of the Bible": I don't think "encompass" is the right word. It means to include as a part of a whole, but I think the simpler connotations of "include" are all you need.
  • "Retrospective views often chime with this, praising the sound but dismissing the lyrics": I think this is a colloquial usage of "chime" -- something a bit more formal would be better.
    I've amended the article per the three points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dylan counted off": I am guessing this means the "1, 2, 3" that musicians often use to sync timing when starting a song, but I'm not sure. If there's a suitable link that would be good.
    I've wikilinked Count off. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems odd to give the timing of the finished song after describing the first take, without saying that it was the fourth take that made the album.
    Moved, with a slight tweak to the wording. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although some participants later related that only a single take happened": I assume this is known to be wrong because the four takes do exist. If so I would rephrase a little; saying they related this sounds like a competing version of events. If it's interesting enough to mention at all, I would give it wording that makes it clear their memories are wrong. Perhaps make it into a footnote -- "X and Y later only recalled one take of the song during the session, though all four takes have survived" or something like that. Or since the recording session itself has been released, add the footnote to the sentence about that.
    Pending ... the "one take" appears in several books; I'm not sure when the literature started to reflect that there were several takes. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sanders writes "Over the years, a number of participants at that session have remembered recording 'Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands' in one take, and that has become part of the mythology surrounding the song"(p.149) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a great quote. I would suggest moving "although some participants later related that only a single take happened" to the end of the paragraph, and then giving the information as you do here, so that the reader is clear that there's no debate about the number of takes and that those who remember one take are clearly wrong. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved, and I quoted Sanders. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Say who Gray is on first mention -- "Dylan scholar" or whatever.
    Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Around the same time, Dylan enthused to journalist Jules Siegel, encouraging him the listen to the "old-time religious carnival music".' A word is wrong here -- should that be "to listen"? And is Dylan referring to "Sad-Eyed Lady" as carnival music? And this is an odd use of "enthuse" -- usually one gives the topic that is being enthused over.
    I've amended the text. The source says that Dylan played the song from an Acetate disc of the album, and Attendant journalist Jules Siegel recalls that when the song came on, "[Dylan] said, 'Just listen to that! That’s old-time religious carnival music!' He was just thrilled with his own work." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does commentary on "Sara" really treat its account of the writing of "Sad-Eyed Lady" as intended to be accurate? I always assume lyrics take liberties for artistic purposes, but if critics have commented on the point then that's fine. Assuming that's the case, I think the introductory sentences of that section could be compressed. Currently you have 'In 1975, Dylan wrote and recorded a song to his wife which challenged the account that "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands" had been written in the recording studio in Nashville. In "Sara", Dylan located the writing in a bohemian hotel where they had lived in 1965, singing that he had once been'. Much of this is immediately repeated in the lyrics themselves. How about starting with 'In "Sara", a song Dylan wrote and recorded in 1975, he gave another account of the origin of "Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands", singing:" Then you could add that he and Sara had lived in the hotel in 1965.
    I've used your proposed wording, and added some commentary from Wilentz. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Dylan's lyrical approach to the song was to construct the verses as a series of "lists" of': again this seems wordy. How about just 'Each verse of the song is a list of the sad-eyed lady's attributes, complemented by a sequence ..."?
    I've used your suggested wording, thanks. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "since 1959 had included a song called "Lowlands" in her repertoire": looks like a missing word -- should this be "she had"?
    Yes, amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Retrospective commentary has included consideration of temporal matters such as the early morning recording time": seems long-winded, and is it only Gill and Kooper that mention the early hours of the morning? It might be better not to have a topic sentence for this paragraph, but instead find ways to connect the individual retrospective review comments, which are quite disparate but do have some common threads. Perhaps start with "In a retrospective review, the critic Andy Gill,... Al Kooper, in a <date> interview with Mojo, agreed, describing the song as "the definitive version of what 4 am sounds like"." Then once you've finished with Gill's comments do something like "Other retrospective comments included ..." to connect the remaining reviews.
    I've reworked that as suggested, and also reduced the amount of direct quotations. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later commentaries have been critical of the song's lyrics while praising the music or performance." This sounds like all later commentaries have criticized the lyrics, but I don't think that's the case.
    I've added "Some"; I'm not sure if that's enought to address this point. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gray expresses a similarly contradictory attitude": I don't think this is a good way to summarize the paragraph -- he did not give contradictory opinions, as Heylin did; he simply changed his mind. I'd give the date of the first edition of his book, too; we only get the date of the 2000 edition, so the reader doesn't know if Gray changed his opinion between 1999 and 2000, or between 1967 and 2000.
    I've amended this and also reduced the amount of direct quotation from Gray. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice and guidance Mike Christie. Much appreciated. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moisejp

[edit]

Is this FAC waiting for a third prose review, or an image review? I could probably jump in and do either if needed, just let me know, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will review this. It's great to see another Dylan article up for FA, and sorry I haven't had a chance to review this until now. The article has a lot of good things going for it, but I have at least one medium-big issue, in addition to some smaller concerns, that I hope can be resolved. I haven't read other people's reviews above, and not sure if anything about this may have come up before and any consensus agreed upon, I'm just reading this with fresh eyes.

  • The medium-big concern is that "Critics are generally agreed that Dylan wrote "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands" about his wife, Sara" (and the first wiki-link for her) comes in the "Critical comments" section, as though she were being introduced for the first time, but she is already basically referred to in the "Later account and technique" section; and there are details (such as "The couple had lived in the Chelsea Hotel in 1965") indicating that that earlier section is not just about "a" Sara, but is about Sara Dylan. I understand you put "Later account and technique" where you did because "Stayin' up for days in the Chelsea Hotel" contrasts directly with the reality of him writing the song in the studio. I understand it's messy to disentangle this part from there and move it later. I unfortunately don't have any easy solutions of the top of my head, but I would still argue there is incoherency in the existing flow of ideas, and I urge you to see if you can somehow creatively make the flow of ideas work better. I'll try to think about it too. Moisejp (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe in the "Favorable responses" section you have tried to group the commentary into related themes, which is good. But I found " Paul Williams found the song affecting, despite being unable to decipher the lyrics, and wrote that while he could appreciate the song on an emotional level, he was unable to articulate why" at the top sounded very similar to "David Pichaske wrote that ... "all attempts to explain the nature of its attraction have proven embarrassingly inadequate". When I was reading the Pichaske quote, I was thinking, "Wait a sec, didn't somebody else say almost the same thing?" I understand you have tied the Pichaske quote to the "techniques" (for lack of a better word) of assonance and alliteration, whereas the Williams quote is not tied to any technique. Still, I'd suggest bringing the Williams citation to be with Pichaske, and comment on how there were similarities in their reactions. Moisejp (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Live performances, cover versions, and legacy" in particular I feel there are too many quotations. At the very least, I would paraphrase some of them. Or even go as far as reducing some of the detail; for me personally, there is more detail than I'm interested in about the different cover versions, although if others disagree with me, that's valid, and if so you could do more just paraphrasing instead of reducing detail. Incidentally, in this section, like for Williams and Pichaske above, there are a few citations that are similar enough that I would acknowledge this similarity by grouping the comments together (this might mean rearranging the structure of the section so that you're not talking about each song individually?): "retained its "essence" despite being much shorter than Dylan's original" and "felt was true to the original despite the reduced duration" and "loses none of its expansive majesty" despite being shorter than Dylan's original". Moisejp (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's better to keep the comments on each cover together here, but open to suggestions. (I think if there was anything interesting that the critics here said about the song rather than the versions, it would be better in an earlier section.) I've removed the Bristol Evening Post and Folk Radio UK comments, and reworked some of the others. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could I suggest some of the following direct quotations in the "Favorable responses" and "Negative and ambivalent responses" would be quite easy to paraphrase without losing any nuance from the direct quotes (again, you wouldn't necessarily need to paraphrase all of these, but these are some ideas for ones that might be relatively painless). I feel that paraphrasing some of these would reduce the heaviness of having an almost non-stop stream of direct quotations in these sections.
  • "praise of the first rank"
  • "an appealing hymnic chant which ranks with the best of the new Dylan"
  • "as much funeral procession as wedding march"
  • "'Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands' stands with [Dylan's] "Mr. Tambourine Man" as perhaps the most insidiously haunting pop song of our time"
  • "technique of varying the chorus as a way of isolating the singer from the listener"
  • "you cannot quite ever sing along"
  • "all attempts to explain the nature of its attraction have proven embarrassingly inadequate"
  • "the greatest love song there is, was, and ever will be" and considering it Dylan's "finest combination of lyrics, melody and performance"
  • "unsuccessful, and rather grandly so, inasmuch as it is offered on the album, as something of extraspecial importance, and yet no one, subsequently, has, after any thought, really accepted it as such"
  • Reworded for eight of these nine bullet points, the excpetion being "'Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands' stands with [Dylan's] "Mr. Tambourine Man" as perhaps the most insidiously haunting pop song of our time" which I couldn't think of a good alternative. Suggestions welcome. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm sorry I've arrived so late in the game with comments that aren't especially tiny. I'd be happy to try to work with you to resolve some of these as best I can. Moisejp (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this, Moisejp. I'll probably be more than happy with any changes that you make to the article directly, or any very specific suggestions, but I'll work through these points anyway. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moisejp I've amended the article in response to your comments; I'm not expecting this to have fully addressed all your concerns, but hopefully it's movement in the right direction. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll be looking at this over this weekend, cheers! Moisejp (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay. I will sincerely try to get to this this weekend. Moisejp (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Your changes look good. I'm happy to support now, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review. I will have a run through this. It may take a while, so bear with me. I will do a little copy editing as I go. If you disagree with something, or don't understand why I have made a change, could you bring it up here. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • ""The fourth take ... would occupy the entire fourth side of the double album"; "The fourth take was released on Blonde on Blonde". Given that there are only three sentences between these, the second mention of "The fourth take" seems redundant.
  • " The music critic Alex Ross wrote that "The melody of the refrain [is] a rising and descending arc, made up of consecutive notes" in D-major." I don't see what the quotation adds. It is normal to paraphrase factual statements.
  • "Sara Lownds, whom Dylan had married only three months prior to recording the song"; "Bob Dylan married Sara Lownds on November 22, 1965". Is it possible to not mention this twice in three sentences?

And those picky minor points are all I can find. Bravo! Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Gog the Mild. Let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

[edit]

Looks fairly good from a 20 minute scan, but still reading through...suggestions to follow ad-hoc in next few days. Noting that its gone through a few heavy duty copy edits - it reads very well to me so far.

  • This sentence is very long: In his book Bob Dylan's Poetics: How the Songs Work, historian and literature scholar Timothy Hampton comments that Dylan's variation of the delivery of the chorus to create a sense of distance between the singer and the audience, a technnique which he employed on several of the Blonde on Blonde tracks, is in evidence on "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands".
  • Maybe not use Spotify as a ref - track listing is at AllMusic here
Support Ceoil (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbh

[edit]

I intend to support this nomination, subject to a couple of items.

1. The use of single (') and double (") quote marks appears to be inconsistent.
 2. The following cites could presumably be rolled into one(?):

58. Pichaske 1981, p. 285
59. Pichaske 1981, p. 285

--- Sandbh (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sandbh. I've rolled the two citations into one. I found one place where the quote marks were single instead of double ("Lowlands" and "Lownds") but I didn't see any others - apologies if I've missed any. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks all good now: Support --- Sandbh (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • It was published in Aftonbladet on 28 April 1966, Nikkimaria. If you search for "Sanningen bakom Bob Dylans första besök i Sverige 1966" you can hopefully see a preview of the original page clipping from the Aftonbladet site. I believe it may have been also published in Svenska Dagbladet on the same date. The picture is also at Alamy, which has a statment that "This image is a public domain image, which means either that copyright has expired in the image or the copyright holder has waived their copyright.". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria Hi, I was wondering if you're satisfied with Benny's response and if you think the article is A-okay image-wise. FrB.TG (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 19 October 2023 [29].

The Spider (magazine)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the hero pulps that were popular during the 1930s. It includes everything I've been able to find on the topic. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Thebiguglyalien

[edit]

This one looks interesting. I'll have a review posted within a few days. If you or any other reviewer is interested, I currently have an open FAC that could use more feedback. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I should be able to take a look at that FAC in the next few days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General notes:

  • Several points throughout the article where a comma is used to connect a dependent clause.
    Can you give me an example? AmEng and BrEng often disagree about commas; I know this should be in AmEng but my usage is a horrible mix and a pointer would help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This could be a UK/US thing, or as is sometimes the case, it could be that I don't know what I'm talking about. But it's the difference between a complex sentence (no comma) and a compound sentence (needs a comma). Looking at the sentence "The first issue was dated October 1933, and carried a lead novel titled The Spider Strikes by Scott." The second clause doesn't have a subject, so it's a complex sentence and doesn't need a comma. Alternatively, if it were "The first issue was dated October 1933, and it carried a lead novel titled The Spider Strikes by Scott.", then it would be a compound sentence, and the comma would be appropriate. A Google search does seem to confirm that complex sentences do not need commas if the independent clause comes first (but the sources were mainly university level, so this is probably more of a formal writing thing than a widely used rule). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any info about the legacy or influence of this work? Or was it essentially forgotten after WWII?
    There are still plenty of pulp fans, and there is to some extent a franchise here -- the films, for example, and comics and graphic novels. That's currently covered at Spider (pulp fiction character). I hesitated over what to include here -- I eventually chose to include the movie image just because it was contemporary and I had little choice of other images I could use. I think this article is one aspect of the overall franchise, even though it is what launched it, so I think the more general material should be covered in the parent article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • "such as a metal-eating virus, or giant robots" & "planning to sell human flesh as meat" – These feel like the specific details that are better left for the body.
    Done.
  • "Bittner had had experience" – I know this is correct, but would a single "had" still be correct?
    Went with "had written for", which I hope gets around the issue (and you're right, "had had" is a bit ugly). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New York would be miraculously resurrected" & "characters killed in one issue reappearing unscathed" – Inconsistent tense
    Oops. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supporting characters, Legend in Blue Steel, editor rewriting, Scott's influence on the rest of the series, the art, and the existence of short stories are all things that could be mentioned in the lead. The latter seems especially important since the short stories were their own aspect of the magazine independent of the main novel.
    I've done some of this. I don't disagree with you, but it's not a very long article and I don't want to overload the lead relative to the body. Let me know if you think more is needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Publication history:

  • "In 1931 Street & Smith" – A comma should follow "In 1931". But given how many commas this would put in the sentence, it might be better to rewrite it altogether.
    I made it "In 1931, Street & Smith launched The Shadow, the first of the hero pulps": I think the fact that they're a pulp publisher is obvious enough to be omitted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was an immediate success" – Is there any context for this? What constituted a success for this sort of thing?
    Success means high circulation, which often leads to higher frequency publication -- weekly, or twice-monthly. It's not easy to get accurate circulation figures for this era, for a couple of reasons. The source I used to talk about the early success of The Shadow in that article only says it was successful, and gives circulation numbers only for "within a few short years". So I don't think there's anything quotable here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lead characters in mystery stories in the 1920s" – Two "in"s could be avoided with "in 1920s mystery stories"
    Yes, much better. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "antagonists, and very rarely killed" – Either "antagonists and very rarely killed" or "antagonists, and they very rarely killed". The comma is currently used to combine a dependent clause instead of an independent clause.
    I don't know this as a rule -- not to say you're wrong, but I am again wondering if this is a US vs. UK English issue. Of the two options you give I'd prefer to just cut the comma and will probably do that, but I'm going to pack it in for the night and sleep on it first. If you have a link to an explanation of the rule I'd be interested to see it. Back tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now removed the comma. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and it is possible that" – Is this an idea held by a specific source (in which case in-text attribution might be appropriate), or a generally accepted idea?
    Ashley says "it has been suggested by Will Murray and others"; Murray is the other source I cite, so in a sense that's not independent, but since Ashley says "and others", I think more than one expert considers this possible. That doesn't make it generally accepted as the most likely situation, but I think it can be presented as a possibility in this way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was presented as by" – Can this be reworded?
    I made it "was credited to". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "almost the end of the magazine's run" – Reword?
    Can you say what you think is the issue here? Is "magazine's run" jargon? I could make it "took over until the second-to-last issue" if that would be better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, Page, Tepperman and Bittner:

  • I'm not sure about using the writers' names as the subheading here. It would make sense if the next subsection were a different set of writers, but it's currently just being used as a summary of the entire plot and setting for the main novels.
    I've changed this to "Lead novel writers" -- I was avoiding that because the section has nothing to say about Winchell, whose novel appeared in the very last issue, but I think it's OK -- and as you say listing the names isn't really the right heading for the section either. Perhaps that still doesn't address your point, though -- would something like "Characters and plot" be better? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "secret identity" is typically understood to mean the civilian identity rather than the hero identity. This is both here and in the lead.
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scott's Secret Service Smith – This is a little vague. Maybe "Scott's previous character, Secret Service Smith" (assuming I read this correctly)
    This is explained in the previous section -- does it need explaining again here? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, the issue is probably that I got up from my chair after reading the first section and forgot what it said. No editing can fix my attention span. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nita Van Sloan, who occasionally took on the identity of The Spider herself" – This stands out to me as significant. Were there a lot of female characters in hero pulp who got involved in the action?
    That's a good question, but I'm not aware of any sources that discuss it, unfortunately. There might be some cultural overview articles on pulp fiction that talk about that sort of thing but I haven't found anything of that kind that mentions the Spider. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The structure of the second paragraph here seems strange. It starts with "Other regular characters included", but then it just describes one, and then ends the sentence. Maybe "Other regular characters included Professor Brownlee and Police Commissioner Stanley Kirkpatrick. Brownlee was..."
    Yes, much better. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scott's two novels" – This might be worded in a way so that the reader remembers they're the first two.
    Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he would mark their bodies with a red spider" – This makes it sound like an actual live spider until the next sentence.
    I made it "an inked red spider" -- does that do it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his appearance at well" – at will?
    Yes, fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Internal inconsistencies:

  • "Murray cites Spider novels in which the villain is revealed to have been only a minor character in the plot" – This seems to be a characterization or structure problem rather than a logic or inconsistency problem.
    Looking at the source, Murray is really talking about Page's plots at that point, so I moved that comment up to the discussion of Page's novels. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides the damage to New York, this section doesn't really provide any specific examples, which might be beneficial if there were any that appear prominently in the sources.
    The section does mention Master of the Death Machine as an example -- it doesn't explain what the lapses in logic were, but neither does the source, so there's not much more I can do there. I could give a bit more detail about individual characters being killed off and resurrected, but I felt it would be odd to just pick one out and not explain the problems with the other characters. There's not a lot more detail available, but there is some -- for example I have "Van Sloan was eventually given four mutually contradictory histories": the source has "Nita Van Sloan is introduced in four different versions that vary by as much as fourteen years". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Short stories and non-fiction features:

  • "The first issue included" – Is there a benefit to naming the specific stories of the first issue, especially if no further info about them is given?
    I go back and forth on this sort of thing. I think it can be worth it in that it gives a reader who might never had read a pre-internet fiction magazine, let alone a pulp magazine, a sense of what it included. However, here I think it's important because the point being made is that these biographical details became an ongoing feature, and are the source of some of the inconsistencies discussed in that paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm understanding that these short stories did not feature The Spider and were otherwise entirely unrelated to the character? The article doesn't say this explicitly.
    That's correct. The sources don't say this explicitly either, but I was hoping it would be obvious from context. I could make it "ran short stories in each issue, alongside the lead novel, but not involving The Spider", but I'd have to think about how to cite that. The paragraph later describes the stories as detective fiction, without mentioning The Spider -- isn't that enough? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was able to infer it from the context. I just wanted to make sure I inferred correctly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Occasionally story elements – Comma
    Done. I think this is an American comma. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a review comment but just a stray thought: I wonder if the concept of reader's clubs warrant their own article. I know Marvel had an active one as late as the 1960s or 1970s.
    Nice idea. Difficult to pull together without a source that focuses on that specifically, but there might be such an article out there somewhere. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • that concealed a rubber stamp that would – Can one of these "that"s be removed?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The story about the fire is interesting, but I don't know how well it fits into the article. Did this affect Page's ability to work on the series?
    I would imagine that it affected his ability to refer to prior novels, which might explain some of the internal inconsistencies, but that's speculation. I'd like to keep it -- it's a nice associational anecdote, and the notice was printed in The Spider itself. The loss of the hat and cloak also seems like a nice thing to mention. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Art:

Bibliographic details:

Ping me with any thoughts or if all of the comments are addressed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thebiguglyalien, all addressed now. Thanks for the very detailed and helpful comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I've elaborated on the comma thing above, but regardless of how that's resolved, I'm willing to support promotion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Re the commas, Sammi Brie has a reference page here that is useful for American English, though at my suggestion she marked it as applying less to British English. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

Will look at this, though others are welcome to jump in ahead of me. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Norvell Page: should he (?) be redlinked, given that other authors of a similar apparent calibre are?
    Now linked; it was an oversight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • with science fiction plot devices: I'd hyphenate as a compound modifier.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were frequent continuity problems from novel to novel: is problems the right word here? To me, that implies a judgement, that these were mistakes or deficiencies: aren't they rather tropes or commonplaces of the genre? After all, it would be a very different sort of story if The Spider spent each week "saving" a New York that his actions were increasingly reducing to ashes. Suggest something to the effect that the publication did not generally observe or establish continuity between different novels.
    Sampson presents it as a problem, and since he's knowledgeable about all the hero pulps I think we can take it that it's not the norm. Sampson says "This continued indifference to the internal integrity of the series devils you throughout the series", and then lists both the inconsistent back stories and the repair of all the damage to the city in the same paragraph. Still, I think you're right that this could stand rephrasing. I made it "Continuity from novel to novel was often disregarded"; does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think that's fine. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • New York would be miraculously resurrected each issue: unless we mean that some in-universe miracle occurred, I would rephrase.
    I just cut the adjective; I don't think it's needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Occasionally these include elements of horror fiction, but never fantasy: never of fantasy, or perhaps something more nuanced: superheroes stories are, by definition, fantasy in the true sense. I think we mean that they never contained tropes or elements characteristically or exclusively associated with the fantasy genre, but framing that correctly might take a bit of thought.
    I trimmed it to "Occasionally these included elements of horror fiction, but any apparently supernatural phenomena were always explained away", which I hope avoids the issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest explaining what a hero pulp was per MOS:NOFORCELINK.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steeger choose the title: chose?
    Typo; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead characters in 1920s mystery stories usually shot to wound their antagonists, and very rarely killed: suggest another go at this sentence: perhaps something like "rarely killed their antagonists; they sometimes shot at them, but only to wound".
    I made it "Lead characters in 1920s mystery stories usually shot to wound rather than to kill their antagonists."
  • Steeger decided that The Spider would, like The Shadow, kill criminals without hesitation: a buried lead here: we should back up and say first of all that The Shadow did kill criminals without hesitation.
    I'm not sure I agree. I want the sentence to convey the fact that Steeger made an editorial decision, based on the change in the genre through the 1920s; that has to be prior to the outcome of the decision, which is The Shadow's behaviour. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, so The Shadow didn't kill criminals before this moment? In which case, I'd suggest both The Spider and The Shadow would..., as that's not the surface reading we have here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn, sorry, typing without reading. I meant to type "The Spider", not "The Shadow". The Shadow was willing to kill criminals from the first issue of The Shadow; Steeger was making a decision to have The Spider be in the same mould as The Shadow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not stylistically great to introduce new information in a clause like "like the Shadow": it gives the impression that we're assuming the reader already knew it. Could perhaps do something like Steeger decided that The Spider would kill criminals without hesitation, following the precedent established by The Shadow [maybe: since Year/Date]? UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I had another look and decided it was simpler to cut it; the source emphasizes the role of Dime Detective in Steeger's decision; The Shadow is more a competitor than an inspiration for this, so cutting hews more closely to the source and avoids the stylistic point you raise. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • well-known for his stories: dehyphenate, as the compound adjective isn't in apposition with a noun.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is likely that Terrill never intended Scott to write every lead novel: a bit confusing and clunky with the sequence of likely ... never ... every. Suggest something like "Terrill likely intended for other writers, alongside Scott, to contribute lead novels".
    Reworked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • whose name was identical to his father's: simply named after his father or of the same name?
    I think "identical", or something equally strong, is needed; the reader should understand that "R. T. M. Scott" could have been either of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How about "also known as R. T. M. Scott? After all, even having the same name is no guarantee that they would use it in the same way: the son might have been known as R. T. Scott or "Reginald Scott". UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That works well; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few more:

  • also wrote mystery fiction, and was working at Popular at the time, and it is possible that one of the first two novels, both of which were credited to Scott, was written partly or wholly by his son: Double and is awkward: I would split this long sentence.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • a lead novel titled The Spider Strikes by Scott: was the novel by Scott, or did he just give it the title?
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page was initially paid $500 for each novel, but this was soon increased to $600 and then $700.: can we give a flavour of how much this was? Was that normal for a writer of Page's genre and calibre in the period?
    I'd like to be able to do this but I would need a source talking about pay rates. Here and there in the various sources I have on the period I can find notes about how much writer X was paid, but I think I'd need a secondary source explicitly talking about rates to make a judgemental comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose it depends how specific we want to be: surely we can get some idea of how far $500 would have gone for an average person (how did it stack up versus an average monthly wage, for example?) UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just added the inflation template to translate $500 into the modern equivalent value -- that's easier to source than the typical payment an author received. I only did it for the first value because I think that gives enough context for the reader to get the idea of the second two values. Thinking about the rates some more, a 50,000 word novel at $500 is 1 cent per word, which is within the range of what a writer of those days could expect. The trouble is I have no idea what the word count actually was -- it could have been anything from 30,000 to twice that -- so all I'd be able to say is that it was within a range broad enough to be uninformative. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A perfectly good solution: the closer we get to the present day, the better that template works, and I think we're close enough here to make it serviceable enough. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • after which Page took over until almost the end of the magazine's run: I would give a more specific date, if only for the end of the magazine's run: I had forgotten and had to look back up for it.
    Reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has never been a US Office of War: there's a United States Department of War, but I think what is meant here is the United States Office of War Information. I would briefly explain what that was, especially as its name is slightly euphemistic.
    I took the organization name from the source, without realizing that it had to be wrong, but I think you're right about what is intended. I've made that change, but have no source to hand to explain what that was; I'll try to find something after I've finished replying to your comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Winchell's novel, When Satan Came to Town, was the lead novel: can we do something about the repetition?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • was rediscovered in 1978, and published as a paperback in 1979: reads better without the comma, as the second clause is only short.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smith, Wentworth had a Hindu servant, though Ram Singh was "more ferocious" than Smith's assistant Langa Doon: it's implied, but would be better writing to make explicit, that Ram Singh is Wentworth's servant (do we definitely mean Hindu here? Singh is a definingly Sikh name.)
    Done. Rereading the source it describes Singh as both Hindu and Sikh, but rather than try to clear that up I just made it "Indian". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • a woman who shared their adventures, and loved them but never married them: drop the 'and', but this might be worth a second look: did the woman love the heroes, or the heroes love the women?
    Looking at the source again Murray really only says "love interest", so I cut that phrase. I use "love interest" in the next sentence, which I hope is not a problem; it's hard to find a different phrase that doesn't imply the direction of love. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • making an exception to his violent code: we've established that The Spider lacked a code of non-violence, but this is the first I'm hearing that he had a positively violent set of personal rules. Is that quite what we mean?
    I think so -- he was perfectly happy to kill criminals in large numbers. Or do you mean that it could be taken as a proxy for cruelty? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's a difference between saying that The Spider was violent (ie, he had no rules against using violence), and that he had "a violent code" (ie, he had some kind of creed that commanded him to be violent). It sounds like we mean the first but have written the second. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point. After thinking about it some more I've cut that clause completely -- the contrast doesn't have to be explicitly drawn for the reader -- it's pretty clear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • rarely returned their fire--": double hyphen to endash or emdash, as your preference takes you.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • as in this scene from the first issue: "From a cunning artifice contrived at the bottom of his cigarette lighter, [Wentworth] withdrew a tiny seal and pressed it upon the forehead of the dead man. There, close to the small hole, was clearly depicted, in rich vermilion, the tiny outline of an ugly spider ...": the quote reads a little clumsily in prose, and I'm not sure what it adds to the sentence it's in. Perhaps pop it into a blockquote template?
    I'd like to avoid making it a blockquote as long as there's an image to the left -- it ends up looking a bit odd in that situation. The quote is mostly there for colour, though it's also the case that it's an iconic part of The Spider's methods. I could trim it or cut it if you think it's necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry - I meant a quote box rather than a blockquote. Purely a suggestion: it does add some colour, and I think that's more the role of a quote box (which is a substitute for an illustration) rather than for such a big piece of article text. However, trimming would also be an option. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried this; haven't used a quote box before, as far as I can recall. How does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good from a layout point of view, though would use the |source= parameter to say where the quote is from. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Fly: should the the be capitalised, as it is for The Spider?
    Sampson is inconsistent about this and I have no access to the original text; I've changed it to "The" on the principle of least surprise. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • innocence bystanders: innocent bystanders?
    Oops. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest explaining weird menace, again per MOS:NOFORCELINK.
    I cut this to "Bittner had experience writing for Popular's Terror Tales and Horror Stories, and his background in horror fiction": the particular kind of horror is not really important for this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout the life of the magazine, Popular's editors had always rewritten parts of the manuscript whenever it was thought necessary: this is a bit flabby: throughout the life of the magazine, always and whenever it was thought necessary all seem to be saying the same thing.
    Agreed. Cut to "Popular's editors rewrote parts of the lead novels whenever necessary". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could even cut further - I doubt anyone would think that they rewrote them unnecessarily - to something like "Popular's editors rewrote parts of some of the lead novels". UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to "Popular's editors sometimes rewrote parts of the lead novels": I added "sometimes" to avoid implying that every novel had significant rewrites. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's a better solution than mine. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • a short fictional biographical sketch - consider cutting fictional, as you can't have a non-fiction biography of a fictional character.
    I added "fictional" because without it the term "biographical" seems to imply that somebody is treating it as non-fiction. (You made me think of this, though I doubt that's helpful.) I'll cut it if you think it's better without; I do see the problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure it's a major issue: one option would be to rephrase without the word biography at all, but then I understand that it's written in the style of a "real" biography, and your current framing conveys that nicely.
    UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • characters that Page killed off: a little informal, perhaps, and certainly a MOS:IDIOM.
    I'd like to keep this, though if you really dislike it I'll try and rephrase. To "kill off" a character might be idiomatic, but it's concise shorthand for "write in the death of a character". I don't know of another concise way to say it and I think it is generally understood. Just saying "killed" has the same problem as omitting "fictional" in the previous point -- "killed off" can't be misread as referring to real people, but "killed" can. Idioms are to be avoided because they can be misunderstood, but I don't think there's any ambiguity here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My main issue is that it's informal: I don't think it's the right register for an encyclopaedia (though you'd certainly find it in other types of writing about these works, such as reviews in a newspaper). I'll have a think about better ways to write it: your point is a valid one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the damage inflicted on New York by The Spider's foes magically disappeared with the following issue: as with miraculous above, I'd rework magically unless the plots actually involved magic.
    Changed to "inexplicably". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first issue included: "Baited Death", by Leslie T. White, and "Murder Undercover", by Norvell Page: drop the colon.
    Aargh. Dropped. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Occasionally story elements appeared to be fantasy, but these were always explained away by the end of the story: as above, all of the story elements were technically fantasy: I think we mean fantastical or even supernatural.
    Went with "supernatural". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it a crime fighter or a crime-fighter?
    Had to look this up and it appears both are used, but the hyphenated form seems more common in AmEng so I went with that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reader's club, The Spider League of Crime Prevention, was started; this was a common marketing tactic among pulp magazines, particularly the hero pulps: needs a slight rework, unless it was common for hero pulps to start clubs called The Spider League of Crime Prevention.
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joining the club, which cost a quarter: I understand the US context to the article, but suggest rephrasing to "25 cents" (only once, or per year?) per MOS:COMMONALITY and for the benefit of non-American readers.
    Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joining the club ... brought the subscriber a signet ring: I think the idiom is bought, but either way MOS:IDIOM would suggest a slightly more down-the-line way of phrasing this. Perhaps something like "members were sent a signet ring..."?
    I did mean "brought", as in "doing X will bring a result of Y". I don't think of this as idiomatic, but if you think it's not naturally parseable that way I'll change it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's easily parsed as long as English is your first language: it's difficult to put ourselves in the perspective of someone who doesn't speak good English, but these sorts of phrases often cause them difficulty. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to "Those who joined the club, for 25 cents, received a ...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every kid in the country must have wore [sic] one at one time or another: is this a case for MOS:CONFORM where we can just fix the solecism/dialect without comment?
    I'm a fan of CONFORM, but I think this goes beyond its stated limitation to "formatting and other purely typographical elements". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the pencil and the ring are now rare collectors' items: I'm not comfortable citing this to a website that was using this claim to sell them. However, I wouldn't be totally averse to using the price for which they sold.
    Would you be OK with just cutting "rare"? I am quite sure they truly are rare, but the prices are high enough that I think we can say they are collectors' items. The magazines themselves wouldn't sell for more than a fraction of that price. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like you're basing that argument on the price for which they sold - in which case, is a better course of action just to say what that price was, and perhaps contextualise it versus a price for the comics, or high-demand comics sold in the same period? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (They're not comics, by the way! Totally different audience, perhaps surprisingly.) The price is certainly an indicator, but in addition my experience of reading auctions online tells me that a reputable auction house doesn't list something as rare unless it is -- they would immediately lose the trust of the knowledgeable collectors who are the likely buyers. I see people listing non-rare items on eBay and claiming they're scarce, but you don't see that from auction houses or specialized book dealers. If I can convey the point via the price as you suggest that would work too, though. I thought of "Both the pencil and the ring now sell for thousands of dollars in good condition" but that makes a generalization that a single sale doesn't really support; perhaps these are the only good condition ones that have sold in the last twenty years ... Any thoughts about phrasing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could we have "an example of the pencil sold in [year] for [amount], while one of the rings sold at [amount] in [year/the same year]." UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WL Louvre.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Spider was published by Popular Publications, and produced 118 issues: I think Popular produced the editions, not The Spider.
    Rephrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was pulp format for all issues; it began at 128 pages and was reduced to 112 pages after March 1936: I don't know much about the technical terms here: what exactly do we mean by pulp format? I wonder how connected these two clauses are.
    Pulp format meant a particular size (about 7" x 10") and the use of pulp paper, almost always in signatures of 16 pages, so the page count would be a multiple of 16. This is covered in pulp magazine, but that link is all the way back in the lead, so I've relinked here. You're right that there's not much direct connection between the format and the page count (though my eye would immediately spot the multiple-of-16 point) but without some such connective tissue this paragraph would be a lot of very short sentences. I'd like to leave this as is to make it smoother to read. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy with that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 2: are we sure that Steeger meant that in earnest?
    It seems so. That's sourced to Server's Encyclopedia of Pulp Fiction Writers; Server says "Page himself was said to have been something of a mysterious, eccentric figure, wrapped up in his stories and his characters, particularly the Spider. His boss Henry Steeger recalled that Page would wear a wide-brimmed black hat and black cape and may have come to believe he was his famous superhero. Others remembered Page in the same outfit, roaming up and own the sunny beaches of Ana Maria, a resort and pulp writer colony on Florida's Gulf Coast." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist: Thanks for the detailed comments; I appreciate it. All addressed or comments left above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist: More responses above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All looks very reasonable: might be a little while until I can give a proper reply, but will try to pick off those that need it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I'd appreciate a call on "killed off" one way or another: I have my own view there, but it would be silly in the utmost to oppose on the basis of a disagreement over it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just made it "characters that died in one of Page's novels reappeared in later issues"; does that work? A little less fluent but I hope it addresses the issue. And thanks for the support, and (again) for the thorough review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does. A pleasure, as always. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

From a first canter-through looking for typos etc:

  • the secret identify – identity?
  • in the same mould – isn't "mold" the normal AmE spelling?
  • included sketchese of Wentworth – sketches?

More to come after a proper read-through. Tim riley talk 07:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed -- thanks, Tim. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After a careful perusal I have only two further quibbles. The mention of a quarter as the membership fee of the club could do with a blue link for the benefit of non-Americans who have no idea what a quarter is in this context. And the 63-word quote in the Art section would, I think, be better as a blockquote. Otherwise no concerns. A surprisingly good read, evidently well sourced and proportionate and, I'm sure, as well illustrated as an article on a magazine of this vintage could be. Happy to support its elevation to FA. Tim riley talk 22:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim -- I changed "quarter" to "25 cents" per a comment above, so perhaps that no longer requires a link, and I block-quoted as suggested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (spotchecks not done) from Therapyisgood

[edit]
  • Ref 34: needs an ndash and to be pp instead of p
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mix of ISBN styles in references (ie compare Backer, Ron (2010) [no dashes]) to Sampson, Robert (1987). Note Wikipedia:ISBN#Types says the 13 number style should be used if provided by original. "Please use the ISBN-13 if both are provided by the original work." But, " if an older work only lists an ISBN-10, use that in citations instead of calculating an ISBN-13 for it"
    Hyphenated the Backer ISBN.
  • I'm getting an error using my web browser (An error occurred during a connection to www.philsp.com. PR_END_OF_FILE_ERROR) on the Galactic Central refs (archives work OK). I tried in Chrome and got a different error.
    They were doing an upgrade run yesterday and you may have been trying to access those pages while it was happening -- I just tried a few and they're working for me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are you seeing the author in ref 12?
    At the end of each article on that website are the contributor initials, which can be translated to names here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Spider's run: The Spider's Web (1938) and The Spider Returns (1941).[50][5] flip refs
    Done, but FYI per WP:REFORDER "references need not be moved solely to maintain the numerical order of footnotes as they appear in the article". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Server, Lee (2002): any specific city?
    It's New York, NY -- I didn't add the state name because it's one of the cities that doesn't require it. To be honest I can't remember where on Wikipedia I saw this, though I know for example AP-style has a list of 15 or so cities that don't require the state. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ISBN in Backer, Ron (2010) links me to the physical book but the ref doesn't cite a page number, consider dropping ISBN. Additionally consider using |format=e-book for this ref if it's the one you're using. if you're using the physical book, cite a page no. in the references and drop the url.
    I was searching what I found in Google Books. E-books should also have ISBNs but I can't find one for this, so I figured this approach (use the hardback ISBN, which is supposed to be the same text) and the search string would be the best option. I could change format to e-book but I'm not sure what the problem is with the current citation? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Server, Lee (2002). Pulp Fiction Writers. New York: Checkmark Books. ISBN 0-8160-4577-1. this is coming back on WorldCat as being published by Facts on File, additionally the title appears to be Encyclopedia of pulp fiction writers instead of just Pulp Fiction Writers.
    Title changed; thanks for catching that. Checkmark Books is an imprint of Facts on File. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All from me. Therapyisgood (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- all responded to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Therapyisgood, pinging to check if the above responses are sufficient. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 19 October 2023 [30].

Mountain pigeon

[edit]
Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Been a while since I've nominated anything here, so thought I might as well put some of my older articles through here. This is about a genus of pigeons from Indonesia and it's pretty short, so have fun! AryKun (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • List of species: the "Scientific name" column, as well as the scientific name, has a person's surname and a date. What does this indicate? Why are two in brackets and two not? What does the date indicate?
    • Expanded the note to explain this; brackets is already covered in the note.
  • List of species: Is there any rationale for the ordering of the list?
    • As stated at the top of the table, it's in taxonomic sequence.
  • List of species: Would it be possible to write out LC in full, to make it understandable to the non-expert? And why is "IUCN" added in superscript after each status?
    • It's a template, so no; IUCN links directly to the IUCN webpage.
  • Note a: What is a "A binomial authority"? I rather doubt that a non-aficionado will be able to make sense of sentence. Would it be possible to paraphrase it in plain English?
    • Glossed.
  • Could you add the OCLC to Salvadori. (820904343)
    • Done.
  • "And Matthews - 62578303.
    • Done.
  • I note that virtually no OCLCs nor ISBNs are used. Is there a reason?
    • Most of the publications are in journals and so have neither; the books with no ISBNs are very old and wouldn't have those.
For Pereira et al the ISSN is 1063-5157 and the OCLC 9986998490; for Luis et al the OCLC is 8542513730. I have checked as far as cite 15, could you perhaps run through the rest?
  • Is a publisher location available for Gibbs et al?
    • Added.
  • "at least 10–40 birds". "At least" indicates a minimum. It seems strange to follow it with not only a range, but a broad range. Does the "40" indicate the upper end of flock size? Reading on, the form of words in the main article seems clearer.
    • Removed "at least"; I think it reads better now.
I agree :-) .
  • "currently contains four species". You said that in the first sentence.
    • Removed.
  • "All four species of mountain pigeon are medium-sized pigeons". Are any numbers available, to indicate what counts as medium sized in pigeons?
    • Added.
  • "woooooo m". Is the gap before the final letter deliberate or a typo?
    • Deliberate.
  • "pale mountain pigeon near fruiting trees can also have more than 100 individuals." Suggest deleting "also".
    • Done.
  • "making a loud whooshing noise". Is this a vocalisation?
    • Made with wings; clarified in text.
  • "They mostly forage in the canopy". Perhaps an in line definition of "canopy" in parentheses?
    • I think canopy's a common enough word.

Nice work. Mostly nit pickery above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping Gog the Mild. AryKun (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Just the OCLC point outstanding. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, added ISSN and OCLC for all the remaining refs. AryKun (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Splendidly illustrated and is as good a read as such an article can be expected to be. Looks comprehensive and well sourced to my uninformed eyes (and it is reassuring to a lay reviewer when an expert – in this case Jimfbleak – gives the thumbs-up). Only one quibble: I imagine the double plural, Mountains pigeons, in the second para of the Behaviour and ecology section is a typo. Happy to add my support. Tim riley talk 08:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that was a typo; fixed now. AryKun (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aa77zz

[edit]

The text looks good, short and sweet. The sources all look reliable but I have some comments on the formatting of the references.

For some journal references the day of publication is specified while for others only the year is given. The article needs to be consistent. The normal convention (at least in academic publishing) is to only specify the year.

  • Ref 2, Jobling. Link is now broken - it should be: https://archive.org/stream/Helm_Dictionary_of_Scientific_Bird_Names_by_James_A._Jobling#page/n182/mode/1up
    • Replaced.
  • Ref 3 Hartert. Better for the reader if you link to the specific page: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/3266906
    • Done.
  • Ref 7 Gibbs et al. The title is linked to Worldcat. I expect a title to be link to a free-to-read version of the document. The cite book documention states "Online sources linked by |url=, |article-url=, |chapter-url=, |contribution-url=, |entry-url=, |map-url=, and |section-url= are presumed to be free-to-read." (In this case the OCLC links to the WorldCat entry and the cite book doc has "It is not necessary to specify a URL to a link identical to a link also produced by an identifier.") The url title link should be removed.
    • Linked to GBooks, where the Gymnophaps part is part of the preview.
  • Ref 8 Goodwin: The link is identical to that provided by the doi. The article is not open-access so the url title link should be removed.
    • Removed.
  • Ref 9 Pereira et al. The link duplicates the doi and should be removed. Instead, as this is a free-to-read article, add doi-access=free to the template.
    • For some reason, the link won't go away even if I remove the url parameter.
  • Ref 14 Beehler and Pratt. The title link is to WorldCat. The OCLC provides this link - see ref 7 Gibb above. The url title link should be removed.
    • Done.
  • Ref 17 Symes et al. The article is behind a paywall and the doi provides a link to the article. The url title link should be removed.
    • Done.
  • Ref 18 Diamond et al. The article is behind a paywall and the doi provides a link. The url title link should be removed. Note also that the archive link is useless as it doesn't provide access to the article - as article was behind a paywall when the archive link was created.
    • Done.
  • Ref 21 Adams et al. The article is behind paywall. The url title link duplicates doi link. The url title link should be removed.
    • Done.
  • Ref 22 Bishop et al. This is an open access article but the website has been reorganised and the url now doesn't link to the actual article. Replace by the slightly modified: https://afo.birdlife.org.au/afo/index.php/afo/article/view/2059/2069
    • Done.

- Aa77zz (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
  • Is the footnote needed? Such a footnote could be added to practically every other species article...
    • I think it's at least useful in genus articles with a table like this; plus, Gog asked for clarification on these points above, and having it there doesn't hurt. AryKun (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was moved into Gymnophaps as a subspecies of the Buru mountain pigeon in 1927." You state by what authority in other revisions, should here too.
    • I can't quite figure out if Mathews is the one who did it; no sources really track taxonomic history this closely, so I have to figure this out by digging through every paper in BHL and finding the earliest source I can.
  • Give binomials in parenthesis for the other species when you mention them the first time too, now you only do it for the the first mentioned species.
    • Done.
  • "to the fruit dove genus Ptilinopus" and " the imperial pigeon genus Ducula" Is a bit cosnpicuous here that you first time link the common name, second time the generic name. Any reason to not be consistent?
    • Linked common name in both.
  • "distinct species by Frank Rheindt and Robert Hutchinson" No presentation info given about them, unlike most other persons mentioned.
    • Added "biologist".
  • "4 species of which one extinct" Missing "is"?
    • Added.
  • You describe how they differ from other pigeons, but how do the species within the genus differ from each other (all I see mentioned is one species being sexually dimorphic)? I think this is pretty crucial information for a genus article.
    • Added (mostly just copied from the leads of the species articles, but I think it's good enough).
  • Is the size range given applicable to all the species? Otherwise I think they're few enough that they could be given a measurement each.
    • Added in later description of individual species.
  • It seems all of the species have darker upper parts and wings and lighter lower parts, but this isn't stated?
    • I would like to mention it, but the only source that covers morphology for the genus as a whole (Gibbs et al.) doesn't say it, so I'd just be SYNTH-ing together this info.
  • "Tree on which a Seram mountain pigeon nest was found" There is a red arrow on the image, state in caption if that is the location of the nest? Now it reads as if the tree itself is the focal point.
    • Added.
  • "Some species will fly long distances to visit specific species of fruiting plants,[17] while others have been recorded feeding on trees near the coast." Any reason why the specific species can't be named instead of "some" and "others"?
    • Added Papuan for the first statement, but the second statement is from Gibbs, who uses it for long-tailed mountain pigeon. That's since been split, and I can't figure out whether he's referring to Buru, Seram, or both here.
  • "and eating soil" Do we know why it would eat soil?
    • Source doesn't mention it specifically, the wikilink to the article on geophagy provides some general reasons like minerals and stuff.
  • Do any of them have subspecies?
    • The papuan mountain pigeon has two, but they aren't particularly distinctive, so mentioning them would just clutter up an already overstuffed taxonomy section.
  • "are four species of birds in the genus Gymnophaps in the pigeon family Columbidae." I would expect the four species being named after that in the intro, since there are so few anyway?
    • Mentioned in second para, which already covers some taxonomy.
  • Size range could be given in the intro.
    • Added.

Source review

[edit]

Spot-check upon request. Some ancient sources, but nothing that would go out of date. I presume the somewhat inconsistent indicators (DOI etc.) are down to not all sources having the same indicators. I believe that Gregory Mathews and Ernst Mayr can be linked. It seems like https://www.orientalbirdclub.org/ has copies of its journal articles (Forktail and BirdingASIA), perhaps we ought to link these instead of Researchgate? Source formatting otherwise consistent and I don't see anything unreliable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Linked to OBC pdf of the Forktail article; I don't think the OBC has online pdfs for individual articles in BirdingASIA, so I just removed the ResearchGate link because of possible copyvio. The DOI's are missing because the OBC doesn't appear to use any for its articles; also added author links. AryKun (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, courtesy ping. AryKun (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK then, with the caveat that I did not do any spotcheck. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 October 2023 [31].

MLS Cup 2019

[edit]
Nominator(s): SounderBruce 05:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers the second (and most recent) MLS Cup to be won by my favorite team, Seattle Sounders FC. Played in front of a raucous crowd of over 69,000 fans and 2 seismographs in Seattle, the Sounders won 3–1 in the decider of a trilogy with Toronto FC, who they beat in 2016 and lost to in 2017. I watched from afar in Boston, where I was seriously considering an early return flight to go see the match. This article was promoted to GA status in 2020 and has since undergone some expansion and a GOCE copyedit; I feel it's of the same quality as my other two MLS Cup FAs. SounderBruce 05:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • File:King County Metro trolleybus 4314 with MLS Cup advertisement.jpg — I'm not sure about this, the advertisement is above the threshold of originality and since it is clearly a major focus of the image, you can't claim de minimis.
    • Removed to stay safe.
  • File:Seattle Sounders FC vs Toronto FC 2019-11-10.svg Needs a source for the lineup in the image description (t · c) buidhe 14:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Chris

[edit]
  • Putting a marker down. I aim to review this later today....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The match marked the conclusion of the 2019 MLS Cup Playoffs, which was contested" - this may be a UK/US English difference, but surely "play-offs" is a plural noun.....?
    • As a single event, it's not considered a plural noun.
  • Wikilink soccer on first use in the body as well as in the lead
    • Linked.
  • "organized into the eastern and western conferences" - capitals on Conference names.......?
    • Capitalized; the anti-caps corps have been targeting articles as of late.
  • Wikilink goal differential
    • Linked.
  • "with goals on transitions by Ruidíaz and Lodeiro to close out the first half" - not sure what this means. Were they the players who scored the goals? Or did they just set them up, in which case who scored them?
    • Fixed order.
  • Pozuelo image caption needs a full stop
    • Added.
  • I think the Summary of results table fails MOS:COLOR, as you are using just colours to indicate something. You need to use symbols too.
    • There doesn't seem to be a way to display symbols for each team in the module. Since changes would require changes to more than just a few articles, I think it's best to have a project discussion at WT:FOOTY.
    • Figured out how to add custom text, but it's a bit overwhelming. I think a project discussion would be needed at some point.
  • "The MLS Cup trophy was also taken on a tour of the city, arriving aboard a state ferry and sent to the Space Needle" => "The MLS Cup trophy was also taken on a tour of the city, arriving aboard a state ferry and being sent to the Space Needle"
    • Fixed.
  • "The national anthem"- the US one, presumably?
    • Seems to be so. Sometimes the Canadian anthem is also played for MLS matches between teams from both countries.
  • Tifo is linked in the caption of the image in the Match section, but it's also in an earlier caption so should probably be linked there instead
    • Fixed.
  • "protested that the goal was preceded by a foul on Jonathan Osori" - as he's already been mentioned, just use his surname here
    • Fixed.
  • "Jozy Altidore earned a consolation goal" - here too
    • Fixed.
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2023 (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) 16:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Thebiguglyalien

[edit]

I'll have a review posted within the next few days. I don't know much about the subject, so I'll be reviewing from that perspective. In the meantime, I have an open FAC that's also looking for reviewers if you're interested. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General notes:

  • There appears to be enough analytic content in some of the news coverage to make them high quality sources. It's not to the point where I'm going to count it against the review, but just a few general comments based on the types of sources: be careful about using too many non-independent sources, and be careful not to extrapolate anything from news reports that are essentially "this happened today". The advice at WP:PRIMARY is relevant here.
    • Just to clarify, MLSsoccer.com's editorial content is not explicitly controlled by the league, and they are often the best reliable source for a lot of statistical analysis. I've used them somewhat sparingly to only cite obvious facts, though.
  • There were a few unnecessary commas that treated dependent clauses as independent clauses. I've removed them.
    • Thanks for catching those.
  • Be consistent when referring to the teams. Alternating between "Seattle" and "The Sounders" introduces unnecessary complication.
    • Alternating is standard practice in sports articles (and mirrors what sources do), since it breaks up the monotony of a section. Since both Seattle and Sounders are part of the club's official name and are both common ways to refer to the team in the context of a match, I don't see this as a major issue.
  • Is the position of each player relevant to the match? If it is, it might be helpful to indicate what it is when a player is first mentioned. It shouldn't be assumed that the reader is familiar with every player.
    • I typically use positions for when it is most relevant, namely trades and other acquisitions. Since soccer is a sport where most outfield positions can score, it would clutter the section to add each position for every goalscorer.
  • Is there any reason why MLS Cup 2019 and 2019 MLS Cup Playoffs are two different articles?

Lead:

  • "and the first to be hosted by the Sounders" – This makes it sound like this was the first ever game to be hosted by the Sounders.
    • Fixed.

Road to the final:

  • "Road to the final" seems very informal rather than using encyclopedic wording.
  • "The playoffs ... was" – Singular/plural
    • Fixed.
  • "the higher-seeded team" – Is this a term/concept that a casual fan can be expected to know? Would Seed (sports) be the appropriate link?
    • Added a link; it is a common term.
  • "The shortened playoff schedule" – This should make it clearer that the change in the elimination method is what caused the shortened schedule.
    • Added.
  • "manager Brian Schmetzer" – MOS:SEAOFBLUE
    • Fixed.
  • Is "berth" a term widely known by casual fans? Is there a Wikipedia article with more context?
    • It is a common term and doesn't need to be
  • "Ruidíaz added a second goal for himself" – Is this a common wording for scoring? I'm picturing him sneaking over to a scoreboard and giving himself an extra point.
    • If only it was that easy. I trimmed that section down.
  • "provided additional depth to improve the team's defense" – This seems vague
    • Removed "improve".

Venue and preparations:

  • "Prices for tickets on secondary markets peaked at an average of $622" – This doesn't mean much without the original price for context.
    • There doesn't seem to be a source for the average price of a normal ticket, nor the original price offered for the match.
  • "Sound Transit ran special several Sounder commuter train trips" – Is there a missing word here?
    • Fixed.

Broadcasting:

  • Is there no information about TVA Sports and ESPN International viewership stats?
    • Those were not released and are unlikely to be found in reliable sources.

Match: No notes

Post-match: No notes

That should be everything. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: Thanks for picking this one up for review. I've replied to your comments. SounderBruce 22:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied by the changes/explanations and support promotion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

[edit]

Spot-checks not included.

  • Source 1 says for me that it was posted on 11 November rather than 10 November. Maybe it's based on the time zone of the country one lives in?
  • Be consistent with linking publishers, works etc. Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't. For example, Seattle Sounders FC in source 1 is not linked but The Washington Post in source 2 is not.
  • The same problem with source 8 regarding the date of the posting. Please check if it says 30 October for you (as in the article) instead of 31 October, which is the case for me.
  • The New York Times sources should be marked with a |url-access=limited parameter.
  • Be consistent with including the publisher of works. In most cases, you do this but not in places like source 49 (missing Guardian Media Group) FrB.TG (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harrias

[edit]
  • The weather doesn't need a citation in the infobox, as it is already provided in the main body.
    • Removed.
  • "MLS Cup 2019 was the 24th edition of the MLS Cup, the championship match of Major League Soccer (MLS) and took place.." Needs a comma before "and took" to close off the clause.
    • Fixed.
  • Don't capitalise "Semifinals" in the "Road to the Final" section. (For the same reason we no longer capitalise final in 2022 FIFA World Cup final etc. Same with "Canadian Championship Final", "Western Conference Final", "Eastern Conference Final"
    • As these are proper names for the rounds, they should be capitalized; this is also the norm for American sports playoffs, which also capitalize their round names when they include conferences and divisions (e.g. MLB and NBA).
  • "..with the Sounders winning." Avoid the noun plus -ing construction.
    • Fixed.
  • "..and the team prevented involvement from LAFC captain and MLS scoring leader Carlos Vela.." I find this wording quite odd, I'd suggest rephrasing. At the moment it sounds more like they found a technicality to stop him from playing in the match.
    • Fixed with some punctuation.
  • I'd recommend wikilinking "General manager" on first usage, as non-North American readers won't necessarily understand the relevance of the role.
    • Fixed and added a little filler to avoid a SEAOFBLUE situation.
  • "..off a failed header from.." What is a failed header? Did he miss the header, or was it a misplayed header?
    • Fixed.
  • I don't think you explicitly state why Seattle got to host the match; this would be worth clarifying.
    • Added to the Venue section.
  • "..with the Sounders entering.." Again, avoid the noun plus -ing construction.
    • Fixed.
  • "The match was broadcast in the United States in English on ABC for the first time since 2008.." The way this is phrased makes it sound like between 2008 and 2019 it had been broadcast on ABC in another language. Suggest rephrasing.
    • Fixed.
  • "..with Seattle starting Román Torres in place of Xavier Arreaga and Toronto replacing.." Again, avoid the noun plus -ing construction.
    • Fixed.
  • "..but his shot did not pass goalkeeper Quentin Westberg." Why not? Did it roll to a halt in front of him? Make it clear Westberg saved the shot.
    • Fixed.
  • "The Sounders were able to disrupt Toronto's attacks with runs on.." What are "runs on"?
    • A bit of text was deleted in some earlier edits; replaced with something from the source.
  • "..with the Sounders finding.." Again, avoid the noun plus -ing construction.
    • Fixed.
  • Portland Timbers is linked twice in the "Road to the final" section.
    • Fixed.
  • Nick DeLeon is linked twice in the "Road to the final" section.
    • Fixed.
  • Be consistent in how you refer to Columbus Crew SC; first use has "the Columbus Crew SC", while second use omits the "the".
    • Fixed.

Overall a nice article, with just some copyedits to fix really. Good work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Thanks for taking the time to review this article. I've addressed your comments above and made all the necessary changes. Next time I promise to not overlook the overused noun plus -ings, ha. SounderBruce 07:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Happy with the changes, an excellent article. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • "All four of the goals were scored in the second half, beginning with a deflected shot by Kelvin Leerdam and followed by strikes from substitute Víctor Rodríguez (later named the match MVP) and Raúl Ruidíaz. Jozy Altidore scored a late consolation goal for Toronto in stoppage time." It is not until the end of this that it is implied, but not stated, that the first three goals were scored by Seattle.
  • "2019 MLS Cup Playoffs". Why the upper-case P?

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Cleaned up that sentence to make it clear the Sounders scored three unanswered goals first. The capitalization of "Playoffs" is due to its nature as a proper name for the tournament; secondary sources aren't totally consistent on whether or not to capitalize it, but the league website (which has some level of editorial independence) does. SounderBruce 17:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 October 2023 [32].

Darkness on the Edge of Town

[edit]
Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Bruce Springsteen's "samurai record", at least how he puts it. Darkness on the Edge of Town, his fourth studio album, is my personal favorite of his. Not only capturing the essence of who Springsteen is and what he's about, it has solid music and lyrics that made an interesting but innovative follow-up to Born to Run. Following a pretty solid GA review, I believe the article is in better shape than my previous FACs This Year's Model and The Next Day were when I nominated them and is ready for the star. I'm looking forward to reading comments/complaints. Happy editing :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • I agree that this is a fabulous album, and I will do a full review later. One drive-by comment for now - one of the footnotes says that the Pointer Sisters' cover of "Fire" got to number 2 in the UK. This isn't true, it actually got to number 34, per The Official Charts Company, the compilers of the UK chart (I also have several UK charts books which confirm this). If the source used for the ref against that sentence says it got to 2 then unfortunately that source is in error...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was particularly influenced by works of fiction that focused on individuals confronted by adversity; these included the John Steinbeck novels The Grapes of Wrath (1939) and East of Eden (1952) and their respective film adaptations directed by John Ford and Elia Kazan; westerns such as Ford's The Searchers (1956); and country/folk artists" - you say the works of fiction included, but the last item in the list is two people, not a work of fiction. I suggest amending to "and the songs of country/folk artists"
  • "Several songs emphasize choruses compared to songs" => "Several songs emphasize choruses more than songs"
  • "the majority of Darkness are less characterized by a specific place and refer" => "the majority of Darkness is less characterized by a specific place and refers"
  • "depicting a factory-worker father, whose life is consumed by his job, but works to provide for his family" => "depicting a factory-worker father, whose life is consumed by his job, but who works to provide for his family"
  • "Highly anticipated, the album sold less than its predecessor" - these seem to contradict each other, so maybe "Despite being highly anticipated, the album sold less than its predecessor"
  • "Some felt they were overly serious, bleak, and not as uplifting as Born to Run" => "Some felt the songs" were overly serious, bleak, and not as uplifting as those on Born to Run"
  • In the weekly charts tables you missed the final S off US Billboard Top LPs & Tapes

Comments from Moise

[edit]

Hi Zmbro, hope you're well! I somehow didn't realize you'd been working on this particular article at this particular time. :-) Comments will be coming soon. Moisejp (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Springsteen used outside sources when writing the album's songs": I'm not sure that "outside sources" is very clear here (outside relative to what?). I'm not sure what to suggest for better wording. Moisejp (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey there! You as well :-) From what I understood when reading through sources it meant compared to prior releases. How about "Sources Springsteen used when writing..."? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds better I think! :-) I'll get some more comments down soon. You'll have seen I've also been making some suggested edits as I've been reading through. Moisejp (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Springsteen assigned engineer Jimmy Iovine to create a combination": Does this mean a combination of Landau's and Van Zandt's ideals? Whatever it means, I feel it's not very clear, and would be good to reword for clarity. Moisejp (talk) 06:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zmbro, just wanted to let you know this next one week looks like it's going to be super busy and I may likely not get in any Wiki time until about next weekend. But don't worry, I'll be back with a bang to this review before you know it! Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, am back and continuing working my way through.

  • "Author Marc Dolan states that the song's themes are essential to the project": Could another word be substituted for "project"? It doesn't seem very clear to me.
  • Changed to 'album'
  • "Springsteen structured the setlists the same way as the Darkness album": If Springsteen was only playing the songs from the album, I'd interpret this to mean that he played the songs in the same order as the album. But because he played 74 different songs, I'm not sure what this means. Could it be rewritten to clarify? Moisejp (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll begin my second read-through this weekend, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Springsteen wrote new material on the road and at his farm home in Holmdel, New Jersey, reportedly amassing between 40 and 70 songs" / "Springsteen had accumulated a large number of songs while touring": seems repetitive and would be good to use one or the other. Moisejp (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut
  • "The intention to record most of the backing tracks live with minimal overdubs was thwarted by the studio's carpeted floors." Consider explaining further how the two are related. (Presumably the carpets affected sound quality or something, but it would be good to spell out the exact cause and effect.) Moisejp (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarified
  • "The album displays heartland rock,[39] with punk rock and country influences." The second part of this sentence seems to have already been established a couple of paragraphs earlier. Moisejp (talk) 04:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • I know you use Newspapers.com for a couple of 1978 reviews. I was going to suggest scouring it a bit for negative or neutral mentions of the album from 2000 or so onwards, if you haven't already. I was going to try to have a peek for you, but I don't seem to have immediate access right now. Moisejp (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Moisejp How's that look now? I got a few mixed things in the final paragraph. Might need some ce though... – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is my last comment, by the way. Moisejp (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay, have had a busy week. Will be working on this over the weekend. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Great prose and detail. Everybody's comments have helped make this a lot more polished and cohesive over the course of the FAC. A couple of small comments I leave you with that don't affect my support:

  • Any additional info on why Springsteen defaced the billboard? Enquiring minds may want to know.
  • For some reason Carlin's book is no longer available on the Open Library or archive.org so I can't provide any info on that rn. I'll most likely buy a copy since I intend on continuing the Springsteen journey... – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed this in ref 58, but not sure whether there may or not be other instances of this. When I'm doing articles, I find it's friendlier to future editors to always put the ref info at the first instance of the ref. Here for ref 58 it's at the third instance. If future editors want to make a change, and they have to hunt down which instance the ref info is contained at, it's extra work. It's about maintaining integrity of the backend and not just the frontend. Anyway, this is possibly just personal preference, but it's something you can think about if you like. :-) Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceoil

[edit]

Have read thorough once, good impressions.

lead

  • Recorded following a period of legal disputes It was recorded after a series
  • Fixed
  • The sessions yielded a large number of outtakes, several of which were given to other artists while others later appeared on compilations. - Would put this later down in the lead. What does "outtakes....were given" mean
Chronologically, would put near the end of the third para. Ceoil (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How's that look? Did some rearranging and clarified that some appeared on The River – zmbro (talk) (cont) 01:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect Ceoil (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • sold less well - did not sell as well
  • Fixed
  • Sources Springsteen used when writing the album's songs included - Sources Springsteen is alliteration. Maybe Springsteen was inspired by...
  • Maybe, "Springsteen took inspiration from sources as diverse as John Steinbeck novels..." your examples show that they were several.
  • the characters are more mature - older?
  • Fixed
  • while its singles performed modestly - name them here
  • Done
  • promoted it on the successful Darkness Tour, his largest tour up to that point - successful = largest tour to date, so some redundancy there. maybe "promoted it on the Darkness Tour, his largest to date"
  • less geographically tied to the Jersey Shore area
  • Fixed
  • best works and one that anticipated many of his later works. - the word "works" x 2

More minor quibbles to follow. Ceoil (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General points

  • Nice work on the references (both in terms of quality and formatting); see that this was a focus of the GA, so no concerns.
  • Thank you very much! :-)
  • Re the "Sound and mixing" sect - strictly speaking guitar and drum sounds are achieved during the recording / engineering stage rather than when mixing, although that can vary depending on the cross-over on duties (some producers also engineer). So not sure the section title "Sound and mixing" is right, as I say sound is really "production"...and that "Mixing extended into May 1978" was more that they couldn't agree on the production rather than the mix. It's a technical point, not a problem for me if you regig to differentiate or not; you have at least the essence of the process. Ceoil (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sect header "Packaging" - would re-title this as "album art" or "sleeve art". "packaging" implies delux box sets etc
  • Changed to 'Cover artwork'
  • Changed to "Retrospective reviews"

Reappraisal and legacy

  • In later decades, Darkness on the Edge of Town has received critical acclaim as one of Springsteen's finest works - Darkness on the Edge of Town has become widely considered one of Springsteen's finest works
  • Fixed
  • Reviewers have recognized Darkness as the harbinger for Springsteen's future career Critics view it as a harbinger for his later career
  • Fixed
  • Some even said the album embodies both Springsteen himself and what he stands for. - I know what you are going for but would spell out more Springsteen's everyman appeal "and what he stands for".
  • Fixed
  • would drop which Debra Filcman of Ultimate Classic Rock found "verbose yet tedious" - the earlier more accessible lyrics covers the point.
  • Done

Other general points

  • Avoid overly formal words like "stated" (have removed), "upon", "noted", "Commentators" (they are critics), etc
  • Done
  • Reduce the length of quotes as far as possible. Eg not sure what Cameron meant by "but in order to resolve life's eternal dilemmas requires a journey to the heart of the Darkness on the Edge of Town". It seems to me like the tagged on / trying to be romantic last sentence of a review. Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot to reply here. Removed the Cameron part you mentioned and made some other paraphrasing. Lmk if there are any other quotes you feel could be shortened. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After another read through, leaning support, when o/s issues above are resolved/refuted. Ceoil (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ceoil (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • In the lead's first paragraph, the second and third sentence both start in a similar way (i.e. "It was released" and "It was recorded"). Would there be a way to avoid this?
  • Fixed
  • I have a suggestion for this part, (Springsteen had disagreements with his manager, Mike Appel, over his plans). I do not think the "over his plans" part is necessary and it could be removed as the next sentence goes into further detail on these disagreements. The "plans" part does not add much in my opinion.
  • Done
  • This part, (in which Springsteen bought out his contract with Appel and Appel received a lump sum), is rather repetitive, specifically the "Appel and Appel" part. I think that this could be avoided by saying something along the lines of "Appel who received a lump sum and a share of royalties from Springsteen's first three albums".
  • Fixed
  • I have a clarification question about this part, (By September 1977, Springsteen grew frustrated with Atlantic's environment). Is there any further information on what about the studio frustrated him?
  • I have a suggestion for this sentence: (Springsteen reportedly scrapped the title to avoid confusion with a Bill Chinnock album of the same name.) I think it would be helpful to mention that this album was released only a year before this one and reissued the same year as this one. That would make the potential confusion clearer to unfamiliar readers like myself as I was not sure when Chinnock's album was released based off the prose alone.
  • Clarified and added a reference.
  • I would link mixing on the first instance, which I believe is this part, (Mixing extended into), to be consistent with how other music production jargon like mastered is linked.
  • Done
  • There are a few spots where there are four citations used, which could run into citation overkill and may benefit from citation bundling. There spots are (i.e. "which appear on only three of the ten tracks" and "in both positive and negative lights").
  • Grouped
  • This part, (Displaying heartland rock, author Marc Dolan), is not grammatically correct as it is saying that Dolan is the one who is displaying heartland rock, not the album.
  • Adjusted
  • I would link American heartland and Asbury Park as non-American readers may be less familiar with these terms and would also be more consistent with how other items, specifically Utah and Louisiana, are linked. I would also link Middle America later in the article for the same reasons.
  • Added links
  • I think this part, (A partial tribute to Springsteen's father, Springsteen has said), could be revised to (A partial tribute to his father, Springsteen has said), to avoid repetition and it would be clear from context that this is about Springsteen's father.
  • Done
  • I have a question about this part, (with the catalog number JC 35318). Apologies if this is obvious, but is the catalog number notable enough to mention in the prose?
  • Understandable. I will leave this up to other reviewers. I do not have any issue with it remaining in the prose, and I could understand the argument of keeping it so it could be easily verifiable with the citation. Aoba47 (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was confused by this part, ("Prove It All Night" backed by "Factory"), specifically the "backed by" wordage. I was not sure if this referenced a B-side situation so I looked at the citation used here and unless I am overlooking it, I could find a mention of "Factory" there. The phrase "backed by" is used later in the same paragraph and it is not entirely clear to me what it means.
  • Meaning B-side; reworded the first instance
  • For this part, (the production exposed "a remarkably malleable voice" in the singer-songwriter), I would avoid using "the singer-songwriter" as a way to avoid repeating Springsteen's name.
  • Done
  • The "Track listing" section only mentions that the songs were all written by Springsteen, but it does not mention the producers (and I am guessing that all tracks were produced Springsteen and Jon Landau). I would clarify this point.
  • Done

Great work with this article! I hope these comments are helpful. Just for clarification, I have focused my review mostly on the prose. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just so I do not miss anything, but I doubt I will find anything major. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 Replies above. Thanks for reviewing :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93

[edit]
  • I gave this a pretty thorough review at GAN, including a spot-check, so I expect to support. There is a considerable depth of sourcing here, so I don't have comprehensiveness concerns as such; but doing a sweep for sources, as is my wont at FAC, I found these, that may be worth working into the analytical content. [33], [34], [35], and [36]. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vanamonde93 Damn. I wish I had access to those. I know there's currently an article analysis just like those in the article (here) but I know that was already cited before I started expanding. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zmbro: I have access to the three journal articles; send me an email via WP, and I'll reply with the pdfs. Perhaps try RX for the chapter? It's directly about this album, so it would be a shame not to use it. Also, I don't think you need to do major reworking of the text; the amount of detail in the scholarly material far exceeds the scope of this article. I'm visualizing a few sentences overall, summarizing any substantial analysis that isn't already included. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just sent. Thank you! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Vanamonde93 Hey there. I was able to add a few sentences in music and lyrics using your sources. Might make the last paragraph a little long, but I think it adds a little more analysis. (I skipped the Eraserhead one as I think that would turn into a little WP:FANCRUFT). Thanks again! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vanamonde, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I haven't had a moment to check in, but I hope to do so tomorrow. Apologies, I didn't expect to be the limiting factor and so did not prioritize this over the weekend. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No rush Vanamonde93, I didn't mean to hassle you. The nom isn't going anywhere without you, so as and when is fine. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There's a lot written about this album; one could easily conceive of a spinoff article about the lyrics or themes. But we have eight paragraphs of analytical content, using most if not all of the most prominent sources: any more, and we would likely run into length and focus issues. Support on all criteria besides image copyright and source formatting, which I have not examined, and thanks to Zmbro for their hard work. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band 1977.jpg the ebay link is dead and the archived link links to wikimedia(?) Suggest keeping the original ebay link but indicating that it is permanently dead if an alternative cannot be found. The photobucket links suffice I guess.
  • Done
  • Yes, I would just add an archive url showing the image in the article like this. Also, NYT says the photo is 1948 not 1951

I am not an expert on images, if other people can comment please do! Best, Heartfox (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This passes the image review. Heartfox (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spot checks not done. The refs are all mostly OK, but the following need a tweak or two:

Formatting
  • Some capitalisation has gone awry "Of" doesn't need to be capitalised, neither does "To" or "On" etc
  • Fixed
  • You need to decide how you're dealing with titles of articles etc. There is no consistency overall – compare the following, which are just examples:
    FN 7 has "If There Hadn't Been a Bruce Springsteen, Then the Critics Would Have Made Him Up; The Invention Of Bruce Springsteen".
    FN 96 has "Bruce Springsteen's albums – ranked!".
There is no single 'right' way, according to the MOS, but CONSISTENCY is the key.
  • FH61: p=1,021 – the comma isn't needed for a page and makes it look like there are two pages listed there. Just p=1021 will suffice
  • Fixed
  • FN 86: Why do all the Rolling Stone show the publication day except this one, which has "December 28, 1978 – January 11, 1979"?
  • What's your rationale on linking newspapers/magazines?
  • OK, thought that was the case. Three minor issues with this:
Ultimate Classic Rock is linked at FNs 3, 39 and 60.
The New York Times is linked at 7 and 79.
AllMusic is linked at 31, but not at 23
All fixed – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
  • What's the rationale with some books in the references but most in the Sources? (FN 87, 88, 101, 106, for example)
  • Fixed
  • Not everything has to be wikilinked, particularly as many of these are done in an inconsistent (or haphazard) manner. Locations and publisher are sporadically linked or not, so best to reduce the sea of blue and unlink all of them.
  • Fixed
  • Standardise the ISBNs to the same length (13 digit is the preferred version nowadays). This is an excellent tool for converting to the longer form.
  • Fixed
  • "via the Internet Archive. (registration required)" isn't needed on any of the sources (if you really want to use it, then use it on all the sources from the IA for the sake of consistency)
  • Removed

That's all – all minor formatting points. - SchroCat (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat Replies above. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat All set :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 October 2023 [37].

Barbara Bush

[edit]
Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Bush is one of only two women in American history to be both the wife of a U.S. president and the mother of a U.S. president. One of the oldest women to hold the position, she was known for her non-threatening grandmotherly image that earned her some of the highest approval ratings of any contemporary U.S. first lady. She was the last of the first ladies from the Greatest Generation, and as such the last to live the traditional lifestyle of a housewife. Under this lifestyle, she underwent two periods of severe depression: once after the death of her young daughter Robin to leukemia, and once again when her husband's secretive work at the CIA left her in emotional isolation. She held a strong rivalry with her predecessor, Nancy Reagan, and her matronly image forever made her the comparison point for her politically active successor, Hillary Clinton. Besides her widely publicized work in promoting literacy, Bush was also involved in activism for AIDS patients. She died in 2018, shortly after leaving the Republican Party of which she was an icon for much of her life. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, at what point am I able to get started on my next FAC? Right now I have two supports, but reviews by Bneu2013, Vaticidalprophet, and Eddie891 are teetering on the edge of completion (and I'm assuming you guys are set to support?). Normally I don't have an issue with waiting it out, but I'm getting the October jitters. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The coordinators would be happy to consider a request to start another FAC nomination once this one has a source review pass. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: The aforementioned source review is now completed and passed (and it's found a couple more supports in the last few days as well). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, feel free to nominate another. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Vacant0

[edit]

Saw the notice on WikiProject Politics. Will leave some comments. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 135 is region-locked.
  • Ref 146 has Betsy as last name and Klein as first name. This should be swapped.
  • Ref 173 and 182 are dead URLs.
  • Ref 192 redirects to the website's main page. Is this ref really needed at all. Ref 191 backs this claim too.
  • Ref 193, 194, 195, and 196 are missing pages.
  • I see that you have linked Kate Andersen Brower. What about adding these author links: Michael Kilian (Chicago Tribune Ref 178), Carl Sferrazza Anthony (First Ladies), Maurine Beasley (First Ladies and the Press), Diana Carlin (Barbara Pierce Bush: Choosing a Complete Life), Susan Page (The Matriarch), Donnie Radcliffe (Simply Barbara Bush)?

Vacant0, I've made all suggested changes, including archive links for 135, 173, and 182. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at the rest of the article soon. Vacant0 (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vacant0, there's still plenty of time on the FAC, but I thought I'd check in since it's been two weeks. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll leave some comments early next week. Vacant0 (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vacant0, just checking the status of this. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was busy, I'll look into it now. Vacant0 (talk) 08:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, the article is in a much better shape now than a month ago. I'll change my vote towards support, considering that I do not see any major issues that need fixing. Vacant0 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Barbara_Bush_portrait_1992_(cropped).jpg: source link is dead
  • File:Barbara_Bush_Signature.svg: can we be more specific about what this was based on?
  • /File:Barbara_Bush_on_her_and_her_husbands_relationship_with_Bill_Clinton.ogg: the source site includes a non-PD licensing statement - why is this believed to be PD?
  • File:George_and_Barbara_Bush_on_their_wedding_day_in_Rye,_New_York_-_NARA_-_186372.tif: why is this believed to be a US federal government work? Ditto File:George_H._Bush_family_on_the_campaign_trail.1970_(2832).jpg, File:Bush_Family_Photo_(Christmas_1979).jpg, File:President_George_H._W._Bush_and_First_Lady_Barbara_Bush_on_the_rocks_at_Walker's_Point,_Kennebunkport,_Maine.jpg
  • I'll get alt text on them as soon as the final images are settled
  • Added archive links for dead links
  • The only person who would know about the signature would be User:Connormah, who traced it 14 years ago
  • File:Barbara_Bush_on_her_and_her_husbands_relationship_with_Bill_Clinton.ogg is definitely under copyright. I've removed it from the article and nominated it for deletion at Commons
  • File:George and Barbara Bush on their wedding day in Rye, New York - NARA - 186372.tif was part of a cooperation project upload from the National Archives, and it seems all such images were tagged as government works. It's listed as "unrestricted" on the National Archives page. I'm not sure how this affects its licensing.
  • The other three images you listed here are from the George Bush Presidential Library. It's part of the National Archive, but copyright info is not provided for the specific images. I'll most likely replace these, but the National Archive is realistically the only place to find replacements, so I'd need to know the details of that first.
Nikkimaria, I've fixed a few things, and a few are unclear. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately their copyright statement isn't overly helpful for you: essentially if something is a federal government work it is free, but not everything they hold is a federal government work, and they can't generally confirm copyright status. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria That's unfortunate. I removed the four images you identified, and I added two new ones: one that was taken by the Department of Defense, and another that was taken by the White House's official photographer. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, has that improved things? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although now that we have a source for File:Entire_Bush_family.jpg it seems to have the same issue. Also still pending: alt text, dead source link on File:Barbara_Bush_speech_1999.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Images have been removed where the source could not be ascertained, and alt text has been added. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Bneu2013

[edit]

Will have comments very soon. Bneu2013 (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead
  • "Bush became first lady in 1989 after her husband was inaugurated as president." - consider mentioning that her husband was the 41st president; not mentioned in the lead.
  • I don't know that you need to mention the number of her children twice in the lead; in the second mention, you could reword to something like "Her children were born between 1946 and 1959, and she had to endure the loss of her four-year-old daughter Robin to leukemia in 1953."
Early life
  • If I understand correctly, her father was not a direct descendant of Franklin Pierce, just a descendant of his family, correct? I wouldn't change anything if this is correct.
  • No need to mention that she was the third of four children twice in this section.
  • What was her previous religious affiliation before Episcopalianism?
Entering political life
  • Link "needlepoint; not sure most people would know what this is.
  • Which paper(s) was "Washington Scene" published in?
    • The source says "for the Houston papers".
  • "As with the previous failed senate race, Barbara took an emotional toll from her husband's electoral defeat." - redundant per previous sentence.
  • Typo in third sentence of 1970s subsection.
  • Inconsistent capitalization of "senate" when used alone.
  • Where was her column published when she lived in China?
    • The source says "Texas weekly newspapers".
  • "With this, and the fact that her children were all grown and had moved away, she was overcome by a feeling of isolation." - her youngest child would have been 16 in 1975, I wouldn't consider that "grown".
  • "She did not take his advice, though she later wished that she had." - suggest rewording to "She did not take his advice, but later regretted this decision."
  • Did George announce his candidacy without telling Barbara that he planned to do so?
    • "Barbara realized, too, that her husband was planning a run for national office. He never actually told Barbara that he was running for president; she assumed it because two Bush fund-raising groups had been formed, and all her husband's actions of the past twenty years had been preparing him for this race. When she was asked if her husband had discussed the matter with her, she responded, 'Did he ask me if he could run for president? ... The answer is no, but he didn't ask me to marry him either.'"
  • "Early in the campaign, there were worries that she would be a liability; she was outspoken, and she looked significantly older than George in a primary election where age was an issue.
  • Not particularly fond of the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life"; I know they are commonly used, but they are terribly euphemistic. Suggest rewording to something like "supported the legalization of abortion" or "supported abortion rights" and link to United States abortion-rights movement.
  • I feel like there are two many uses of "she" in this section, particularly the second half. Shouldn't be too hard to reword.
Second Lady of the United States
  • "it was to that point the home that they had lived in longer than any other." - awkward wording; suggest changing to something like "it became the home that they had lived in for the longest time up to that point."
  • "First lady Nancy Reagan strongly disliked the Bushes." - suggest rewording to something like "First Lady Nancy Reagan developed a strong dislike for the Bushes." as this appears to have developed over time as opposed to all at once.

Bneu2013, I've made changes for everything to this point except for where I replied above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been busier than expected in the last week or so, and had hoped to be further along on my review by now. I will take a look and have more comments tomorrow. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First Lady of the United States
  • Consider inflation adjustment for $25 million. Ditto any other monetary figures.
  • "Publicly, she dismissed it "much ado about nothing" by twenty-year-olds.[95] Privately, she was angered by the protest." - these sentences could be combined.
  • Flip refs 97 and 96 at the end of the fifth paragraph.
Post-White House years
  • "Bush described January 20, 1993, the day of Bill Clinton's inauguration, as a "tough day" for her and her husband."
  • "The Bushes felt that George had earned a second term as president, and Barbara blamed Bill Clinton for her husband's loss." - this is kind of vague. Did she think that Clinton ran a better campaign than her husband or that his campaign tactics contributed to his loss? Did she think that circumstances beyond her husband's control, such as the recession, contributed to his loss?
  • What was Nancy Reagan critical of the Bushes for?
  • "she corrected a false accusation Nancy had made against them, she lied that reporters were harassing her to make Nancy feel guilty, and she hung up after saying "don't you ever call me again"." - awkward wording; suggest rephrasing.
  • What year was her memoir published?
  • Flip refs 120 and 119.
  • Suggest linking "long legal battle" to Bush v. Gore. Alternatively, you could mention that the election went to the Supreme Court and link there.
  • "After the invasion, she felt that he was being unduly influenced by Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Andy Card; she repeatedly urged her son to reconsider his decisions on Iraq until he sternly rebuked her." - change to "After the invasion, she felt that her son was being unduly influenced by Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Andy Card; she repeatedly urged him to reconsider his decisions on Iraq until he sternly rebuked her." Also include the titles of the three men; pretty sure they aren't mentioned before in the article.
  • Move ref 135 to the end of the sentence.
  • No need to mention the name of the George and Barbara Bush Center in the following sentence after it is first named.
  • "Trump was elected president, and Bush was remained critical of him during his presidency.
  • "Bush fell and fractured her vertebrae on March 16, 2018, and she was hospitalized."
  • Unlink second link to Donald Trump in this section.
I've already done the first half. I was waiting for the last batch of notes before I went through and fixed the rest of it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bneu2013 I've made all of the changes you suggested to this point. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bneu2013, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Political beliefs
  • "Bush's friends and relatives cited the death of her daughter for social beliefs, saying that she became highly empathetic for the unfortunate after Robin died." - add something like "the inspiration for" before "social beliefs".
  • Again, not particularly fond of the terms pro-choice and pro-life, but if she explicitly identified as "pro-choice", then it is fine as is.
  • Suggest providing a brief description of Naftali; I don't think most people would know who he is.
  • Did Bush switch her party affiliation before her death?
Bneu2013, I've made all changes for this section. The source doesn't say that she switched her party affiliation, just that she personally didn't consider herself a member, so I adjusted the wording accordingly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
  • Flip refs to proper order at the end of first sentence. Ditto anywhere else.
  • Do we need to have dashes in "second-from-right" in the photo caption?
  • Swap "5th-highest" and "ranked" or reword to "ranked the 5th-highest".
  • Cut "century" after "20th".

Support pending comments are addressed. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]



Vat

[edit]

Placing a header. I reviewed at GAN, but the article has expanded around 2k words since then, so I'll take another look through before commenting. Vaticidalprophet 01:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a serious read-through now -- not totally finished. Will just do the early sections of the article for now.

Lead and early life
[edit]
  • Among the most prominent of her actions as first lady was the commencement speech she gave at Wellesley College; it which saw considerable publicity -- did I miss that at GAN? Mea culpa :) If it's a more recent addition, there's either a missing or extra word there.
  • I see the lead image has changed. These things are, of course, subjective. I'm not sold on this image being an improvement, though -- it obscures her features somewhat and, as the most agonizingly nitpicky of MOS points, faces a suboptimal direction. I see on the talk this was discussed from a "the other portrait is lower-resolution" perspective, which is also a valid point, but I think the prior resolution is fine for an infobox and am not sure the "graininess" wasn't unavoidable-film-grain. (The new image has a lot of film grain itself.)
  • Her father was a businessman who worked at the McCall Corporation, descended from the Pierce family that included U.S. president Franklin Pierce I don't know that these clauses are connected enough to be comma'd (I'd probably write with a semicolon (McCall Corporation; he was descended from), but I probably overuse them).
  • Just noting, from an accessibility POV, that Google Books is not equivalent to IA and that its previews are much more capricious. I have no gbooks access to Page; if you use the links for accessibility/easy-source-checking purposes, gbooks doesn't give that for many/most readers, especially outside the US. (Personally I just omit gbooks links entirely even if using IA links, because gbooks is so unlikely to show the same thing to any two people.)
  • While the family lost some of their comforts during the Great Depression, her father's successful career kept them from poverty -- I'll try secure a copy of Page to see exactly what the source says here, but this stands out. "Kept from poverty", with its specific implications of coming close to it or seeing dramatic loss of status, juxtaposes poorly with "maintained a successful career". Is the source clearer on "some of their comforts"?
  • attending Milton School -- is this school one that matters, has a particular reputation, has an article, etc?
  • harshly judged the other children -- the definite article here doesn't pair well with the much more generalized statement after it. "her peers", "her schoolmates", etc?
  • The early discussion of their relationship (first noticed at They kept a correspondence after returning to their respective schools, and they) feels suboptimal. I first noticed the sentence structure, but while redoing the sentence in my head I realized "respective schools" felt like a slightly circumlocutory way of alluding to the fact they both attended boarding school. Specifying this complicates trying to trace the chronology of their relationship -- it's clear it was a long-distance relationship for some time, but the reader can't get a solid impression of when that timeline started and ended. It may be better to redo this chronology in a slightly less concrete manner, emphasizing the geographic distance between them in their early relationship rather than individual aspects of that distance. (I'm only thinking about the first paragraph of "Courtship and marriage" here -- the second and third are solid, and much clearer. Also, wow, today I learned about the Chichijima incident.)
  • Do we have any articles on Presbyterian classes/structures that might be worth linking in "Early married years" to contextualize?

More to come. This is still very good work; I'll probably have a lot of comments in absolute terms, but that's an "8000-word article" situation. In relative terms, I don't have much to say. Vaticidalprophet 05:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet, I've made all of the changes to this point, except where I've replied above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Continued review
[edit]

Initially intended to do more precise subsectioning, but it ended up being a little short.

  • Bush suffered from depression, which became severe enough that George insisted that she seek out a mental health professional. Looking at the Schneider source, the decision on what to emphasize seems a little off. The source talks more about her disinterest in professional help generally, while the wording choices here and dichotomy imply that she was specifically rejecting mental health treatment. The source also implies she was diagnosed with Graves' around this time, while the article places the diagnosis later; looking at the source used for that, it doesn't mention the timeframe of her diagnosis, just that she was known to have it.
    • I changed insisted to suggested, but otherwise I think it's a fair summary. She was diagnosed with Graves' in 1989, so I'm not sure what Schneider is trying to say. I double checked with Carlin and Caroli, and they both confirmed 1989. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early in the campaign, there were worries that Barbara would be a liability; she was outspoken and looked significantly older than George in a primary election where age was an issue. She eventually came to be seen as an asset. This jumps a little -- is there some sort of clarity on how and when that perspective shifted? It might make more sense to excise the second sentence entirely, because context makes it clear that it was the case.
  • She often ignored order of precedence -- link United States order of precedence?
  • Barbara become known for her tendency to wear blue while she was second lady; Nancy commonly wore red, and for Barbara to also wear red would invite conflict. This sentence...raises far more questions than it answers. Is this a necessary inclusion? I can see how this might be interesting from a role-analysis perspective, but the relatively plain statement of it here just makes the reader wonder if Nancy was defensive about red or something.
  • Though she was not as widely recognized as other people associated with the president -- is this what the source says as Mrs. Bush commented that if not for the Secret Service agents who accompanied her, "she would just be another face in the crowd"? I don't think the former follows from the latter.
  • Bush declined to change herself or develop new skills -- sounds a bit harsh on her :) If you want to talk about the hair/weight issue in particular, I don't think it needs that intro.
  • This photograph was credited with a significant shift in public perception of the disease -- inclined to want a statement from the HIV/AIDS literature for this, not the first-lady-biographical literature, in the same sense as the "disentangling how much a political campaign impacted a presidential run" issue. This is around the time that public perception started shifting generally.
    • This is a good point, and I'm not sure where to find such a source, or whether they exist (which I guess is the issue here). After a few searches without her name coming up, I've removed this sentence. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barbara blamed the press [...] She also blamed the press
  • Barbara had lied about not receiving a tour of the White House in 1988 and then falsely stating that the Bushes never invited the Reagans to a state dinner -- is "then" necessary?

Vaticidalprophet 03:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet, I've addressed this set of notes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vaticidalprophet? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for delay, had an extremely busy week and now have the flu. Looking over other reviews, it looks like my other potential comments have been covered, so support at this juncture. Vaticidalprophet 02:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "She enjoyed the role and living in the White House": this works as a zeugma, but I think we should avoid it in encyclopedic prose. Suggest making it "life in the White House".
  • "though it was complicated by her protectiveness": here "it" refers to both the role and living in the White House -- suggest either "they", or rephrase.
  • Suggest giving the date of her diagnosis of Graves' disease in the lead, to make it unambiguous that the diagnosis occurred during her term as first lady.
  • "two of her sons both ran for office in gubernatorial and presidential campaigns": suggest "two of her sons ran for office in both gubernatorial and presidential campaigns".
  • "Insecure with her appearance as a child": perhaps this is an AmEng usage, but "about" would seem more natural to me than "with".
  • "it was soon known by their families": suggest "their families soon knew of it" to avoid the passive.
  • "She played her own part to support the war effort": any reason not to cut this to "To support the war effort"?
  • "When Bush returned to war, Pierce waited for him to return." I'm not sure this actually tells us anything.
  • "In June 1944, she feared him dead after learning that his plane was shot down, but she learned soon after that he had been found and rescued." Can we avoid the repetition of "learn"?
  • "as she had previously seen all of her needs tended to by her family": I don't understand this. Initially I thought it meant she was still living at home with her family, but then realized we've already said the couple were moving aound the eastern US, so she was already setting up house independently of her family. New Haven isn't far from Rye, but it's not next door, so her parents and their servants weren't coming over to solve problems for her. What changed when she went to Texas?
  • "By the following year, the Bushes moved to California for George's work, where they lived in several different towns": either make it "had moved" or (I think the better choice) cut "by". I would also try to rephrase so that "where" is adjacent to "California" rather than "George's work", to make it easier to avoid misparsing -- or else make it a semicolon and cut "where".
  • "While living in Texas, Bush decided to convert from Presbyterianism to her husband's religion of Episcopalianism". I would say "denomination" rather than "religion"; also in the last sentence of that paragraph.
  • "An urban legend held that her hair began to whiten in her grief, though she later dispelled this" -- dispelled, or just denied? And I don't think we need "urban".
  • "including regular events at the White House that endeared her to first lady Lady Bird Johnson": presumably it was her attendance that endeared her to Lady Bird, so how about "and here attendance at regular events at the White House endeared her to first lady Lady Bird Johnson".
  • "Living there for the full eight years of George's tenure as vice president, they had lived there longer than any other home to that point." Suggest "They lived there for the full eight years of George's tenure as vice president, longer than in any of the previous homes."
  • "Bush promoted the cause of literacy while in Washington.[70] She joined several associations and programs to promote literacy": repetitious; can we rephrase the second sentence, or perhaps just cut the first sentence completely?
  • "Bush and her literacy initiatives saw approval from the public." "Popular with the public" would be more concise, and this is the third use of "literacy" in three sentences.
  • "She was the oldest first lady to live in the White House at the time": suggest "to that date".
  • Is there a suitable link for the National Literacy Act of 1991? If not, is it worth a redlink?
  • "The Bushes initially did not have enough money to live the lifestyle they had grown accustomed to, but ... Barbara made a considerable amount of money after leaving the White House": true, I'm sure, but surely George's income is relevant here too?
  • "due to it being the location of": can we find a shorter way to say this? Perhaps "as it was"? Or make it a comma after the previous sentence, and "chosen because her husband's Presidential Library was there"?
  • "She supported causes that would support the poor and the sick, though she limited herself to aspects that were not politically charged": I don't think "aspects" is the right word here. Perhaps "limited her support to policies"?
  • "Her image of an easy going woman": perhaps AmEng, but "as" seems more natural than "of" to me here.
  • "When contrasted with her successor, Hillary Clinton, they have often been differentiated by their lifestyles": "they" doesn't work because "When contrasted with her successor, Hillary Clinton" only refers to Bush.
  • "When describing herself, she cited Eleanor Roosevelt and Bess Truman." I don't know what this is telling me.
  • This is not a source review, but just a note that FN 86, Brower, does not link to the references.

That's everything. Almost all these points are minor grammatical issues or readability suggestions. Overall the article is in excellent shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, I've made all of the suggested changes, clarifying above when necessary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Fixes all look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie

[edit]

Hoping to follow in the footsteps of Mike and Vati above, please ping when they are through so we don't get in each others way. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "She regretted the resentment that she held toward her mother as she grew older" I'm not sure I see this reflected in the sourcing. It establishes that she understood her mother better as an adult, but where does it say she regretted it?
    • Agreed, reworded it accordingly.
  • "Her interest in reading began early in life; she recalled gathering and reading with her family during the evenings" Is this really encyclopedically relevant? It would not have been uncommon, especially at this time, for people to be interested in reading. I get that you talk about literacy later on, but what does this add?
    • Removed.
  • "They kept a correspondence after returning to their respective schools," I don't think it's chronologically clear which school this would be for Barbara, especially
    • Reworded to specify the school, and I also moved her graduation to the correct spot chronologically.
  • "To support the war effort, she worked at a nuts-and-bolts factory as a gofer. " presumably after dropping out?
    • The source says "one summer".
  • "Barbara forced herself to maintain her composure throughout the ordeal: George was unable to do so, requiring her support, and she made a point to never cry in front of her daughter. " I don't like the composition of this sentence : we go from Barbara to George and back to Barbara. It might read better split into two: "Barbara forced herself to maintain her composure throughout the ordeal, making a point to never cry in front of her daughter. George was unable to do so and required her support."
    • Changed.
  • "One legend held" can you be any more clear about where the 'legend' came from?
    • The source calls it "a case study in the way journalists can repeat an error without checking until it becomes widely accepted as fact". So it seems like a standard untrue fun fact.
  • "she felt she had to maintain herself for them" but not her youngest child?
    • Changed to "her family".
  • Just a note that I want to revisit this entire paragraph.
  • "When her son Neil was diagnosed with dyslexia" any chance of a date on that?
    • Added another source to specify it was in the second grade, which gives a rough estimate of when.
  • "She had initially believed that he had been appointed to the position" Two many 'had's in this to easily parse
    • Removed one
  • "Bush learned to campaign when her husband chose to run for the chairmanship of the Harris County Republican Party. " would be good to put a date at the beginning of the para
    • Added the year
  • "She took it personally when he lost the election" What do you mean by this?
    • Clarified that it was because she was personally involved with the campaign
  • "would later become a recognizable part of her public image" do you need 'later' here?
    • Cut.
  • "After George lost election to the Senate," why not just "lost his campaign"?
    • Done.
  • "which enabled Barbara to begin forming relationships in New York City with prominent diplomats" I would consider maybe putting this one or two sentences after
    • Moved down to join the other sentence about her social life there
  • "Bush was against the idea of her husband becoming the chair of the Republican National Committee in 1973, but he accepted the position against her wishes" saying "against the idea" and "against her wishes" in the same sentence is redundant
    • Fixed
  • link World Affairs Council of Washington, D.C.?
    • Done.
  • "so the people in Texas could follow her activities" maybe just "which was published in Texas"?
    • Done.
  • "and some have" possible to attribute this?
    • Changed to "some who knew her", which is as specific as the source gets.
  • "she practiced her slideshow demonstrations" maybe just "gave" slideshow demonstrations?
    • The practice part is important because she was practicing public speaking, but I agree that the sentence doesn't read right, so I've switched it to "gave" and added a bit after.
  • "and George announced his candidacy." a date on this might be helpful
    • Added the year
  • "she was outspoken" I feel like I haven't gotten this impression from the earlier prose in the article. If she was outspoken, I would expect to see it earlier in the prose
    • There's not exactly a personality section to put it in. This is the first time it's been relevant.
    I could go into more detail about how she could be cruel as a child. That's the only other example that I'm aware of based on the source I used. Or I could reword "outspoken" here if it seems undue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems undue, to me, if that's the only other instance. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that it affected all of the other major issues" maybe just "all other major issues"
    • Done
  • "During the 1980 primary election, Nancy and Barbara developed an animosity that lasted for the rest of their lives." so she didn't 'grow to dislike the Bushes', she entered the presidency with it?
  • " in her authority over social events as first lady" what does 'authority' mean in this context?
    • Changed to "responsible for organizing"
  • "Barbara counted 65 different nations that she had visited." why not just " had visited 65 countries"?
    • Barbara is being attributed here because it was literally her own count. I can change it if this is a minor enough fact that it can be added without attribution.
  • "she orchestrated a meeting with the RNC chair" was the meeting between her and the RNC chair, or her husband-- not clear
    • Changed to "between herself and the RNC chair"
  • "As the wife of a presidential nominee, Bush was more visible than she had previously been" I think it's strange to jump straight to Bush being the nominee, without mentioning that he got the nomination.
    • Changed this to start the sentence with George getting the nomination

To FLOTUS, pretty good overall just minor stuff. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891, I've responded to each point so far. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shortly after becoming first lady, Bush was diagnosed with Graves' disease," not sure this is something that needs to be in the article, but was Bush open publicly about her diagnosis?
  • "Publicly, she dismissed it "much ado about nothing" by twenty-year-olds," is there a missing 'as' here?
    • Fixed
  • "She met her goal of raising $25 million (equivalent to $55,998,472 in 2022) towards the endowment. " after how long?
    • After looking into it, it seems that this doesn't appear in the sources about Bush, only in the source about the White House. I've removed it as undue.
  • ": it contributed to the 1989 education summit, " Not sure what 'it' is here
    • Swapped with "her advocacy"
  • "The issue was controversial at the time due to its association with gay rights." Well, it wasn't really the association with gay rights, but gay people, wasn't it?
    • Changed
  • "For this reason, her work on this issue was not as widely publicize" But one of the only examples you give of her actually engaging in advocacy was privately urging her husband. So was it not publicized, or not public?
    • Not widely publicized. The other example was a public appearance meeting with children who were HIV positive.
      • I don't have access to Page, but could you elaborate here a bit on what she says about "For this reason, her work on this issue was not as widely publicized." Other sources talk about Bush's visit as a spotlight, breaking a national silence, . Sounds pretty publicized to me, no? Eddie891 Talk Work 15:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • The relevant quote in the source is "She never championed, but she was putting herself out there", and it dwells on the idea that she took on literacy as an uncontroversial choice while doing AIDS advocacy work "under the radar". It also says that she "challenged public attitudes about gays and HIV/AIDS". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "such as Helmut Kohl and Brian Mulroney," you should probably mention what countries they led
    • Done.
  • "between the nations would continue in part because of Barbara's influence" Which nations? The west is not a monolith
    • Clarified
  • "Due to an injury from a sledding accident, she was limited to the White House residence for the first week of the war and walked with a cane for months after." Encyclopedically relevant? Seems to not fit in the section
    • Agreed, I've removed it.
  • "Due to her strong approval ratings compared to her husband, Barbara was made a more prominent face of the campaign. This also allowed the campaign to contrast her with Hillary Clinton, the wife of opposing candidate Bill Clinton. Bush had conflicting feelings about leaving the White House after her husband lost reelection. She was sorry to see her husband lose but relieved to return to Houston and be away from the regular criticism of her family." I'd split the para between these two sentences
    • Done.
  • " repeating the long delay by Nancy Reagan " This is written as if the reader would know that the delay happened before reading this, which as far as I can tell they don't
    • Reworded to state it as a new fact.
  • "she lied that reporters were harassing her because of the interview." I think a more grammatically correct way to put this would be "she lied, saying that..."
    • Switched to "she lied by saying that" to keep the comma structure from getting too confusing
  • You have three "after leaving the White House"'s in one para. I think that's about two too many
    • Kept the first one
  • We do have a (very short) article on Barbara Bush: A Memoir
    • Linked
  • "hat she really loved living in the White House but that she did not miss it because she and her husband were having the best time they had ever known" this feels like a direct quote, but isn't? What's going on with the phrasing?
    • I have no idea. Someone added a bunch of unhelpful content like this while the article was waiting at FAC. Removed.
  • "her sons were even more stressful" Maybe "caused her more stress"?
    • Fixed
  • "he is talking to you". Looking at, say this bio of Bush, it seems like it was more the sermon itself that convinced him.
    • Reworded
  • "She expressed worry that the decision might be a mistake" might be worth clarifying whether this was publicly or not, because that would be a big difference
    • I don't see anything saying she expressed it publicly, so I changed it to her and George worrying about it rather than "expressing" worry
  • "Her involvement in the hurricane relief efforts were further criticized" 'was' further criticized
    • Fixed
  • I think two "her daughter Robin"'s in the same sentence is a bit unnecessary.
    • Switched the second to just "Robin"
  • "Bush's opinion on abortion was a minor issue" It's not clear to me what 'issue' means in this contex
    • Reworded
  • "Bush decided that she did not identify with the Republican Party" Strictly speaking, she actually said she thought she didn't identify with the modern Republican Party, right? Not quite as definitive
    • Reworded to say that she didn't identify with it as it existed at the time
  • " an award given out annually by Jefferson Awards" The organization doing the giving out is not "Jefferson Awards", so something is off here
    • Named the organization
  • "that was under construction" 'was under construction' when?
    • Added "at the time of her death"

Another group Eddie891 Talk Work 02:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891 I've made the changes as noted above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Thebiguglyalien, just a couple responses above. I think I might just be a bit confused about the publicity of her work with AIDs because I am interpreting 'publicized' as the attention she got, and you intend for it to mean more along the lines of what the Bush admin sought to publicize? Just not sure since I don't have access to Page. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also one more thought, I'm not sure you want to say "AIDs victims" -- maybe jsut "people with AIDs" or something. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, can Support at this point Eddie891 Talk Work 15:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • I suggest calling her Barbara rather than Bush to avoid ambiguity who you are referring to, particularly as you do this with George and George W.
    • This is a perennial debate with articles like this. Others have told me I should almost exclusively use the surname. I've tried to balance it the best I could by using the surname when it's clear and using Barbara whenever George is involved.
  • "public school". This means different things in different countries. I suggest linking to State_school#United_States.
    • Done.
  • "This town was wealthier than Odessa, allowing the Bushes a more comfortable lifestyle." This seems a non-sequitur. Someone's wealth depends on how much money they have personally, not on how much their community has.
    • Removed. I checked it against the source, and it's not terribly relevant.
  • "the rector congratulated her for achieving "first-class". She was so insulted by the suggestion that members of one denomination are superior to another that she left without joining". This is unclear. Why should praise for doing well in a class imply demoninational superiority?
    • The rector said that being in that denomination meant that they were "first-class". That's what upset her.
  • "In 1962, Bush learned to campaign when her husband chose to run for the chairmanship of the Harris County Republican Party." "chose to run" is wordy. I would just say "ran".
    • Done.
  • "as false information was spread during her husband's primary election, alleging that her father was a communist.[44][45] While campaigning". This whole account appears to refer to the primary election, but as Yarborough was the incumbent Democrat, Bush "campaigning" must at some point switch to referring to the actual election. This needs clarifying.
    • Reworded so it says he won the primary
  • "she gave her slideshow demonstrations". I would delete "her". I initially wondered who the "her" was that she was giving the demonstrations to.
    • Done.
  • "she declined to give her thoughts on vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, but that "it rhymes with rich". She later apologized and clarified that she meant "witch"." What does this mean? How does it rhyme and is witch less insulting?
    • The sources tend to avoid saying "Bush called Ferraro a bitch" directly, but I found one that used the word, so I've added a sentence to make it clearer.
  • "during her tenure as second lady.[75] Throughout her tenure as second lady". You do not need to repeat "second lady".
    • Fixed.
  • RNC. This should be explained - presumably Republican National Committee.
    • Replaced the acronym with the full name.
  • "Bush explicitly rejected suggestions that she dye her hair or lose weight upon becoming first lady." This is covered above and does not need to be again.
    • Removed.
  • "LGBT community". This term seems anachronistic. According to LGBT community it did not come into common use until the 1990s.
    • Replaced with "gay community" unless there's a better term to use here.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she led the envoy to attend the inauguration of Costa Rican president". An envoy is a person. I suggest deputation.
    • Reworded.
  • "Gorbacheva was one of several global figures in which Bush's relationship was beneficial to her husband's administration". "figures in which" is ungrammatical. Maybe "Bush's relationships with several other glabal figures were beneficial to her husband's administration"
    • Reworded.
  • "relieved to return to Houston and be away from the regular criticism of her family" Maybe "relieved to return to Houston and be free from the frequent criticism of her family".
    • Much better, changed.
  • "Bush had gone some time without cooking or driving a car, two skills that she was forced to reacquire after leaving the White House". No change needed, but did she really not have servants to perform these tasks when she left the White House?
    • Apparently not. Based on what I read, they seemed to have some financial trouble in the first weeks or months after they left the White House.
  • "victims of Hurricane Katrina when she made a comment to a radio station about the situation:[130]
Almost everyone I've talked to says, "We're gonna move to Houston." What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas... Everybody is so overwhelmed by the hospitality, and so many of the people in the arenas here." I am not clear what she is saying here, maybe because I am not American. Katrina hit New Orleans in Louisiana, so is she saying that the victims wanted to move to Houston because Texans are hospitable? Also, where is "here" in "arenas here"?
  • I'm not 100% on this either. I left it in from when I found the article. My understanding is that it was interpreted as flippant about the severity of the situation. I would have no problem removing it if it's undue.
  • "She was ambivalent about women in the military during the United States invasion of Panama, believing that women were emotionally capable of handling war but less so physically. She limited her stance on the issue of women in the military to her relief that Manual Noriega had been captured." She limited her stance on women in the military to relief that Noriega was captured? This does not make sense. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded.
Dudley Miles, I've replied to the comments above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Tim O'Doherty (pass)

[edit]

Placing a marker, will review per the nom's request in a few days' time. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not looked at it extensively yet, but from a quick glance:

  • Anthony 1990, Carlin 2016, Kilian 2002, Page 2019 and Ratcliffe 1989, C. Fred's Story, Millie's Book and Reflections: Life After the White House's ISBNs are not consistent with the rest. Convert to full, hyphenated ISBN-13s: this is a good tool.

Ping thebiguglyalien. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim O'Doherty Done. I use this tool, though I always manage to misplace the link to it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More. Done in no particular order, just noting things down as I see them.

  • No harv errors
  • Ref 195 has a slash after .edu.
  • Inconsistency between how you cite CNN in refs 135 and 144.
  • Archive link for ref 135 doesn't work for me: does it for you? All other links work for me.
  • You have some ref titles written in sentence case and some in title case. Per MOS:TITLECONFORM, a consistent style is wanted.
  • Any reason not to link the publications' names? If you want to be consistent with the other FLOTUS articles, that works for me.
  • Why do 137 and 144 have ISSNs when all the others don't? Suggest removing, for consistency purposes.
  • Can Fox News be trusted as reliable in this case? Can you find another outlet reporting on the same story?
  • What makes Ajli.org. reliable?

Ping TBUA. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim O'Doherty The archive link at ref 135 works fine for me. I don't usually link publication names just because it's not something I think to do. Ajli should be reliable for its own membership. I've fixed all other issues. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at WP:FACS again I don't think I've missed anything out. No spotchecks required, as it's not the nom's first FAC: I have checked Earwig, which gives 25.9 per cent for one news source, mostly just common titles and phrases like "Bush and her husband", "the U.S. House of Representatives" and "first lady of the United States". Think this one should be a pass from me. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Some books have publisher locations while others don't. Could you standardise?
  • Brower is in the references list but is not used to cite anything.
  • "have consistently ranked her in the upper-half of American first ladies." The "upper half" in what respect?
  • You use "significant" six times. A couple of them seem a bit vague and hand wavey to me and I wonder if it is possible to come up with a more precise word or phrase?
"the first Black woman to hold a significant position in the East Wing of the White House."
"caused her significant discomfort."

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild: The wording of "ranked her in the upper-half of American first ladies" is taken from the U.S. presidents articles (featured U.S. president articles include phrases like "Historians and scholars have typically ranked Reagan among the upper to middle tier of American presidents" and "Scholars have ranked Coolidge in the lower half of U.S. presidents."). I've removed the reference location and the Brower reference, and I reworded those two uses of "significant", though I'm open to further rewording. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that an otherwise HQ RS uses (what I find) a woolly phrase is not a defence for including it in Wikipedia. I (honestly) really didn't know what was meant, how is a general reader supposed to? I am of course open to persuasion: perhaps you could argue for that turn of phrase on its own merits, rather than an appeal to authority?
I mean, a poll of historians? What might one assume historians are professionally qualified to judge in a first lady? I bet you could ask ten people and get eleven serious suggestions. I would suggest either cutting it - it doesn't seem to me to be essential to the lead - or expanding the sentence briefly to explain what is being ranked. (This is where I would normally throw in a helpful suggestion, but do you know what - I'm stumped.) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's not terribly important, so I've removed it from the lead. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 16 October 2023 [38].

American logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final article in the series about logistics in the campaigns in north west Europe in 1944-1945. This one covers the American logistics in the final advance into Germany in 1945. It covers a longer period of time and a larger body of troops than previous articles. In writing the article, I was able to take into account reviewer comments on previous articles in the series from the time of article creation. The article follows operations closely, and incorporates recent scholarship. It uses a broad range of sources. Interest in World War II is waning as it recedes further into history, and the Central Europe campaign has never attracted its fair share of attention. The article has nice maps and some striking images. From a logistical point of view, the US Army had incorporated the lessons of the earlier campaigns and operated with a heightened degree of efficiency. In contrast to the campaigns of 1944, logistical issues had little impact on operations, partly because the armies operated with a greater awareness of them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • No licensing issues found.
  • Minor sandwiching between the first two images in the "Central Europe campaign#Railways" and "Central Europe campaign#Motor transport" sections

(t · c) buidhe 01:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments by Buidhe
  • At over 12,000 words the article is really a behemoth and could easily be considered to fail the length criterion because of the large amount of detail, which might belong better in sub-articles. I am not really seeing a convenient split point, so I understand that reducing the word count would not be straightforward or easy.
  • There are some sections that seem too long for good readability. I would consider splitting "Rhineland", and "Central Europe campaign#Motor transport"

(t · c) buidhe 01:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I split Central Europe campaign#Motor transport and reduced the size of Rhineland by moving a paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

[edit]

Placeholder for now JennyOz (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hawkeye, logistics is rather fascinating! Who knew?...

I love the opening image. "Don't go anywhere Adolf, we're coming for you."

lede

Background

Organization

  • forces in Southern France had - no cap on southern? (Southern France)
    One of the more opaque parts of the MOS. "Doubts frequently arise when referring to regions, such as eastern Spain and Southern California. If one is consistently capitalized in reliable sources (as with North Korea, Southern California or Western Europe), then the direction word in it is capitalized. Otherwise it is not, as with eastern Spain or southwest Poland. If you are not sure whether a region has attained proper-name status, assume it has not." (MOS:CAPS) It appears that the capitalised form used to be the most common, but no more. De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The base sections were dived into districts. - divided
    Ooops. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, when the it in turn was absorbed - remove the
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Situation in January 1945

Equipment loss and replacement

Transportation

  • Shipping mail on these trains - how so? Was mail guarded?
    They were, but also by reducing travel times and times. Added a bit. Fun fact: the central post office was manned by the 6888th Central Postal Battalion, which was entirely composed of Black women. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balancing the troop basis

Replacing casualties

Planning and preparations for the Rhine crossing

Rhineland

First Army

Ninth Army

Third Army

Seventh Army

Central Europe campaign

Railways

Motor transport

Pipelines

Prisoners of war

Outcome

Footnotes

References

Table American casualties in the ETO

Images

Footnotes

  • c. Ruppenthal also served in the campaign, but as the Third Army historical officer. - why "but"? Aren't military historians important people?
    Contrasted with MacDonald, who served in the front line as a company commander, and was awarded the silver star. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misc consistency

That's it for me for now. JennyOz (talk) 08:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I think you caught a couple no one else could find. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I made a few minor tweaks to article, hope okay. I've now added a few comments above. JennyOz (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jenny, 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) 20:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hawkeye and Gog, just made a few more minor tweaks, pls check. Yes!, I am happy to add my s'port. JennyOz (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

[edit]

I added a number of commas just to divide dates and clarify any confusion, hope you don't mind- if you oppose any, go right ahead and remove them.

Hawkeye7: Goodness, this article has such a thorough and massive prose section, but I have very few comments; extremely good job on writing this, it's very impressive! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! And for correcting a few US English spellings. Greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mlld

[edit]
Thanks. I am going to be away for a few days and probably won't get started until I get back. If I haven't set to by the end of Monday feel free to give me another nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 I'm sorry also not to have been able to respond yet; please poke my talk page again after Gog is done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Sources appear reliable and (apart from some very minor things I tweaked) suitably formatted. N.B. No spotchecks carried out. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 October 2023 [39].

Mimodactylus

[edit]
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first FAC about a fossil species from Lebanon, where significant palaeontological discoveries are increasingly being made. As it's a relatively recently named animal, most of what has been published about it is covered here, and the images are mainly from the scientific paper that described it. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
I'm not seeing any evidence of copyright violations as such, only missing OTRS permission and deletions of multiple versions of a single image (of Karl Widerquist) for that reason. Either way, this image should be easy to replace if deemed a copyright violation and deleted, but at least a Google image search doesn't turn up duplicates. FunkMonk (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SilverTiger

[edit]
  • A few general comments: I'm iffy about the YouTube video in external links. And can you please add the species to the taxonbar as well as the genus?
There isn't a Wikidata entry for the species as far as I can see, so no taxonbar to add (I don't know the process that creates such a site, but I don't think it has bearing on FAC). As for the video, it has an interview with the director of the museum talking about the specimen and how he came up with the name 14:47 in, so I think it's quite relevant. I could mention that time stamp in the description? Went with that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it MIM or Mim Museum? Both are used in the lede, which is mildly confusing.
Good point, changed to MIM throughout. Strangely, the article about the museum itself is at Mim Museum (maybe I'll move it)... FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The skeleton is distinct in that the deltopectoral crest ... and in that the humerus is less than half the length of the wing-finger's second phalanx bone.
Removed second "in". FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lebanon was submerged in the Neotethys ocean at the time, wherethough some small islands were exposed.
The source doesn't specify whether these islands represent Lebanon itself, which "though" would imply. For all we know, Lebanon itself could have been entirely submerged. FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to the rest of article later today or tomorrow. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, answered the above. FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the wait! Continuing through the History of discovery section...

  • Information about Mesozoic fossils of the Afro-Arabian continent (wherein the Arabian Peninsula and Africa were joined at the time, also known as the Arabo-African palaeocontinent) is generally very limited, with only South Africa having been systematically studied. Could you shorten that to ...Mesozoic fossils of the Afro-Arabian palaeocontinent (the Arabian Peninsula and Africa were joined at the time)..., as just calling it a continent right off the bat is a bit confusing. And .. with only those of South Africa having been systematically studied.
Problem here is that "Afro-Arabian continent" is what the main source calls it, and "Afro-Arabian palaeocontinent" is what another source calls it, so I don't think we can just choose the other term out of convenience. This seems to be an understudied field, which is probably also why the continent doesn't have an article, but also means there may not be a consensus on naming, and picking one isn't up to us. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ThereafterAfterwards, the owner of the quarry sold the specimen, but aroundin 2016, after years of negotiating, the buyer donated it to the MIM Museum, part of Saint Joseph University of Beirut. and add a comma after 2016. The asides in parentheses, while informative, make the sentence read too long and too broken up. Right after this sentence is where I would recommend noting that the anonymous donor wished for the fossil to stay in Lebanon.
Can't be more specific than the source; all we know is that the fossil was sent to Lebanon shortly before the cited article was published, which was in 2016, so anything more specific than that is interpretation (likewise with the year the fossil was found). Changed "thereafter" to "subsequently", and removed the parenthesis about the oldest university, to avoid two parentheses in one sentence. But explaining the name of the museum is essential for context, especially since its what the genus is named after. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thank you. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the generic name refers to the MIM Museum, in recognition of where the holotype specimen (on which the scientific name is based) is housed and the wishes of the anonymous philanthropist who acquired the specimen so it could be kept in Lebanon, combined with the Greek word daktylos (δάκτυλος) for "digit". Overall, this sentence is too long. I would suggest shortening part to "refers to the MIM Museum, where the the holotype specimen is housed, combined with the Greek word..." The fact that the donor wanted to the specimen to be kept in Lebanon should be mentioned when discussing the sale and donation.
I shook it up a bit more, moved some of the info up, but due to how it is worded in the source, it can't be entirely divided. I moved the first mention of the term holotype lower so that the explanation of the term would be less intrusive. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An improvement on both what was there and what I suggested. Well done! --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite those specimens being less complete,... suggest changing to While these specimens are less complete,...
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...from the coeval Hakel Lagerstätte,... What does coeval mean?
Changed to "of the same age". FunkMonk (talk)

And skipping down to Classification:

  • The first paragraph is two run-on sentences. I recommend breaking it up to more sentences; the second in particular is unwieldy. I.e. In their 2019 phylogenetic analysis, Kellner and colleagues found Mimodactylus to be most closely related to Haopterus (a genus from China previously classified in various groups). The two [consistently?] formed a clade within the group Lanceodontia, for which they coined the name Mimodactylidae. And for the second sentence, please be clear that that is how the researchers described the mimodactylids. Also, "widely spaced teeth confided to the front half of the jaws"? Or should that be confined?
Split first sentence. Changed start of second sentence to "These researchers characterised mimodactylids by", and yes, it was meant to be "confined". FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And to Palaeobiology:

  • As the dentition of Mimodactylus differs from all of these, Kellner and colleagues suggested in 2019 that it probably had different feeding habits. It's already given as a suggestion, the probably is redundant.
To suggest something doesn't indicate what one thinks of the probability, so the qualifier is needed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insectivorous species often have slim teeth that can more easily process arthropods, and among pterosaurs, anurognathids are thought to be adapted for this with their well-spaced, isodont (of equal length) teeth. This sentence, paired with the following sentence, I find a bit confusing and disjointed- it feels like an unconnected aside even though I realize its relevant after giving it a few minutes' thought. Do you refer to insectivorous pterosaurs or modern species? What do you mean by process arthropods (penetrate the shell?) Why the sudden call out to anurognathids- aren't we talking about mimodactylids at least? While Mimodactylus had wider teeth, they may otherwise have fit this mode of feeding by being able to break down the exoskeletons of arthropods. is even worse- break down the exoskeletons how?
Anurognathids are mentioned because, as the text says, they "are thought to be adapted for this with their well-spaced, isodont (of equal length) teeth", which then becomes what Mimodactylus's teeth can be compared to ("While Mimodactylus had wider teeth, they may otherwise have fit this mode of feeding by being able to break down the exoskeletons of arthropods"). The first paragraph only discusses pterosaurs, while the second discusses extant vertebrates, which seems pretty clearly split to me? The source unfortunately doesn't go more into specifics as to how the exoskeletons were "broken down", but we can assume they mean prepared for consumption/grabbed, which seems pretty straightforward to me, but we can't be clearer than the source itself if it means too much interpretation. FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extant vertebrate animals that aerially feed on insects have... Technically correct, but I suggest that Extant animals that hunt insects while flying have... is more easily understood by the average idiot. The qualifier of vertebrate is redundant here, as the only animals that fly around feeding on insects are all vertebrates, and I suggest removing it to be less jargon-y.
Off the top of my head, dragonflies hunt while flying, and robber flies do too, as I'm sure some other insects do, so that qualifier is needed. I don't think "aerial" is a particularly technical word, most people are aware of terms like "aerodynamic" or "aerospace", but replaced anyway to get away from the wording in the source. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I forgot about dragonflies. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ability to manoeuvre during flight appears to have been limited in Mimodactylus as in open-sea fliers, and it was probably highly stable when flying, like albatrosses and some other birds. I suggest changing to: Mimodactylus appears to have had limited maneuverability and high stability during flight, similar to albatrosses and other open-sea flying birds.
I'm not sure the two statements are lumpable like that, though. While we can assume open-sea fliers equates albatrosses and the other birds, the source doesn't make clear that these limitations apply to those groups specifically. It only says: "In Mimodactylus, as open-sea flyers, the ability to maneuver during flight appears to be limited and it was likely high stable during flight as observed in albatrosses and other birds (Fig. 5)." FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of clarity is irritating, then, but beyond our power to correct. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such dynamic soaring (flying with little flapping) may also have been the mode of flying of large pterosaurs such as anhanguerians, istiodactylids and pteranodontians. This does not entirely feel relevant to an article about Mimodactylus, especially with how separates two sentences specifically about the subject.
Again, context and comprehensiveness. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kellner and colleagues therefore suggested that instead of being insectivorous, Mimodactylus and its relatives may have foraged for decapod crustaceans on water surfaces, similar to how some albatrosses feed on types of shrimp. "on water surfaces" - I think you mean from the surface of the ocean/sea? But that phrasing feels clunky. And yes, while the researchers may have specified decapods crustaceans, here it reads like extra big words.
Changed to "from" water surfaces, the source says "on" though. But the source makes a point out of specifying the type of crustacean; decapods are named because that's one type that is frequently found there, so I see no good reason to be vague for the sake of it, doesn't really help anyone. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit worried about too many big words, but at a second look, decapods isn't that bad. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The broad rostrum and spaced, relatively robust and pointed teeth of Mimodactylus would have been helpful for seizing shrimp in the water. What kind of spaced?
Added "widely", as the source says elsewhere, but this part just says "In addition, a broad rostrum60 and spaced but relatively robust and pointed teeth61,62 could be good tools to seize shrimps in the water." FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insects had not been discovered at Hjoula or the other Cretaceous Lagerstätten of Lebanon by the time Mimodactylus was described, and fossils of terrestrial plants are very rare at Hjoula, which indicated to Kellner and colleagues that the area was very far from land, and the continent several hundreds of kilometres away. => When Mimodactylus was described, no insects had been discovered at Hjoula or the other Cretaceous Lagerstätten of Lebanon and fossils of terrestrial plants are very rare at Hjoula, which indicates that the area was very far from land, and the continent several hundreds of kilometres away.
I tried splitting up the sentence instead: "Insects had not been discovered at Hjoula or the other Cretaceous Lagerstätten of Lebanon by the time Mimodactylus was described, and fossils of terrestrial plants are very rare at Hjoula. This indicated to Kellner and colleagues that the area was very far from land, and the continent several hundreds of kilometres away." FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two fossil dragonfly species from Lebanon (including Libanoliupanshania mimi, also named for the MIM Museum) were Another aside in parentheses that honestly feels more tangential than relevant.
It's context. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I question how naming just the one dragonfly is context. Wouldn't it be better to say (Libanoliupanshania mimi and <second dragonfly>)? --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it's because one of them has a name that is of interest in sharing part of the name with the subject of the article, the other doesn't, and both are listed under palaeoenvironment anyway. It's tangential, yes, but I prefer parenthesis over footnotes. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as is also the case in Jurassic outcrops of Bavaria, where dragonflies are more frequent than other insects) Fun fact. But not relevant to this pterosaur.
It's relevant as it's part of the argument for why it may not have lived as far from land as initially suggested. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, after rereading it again, I can see the relevance. But I would recommend minor rephrasing to (as is also the case in Jurassic outcrops of Bavaria, where dragonflies are more frequently collected than other insects) since the whole sentence is making that distinction between present vs collected (and thus, more frequent vs more frequently collected). --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was how I wanted to say it initially, but the source doesn't say "collected/found" or anything like that. But I think we can be pretty sure what is meant, so used your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mimodactylus is known from the Sannine Formation in Hjoula, Lebanon, dating fromwhich is dated to the late Cenomanian age of the Late Cretaceous, about 95 million years ago.
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This age has been determined based on biostratigraphy, by comparing with fossils from localities elsewhere in the world whose dates are known. and The limestone of Hajoula is compact, soft, and laminated rock, which is characterised by being light yellow or grey-yellow in colour, and in not having flint nodules. These are fun facts, but they don't feel relevant to the discussion of Mimodactylus' environment.
Such information is present in pretty much all featured paleo article, and I doubt anyone would consider them "fun", lol. They're there to establish geological context, and context/comprehensiveness are important FAC criteria. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these are the kind of observations on which the paleoenvironmental reconstruction is based on. They are relevant and important imo. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I see. I made some minor changes to the wording of the first sentence. "submerged on a platform", as a phrase though, feels strange. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's how the source puts it, though: "During the mid Cenomanian, Lebanon was mostly submerged and positioned on a shallow carbonate platform" FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..and indicates a climate similar to that of the current day Mediterranean region. Which would just be a mediterranean climate. "and indicates a mediterranean climate."
I'm not sure about that, the map in that article doesn't even show the entire Mediterranean as having a "Mediterranean climate", and the source specifies the region, not a type of climate. A bit too much interpretation, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...I assumed it would be referring to a Mediterranean-type climate rather than a direct (and imprecise) comparison. Shows what I know. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could very well be right, problem is that the source doesn't specify. There are some parts of the description paper that are written pretty messily in general... FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this is a good article, but I notice that you tend to include a bunch of little asides and fun facts that just aren't all that relevant, and your sentences tend to run a little long. These aren't fail-worthy, but I do not think they will help most people comprehend what they are reading. Especially for jargon-heavy science articles. Concision is a virtue, so stay focused on the point of the sentence and paragraph. What are you trying to explain? How is each word going to help you reach that goal? Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rest should be answered now. Well, I disagree that most of these are "fun facts", as they would hardly be considered "fun" by anyone, but are mostly for establishing context and comprehensiveness, which are two of the FA criteria. Some of them are tangential, yes, but a little extra info never hurt anyone, this isn't limited paper after all, and whether it's incorporated in the main text in parenthesis or as a footnote doesn't make much of a difference, but I prefer the former. Perhaps more reviewers will find some of these too tangential (I removed a bit), but I will wait until that happens before considering removing others. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the rest of my nitpicks answered (in retrospect, I was likely unnecessarily crabby thanks to a bad headache during the second part, my apologies), I am pleased to Support. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, while they can take time to answer, I like challenging reviews, as they force you to reconsider what you've written and how, and while perhaps not all of it will be actionable, good stuff can come out of it. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "The skeleton is distinct in that": when I read this I thought "distinct from what?" but I think perhaps it should be "distinctive", meaning that it is distinct from other known fossil species of pterosaur?
    Added distinctive twice. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lebanon was submerged in the Neotethys ocean at the time, where some small islands were exposed." Suggest "but some" instead of "where".
    Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You never explicitly give the date of discovery, so I assume it's not known exactly, but you do say "more than fifteen years" before 2019. Can we say something like "no later than 2004" in the first sentence of the body? Or else give the date of the scientific description and let the reader do the not-very-challenging arithmetic.
    The 2019 source says nothing other than "fifteen years ago", so I'm wary of being any more specific than that and interpreting too much. Tried with "more than fifteen years before its 2019 scientific description." FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thereafter, the owner of the quarry sold the specimen, but around 2016 after years of negotiating,": suggest using "subsequently" or a synonym instead of "thereafter", which tends to refer to a subsequent ongoing state, rather than a specific one-time event such as a sale. I would also either cut the comma after "negotiating" or add one before "but", as those should be a parenthetical pair.
    Changed to "subsequently" and removed comma after "negotiating". FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and being sort of like": a bit informal -- suggest "and being rather like".
    Right, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The kind of dentition Mimodactylus has is similar to": suggest "Mimodactylus's dentition is similar to".
    Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a feature otherwise seen in other pterosaurs": what does "otherwise" add?
    Changed to "a feature present in other pterosaurs". FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The combination of its various anatomical features also distinguishes Mimodactylus from other ornithocheiroids." Seems vague; as written this covers everything about it. We've listed specific differences -- what does this tell us beyond that?
    This is just to say that these other features aren't distinctive each in themselves, only by the exact combination of them together in this genus. I tried to underline it by saying "exact combination", but I'm not sure if that's what you have in mind. FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were described by the Lebanese palaeontologist Dany Azar and colleagues in 2019, who also mentioned a fossil beetle": needs rephrasing; since these palaeontologists are the indirect rather than direct object of "described" they can't be referred to with "who", and the year confuses the referent further.
Changed to "The first two fossil dragonfly species from Lebanon (including Libanoliupanshania mimi, also named for the MIM Museum) and a beetle were reported by the Lebanese palaeontologist Dany Azar and colleagues in 2019". FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • The link to the source in cite 2 is dead.
Ugh, added archive. FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Garassino article in English? Similarly Capasso et al?
Yes, they have both English and Italian abstracts, but the articles themselves are in English. FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The only known specimen was discovered in a limestone quarry near the town of Hjoula. " Is it known when?
Only that it was more than 15 years before it was described, so I can only say it indirectly and vaguely. Here's what the article body says "more than fifteen years before its 2019 scientific description". FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "the Afro-Arabian continent"? Could it be defined in line.
Added in parenthesis to intro. FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "deltopectoral crest" needs linking or defining.
Explained in parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "possibly by foraging". Perhaps → 'possibly it foraged'?
Tried with your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description: I think that you need to explain why/how the degree of bone fusion helps age a specimen, possibly in a footnote.
Tried with "(some bones of vertebrate animals fuse at different rates as they age)". FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "not rounded as in Istiodactylus". "Istiodactylus" comes a bit out of nowhere. Could it be introduced?
Perhaps too convoluted, but tried with "and not rounded as in the istiodactylid Istiodactylus, and also differs from other istiodactyliforms, the group they both belonged to." FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is a disambig page, so piped to scalpel. FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that an understanding is needed to follow the article - I found it difficult to just gloss over it and keep reading - could there be an in line explanation of "phalanx"?
It's "just" the finger-bones, so as it now says "wing-finger's second phalanx bone" and "the first two phalanx bones of the wing-finger", I'm unsure how to add anything without it being redundant? Finger-bones of the wing-finger? FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bleh. I am not really happy, but I can see the argument that what you have is the least bad option.
  • "the position of the pteroid in pterosaurs has been a point of contention among researchers". "has" or 'had'?
Is there a difference in this context? Anyway, changed to "had". FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it was an open question. "had" suggests that it no longer is.
  • "the supercontinent of Gondwana (which consisted of Africa and South America)". Just those two?
Right, was copied from another article with a different context, made it less specific by saying "known from Gondwana (the southern supercontinent which included Africa and Arabia)". FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While Hjoula is known for its well-preserved fish fossils, various other organisms are known from there." Picky, but is it possible to avoid using "known" twice in the sentence?
Tried with "various other organisms have been found there". FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grand work. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, issues should now be addressed, Gog the Mild. FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "the Afro-Arabian continent (wherein the Arabian Peninsula and Africa were joined at the time). I am not sure what "wherein" means here. I would delete in the lead and the main text.
Would seem it would have to be rephrased, as just removing the word would break the rest of the sentence. How about something like "which consisted of the then joined Arabian Peninsula and Africa"? FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No change needed but is a clade an unofficial taxonomic rank?
It's the consequence of Linnean rank-based taxonomy being increasingly seen as obsolete; many modern taxonomists don't use terms like "family", "subfamily", "tribe", so on, as they are pretty much arbitrary. A clade is just a grouping as you can see in a cladogram, which is not necessarily given a rank or even a name. But if a clade is named without being given a rank, it is still official if it has been registered by the relevant authorities (such as Zoobank). FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, changed the continent definition. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • Sources are of good quality.
  • Formatting:
    • fn 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23 ISSN?
    • fn 7 points to a map of the MIM museum, but I'm not sure what that is supposed to tell us
      If you click on "pterosaur area", the cited text can be found there. But there is no way to make a direct link because it's some sort of Flash-like dynamic site. Any ideas, perhaps indicate in the citation text where to click? I tried by renaming the title "Interactive map of MIM - Pterosaur Area". FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • fn 11 should be David W. E. Hone and the volume 26 issue 1
      Added. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • fn 18, 21, 22: page numbers? (should be pp. 155-160, 395-452)
      Not sure how I missed those, added, but 22 does have a page (5). FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot checks: 5, 19, 20, 23 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Hi FM, did you mean for the last sets of citations in History of discovery and Paleoenvironment to be out of chronological order? No prob if so, I know some like to relate the citation order to the sequence of clauses in the preceding statement/s, but just in case... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I usually place them in order of importance to the sentence/how much they're used to cite the sentence, if that makes sense. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, as long as there's a method to the madness -- last I looked MOS doesn't require an particular order. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 October 2023 [40].

Treat Myself

[edit]
Nominator(s): NØ 14:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Meghan Trainor's third album, Treat Myself. Before she made us look again, there was this commercial disaster. Trainor's label delayed it several times, spanning over a year, and can probably write a book about what not to do when promoting an album. She has stated in interviews that it is her best work. And if you ask me, track 1 on this album is the best song she has released! Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 14:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review (pass)

[edit]

The images are licensed appropriately and have alt text (suggest including one for the alternative cover). The audio sample has an appropriate FUR and meets WP:SAMPLE. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk
  • She conducted the first session - not sure if this is just a music industry term, but I (a classical musician) am reading this as she literally conducted the song; perhaps "ran" or "held" would be better
  • This is a great point and I would have never realized this unless you raised it.
  • She said it was "fun, dance-y stuff with a little funk" and had an '80s and '90s feel" - missing quotation mark before '80s?
  • Dani Blum of Pitchfork described Treat Myself as a combination of several ballads, funk, and "garish shudders of EDM" and wrote - using and in "and wrote" shortly after using and for "and 'Garish...'" is a bit confusing; I think it'd be better as "Dani Blum of Pitchfork described Treat Myself as a combination of several ballads, funk, and "garish shudders of EDM", writing..."
  • Lyrically, it discusses - replace it with "the album" or just the album's name
  • Wl Evil twin in on which Trainor blames her bad decisions during a night out on her "evil twin"
  • Mike Nied of the same website, Lucy Mapstone of The Irish News, and Lauren Alvarez of Forbes thought the album was "worth the wait" - did all three say those exact words? If not, attribute the quote, and abridge the other two to just "critics" or "reviewers"
  • I was surprised too but they did, indeed, all use those words!

MaranoFan, all done, great work as always! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the swift review, MyCatIsAChonk. Very helpful and all done I think.--NØ 06:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - if you get any time, I have an open FAC and two open FLCs that I'd appreciate comments at- thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I didn't see your comments at season 3 until just now- thank you so much! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "Meghan Trainor was placed...." - re-introduce her in the body as "American singer-songwriter Meghan Trainor"
  • "Nied opined Trainor successfully" => "Nied opined that Trainor successfully"
  • That's it, I think - great work as ever!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done--NØ 15:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GWL

[edit]

Came here from PR! As usual, I've put invisible comments to divide my comments based on sections. GeraldWL 08:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 07:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* Per img reviewer's cmts, there should be alt text for alt cover
  • I'm not sure what 2020 Trainor pic serves other than decoration. Even with that said, we already see her face twice in the infobox, with a good headshot in the alt cover, so there's not much value for another pic.
  • This would probably be the TFA image so I would prefer to keep it in. I would also disagree that it is decorative. An image of the article subject from the month of album release seems like a natural fit for inclusion.
  • Refs 69-82 are unarchived, why so?
  • They don't since they are automatically produced by the Album chart template. I believe archives are considered redundant here since the database cited directly is an archive itself.
  • "Trainor worked with producers including Mike Sabath, Tyler Johnson, Ojivolta, and Andrew Wells." Is there a reason the other producers aren't included?
  • Nine producer names would be a bit much for the lead and unlikely to interest the average reader. I have limited it to producers who contributed to multiple tracks.
  • "and others commented" --> "while others commented"
  • "for the second time in December 2016"-- I think adding briefly on when was the first time, would make "for the second time" more sense.
  • By vocal cord surgery, you mean Thyroplasty?
  • No sources use this word so no.
  • "and she wanted to bring Spears, NSYNC and Backstreet Boys-inspired pop songs "back to radio"." Not sure what "back to radio" means? Was she saying she wanted this album to have similar vibes with the songs of these artists?
  • She wanted songs influenced by these artists to be played on the radio again.
  • Link Valentines
  • "Scherzinger's appearance is credited to the Pussycat Dolls"-- should link The Pussycat Dolls and explain what it is in relation to Scher.
  • "the same girl gang hoots and hollers and fluffernutter hooks"-- I'm sure it's not really referring to the peanut butter but there should probably be clarification on the slangs.
  • I introduced a link for girl group and removed fluffernutter altogether since there does not seem to be any obvious way to paraphrase this.
  • The Hear to stay lyrics should prob have a space before the "/"
  • Why does that lyrics separate each line with / but for "Opinion" it's written like a usual sentence?
  • Good catch and should be consistent now.
  • Release looks all good!
  • Since there are only four critics used in Meta, I think it'd be interesting to list who only is considered in their aggregation. Also interesting since you use all the critics in this section.
  • Why not italicize Idolator?
  • The citation style I follow typically sticks to the publications' respective articles when it comes to italicization. The one for Idolator never italicized it.
Thanks for the very insightful review, Gerald Waldo Luis. I hope everything has been addressed.--NØ 15:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like it, all my comments seem resolved swimmingly! Happy to support another of your FACs. GeraldWL 07:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • The citations come from high-quality sources that are appropriate for a music-related article and are well-structured. I have a few comments below, but for the most part, this part of the article seems solid to me. I have also done a spot check and based on the random sources I checked out, the information cited in the article can be found in the actual sources.
  • I hate to do this, but what makes Riff a high-quality source? Not saying it is not, but I would just like to hear your defense of it as it is not a source that I am personally familiar with.
  • There is no need to hate doing this, I appreciate your thoroughness! Riff has an extensive editorial team and is ran by Daniel Willis according to their About page, who has contributed to LA Times, The Atlantic, and several other reputed publications. It has also been recognized with three awards by the San Francisco Press Club and quoted/cited according to ProQuest.
  • Citation 19 has this title, Meghan Trainor: Treat Myself (Album Review), when the article has this title, Meghan Trainor's Treat Myself Has Us Questioning How Deep Feminism Runs in the Music Industry. The title in the citation should match the title in the article.
  • Citation 36 uses both work and publisher (i.e. People and Yahoo! Entertainment) when other citations, such as Citation 12 only uses one. I would change this citation to match the others and I would double-check any other citations to make sure they are all consistent with one another.
  • I have only included both in citation 36 since it is a People article published by Yahoo! Entertainment. I have been asked to note this in references when a site publishes a different publisher's review during prior source reviews.
  • Citation 39 does not have an author, but the source has a credited author (Glenn Rowley). Citation 59 has the same issue. The source has a credited author (Taylor Weatherby) not represented in the citation.

Wonderful work on the article. I hope this source review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, this should pass my source review. I hope you have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure to see you at another one of my nominations, Aoba47, as always. The source review comments should all be addressed!--NØ 11:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words! This FAC passes my source review. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

[edit]
  • My only comment, would be in the background's introductory sentence, After a previous incident in the summer of 2015 -- perhaps it would be beneficial to specify that this incident was her suffering vocal cord hemorrhage for some context, which led to her vocal rest (again) the following year?

Other than that, great work here as usual. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Pseud 14. I hope this was an enjoyable read and you are having a great weekend!--NØ 18:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: FYI the nominator was indefinitely blocked this morning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[41]. Serial 11:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Mike/SN, as it happens the nom might have the legs for promotion in any case, we'll go over it in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to address anything you guys want!--NØ 17:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Mike. SN, apologies for reading straight past your brief post on MF's talk page - I have since spotted it. Clearly you have a better memory for these things than me, I assume that I employed a "deal with it and forget it" approach, which was probably not wholly appropriate. Ian, if this needs another review or whatever, let me know. (I remember a few years ago when another nominator went radio silent your letting me address my own review comments and edit the article accordingly. I ended up supporting, who needs nominators?) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since the nomination has come this far, I'd hate to see this get archived because of a block. While MF is blocked, I'd be happy to resolve any comments or provide my own review, should the need arise. FrB.TG (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
​ I see this is now on urgents. Would it be okay for me to go ahead and make another nomination anyway?--NØ 06:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the level of support this has attracted plus the source and image review passes yes, that would be ok. In future you would probably get a swifter response by using @FAC coordinators: which pings all of the coordinators. And I note that you started another nomination prior to this response; no great harm done, but having asked my permission it would have been appreciated if you had had the courtesy to wait for my response. Good luck with it in any case. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Immensely grateful.--NØ 15:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 October 2023 [42].

Mark Baldwin (baseball)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Therapyisgood (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Mark Baldwin, the former MLB pitcher who currently holds the MLB record for most wild pitches in a single season. Thank you for your reviews in advance. There is also an interesting part in here about his involvement in the Homestead strike as well. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Chris

[edit]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Mark_Baldwin_Stevens_Art_Studio_(retouched).png: what is the first known publication of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: Derivatives of the work were apparently first published in 1889. See File:Mark Baldwin 1889.jpg and compare that to File:Mark Baldwin Stevens Art Studio (retouched).png. I think the illustration was based on the Stevens Art Studio image. As for the image itself, I really don't think it was published in a legal sense before appearing on eBay in 2023, and if it was I would have seen it going through the newspaper.com archives and The Sporting Life archives somewhere. But I don't know if publication of the derivative image constitutes publication of the actual image. Thank you for the image review. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any idea how the creator(s) of the derivative(s) got hold of it? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Nikkimaria: On the back of the image it says "duplicates can be had at any time". So I would assume some illustrators bought or otherwise obtained it from Stevens Art Studio. Whether the illustrators purchased it or just got a copy from Mr. Stevens, the end result is the same, which is this is PD. The only difference is the template. Going off of the definition here of publication, which is in notable part "The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication," I would say that it was published when Stevens Art Studio gave or sold it to the illustrators (journalists) for publication in their newspapers. But I'm not a lawyer. The photographer was John Kimball Stevens, who worked out of the McVickers Theatre Building, Chicago. See Commons:Category:J. K. Stevens & Son Co, to which I've added the Mark Baldwin image. I've updated the licenses accordingly. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

As nominator of the other baseball article currently at FAC, here's my review. Hope you can find time to give informed input on the other as well!

  • "where he led the league in innings pitched, with 513+2⁄3, losses, with 34, strikeouts, with 368, and walks, with 274." Consider rendering the stats as you do in the next paragraph.
  • "Retrospectively, a PL historian described him as a star of the league." I would expect a historian to be retrospective. "A PL historian has described him as a star of the league" might be better. Similar comment for when you use the word again in the article of the body.
  • "One of two children to the couple," I might put "born" after "children".
  • "attended Pennsylvania State University (PSU)." It wasn't a university yet, I think.
  • "who finished first in the Western Pennsylvania league." If this is the proper name of the league, then "league" should be capped.

"McKeesport manager Frank Torreyson recommended him to Duluth of the Northwestern League as a third baseman in spring 1886. Due to weak pitching, Duluth played Baldwin as a pitcher.[14] Baldwin had asked Pittsburgh Alleghenys secretary Scandrett for a tryout, ... a tryout never happened. Instead, Scandrett wrote a letter recommending Baldwin to Duluth management.[15] OK. Are we happy that both stories are true? If true, you're jumping back and forth between Pennsylvania and Minnesota. If we're happy with the stories, finish Pennsylvania (for now, I guess) before you send him to Minnesota and tell us what happened there.

  • A date when Baldwin was signed by Chicago would be useful, especially if combined with the date that the World Series started. The reader may be familiar with the restriction that a player must have been on the roster on September 1 to play in later World Series.
  • You don't resolve what happened to Daly.
  • " Baldwin finished the season at an 18–17 win–loss record" Maybe "with" for "at"?
  • "A monkey bit Baldwin on Spalding's 1888–89 World Tour after he fed it pretzels and beer." Where did this event occur? This source reports what may be the same incident as a serious scratch.
  • "strikeouts (368)" it may be worth mentioning that this is more, post-1886, than anyone except Ryan, Koufax and Randy Johnson.
  • "When the PL disbanded in a joint NL–AA ratification on January 16, 1891," Ratification? What's that?
  • It might be mentioned that the Pittsburgh team was playing in the NL, so Baldwin was jumping leagues.
  • How is it that Baldwin could serve as an umpire in 1892? Do other sources confirm this?
  • "due to his lawsuit against von der Ahe," As you have not mentioned this previously, you should say what lawsuit before referring to it casually as here.
  • "the Association–League war of 1891." You haven't mentioned what this is, though one might assume it involved the signing of PL players for which AA teams had old rights.
  • " the Binghamton Bingoes/Allentown Buffaloes of the Eastern League (EL), the Allentown Kelly's Killers/Easton/Ashland, " Huh?
  • Getting back to the World Tour for a minute, I have a source that says that Chicago beat the All-Americans in Melbourne, 5-3, with Baldwin pitching for the winners (not clear if he was the winning pitcher). If this is of interest, send me an email through the Wikipedia system and I'll send the JSTOR article as an attachment.
  • Further on the World Tour, this site may be of interest.
That's it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support, it's taking me a bit with work to get back to these but I promise I'll get them all. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "Though signed by Chicago White Stockings president Albert Spalding to pitch in the 1886 World Series, Baldwin did not play after the St. Louis Browns, against whom Chicago played, objected." Not very fluent. How about "Though signed by Chicago White Stockings president Albert Spalding to pitch against the St. Louis Browns in the 1886 World Series, Baldwin did not play after Browns objected."
  • Link Pittsburgh Alleghenys and Duluth on first mention.
  • "According to an article in the Pittsburgh Daily Post, McKeesport manager Frank Torreyson recommended him to Duluth of the Northwestern League as a third baseman in spring 1886. Due to weak pitching, Duluth played Baldwin as a pitcher." Suggest "According to an article in the Pittsburgh Daily Post, McKeesport manager Frank Torreyson recommended him to Duluth of the Northwestern League in spring 1886 as a third baseman , but Duluth played him as a pitcher as their pitching was weak." Re the clipping that supports this: do you think "on a pinch" definitely refers to him being part of a pinch-hitting move which led to the existing pitcher being pulled? I'm not enough of a baseball historian to be certain of that, but if it's unambiguous we could expand the article text slightly to make that clear.
  • "As a club, Chicago finished the season ...": suggest "The White Stockings finished the season ...".
  • "the bite has been reported alternately as a serious scratch": suggest "alternatively" or (perhaps better) rephrase -- "alternately" implies that reports alternated in sequence between the two versions.
  • "According to Baldwin, Chicago did not restrict alcohol consumption on the tour and after he hinted he would not sign for the salary of the previous season, he was released." These seem to be two unconnected facts; I'm not sure why they're in the same sentence. Perhaps because they're both Baldwin's comments? The first part sounds like it belongs more naturally with Anson's comment in the previous sentence.
  • We quote Baldwin on the principles behind the formation of the PL, but never say what they were. Could something brief be added earlier in the paragraph to give that context?
  • "The Pinkertons surrendered at around 5:00 PM on July 5 after shots were fired amongst strikers and themselves": suggest "The Pinkertons surrendered at around 5:00 PM on July 5 after both they and the strikers fired shots".
  • "After professional baseball, Baldwin started medical school at the University of Pennsylvania in fall 1898, where he coached the university's baseball team the year prior": any reason not to reverse the order of these events so the reader gets them chronologically?

All fairly minor points and I expect to support once these are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: comments responded to. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Doing. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC) Spot checks not done. The refs are all mostly OK, but the following need a tweak or two:[reply]

  • FN4: Tiemann, Robert L. (1996). "Marcus Elmore Baldwin". I presume this is a chapter? If so, can you add the page range for the chapter
  • FNs 8, 17 & 25: The Sporting Life is a newspaper, not a journal. You should also remove "The Sporting Life Publishing" as none of the other newspapers have publisher info. (x 3 uses) Last edition, 5:00 pm
  • FN31: "Last edition, 5:00 pm" shouldn't be floating around outside the template. If you think it is important enough to add it, use the "edition=" field within the cite news template
  • FNs43, 61 & 107: "McFarland, Incorporated": we tend to drop the Inc, Ltd, etc
  • FN76: Why, for references like baseball-reference.com, you have "work=Baseball-Reference", but for this one you have "publisher=Retrosheet"?
  • FN83: Why do you have the publisher listed here, but not for any other journals? Either have or have not for all.

That's all – all minor formatting points. - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Therapyisgood - all good except the first one is still outstanding. - SchroCat (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: Thank you for the source review, comments responded to. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thanks Therapyisgood! Searches into other possible sources showed nothing obvious missed (please note, I am not familiar with baseball or it’s reliable sources, but general searches showed no additional sources that had been missed for this article. All good, and a pass on the source review. - SchroCat (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SC


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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 11 October 2023 [43].

Philadelphia Athletics 18, Cleveland Indians 17 (1932)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... one of the most peculiar but exciting games in Major League Baseball history. You'd expect a pitcher who gave up 14 runs and 29 hits to lose the game, or at least not be the winning pitcher wouldn't you? But on the afternoon of July 10, 1932, Eddie Rommel did win that game, coming in as a relief pitcher and pitching 17 innings, and thereby lies a tale ...Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Eddie_Rommel,_Philadelphia_AL_(baseball)_LCCN2014716263.tif: when and where was this first published?
I've removed the copyright not renewed tag. The Bain tag does not rely on when it was published.
  • File:Connie-mack-cover.jpg: source link is dead, tagged as lacking author info.
I've replaced the source link. I looked through the April 11, 1927 issue and it doesn't say who the photographer is, nor does the Time site or an internet search, so I've changed it to "not known". The copyright is expired in any case. Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk)

Support from Chris

[edit]
Drive-by comment
  • I'll do a full review later, but one opening thought. The first sentence says "On Sunday, July 10, 1932, the Philadelphia Athletics defeated the Cleveland Indians 18–17 in eighteen innings." Nowhere in that first sentence does it say what sport they were playing. Yes, Major League Baseball is mentioned right at the end of the second sentence, but I think it really needs to be stated that this was a baseball game in the very first sentence. I wouldn't write an article on this football match and have an opening sentence that simply said "On 12 November 2022, Liverpool beat Southampton 3–1" because it doesn't give sufficient introductory context to the reader.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved "Major League Baseball" into the opening sentence, albeit at the end. Wehwalt (talk) 10:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
  • "The Cleveland Indians, despite not having won a World Series since 1920,[3] were under new ownership" - I can't see any obvious reason why their not having won the World Series for 12 years would make it unlikely for them to be under new ownership, so "despite" doesn't seem appropriate here
  • "Another reason for giving rest of the pitching staff" => "Another reason for giving the rest of the pitching staff"
  • "When play resumed, Glenn Myatt walked to put runners on first and second,[16] Bill Cissell attempted a sacrifice bunt, but popped the ball into the air towards Rommel." => "When play resumed, Glenn Myatt walked to put runners on first and second;[16] Bill Cissell then attempted a sacrifice bunt, but popped the ball into the air towards Rommel."
  • That's all I got on a first pass. There's more commas than I would personally use, but I think based on past reviews that's probably a UK/US difference..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, ChrisTheDude I've done those things. I split the sentence rather than add "then" in your final comment. Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice one - support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Therapyisgood

[edit]
  • The Cleveland Indians had not won a World Series since 1920. you never actually link World Series anywhere to the term itself, just the years. At a minimum a link should be established to give readers an understanding of what this is.
Linked by splitting the 1930 World Series link.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Cleveland Indians had not won a World Series since 1920.[3] By the late 1920s, they were under new ownership, who were determined to spend freely to acquire talent, and after a seventh-place finish in 1928, finished in the top half of the league standings the next seven years. we never actually said which league (ie AL or NL) the Indians were in.
Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: Sunday baseball was still illegal in Philadelphia, article: Sunday baseball was illegal in Pennsylvania. was it illegal in the whole state or only in the city?
The whole state. The voters of Allegheny County legalized it in 1933, the same time Philadelphia County did. The idea of phrasing it this way is to focus on Philadelphia.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no scoring in the second inning, which ended with the Indians leading, 3–2, but in the top of the third, Brown gave up a solo home run to slugger Jimmie Foxx, his 31st of the season, to tie the score. too many commas, perhaps break into two sentences.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rommel walked with two outs in the top of the fourth inning, you need to wikilink walks here and not later in the paragraph.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • disagreeing with the choice of Hudlin. can you clarify this means as a pitcher, as that's what I'm implying but it's not said outright.
  • What makes BallNine a reliable reference?
This site makes it clear they have ample subject-matter experts and an editorial structure, sufficient in my view to qualify per WP:RS.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • they would never again be so close that season, right? Or all-time?
Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All I have. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Usernameunique

[edit]

Lead

  • The first and last paragraphs each list a variety of records; it's unclear why they're split up the way they are.
I think you've got to lead an article with your strength, and you tell the reader right off the bat why this game was exceptional in the lead paragraph, especially in the era of Google previews. You tell them immediately that this game set records. But there's no need to shoot off all your ammunition in the first paragraph, especially as you have to give baseball information. Thus, the end of the lead can hold some of the records, and of course there are more mentioned later.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • lost considerably — A bit vague, and I think the grammar is off (verb/adverb, not verb/noun)
Expanded.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time of the July 10, 1932 game, it was within three weeks of opening. — Better off in the second paragraph?
Not really. We're just trying to give a thumbnail sketch of background on the two teams in the first paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleveland manager Roger Peckinpaugh was nearly as bad off for pitching as was Mack. — Meaning their bullpen was spent? Can you give more details, in the way that you gave details for the A's?
I've added the info that they left a half-dozen (so says source) players behind them in Washington. The July 10 Plain Dealer says that Peckinpaugh was talked into starting Sarge Connally in the second game on Saturday against his better judgment and he did pretty badly but the article doesn't connect all the dots. I think the info on the players left behind and the knowledge Cleveland had played five games in three days is enough. It's the A's shortage of pitchers that's a major theme of this article anyway, no source says (or discusses) that Cleveland was out of pitchers.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First through sixth innings

  • Mack relieved Krausse and sent Rommel to the mound for the second inning — Seems like a pretty odd decision. Is there any word on his thinking?
I think a lot of baseball historians would like to know his reasoning. He takes only two pitchers to Cleveland and then promptly locks Rommel in the game? Regrettably, there's nothing beyond speculation. The "He Won?" source has someone who speculates Krausse might have been injured but I find that dubious because he pitched in the second game the next day. Mack's biographer doesn't say, he didn't put a reason in his Sunday column on the 17th and he doesn't seem to have given any interviews about it, hardly surprising given their likely rush to get out of Cleveland, but there's nothing in any newspaper.com newspaper or the Cleveland papers I have access to from another database.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh through ninth innings

  • Foxx hit a two-run home run — Note that it was his second of the game?
Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mack called time — What does this mean? A mound visit, or some arcane rule?
You have to call time to replace a player. That's been the rule since King Kelly tried to declare himself in the game as a ball flew towards him in foul territory.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • He had planned what to do in that situation for years — How do we know this/what's the statement attributed to? Was it his error, or the second baseman's? What about the infield fly rule?
The infield fly rule does not apply to attempted bunts. That Rommel had planned what to do appears with minor variations in multiple sources. It was his throwing error, and that appears in the Retrosheet box score.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did Rommel state in interviews that he had planned it? If so, maybe worth adding. When an article talks about what someone thought/intended/planned, a logical question becomes "how do we know that?" --Usernameunique (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the fans cheered Peckinpaugh for several minutes — What does the source say?
"But when the Indians came back, as if to vindicate Peck, and scored six times themselves, the fans tendered Roger several minutes of applause, as second-guessers sometimes will."--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extra innings

Nine innings, in a 25-4 win over the Browns.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • he hit his third home run of the game — How many on the season? Any word on the number of pitches/the count, or is that lost to history?
Counts and pitches are lost to history unless mentioned by the press. I'll mention it was his 33rd.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • took an unexpected bounce over Vosmik's head — What does this mean? What does the source say?
" Eric McNair then hit a ball into left field that took a crazy bounce over Vosmik’s head. This allowed Foxx to score the go-ahead run. McNair was thrown out trying to stretch the hit into a triple."
  • The game had lasted four hours and five minutes. Had neither team scored, the game would have continued until nightfall put an end to it. — What time was it when it ended? How close to nightfall?
The article says this was a three pm game and says the game lasted 4:05. The reader can compute the time the game ended. None of the sources gives the time of sunset in Cleveland on July 10, 1932. I could find it, but there's an extent to which that would be unwarranted OR since the condition of the lighting (and, to some extent, the breaks in the innings) would dictate when the game was called.
  • he probably threw more than that — Why?
Per source. If he threw three per batter, he threw 261 pitches "and likely threw more".

Records set

  • No other player has had more than seven hits in a game — Who else has hit seven? Worth a footnote?
  • A total of five players, per here. Since all of these take a back seat to Burnette, I don't see the point of a footnote.
  • he won all of them — Footnote with some details, e.g., the scores and number of innings of those games?
The source doesn't mention it and I don't think the mention is with the digging. It's just a "wow" statistic, worth the inclusion but not worth listing all of them.
  • the MLB record of 181⁄3 innings — Specify what the category of record is—presumably total number of innings pitched in a game.
Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • won't be seen once in a blue moon — Is this a correct quotation? I get what it means, but as written, it's close to a double negative (unless he's trying to say its rarer than once in a blue moon).
It's what it says.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • probably the only one that Burnett will ever make — The only what? Record?
Yes, that's what it means. Technically there are two records, one for hits and one for singles but it's worth quoting.

Aftermath

  • the games on Tuesday and Wednesday — I would mention somewhere that these were also against the A's?
It is mentioned in the "Background" section, but I restored the language and clarified it was against the Athletics..
  • On September 2, 1932, Krausse started — Was that his next appearance?
No, as I mentioned he pitched the next day. He only pitched one inning on July 10, it's not terribly necessary to track his appearances. This is more in line of this is what happened to the major figures in this drama.
  • he said neither pitcher was ever the same — Neither pitcher in which game? This one, or the 26-inning one? Also, Brooklyn Dodgers 1, Boston Braves 1 (26 innings) says that "There were stories told that the lengthy pitching appearance ruined the arms of Oeschger and Cadore; this was not the case as both pitched several more years in the major league and Oeschger won twenty games in 1921."
As the article on the 26 inning game says , there was a myth that Cadore and Oeschger shut their arms out, and this is an example of that. It's good as a lead-in to the fact that Rommel in fact never pitched effectively again
It might be worth noting that the claim as applied to the 26-inning game is a myth. As you say, there's a worthy point to be made in noting Robinson's comment, but it currently reads as unrebutted fact. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • his arm was finished — For good? Or as in "boy, that was a long day; I'm spent"?
I think the text makes it pretty clear it was for good. That's what he said in retrospect, anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

Many thanks. I think I've answered or respond to all.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added two comments above, but am adding my support. Very nice article. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source rev

[edit]

All the newspapers used were significant regional/citywide papers of record in their day. Of the texts used, all are published by respectable houses by acknowledged experts (Jordan is a lawyer, but also a respected author, Allen a sports historian, Macht has been reviewed in PR journals, and Odenkirk is professor emeritus at Arizona State pen). All is well, no obvious commissions and no red flags. Serial 12:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 October 2023 [44].

Temple of Apollo Palatinus

[edit]
Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about what was, at least in its day, one of Rome's grandest temples. Built by the not-quite-yet emperor Augustus on the Palatine Hill, the temple played a major role in Rome's religious life and political ideology. It was, by turns, a senate-house, war memorial, public library and distribution centre for sulphur. The article has to wrestle with the deeply complicated issue of the join between ancient text and modern archaeology: the reconstruction of the complex around the temple is deeply controversial and its excavations have not been brilliantly documented. The article has undergone a peer review from Golden, Modussiccandi and Caeciliusinhorto, to whom I am greatly obliged for points both stylistic and substantive, and a Good Article nomination by Simongraham. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim O'D

[edit]

Claiming a spot now. Review soon-ish. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorant on the subject matter, but having a bash:
  • The Temple of Apollo Palatinus ('Palatine Apollo') - is this translated? From Latin, I presume. If so, could use a language template.
  • 'Palatine Apollo' is a translation of Apollo Palatinus, but we use language templates for text in the non-English language, and the overall name given ("Temple of Apollo Palatinus") is English in the same way that "Cathedral of Notre Dame" is: we wouldn't put a French language template halfway through that name. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • sometimes called the Temple of Actian Apollo,[1] - as this is in Construction, does it need to be cited here too?
  • Ditto It has been described by the archaeologist John Ward-Perkins as "one of the earliest and finest of the Augustan temples".[2]
  • According to his biographer Suetonius, he claimed to have "found Rome a city of brick, and left it a city of marble".[5] - very famous quote, but is it needed here? Bit of a cliche in my opinion.
  • This came up at PR: this is what I put in response there:

It is a very famous quote, and I think there's value in indicating to the reader that Augustus claimed to be engaged in totally rebuilding the city; that claim both gives evidence for what precedes it and useful context for what follows it. John Ward-Perkins uses it in exactly the same way, so there's a secondary-source context for connecting the quotation with the building programme. We could rephrase to something like "Augustus claimed to have totally refounded the city of Rome and to have beautified it in the process", I suppose, but that would seem like a bad swap to me.

Did you have a particular change in mind? UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not if you're happy with it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • senate-house or senate house?
  • I opened up a recent academic book to see where they went (the Cambridge Companion to the Age of Nero), and they have one of each. Perhaps a little old-fashioned (certainly seems less common in phrases like charnel house in recent publications): hyphen removed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • connection - British English article, so consider using "connexion" instead.
Bit of a shame that the original version is slowly receding into the rear mirror of history, but what can you do. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cossutius, a brick-maker employed by Gaius Asinius Pollio, a politician and literary patron of the early Augustan era, was likely involved - try Cossutius, a brick-maker employed by Gaius Asinius Pollio—a politician and literary patron of the early Augustan era—was likely involved.
Good idea: done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, time to wrap up. Comments soon, for real this time. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason to have single quotes (') and not double quotes (") for some of the translations?
MOS:SINGLE advises single quotes for all glosses: I think that's been followed consistently, but please shout if I've mixed some up. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extra full stop after ref 54.
Fixed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph of "Location" is a bit sparsely sourced: assume that ref 54 covers most of it, but wouldn't hurt to duplicate it somewhere so it doesn't look like a big chunk of unsourced text.
We've got two sentences cited to one citation, then three cited to the next. WP:WHENNOTCITE has Per WP:PAIC, citations should be placed at the end of the passage that they support. If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill, so I think the present solution is the best fit with that guidance. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The temple's precinct – the Area Apollonis – was built - shouldn't em-dashes be used here, so *The temple's precinct—the Area Apollonis—was built [...]?
The MoS (MOS:DASH, I think) says that either spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes are fine at editorial discretion: I prefer the spaced endash as I think it's better for readability, as it avoids jamming words together. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the intercolumniation of the pronaos was diastyle (that is, the gap between each pair of columns was three times a column's width). - might be able to replace the brackets with a colon here.
I don't think that would be wrong, but I don't think it's necessarily better: to my eye, brackets fit better for what's very much an aside from the main narrative. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two extra "squiggly brackets" (sorry, don't know what on earth the proper name is) after ref 73.
Fixed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • libation-bowl - hyphen needed?
As we removed it for senate house, I'll do the same here for consistency. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cult statue of Latona was by Kephisdotos the Younger, the son of the Athenian sculptor Praxiteles, while that of Diana was originally sculpted by the Epidaurian artist Timotheos, but its head was remade by Avianus Evander,[35] an Athenian artist who had been taken to Rome as a prisoner in the mid-first century BCE.[76] - quite long, I'd split it up with dashes and semicolons, something like: The cult statue of Latona was by Kephisdotos the Younger—the son of the Athenian sculptor Praxiteles—while that of Diana was originally sculpted by the Epidaurian artist Timotheos; its head was remade by Avianus Evander,[35] an Athenian artist who had been taken to Rome as a prisoner in the mid-first century BCE.[76]
I've taken a slightly different approach, but split it in two, hopefully solving the problem. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Roman emperor Lucius Verus - could use the reigned template like you have in similar other places.
The point of using the template elsewhere was that we were using these reigns as a dating system (that is, our only information on the date of an event was that it happened under that emperor): here, however, we are already using a more precise date, so I think it would unnecessarily clutter the text and potentially create some confusion. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • it represented the restoration of Rome's 'golden age' - attribution? ;) (joking)
{{sfn|Augustus, G. J. C. O.|27 BCE}} UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Zanker, the temple was part of a cultural programme - consider rephrasing: "For Zanker", whilst making sense in languages like French, is a bit unclear here. Maybe "Zanker saw the temple as a part" or similar.
I think it's fairly standard in English, at least in academic writing and at least when dealing with (contrasting) interpretations of e.g. art, architecture and literature. I'm not seeing much chance for confusion in the sense of any reasonable chance of not understanding what it means, or understanding some other meaning from it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In function, you have "eighty" spelled out but "27" in numerals.
Changed "eighty" into figures: MOS:NUMERAL wants consistency between numbers that are "near" each other, and I'm not sure that an adjacent paragraph is quite that, but equally it doesn't hurt. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • published around 4 BCE - why not the circa template?
Abbreviations shouldn't really be used in flowing text, only in infoboxes and in brackets. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (63.0 by 121.4 by 15.4 ft), - is the comma wanted?
Yes: measuring 19.2 by 37.0 by 4.7 metres (63.0 by 121.4 by 15.4 ft) is a parenthetical clause. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The area around the temple, including its sanctuary and the rest of the domus Augusti complex, was further excavated by Carettoni between 1956 and 1984 - hats off for dedication, Christ.

And that is all from me. Happy to support even without waiting for the amendments. Truly another excellent article by someone who's been around less time than me but already has ∞ times more FAs. Good work all round. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for these comments and for your support - as ever, some sharp observations and food for thought in each case, even where our personal tastes diverged. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
Yes, but I'm thinking to whatever entity it was at the time. FunkMonk (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Rome" as written here is definitely the city, rather than the civilisation, so I'm not sure a link to e.g. Ancient Rome on it would be correct. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whose worship originated in the Greek world, was considered a 'foreign' deity" Isn't that the case for most Roman gods?
    • Afraid not. It's a long story, but in short, the two traditions descend from the same source, so while the Greeks and Romans both have the "same" god as Jupiter/Zeus, it isn't accurate to say that the Romans "got" Jupiter from the Greeks. However, Apollo doesn't seem to be part of that inherited tradition, but rather to have spread into Etruscan and Roman religion directly from contact with Greek cities. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "against Mark Antony, Octavian" Could specify what their occupations/ranks were to contextualise their roles?
    • Neither concept really works all that well in ancient Rome, particularly not at this time. We've already introduced Octavian as the controller of the Roman state, and Antony as his enemy in the civil war: I think that's enough for what's needed in this context. Adding that both were former consuls would be distracting and somewhat tangential to the point at hand: that status had very little to do with either of them being in the position they were. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who reports having read it in the Greek author Asclepias of Mendes" How does someone read something in an author?
  • Link Augustus and Apollo in image caption, as well as other terms not linked in captions.
  • "already considered particularly sacred" For what reason?
    • I don't think there was a particular reason: there isn't a sharp divide between sacred and non-sacred ground in Roman culture, which is where the adverb particularly came from. The whole Palatine was somewhat sacred in that it was the site of Rome's original foundation, ordained by the gods as the seat of Romulus's city; to a lesser extent, that was true of the whole city, and we get a very good sense from Aeneid 8 of the generally but non-specifically numinous feel of the place to the Romans of Augustus' time. The sources are clear that this specific site was more sacred than the rest, but don't go into detail as to why - I don't expect anyone in 36 BCE could have given you a clear answer. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • State what Apollo was the god of?
    • The "god of" concept doesn't work very well for classical religion: it's better to think of gods as being associated with or patrons of certain things (which may overlap with the purviews of other gods). Apollo is associated with a big bunch of vaguely-related things. From the Background section, Apollo was held in Roman culture to represent discipline, morality, purification and the punishment of excess: I think that's the best explanation (it's Zanker's) that gets the point across without going into the tiny minutiae. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Greek art was held to have an "acknowledged moral superiority"" But why would the temple of a Greek god then be considered unfit for being within the city?
    • Those two things aren't the same: Greek art is very different to Greek gods, and the specific belief that only Roman gods should be enshrined within the pomerium never implied that nothing Greek should exist there. I strongly suspect that this "belief" only existed in retrospect (Juno, who was meant to have originally been a goddess of Veii, had temples within the city), but that would be OR to include: the sources all report it as fact. Remember that there's also a big time gap here: we're talking about the mid-fifth century BCE for the founding of Apollo Sosianus (and so the alleged prohibition on a temple within the pomerium), while Apollo Palatinus (and the "moral superiority of Greek art") is four centuries later, by which time building a temple to Apollo within the city clearly isn't a problem. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the reconstruction of the complex around the temple is deeply controversial" I don't get a hint of a controversy from reading the article, anything that could be elaborated upon?
    • I don't really want to get too far into those weeds in the article: the main issues are the orientation of the temple itself and the position of the Portico of the Danaids in relation to it: the latter is at least partly out of scope, but I've tried to discuss it in outline around the diagram of the Area Apollonis complex (and in the associated caption). The much bigger problem is the status of the domus Augusti and whether it had anything to do with Augustus: although sources will still say that it did, they mostly seem to be repeating the "traditional" identification: those that look at the evidence pretty universally conclude that the identification is unsound. Again, I've tried to cover this in outline while not getting sidetracked by something that is really the focus of a different article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing the stated changes, perhaps weren't saved? FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - last issues seem to have been fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I'm still working on the process of identification: it turns out it's a little more complicated and interesting than currently in the article. Got some good sources and will hopefully be able to turn into something coherent this evening. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Elias

[edit]

Already skimmed this very interesting article. I'll leave my comments shortly.el.ziade (talkallam) 07:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RoySmith

[edit]

Just a few random things I've spotted:

  • The lead is four paragraphs, all of which start with "The temple [...] was". Could you find some less repetitive phrasing?
  • Infobox: the alt text "Temple of Apollo Palatinus is located in Rome" appears to being picked up automatically from the image title, but it's not useful as a non-visual description. I believe the "map-alt" attribute of {{Infobox ancient site}} will let you set something more useful. Also, the caption "Shown within ancient Rome" doesn't make sense in isolation. Perhaps something like "Location of the temple within ancient Rome"?
  • Sculptures and artwork: The image of Apollo Barberini needs an alt text.
  • Function: The alt text for Relief with Tripod (49350890031).jpg doesn't do the image justice. I would certainly include that it's a broken fragment of sculpture. Also, while I'm not an expert on this stuff, I think "bas-relief" describes it more accurately than "flat".
  • Excavation: add "stone wall" to the alt text.
Thank you for these: all good points and all done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Later history
  • "to the French archaeologist": any reason why his nationality is important?
Architecture
  • "The British archaeologist", "Austrian archaeologist", "American archaeologist" and all those in the footnotes too: ditto. I'm not sure what these descriptions add to a reader's understanding of the Temple of Apollo Palatinus
    • Seems to be a general view against these nationalities, so I've generally removed them, with an exception for Rosa (and by extension Carettoni) in the "Excavation" section: I think it's interesting and important that the site has always been under Italian "control", despite the land itself being originally owned by an emperor of France. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth moving the explanation of the cella into the main text? I missed the footnote and wondered what it was when I got there.

Support Only a couple of suggestions from me, the answers to which won't affect my support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Nothing much from me – mere quibbles. Adopt or throw out as you wish.

Thank you, as ever, for these, Tim. One I still need to work on, others replied to. No hard disagrees, but a few queries or hesitations. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • General
  • I can't work out your thinking about single -v- double quotation marks, but the MoS would have us choose the latter as default.
  • In theory, single quotes for Glosses that translate or define unfamiliar terms per MOS:SINGLE, and generally for "scare quotes": that is, terms like 'foreign' deity, where the categorisation was seen as appropriate in its time and the perception of it is vital to understanding, but we wouldn't endorse that term today (in this case, because our whole paradigm of where religion comes from has shifted). The MoS doesn't really rule on that latter situation: the system adopted here was fleshed out during the PR/FAC of Panagiotis Kavvadias. Happy to take a steer here: suggest it might be wise to work case by case. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have an abnormally high number of red links throughout the article. Do you think they are likely to turn blue in the foreseeable future? See the first bullet point of WP:REDNO.
  • I suppose I'm thinking of WP:NODEADLINE here: my reading of that first bullet point is that we shouldn't redlink articles with limited chance of ever being created (e.g. because they're not notable, or because the sources on them don't presently exist). I think all of the redlinks would pass GNG and make at least a decent Start- to C-class article (I thought about starting Avianus Evander myself). I think we're on the right side of the admonition at the start of WP:REDLINK: In general, a red link should remain in an article if there is a reasonable expectation that the article in question will eventually be created (either as its own article or as a redirect); remove red links if and only if Wikipedia should not have any coverage on the subject. Happy to be quibbled on specific examples, though. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead
  • Whenever possible I think it's better not to have citations in the lead. Of course the Ward-Perkins quote needs a citation, but "sometimes called the Temple of Actian Apollo" is covered in the main text, where I should say the citation belongs.
  • You're now the second person to raise this: I think you're right; the logic was that it's an implied quotation ("it has been called" = "someone has called it..."), but I think that's over-cautious given the citation in the body. Removed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background
  • "was considered a 'foreign' deity" – do we need the quotes? (If so they should be double according to the MoS.)
  • "his first major architectural project undertaken independently in the city" – I'm struggling a little with this. Independent of what or whom? And how does this square with "It was the second of four temples built in Rome by Augustus", later in the text?
OK: it's pretty much the first project Augustus definitely had a hand in, but the Temple of Caesar is definitely earlier (both in commencement and dedication), and is, at least initially, a team effort between then-Octavian, Lepidus and Antony. I've added an EFN to explain this: not sure if enough or if some clarification in the text would help, but equally not fully of ideas for how best to do the latter. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While the temple's official name was the Temple of Actian Apollo (using the epithet Actius), it was also informally known by the same god's epithets" – I'd be cautious about using "while" to mean "although" here. We aren't quite into "Miss Smith sang Mozart while Mr Brown played Brahms" territory, but the "while" here could certainly be read in a temporal sense – "during the period when".
  • "Cossutius … was likely involved in the temple's construction, based on finds of his stamp on bricks" – two things here, neither of them earth-shattering. First if, as appears, the article is in BrE, "was likely involved" is not normal BrE: "was probably involved" would be usual. And secondly, grammatically the sentence could do with a helping hand: Cossutius is the subject of the sentence and he wasn't based on finds of his stamp. Perhaps something on the lines of "Cossutius, a brick-maker employed by Gaius Asinius Pollio – a politician and literary patron of the early Augustan era – was probably involved in the temple's construction: bricks with his stamp have been found in the temple and adjacent buildings."
  • Later history
  • "According to the French archaeologist Pierre Gros" – do we need to know his nationality?
  • It's fairly standard to introduce new people as "the Nationality profession, FirstName LastName", isn't it? That's certainly my default when I don't have any more interesting information to offer but don't want to treat the reader as if they should already know them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Location
  • "the proximity between the monuments" – unexpected preposition: one might expect "of"
  • "late Republican domus … constructed during the late Roman Republic." Not sure we need both "late"s.
  • "disproven by later excavations" – in English English (though not in Scottish English) the past tense of prove is proved, and the same goes for disprove and disproved.
  • Architecture
  • "The British archaeologist John Ward-Perkins" – I doubt if his nationality is any more relevant to the article than that of Pierre Gros. Likewise for "British archaeologist Amanda Claridge", "the French classicist Gilles Sauron" (how he must hate Tolkien), "the Austrian archaeologist Stephan Zink", "the German classical archaeologist Lilian Balensiefen" and "the German architectural historian Christian Hülsen".
  • See above; I think it's a fairly standard introduction. There's some (small) value in emphasising the multi-national nature of classics as a field, and of the study of this monument, and also some value in getting variation from endless "the classicist... the archaeologist..." etc. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point absolutely taken, but somewhere in the MoS I think we are bidden to refrain from specifying people's nationalities unless they are relevant. I often dodge the issue by saying "the historian X in his 2002 study of Y says...". It doesn't, in truth, tell the reader anything he or she needs to know, but it lends an air of authority and moves the prose along. Ahem, and pray don't say I said so. Tim riley talk 20:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not averse to treating this as a pure stylistic question rather than simply a matter of the MoS, but do you mean MOS:NATIONALITY? As I read that, it specifically covers opening paragraphs, and advises excluding ethnicity and previous nationalities while including, where possible, someone's "main" nationality. MOS:INFONAT does advise against including nationality in infoboxes where avoidable, but the logic there is that it's usually, in practice, a simple extension of their place of birth. I'm not sure that either is really interested in this kind of situation: did you have another guideline in mind? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Parts of the column capitals were likely gilded" – "probably", probably, as above.
  • Reception
  • "the historians Josephus and Velleius Paterculus in the 1st century" – at first glance they look like brothers with the same surname. If they can be switched round without affecting the sense it might make for smoother reading.
  • Footnotes
  • Some of the References seem hybrid – partly citations and partly explanatory footnotes, e.g. Ref 19: "Hill 1962, p. 129. Suetonius records the story at Divus Augustus 94.4". I don't know what other editors think, but for my money the bit about Suetonius would be more helpful to the reader if moved to the Explanatory notes section. I do not by any means press the point, or indeed any of the points above.
  • I think it's neater to have it in the reference, since it is a citation of sorts (albeit to the primary source on which the secondary one is based): making a new EFN creates a new blue footnote, which is a readability trade-off, and means that we end up with a whole load of very short EFNs that just give links to primary sources. Appreciate that the line between a fleshed-out reference and an explanatory note is fuzzy: I've tried to stick to keeping it in the reference footnote when it's strictly about how a reader can verify the information, and using an EFN when it's about going beyond that with some sort of tangent or additional context. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed the article greatly, and learned a thing or two as well. I'll look in again with a view to adding my support after a final perusal. Tim riley talk 13:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting. Happy to leave the nominator to deal with the one outstanding point, above. The article is a pleasure to read, well and widely sourced, nicely illustrated, well proportioned and is in all respects of FA quality in my view. Tim riley talk 20:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greatly appreciated: thank you on all counts. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Choliamb

[edit]
  • I've uploaded a better photograph of the podium of the temple, taken in 1994: File:Rome, Temple of Apollo Palatinus podium (1994).jpg. I think this might be a more useful lead image than the single fragment of a capital that now holds that place, but I'll let you decide. At the very least, it should probably replace the unsatisfactory photo of the temple podium currently in the Excavation section.
Done, and moved the column capital to replace the old image of the podium. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why the Danaids from the portico are illustrated with a photo of the bronzes from the Villa of the Papyri when we actually have some of the originals on which those bronzes are based, and there are photos of them in the Commons (see c:Category:Female Hermai from the temple of Apollo Palatino). These figures were extensively restored in 1997, but still, wouldn't it be better to use a photo of material that comes from the Palatine itself wherever possible?
I wasn't aware of those - thank you. Found an image and a useful bit of context for the provenance of those statues. I am a little dissatisfied that I can't find anything in print about their restoration in 1997: do you happen to know of anything? UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The date comes from the new(ish) catalogue of the Palatine museum, Museo Palatino: Le collezioni, ed. Carlo Gasparri and Maria Tomei, published by Electa in 2014. But now that I go back and read more carefully, it's clear that this was just the most recent consolidazione of the figures, and that they were actually restored shortly after their excavation by Rosa and exhibited on the Palatine already in the 1870s (Visconti and Lanciani, Guido del Palatino (Rome 1873), pp. 73–74, described as caryatids). They were subsequently moved to the Museo Nazionale, and then back up to the Palatine in 1997 for the reopening of the antiquarium there after many years of closure. I'll send you some page scans. Maria Tomei is the one who made the association with the Portico of the Danaids, and presumably her two articles would give you all the detail you could want: "Le tre 'Danaidi' in nero antico dal Palatino," Bollettino di archeologia 5–6 (1990), pp. 35–48, and "Danaidi in rosso antico dal Palatino," Romische Mitteilungen 112 (2005–2006), pp. 379–384. I have not read either of them and unfortunately neither one appears to be available online. But she's the author of the entry in the catalogue, so that presumably gives a good summary of her views. Choliamb (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the same vein, I'm surprised to find no illustration of the painted terracotta reliefs, which are among the most photogenic of all the surviving works of art associated with the temple and the house of Augustus. The panel with Apollo and Herakles facing off over the Delphic tripod in particular is probably directly relevant to the role of the temple as a memorial to the victory at Actium. There are plenty of photos of these reliefs in the Commons (see c:Category:Ancient Roman reliefs in the Antiquarium del Palatino (Rome)), and I can upload more if you're not satisfied with the quality of the existing ones. IMO, one of these would be a more useful contribution to the article than the marble relief fragment with the tripod (on which see below).
  • Following on from the previous point: the interpretation of the Apollo and Herakles panel as a reflection of the contest between Octavian and Antony is credited here to Steve Tuck, but it is not his idea: it was discussed at some length in an interesting article on the ideological significance of the temple's decorative program by Barbara Kellum, first published in 1985: "Sculptural Programs and Propaganda in Augustan Rome: The Temple of Apollo on the Palatine," in The Age of Augustus, ed. R. Winkes (Archaeologia Transatlantica 5. Providence 1985), pp. 169–176; reprinted in Roman Art in Context, ed. E. d'Ambra (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1993), pp. 75–83. This article is definitely worth a read; if you can't track it down online, let me know and I'll email you a copy.
  • The photo of the marble relief fragment with the tripod is a real eyesore in its current form: all that blank space, with a tiny piece of marble tucked away in one corner. At the very least the current photo should be cropped, but hold off on doing that, because I'm pretty sure I have a better photo of that fragment, which I will hunt down and upload later today.
Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all of these - no quarrel with any of them and will work my way through. Could I take you up on the offer of a PDF of Kellum's article? Will send you a Wikimail. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Email received. Meanwhile, I've uploaded a better photo of the tripod relief here: File:Fragmentary relief of tripod (Rome Pal Ant 475909).jpg. Choliamb (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And reply received; much obliged. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Choliamb: I think I've now been able to act on all of these, and on the material you generously sent me by email. Galinsky in particular was particularly fruitful and has made his way into the article at numerous points. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Choliamb, part 2. Okay, I've now completed a careful read of the entire article, and I have another list of suggestions for your consideration. Most of them are trivial points and a few are quibbles, but because having a bunch of nits picked off you all at once can be an unpleasant experience, let me preface this by stating in advance my support for the nomination (which I will repeat below in bold), regardless of how many of the changes below you ultimately decide to make. To aid in navigation I've grouped them according to the subheadings (not the main headings) used in the article.

Background

  • "City of brick, city of marble." Perhaps cite Suet. Aug. 28.3 in the footnote (in addition to, not instead of, Ward-Perkins), to help out readers who want to see what Suetonius actually says? (You do below with Suetonius and others in current footnotes 19, 29, 76, and 122).
    • (Can I put on record how much I appreciate you digging out and including the primary-source citations: it is much appreciated). Done, and slightly adjusted the quote (now a paraphrase), which was the famous formulation but not quite what S. wrote. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temples restored during in 28 BCE. The text currently says "in 28 BCE, Augustus claimed to have restored eighty-two [temples]". This is a little misleading, I think, because the claim that he had restored 82 temples during his sixth consulship was made by Augustus in the Res Gestae, which were published on his death in 14 CE, not in 28 BCE. In other words, it's the restoration, not the claim, that dates to 28 BCE. This is a quibble, I know, but it can be avoided by simple rephrasing. Perhaps something like "Augustus claimed to have restored eighty-two temples in the year 28 BCE alone" vel sim. (And maybe add a reference to Res Gestae 20.4 to the note for those who want to see the claim itself?)
  • Asclepias of Mendes. I see why you wrote this, based on the genitive form Asclepiadis in the text of Suetonius. But Athenaeus calls him Asklepiades, not Asklepias, and that is how he is known to modern scholarship (see, e.g., FGrH 617, RE II.2, col. 1627, s.v. Asklepiades 26). The red wikilink in the article is almost comically aspirational, since not enough is known about this guy to fill even a microstub!

Construction

  • Rhamnusius. The article currently says that this epithet refers to "Apollo's sanctuary at Rhamnous". I don't think we know this, and it is not what the source cited (Hill 1962) says. Hill refers not to a sanctuary of Apollo but to the "Nemeseion" -- i.e., the sanctuary of Nemesis, most famous sanctuary at Rhamnous and one of the most famous in Attica. No one has come up with a very convincing explanation for the epithet Rhamnusius, known only from a single mention in the late antique Notitiae: most modern sources assume that the cult statue on the Palatine was originally taken from Rhamnous, but that's just an assumption without any ancient authority. If it did come from Rhamnous, it presumably came from the sanctuary of Nemesis, as Hill guesses, but again, it's just a guess. Since there is no scholarly consensus, perhaps better simply to admit that the meaning of the epithet remains obscure. (If you need a citation for that, the entry in Richardson will do, or for more detail the discussion in Roscher's Ausführliches Lexikon, IV, col. 88, which is what all the topographical dictionaries seem to cite.)

Later history

  • Fire of 363. The article currently says that the temple "was destroyed in a fire on 18 March 363, during the fourth-century persecutions of non-Christians in the Roman Empire". To me, this wording implies pretty strongly that the destruction was the result of a deliberate attack by disgruntled Christians. Is there any evidence for that? The only ancient source cited by Platner and Ashby is Amm. Marc. 23.3.3, which gives the date, but says nothing about the cause except that it was a fire. So I looked at the three sources cited at the end of the following sentence. In spite of the fact that the note tells readers to turn to Quenemoen "for the cause of the destruction", she appears to say nothing (at least on p. 234, the page cited) about motives or circumstances, only recording the date and the fact that it burned. And unless I've overlooked it, the same is true of Hill. I don't have the LTUR to hand; does Gros discuss the events of 363 in more detail? If he doesn't, perhaps it would be better just to leave the Christians out of the sentence in order to avoid implying an association for which there is no evidence? Temples catch fire for many reasons, after all.

Location

  • "House of Augustus". Since I carp a lot about little things in these comments, let me lean the other way and say good on you for emphasizing how problematic the identification of the House of Augustus actually is.

Architecture

  • Intercolumniation. It seems a little awkward to me that you discuss the wide intercolumniation in two separate paragraphs, first in connection with Kellum's suggestion that it was intended to recall the Capitoline temple, and then again in the next paragraph when you cite Vitruvius on the term diastyle. I don't suppose there's a way to bring these two together in one place or the other (since it is precisely the diastyle spacing that Kellum is commenting on). Also, is it worth adding a reference to Vitruvius 3.3.4 to the note (as with Suetonius above)?
  • Orientation. I don't understand the argument attributed to Claridge here. The fact that the temple was diastyle only means that the columns were farther apart than normal; it doesn't change the overall size or footprint of the building, which is determined by the remains of the podium, so what does it mean to say that the temple could not have fit into the available space? Has something been garbled here? I haven't read the article you cite in Reconstruction and the Historic City, but the explanation that Claridge gives in her Oxford guide to Rome (2nd ed., pp. 142–143) is very different and seems to make much more sense: there she argues (1) that the foundations at the northern end are less substantial and better suited for the lighter structure of the pronaos, while the more substantial southern foundations would have supported the heavier cella; and (2) that the "tremendous visual impact" of the temple on visitors makes more sense if the facade faced northward, the direction from which people would have approached the building, rather than southward over the edge of the hill toward the Circus Maximus. I take no position on whether or not her suggestion is correct; I'm just trying (and failing) to understand her reasoning as it is currently expressed in the article.

Sculpture and artwork

  • Cult statue by Scopas. Pliny does say that the cult statue of Apollo was made by Scopas, but as I mentioned above, the additional claim that the statue came from Rhamnous has no ancient authority; it is modern speculation based on the puzzling epithet Rhamnusius. Your citation of Coarelli on this point fails verification, I believe: unless I've missed it, he says nothing about Rhamnous (and rightly so). It pains me to see the Rhamnous connection stated here in Wikivoice, just because some modern scholars have repeated the speculation as if it were fact. But if you feel you must include it, the phrasing ("the Nemeseion sanctuary of Apollo at Rhamnous") needs to be changed, since Nemeseion = sanctuary of Nemesis.
    • Reworked: still there, as the suggestion is in the sources, but I've tried to soften it and be clear that it's really a conjecture. The sources are a bit more bullish than you've been here: Hill presents the Rhamnous origin as fact, while Richardson has it as "the possibility that...". Has anyone discussed the idea more sceptically in print? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think your question gets it backward: the burden is on the modern scholars who repeat the story to support it by citing ancient evidence -- any evidence at all -- that the epithet Rhamnusius had something to do with the statue by Scopas. Maybe there is some, but I've never seen it. So I tried to chase it down. Platner and Ashby and Richardson refer to Roscher's Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie (Leipzig 1909–1915), IV, col. 88, s.v. Rhamnousios. Roscher's source was Jordan and Hülsen's Topographie der Stadt Rom im Alterthum (Berlin 1871–1907), I.3, p. 67, note 70. Jordan and Hülsen pointed me to Ludwig Ulrichs, Skopas: Leben und Werke (Greifswald 1863), p. 67. And that's the end of the line. The story starts with Ulrichs. Does he cite any ancient sources to support his explanation of the epithet? No, he does not. He simply says that it seems more likely to him than the alternative explanation suggested by Ludwig Preller, Die Regionen der Stadt Rome (Jena 1846), p. 182. That's it. At no point does anyone in this chain of references claim that there is any actual evidence that the statue of Apollo by Scopas originally comes from Rhamnous, but once it got into Jordan and Hülsen (a monumental resource that casts a huge shadow over all subsequent studies of the topography of Rome), it was there for careless readers like Hill to copy as if it were fact rather than a desperate attempt to solve what Ulrichs himself calls the "riddle" posed by the epithet Rhamnusius. (It's pretty clear that Hill was looking at Jordan and Hülsen, since he follows them in referring to the sanctuary of Nemesis as the Nemeseion, which English-speaking scholars almost never do.)
    Wikipedia policy is to follow secondary sources, but (to use a favorite metaphor of the drama boards) citing secondary sources is not a suicide pact: you don't have to include it in the article just because one or more secondary sources happens to say it. Editors are always free to use their own judgment when deciding what to include and what to leave out. Having said all of that, I have no problem with your rephrasing, which makes it sufficiently clear that this is conjecture, not fact. :) Choliamb (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with all of that - always interesting to see how certain "facts" come into being. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In 1984 the Greek epigraphical journal Horos published an amusing and rather rude article by Stephanos Koumanoudes (not the famous one, of course, but I assume a descendant) entitled "Perhaps > Usually > Certainly," which traced the reception of a suggestion made by Eugene Vanderpool about the identification of a building located just beyond the southwest corner of the Athenian Agora. With each repetition, the hesitations and qualifications of Vanderpool's original suggestion were discarded until the identification came to be widely repeated as fact. That building, originally referred to simply as the "Southwest Building", is now universally called the "State Prison", where Socrates was supposedly confined and where he died. The road that runs southwest from the agora through the valley between the Areopagos and the Pnyx is lined with domestic and industrial buildings, and this is almost certainly just another one of those: as John Camp observes with delicate understatement in the most recent edition of the Agora guidebook, "many features of the building are appropriate to a commercial/industrial complex". But the moment the name of Socrates entered the picture, the proposed identification was seized upon by the popular press and by scads of non-specialist scholars, all of whom were happy to claim at third or fourth or fifth hand that the place where Socrates was imprisoned had now been identified. Once that idea was loose in the wild, it could never be called back, and today there are thousands and thousands of "reliable secondary sources" that repeat the identification, even though I don't know any serious Athenian archaeologist who believes it. But Vanderpool was (rightly) revered by the American archaeological community, so no one is going to come right out and say that this particular suggestion has little to recommend it. Instead, we all continue to refer to this structure as the "State Prison" with mental, if not actual, quotation marks, or with a parenthetical question mark after the name. And the case study by Koumanoudes of the way in which speculation ossifies into fact remains a forgotten article in an obscure Greek journal that most people have never heard of. Choliamb (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other misc. artworks. The article currently says "A statue of a young man (ephebe) in black basalt has also been found in the temple, as well as fragments of a marble relief showing the prow of a ship and of a fresco showing Apollo with a lyre." This description of the findspot is misleading, since none of these pieces were "in the temple" (and indeed it's hard to understand what that might mean, since there is no surviving temple for them to be "in", only the podium and a few architectural fragments). The citation provided is Coarelli 2014, p. 157, and it fails verification, since only the ephebe is specifically assigned to the temple on that page. (The English edition of Coarelli's guidebook says "from" not "in", an important distinction, and because it's a translation, it may or may not accurately represent the Italian preposition used by Coarelli himself.) In Tomei's 1997 guidebook to the Museo Palatino, she describes the findspots of these three pieces as follows: (a) ephebe, from "the cryptoporticus to the east of the Temple of Apollo" [found in 1869 by Rosa]; (b) fresco fragment, "excavations of the constructions south of the Scalae Caci [found in 1950]; (c) ship relief, "from the eastern slope of the Palatine, towards San Gregorio" [!!!] (Tomei, Museo Palatino (Milan 1997), p. 60, no. 35; p. 63, no. 37; p. 65, no. 39, respectively). Of course people have wanted to associate the fresco with the temple, and the ship relief with Actium, and there's no harm in such speculation, provided nobody claims that they were actually found in the temple -- or (in the case of the ship relief) anywhere remotely near it!
    • Reworked: I've been more precise on the ephebe, and removed the other two altogether: Coarelli doesn't attempt to link them to the temple: one could argue that the Museo Palatino does by putting them all together, but that's subtext rather than text and perhaps the sculptures might speak more to the general prominence of Apollo/Actium in Augustan visual culture than to the Temple of Apollo itself. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Function

This section is a nice condensation of a lot of potentially confusing material. I think you've done a good job of distilling things for casual readers. I do have three small suggestions:

  • Double quotation marks needed for the phrase 'golden age', to match the style of the rest of the article.
    • Not quite the same style; I've used single-quotes where nobody's being directly quoted, so double would be inappropriate, but I want to distance myself from the terminology (that is, the Romans would think of it as a golden age, but we shouldn't parrot that). I think the MoS is silent on this matter (see above in Tim Riley's review). UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final sentence: replace fruges accepi with fruges and purgamenta dari with purgamenta. I understand that you are quoting the Acta here, but the passive infinitives fit uneasily into the syntax of your English sentence, where what the reader expects are the Latin terms for "first fruits" and "purifying agents". If you go back and look at your source (Forsythe), you'll see that he actually changes the passive infinitive of the inscription to active in the first of these expressions (fruges accipere) to get around the same difficulty, and in changing it back to passive you have compounded the problem by accidentally writing accepi (the perfect indicative active) rather than accipi. All of this is easily avoided if you just gloss the nouns and omit the verbs altogether.

Reception

  • Add citation (book and line numbers) in the Ars Amatoria? You give specific references by book and poem number for Propertius, Tibullus, and Horace earlier in this section; Ovid deserves the same courtesy.
Now done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excavation

A lot of information here about the early excavations that was new to me. Well done. A few tiny points:

  • You give the dimensions of the temple above in the architecture section; do they need to be repeated here?
  • Rosa's excavations only open on Thursdays: This may be my favorite fact in the article. Thank you for including it. If someone ever tries to remove it as trivial, I will edit war unto death to preserve it.
  • "the third-century-BCE Temple of Jupiter Invictus": the string of hyphens is pretty unsightly, and most style guides, while hyphenating "third-century" when used as an adjective, would not add another hyphen before BCE. But it can all be avoided by writing "the temple of Jupiter Invictus, constructed in the third century BCE". Similarly, "houses of the late Republican period" rather than "late-Republican-period houses" later in the same sentence.

As I say, mostly small details. A fine article overall. Reiterating my support. — Choliamb (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Choliamb: thank you once again for all these comments: it took me a while to get through them, but I think I'm there. Let me know if I've missed or misunderstood something, or if there's any other blind spots in the article: I recognise that I have nowhere near the breadth of contextual knowledge that you have! UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

All images are appropriately licenced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • All sources are high quality books, journals, two PhD theses and a couple of academic websites
  • Nicely formatted
    Zanker (1983) is the only journal ref with an ISSN. Recommend deleting the iSSN for consistency with the other journal references. (Or add issns to all the others.)
  • Spot checks:
    fn 3, 38a, 118, 119 - okay
    fn 116 is incorrect - should be 1997 instead of 1990?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing these, Hawkeye: greatly obliged. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Great work here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again: that's very kind of you. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 October 2023 [46].

October 1 (film)

[edit]
Nominator: voorts (talk/contributions) 21:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 1 is a Nigerian thriller film, directed by Nollywood veteran Kunle Afolayan, about a detective investigating a series of murders on the eve of Nigerian independence. The film was critically praised in Nigeria and received over a dozen awards. Following a thorough GA review from Daniel Case and a helpful peer review from TechnoSquirrel69, I feel that this is ready for FAC. I look forward to your comments. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Given that my previous FAC was not promoted and a spot check was never done, I assume this will need one to pass, but I wanted to check. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 16:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes. You need a successful / passed FAC to be exempt from that requirement. (t · c) buidhe 16:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Okay to list this in the image/source check requests? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 23:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Is this good to go? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Done.
Do you know if there's a template for a derivative work? Technically the cropped version wasn't the photo reviewed by VRT, so it would be inaccurate to copy/paste the template there IMO. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's not a specific template AFAIK, but {{VRT info}} would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done using the {{VRT info}} template. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

[edit]
  • Why does the article use dmy dates if the title of the movie itself uses mdy? May be a very minor discrepancy, but the date bot isn't going to work in thr articles current format
  • I used DMY because my understanding is that Nigerian English uses DMY, but I can change it if you think it's a major issue.
  • Done
  • The plot uses "Kill" or "Killer" too many times, IMO; use some other words (murderer, menace, etc)
  • Done
  • ...older audiences: "For the older generation, especially those who were part of independence, they will be able to see themselves in this film. For the younger generation it's a platform for many of them who don't know the story of Nigeria". - period can go inside quotes because of semicolon before
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Much of the content under "Themes" feels like it would be better under "Reception", since they're all reviews; also, many of these quotes could easily be paraphrased, and would be better that way

More soon MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've paraphrased some of the quotes. Regarding your suggestion, I struggled with this in rewriting the article; which parts do you think should be in the "Reception" section?
    • Voorts, I should've clarified, sorry- the quotes can be cut entirely and just replaced with statements about the movie's themes. For example, Filmmaker Onyeka Nwelue described the film as "sharpen[ing] the veracity of a society torn apart by its tribalism".[18] Wilfred Okiche of YNaija linked the film's political and psychological themes, noting that the film was both a character study of psychological abuse and a "a metaphor for the big lumbering mess that Nigeria has become, tracing the origin of the pathology to the white man’s selfish logic of forcing a diverse group of people into a union that has proved mostly unproductive" can easily be distilled into "Critics noted that the psychological themes in the movie connected to political division of the time." Don't use that exact phrasing, since "psychological themes" is vague in my rewriting and in the prose as it stands- make sure to clarify that too MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done (mostly). I like this quote too much to cut it: "sharpen[ing] the veracity of a society torn apart by its tribalism". I also kept a couple of other quotes because I don't think there's a good way to paraphrase the language and fully capture the meaning. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In September, Golden Effects unveiled a set of character posters - what's golden effects?
  • Changed to "the filmmakers".
  • Critical reception: I think some of this can use a good pruning; cut repetitive quotes a paraphrase the rest
  • Done.
@MyCatIsAChonk: I've addressed your suggestions and have a question RE your suggestion on the "Themes" section. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Responded above. One more thing- in the "Accolades" table, add a column with the header Ref. and put the reference there MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done voorts (talk/contributions) 21:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - much better, very nice work! Also, if you get some time, I'd appreciate any comments at this FAC- thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 21:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Tim O'Doherty

[edit]

Claiming a ticket. Review coming tomorrow at the latest. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the full thing last night, and skimmed it again today to catch anything I'd missed yesterday. I'd suggest running a few of the shorter paragraphs in "Production" and "Release" together, as well as removed "2014 in film" from "See also"; already subcategorised a bit in List of Nigerian films of 2014, but I'm not going to withdraw support over trivial matters like that. Support based on prose: I haven't done a source or comprehensiveness review, but I trust voorts's judgement here. This is a short article, and I've not caught any major flaws. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed your concerns. Thanks for the support! voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69

[edit]

Glad to see this article's made it to FAC! I'll be back for another review sometime later today. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here come the comments!

  • The most important concern: a quick Google search brings up a few scholarly sources that have not been referenced in the article. There's this paper on the thematic motifs, this chapter analyzing the film through the lens of human rights, and this paper going over the film's use of sets and costumes. There might be more. Being unfamiliar with this topic, I'm unsure if these sources will add anything new to the article, but they should at least be scanned to make sure the article meets criterion 1c (comprehensiveness).
  • Reviewing now.
  • "...who was eventually hired to write the screenplay, originally titled Dust." I'd recommend moving the part about "Dust" into a new sentence, as the current phrasing is a bit confusing. Also, I'd put the WIP title in quotes.
  • Done
  • "...and had a particular 1960s 'look' " might be better quoted as " 'a look that is particular to that period' " or " 'a look that is particular to [the 1960s]' ".
  • Done
  • Perhaps change "Afolayan cast Sagoe" to "Afolayan cast Deola Sagoe" since it's the first time they're being mentioned outside the cast list. Similarly with other cast members mentioned later in the prose.
  • Done
  • "...consolidating several tribal groups in one nation. In The Nation..." might be better as "...consolidating several tribal groups in one country. In The Nation...".
  • Done
  • "...it is your country now'"." should use {{'"}}.
  • Done
  • "In March, Golden Effects said..." same issue brought up by MyCatIsAChonk earlier.
  • Done

Have to cut it short at the moment for an IRL obligation; I'll most likely come back for some more tomorrow. Let me know what you think so far, Voorts. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoSquirrel69: I've addressed most of your comments. For scholarly sources, I looked through Google Scholar, JSTOR, Project Muse, and ProQuest. There wasn't much in the way of sustained discussion of the film, and for what there was, some of the journals seemed kind of sketchy and some of the articles were poorly written or inadequately sourced. I avoided citing to those journals/articles because I'm not sure how reliable they are. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's understandable; I also excluded some papers from the list I gave you because they looked highly unreliable. These ones look okay, but I have no idea whether the journals they've been published in are reputable or not. I'll trust your judgment on that end — I mostly made the point to start a process to make sure the article is fairly representing the information available in reliable sources. Let me know if you find anything useful with the links I've sent or in other places. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added the first two articles you cited to the "Themes" section, as well as one other article. I also added an academic review to the "Critical reception" section. The third article on mise-en-place that you cited had no citations and didn't seem paritcularly scholarly; I also am not sure about the quality of that journal. The rest of the sources I found seemed a little sketchy: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], and [52], [53] (published in Comic Sans; enough said).
Unrelated, but I added a couple of sentences on how the film was pirated to the "Release" section. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've also conducted searches of Taylor & Francis, SpringerLink, Sage, and Oxford Academic; nothing new turned up. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for doing that! I just saw your edits and the added content looks pretty good on first glance. Like I said earlier, I'll trust your judgment on the reliability of the sources; they'll get another look during the source review anyways. More comments on their way tomorrow! (Also, they published in Comic Sans? Really?! XD) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: You should change the {{xt}} and {{!xt}} templates to {{green}} and {{red}} per the guidelines at FAC. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note — good to know for my first FAC review. I suppose that means I can't use {{font}} in my comment on Comic Sans either, what a tragedy! Ah well, changing them over now. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another round of comments:

  • The brackets inside brackets in multiple places in § Release look really awkward and probably go against MOS:BRACKET. I'd recommend you lose the {{To USD}} templates and just format the text manually.
  • Done
  • In a similar vein, some currency figures have dollars followed by naira in brackets, but others are the reverse. The article should stick to one for consistency.
  • It's like that because the sources for the film's budget state the amount in USD, whereas the revenue sources state the revenue in Naira.
  • Disregarded.
  • I'd recommend a pass for formatting in the references. Among other things, the references have inconsistent italicization and use of quotation marks for the film's title. I'd change them all to italicized without quotes across the board. I just did a pass of the prose and corrected any MOS:CURLY and MOS:DASH issues I could find, but keep an eye out for any more in case they slipped by me.
  • Fixed the italics issues. Good catch. I think the caps are consistent, as are the publication titles. I don't see any other issues.
  • Optionally, I'd love to see a copyedit of § Reception so it's more in line with the suggestions laid out in the Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections essay. I'll admit that the reviews seem to be suspicious in a similar way to the scholarly sources we were discussing earlier, but even so, I feel that boiling down an entire review to a single sentence or quote is not representative of the source's arguments.
  • Done. RE sourcing, the reviews in § Reception are all legit.

And I think that's it from me! Thanks for your timely work implementing my suggestions so far, and good luck with the rest of this FAC! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoSquirrel69: Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really nice work, Voorts; this one's a well-earned support from me! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 15:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GWL

[edit]

Hey there! This overall seems pretty solid, but I have plenty of comments. Hopefully they are useful! I've put invisible comments to divide my comments based on sections. GeraldWL 09:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Replied to everything. I have a couple of questions below. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voorts, I did last tweaks to the table to adhere to accessibility guidelines. Overall I think with all that there is to the subject matter, it should make a good FA. I did however, find this scholarly source, which should fit in the themes section. Lemme know what you think-- after that it should be an easy support. GeraldWL 05:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis: I saw that source and didn't cite it because I'm not sure how reliable that journal is. The article reads like an undergrad paper, IMO. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis: I also just dug into it a bit more, and it actually plagiarizes the "Critical reception" section of this article from before I started working on it: see this diff. I knew parts of the article looked familiar. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the first sentence of the article plagiarizes the opening sentence of the Wikipedia article on Film. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Then this is an easy support. Good work! GeraldWL 03:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! voorts (talk/contributions) 04:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from GeraldWL 05:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* The alt text is kind of overly lengthy, but they should be as brief as possible, enough so that blind readers can understand the gist of it. I'd remove the first sentence as it repeats the caption. I'd change it to "The main character in the foreground of the left side, with minor characters in smaller proportion to his side, and an old church under dark skies at the right."
  • Done
  • Similar to the second image, I'd remove the "Morris" mention, but instead describe the car's shape, like round, boxed, etc.
  • Done
  • I recommend using Ghostarchive for ref 14 since IA won't save the video
  • Done
  • YouTube should be in publisher, to not be italicized
  • Changed cites with youtube to Cite AV media and made it "via" YouTube with the channel name as publisher since they're press outlets.
  • Remove the url in ref 21, 22, since it's already served in the DOI parameter
  • I didn't include URLs for those. Something is either broken with the cite journal template or there's been an update where DOI automatically files the URL. Here's the current source for one of those cites: {{Cite journal |last=Ezepue |first=Ezinne Michaelia |last2=Nwafor |first2=Chidera G. |date=July-September 2023 |title=October 1: Metaphorizing Nigeria’s Collective Trauma of Colonization |journal=[[SAGE Open]] |doi=10.1177/21582440231197271 |doi-access=free}}
  • Ref 41 is easily replacable by ref 62
  • Good catch.
  • For ref 49 you can remove the doi since it redirects to MUSE itself
  • Done
  • Ref 61-63, change website to publisher
  • Done
  • The official website is now used by some Wordpress guy, should probably change to an archive
  • Done
  • I really think you can expand on the release sentence: when and where it premiered, and the box office bomb
  • Done
  • Done
  • Generally I would avoid meta language like "Following an opening sequence", "the film begins", or "the film shifts", in favor of a more natural story, unless doing so would not do the article service. I'll try detail it in the points below.
  • Done
  • "Following an opening sequence depicting a young woman being raped by an unknown man"-- the sentence after this describes a rape investigation, which would be enough for readers to understand that the film concerns such cases, so this can be dropped.
  • Done
  • "In a flashback, Waziri narrates the story of his investigation in a voiceover."-- Another meta language. I think that combining "Upon his arrival in Akote" with the paragraph would make it more natural and direct: this guy is tasked to investigate, so he goes to the village.
  • Done
  • The third paragraph can also be combined since they concern the same day
  • Done
  • "After leaving a celebration of the investigation's closure, Waziri hears whistling and is assaulted by the killer; however, he is too drunk to identify him. Afonja sees Waziri lying on the road and takes him home. During his recovery, Waziri remembers the face of the killer." --> "After leaving a celebration of the investigation's closure, Waziri hears whistling and is assaulted by the killer. Although he is too drunk to identify him, he would slowly remember the face as he recovers."
  • Done
  • Remove the cast paranthesis. Also why is it Reverend in the Cast and not Father?
  • Should have been Reverend in the plot summary.
  • "who reveals that Father Dowling"-- the "Father" here can prob be dropped
  • Done
  • "The film then shifts back to Waziri presenting his account of the investigation to a group of British officers. They instruct Waziri to withhold the Aderopo's identity; he reluctantly agrees to do so for the sake of a peaceful independence." --> "Waziri later presents his account of the investigation to a group of British officers, who instruct Waziri to withhold the Aderopo's identity; he reluctantly agrees to do so for the sake of a peaceful independence." Can also merge with above paragraph.
  • Done
  • "the screenplay. The screenplay that he produced was originally titled Dust" -- repetition of "the screenplay" --> "the screenplay, originally titled Dust"
  • Done
  • "he wanted to produce a "national film with a universal appeal". In an interview, Afolayan said he wanted the film to appeal to younger and older audiences" --> "he wanted to produce a "national film with a universal appeal", with a focus on younger and older audiences"
  • Edited
  • I think it would be relevant to have a naira conversion of the budget, fixed in the time of production (2013)
  • Done
  • "particular to the 1960s, which is the film's time setting."
  • Changed to something else
  • "as Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti"-- should probably detail a bit about this person, shortdesc-style.
  • Done
  • "October 1 featured a soundtrack"-- or score?
  • Done
  • Should prob cite ref 9 in the caption since it isn't explcitly stated in prose
  • Done
  • "Nigeria's unification and independence" linked here but not in lead
  • Done
  • "Critics noted that October 1 ... Critics generally noted that October 1" repetition --> "Critics noted that October 1 ... Many observed that the film"
  • Done
  • Done
  • "those criticisms and the Boko Haram insurgency's criticism" --> "those and the Boko Haram insurgency's criticisms"
  • Done
  • Don't think NewswireNGR should be italicized-- it's a newsroom
  • Done. Also changed to Agency instead of Website parameter in cite.
  • "the film's "rhetoric of return", positing that the film relies on the "motif of return"" --> "the film's "rhetoric of return", positing that the film relies on it"-- motif is the same as rhetoric
  • Changed
  • "Afolayan described the "take-away" of the"-- take-away can be easily paraphrased to moral or message
  • Done
  • Why the "[,]"? I think it's still correct without it, no?
  • Removed
  • "2014; the film" --> "2014, where the film"
  • Done
  • Done
  • "New York University in New York City"-- isn't it obvious that it's in NYC? I think "the United States" would be a better replacement for NYC
  • Removed in NYC. I don't think adding in the US is needed.
  • "The film premiered in the United Kingdom on 3 November 2014 at the 2014 Film Africa Festival in London" -- misleading "premiere", 2014 repetition --> "The film's European premiere was in London on 3 November 2014 at the Film Africa Festival"
  • Done
  • Done
  • Unlink Nollywood in last paragraph
  • Done
  • DStv dup link
  • Where?
  • "Africa Magic channel"
  • Done
  • I think these two sections can be merged into "Reception"
  • Done
  • "status as a "Neo-Nollywood" director" --> "status as a director of the New Nigerian Cinema"
  • Done
  • "cinematography, costume, production design and acting"-- why in quotes? This is a relatively generic sentence
  • Removed quotes
  • "October 1 was nominated for the most awards at the 2014 Africa International Film Festival"-- I... don't think so, 3 versus 12 with the Africa Magic Viewers.
  • Removed
  • See MOS:DTT on accessibility for tables.
  • Added a caption; any other accessibility issues?

Source review and spot-checks – pass

[edit]
  • What makes Wakati Africa a high-quality reliable source?
  • A timestamp for source 4 and 14 would be helpful.
  • What makes 360nobs a high-quality source? The article's author (George Wana) appears to be a blogger.
    • Removed.
  • What makes theeagleonline.com.ng a high-quality reliable source? The same for Olori SuperGal. And for Pulse.
    • Removed The Eagle and Olori SuperGal. Pulse is an established entertainment media outlet in Nigeria.
Just because Pulse is a recognized media outlet in Nigeria doesn't automatically guarantee its reliability. Take the Daily Mail in the UK, for instance—it's a top-selling daily newspaper but is known for questionable journalistic practices. To establish the credibility of Pulse, provide evidence like a news article vouching for its reliability, details about their fact-checking process, or a link to a reputable organization's website endorsing the source. FrB.TG (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pulse is ultimately owned by Ringier, which has an editorial policy, including the separation of fact reporting from commentary, disclosure of conflicts of interest, marking sponsored content, and adherence to prevailing standards within the media industry. There's also a consensus at WikiProject Nigeria that it's an RS. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 40 might need a DOI.
    • It has one.
  • What makes e247mag.com a high-quality reliable source.
    • Removed.
  • While source 22 does write that the film had to be postponed by the producers, it doesn't say that it was due to additional post-production work.
    • Fixed
  • Source 58 should be marked as dead. Also, you should clarify in "film attempted to do too much, distracting from its cinematography, costume, production design and acting." that the critic liked the cinematography, costume, production design and acting.
    • Done
  • "Akande and other critics noted that audiences would recognize parallels between those themes and the Boko Haram insurgency's criticism of Western education." This is cited by two sources, and the critics who think this are Akande and the one in The Nation so it's just these two not "Akande and other critics".
    • Fixed
  • Source 61: The source not only does verify the nominations, but it doesn't even have the category for Best Movie Editor.
    • Added cite.
  • Source 63: It also does not list the nominees.
    • Added cite to the AMAA's official Facebook page, which I think is acceptable under WP:SOCIALMEDIA since it's an official post from the organization and there's no reason to doubt its accuracy.
  • Unproblematic spot-checks on citations 2, 5, 23, 24, 41, 43, 44, 48, 57, 62. FrB.TG (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing these. Out of the 15 sources I reviewed for paraphrasing and source-text integrity, five had some problems. To ensure everything is in the clear, I'd need to do more spot-checks. To streamline the process and prevent additional rechecks, I suggest you go through the sources again and then ping me for a recheck. It'll make things smoother for both of us. FrB.TG (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: Recheck completed. Thanks again for your thorough work. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further spot-checks
  • Source 3: OK
  • Source 14: OK
  • Source 15: it only says songs by Victor Olaiya were used but not which ones, and "Sunny Sunny Day isn't mentioned anywhere.
    • Added a cite to the film's credits, which I had thought unnecessary given the presumption in MOS:FILM that things in the film don't need citations.
  • Source 21: OK
  • Source 35: OK
  • Source 36: OK
  • Source 43: OK
  • Redundancy: "...including the sexual abuse of children by religious authority figures, religious and ethnic conflict, politics and human rights in Colonial Nigeria, and Nigeria's unification and independence.[3][43]" and "In NewswireNGR, Augustine Ogwo stated that the film addressed themes of rape and sexual abuse by moral leaders, such as religious figures.[43]"
    • Removed the second one.
  • Source 51: OK
  • Source 52: "Critics applauded the cinematography, production design and costuming, writing, and acting" - this is the opinion of a single critic, not a general consensus)
    • There were originally more cites at the end of that sentence, so I've changed it to reflect that it's the opinion of that critic.
  • Source 58: the category is called Best Video Editor not Best Movie Editor FrB.TG (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.

@FrB.TG: Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This concludes my source review and spot-checks. Passing both. FrB.TG (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 October 2023 [54].

Doom (1993 video game)

[edit]
Nominator(s): PresN 02:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doom is many things: the father of first-person shooter video games, one of the most influential games in any genre, the game that made id Software a household name and its developers millionaire stars, and possibly what single-handedly changed the cultural perception at large of a "video game" from bleeps and bloops in an arcade into shooter games. It's nearly 30 years old now, and yet I bet there are people scrolling through FAC today who don't play video games but saw the title and still immediately recognized the name. It's a big deal in video games, is what I'm saying, so like a fool I'm bringing it here for review. This article actually has been an FA before twice: in 2004 (then demoted a year later), then in 2005 (then demoted again in 2007), but languished ever since. I wrote up the development section back in 2018 before backing away, daunted at the undertaking, but this summer I've gone back and rewritten the rest, gotten it through GA with a through copyedit/review by Shooterwalker, and now I'm ready for the traditional gauntlet of FAC reviews. I hope you enjoy reading it! --PresN 02:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indrian

[edit]
  • Comments from Indrian There is a lot to like in this article, and it is clear a lot of careful effort has been put into it, but it does not appear ready yet. It is only barely hyperbolic to say that all PC gaming can be divided into “Before Doom” and “After Doom.” It brought blazing speed to a platform known for languid pace. It turned level design into an art form and a separate discipline. Its engine, id Tech 1, was licensed to Raven Software, beginning the march towards middleware. Its multiplayer, networking, and modding features changed the very definition of online community and competitive gaming. At every level of the gaming ecosystem from development to player experience it set in motion fundamental alterations that continue to drive the industry 30 years later. This article does not capture this monumental legacy.
So how can it? A few things to start:
  • There is a whole academic book on Doom and its legacy, Doom: Scarydarkfast by Dan Pinchbeck. While the book is cited in the text, it is inexplicably used only for two relatively minor points about the game’s audio. There is more to be extracted from this work.
  • Right, I added some bits from the end, but as I recalled, this book is 150 pages of gushing over every minor technical design decision followed by a short legacy section that I neglected to pull from. --PresN 01:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is another book, Dungeons and Dreamers: A Story of How Video Games Created a Global Community by Brad King and John Borland that spends several chapters describing the impact of id and its games on the creation of gaming communities yet is not cited at all.
  • Bought it, read the id chapters, added some bits from this on its impact on online/gaming communities. I'll read the rest of the book later, but 90%+ of the chapters on id are just summaries of Masters of Doom again. --PresN 02:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replay by Tristan Donovan, arguably the best single-volume history of video games yet written, calls it a “paradigm shift” and says “it was to games what The Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band was to pop,” yet it is not cited by the article either.
  • Will add once I track down the page numbers (I have the kindle edition), though you're overselling the gap- it certainly has some good quotes, but I just re-read that short section about Doom specifically, and what it doesn't have is details that aren't already present, besides the "paradigm shift" opinion itself. --PresN 17:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Romero has a memoir out. It is also not cited here. While the book is very new, this is a gap.
  • Will look, though to be honest I'm not expecting a lot that isn't already in Masters of Doom or his/Hall's GDC talk, as there's a limit to how much I want to go into the game's effect on Romero himself. --PresN 17:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got lucky, and google books had the 2 chapters on Doom in the free preview. It's mostly what was in the GDC talk/the article already, but I got some good details that weren't fleshed out there (Romero has an amazing memory, but a very dry/didactic delivery, btw). --PresN 02:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doom won several game of the year awards from magazines and was named best action adventure game by the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences. None of these awards are mentioned.
  • Looks like I missed that GamesRadar UK gave it GOTY in 1993 (CGW/PCGUK's 1994 GOTY awards are listed already); I hadn't included the AIAS award because the AIAS itself doesn't even count the years before 1998, though I've now added it. --PresN 17:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are not the only gaps in the article, but fixing them would be a good start. Indrian (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Working on this, replied inline. --PresN 17:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Indrian: Okay, spent more of today reading these books then I should have, so hopefully I've filled in these gaps. --PresN 02:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Had a quick look, and things do look much improved. I will provide more detailed feedback soon. Appreciate the effort! Indrian (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Indrian: Hey Indrian, just reminding you of this. --PresN 21:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Haven’t forgotten, but will be another week before I can do more in-depth reviewing with irl stuff. However, I am confident that we will get the article where it needs to be, so the person below waiting for things to get fixed can go ahead as far as I am concerned. Indrian (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: as per your request. --PresN 03:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Indrian. Many thanks for the above, and just a gentle reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your patience. Finally had a chance to take a more in depth look and greatly appreciate the additions from the sources I highlighted. Combined with the fixes from other reviews below, this makes me very comfortable in supporting this nomination. As always PresN, your hard work, attention to detail, and drive to present accurate history derived from high-quality sources is a great asset to Wikipedia’s video game coverage. Well done! Indrian (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
  • I'd like to review this article once the seemingly serious issue above is solved, so feel free to ping me by then. FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deathmatch is duplinked.
  • Footnote A could get a citation.
  • "which adjust the quantity and damage done by enemies"
  • Done
Well done, I had forgotten to add my issue with the wording haha... FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link demon and hell?
  • Hell was linked, linked demon
  • "consisting of either moving toward their opponent if they see or hear the player"
  • Done
Well done again, this is what happens when you review at work and forget to comment when you paste a quote... FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are immune to attacks of their kind." Add "own kind" for clarity?
  • Done
  • "The campaign contains very few plot elements, with a minimal story" As this is not an objective statement, needs citation?
  • Added
  • "setting the stage for Doom II." Likewise?
  • Added
  • Is there any in-universe explanation for why demons somehow enter the picture? Maybe around "allows the military to conduct secret teleportation experiments that go wrong"?
  • Nope, Doom isn't really concerned with the concept of a deep plot. The manual gives a few sentences of flavor to the effect of "teleportation experiments, people going through started to come out mad or explodey, then suddenly demons everywhere."
  • Any info on the creation of the cover? As far as I remember, the demons and setting on it don't resemble any in the game?
  • Added
  • On a related note, you mention and link Gregor Punchatz in the article body, and while an aside, could mention he is the son of Don Ivan Punchatz who made the cover.
  • Added
  • "Model of the Spider Mastermind" If this was one of the stop motion models used for the game and made by Gregor Punchatz, state it in the caption? Probably would also make more sense to show it under the design section?
  • Done
  • Are the two Carmacks related? If so, could be worth stating in parenthesis or something, I was wondering throughout.
  • Ah, that slipped away at some point- no, they aren't, and it's a natural thing to wonder. Added.
  • '"The developers scanned themselves as well, using Cloud's arm for the marine's arm holding a gun" Scanned or photographed? Doesn't sound like you'd 3D scan an arm at the time.
  • Photographed, fixed
  • Link "first-person shooter" in the image caption that mentions it?
  • Done
  • Link shareware in article body too.
  • Done
  • "When id declined, Microsoft made its own port, with a team lead by Gabe Newell." I assumed they allowed them to do it? Reads a bit now like it was done "behind their back".
  • Fixed
  • '"Sandy Petersen said that Doom sold" Full name has already been spelled out earlier, so only last name should be needed. Perhaps there are other cases of this.
  • Done
  • "award at Cybermania '94 in 1994." Am I missing something, or isn't it redundant to list the year when it's in the name?
  • Done
  • I actually didn't know this game used stop motion, I wish there was a category or list for games using stop motion, hint hint...
  • It's an incredibly uncommon technique in video games, and even here the game camera itself doesn't use stop motion. As soon as 3D games became a big thing around this time, game artists learned how to animate 2.5 and 3D characters in-game. Id only tried it because they were the first, it didn't catch on.
Off the top of my head, I can think of Mortal Kombat, Primal Rage, Clayfighter, Claymates, and probably some others, but it doesn't seem to be covered broadly anywhere. FunkMonk (talk) 08:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which considered it in the sense of introducing the game to new players" Considered what?
  • Fixed
  • "to create an modern world" A?
  • Fixed
  • You give dates for some retrospective views under Legacy, but not for the books mentioned there, perhaps add for context?
  • Done
  • "The game was dubbed a "mass murder simulator" by critic and Killology Research Group founder David Grossman" Does this refer to Doom or those Columbine levels? If the former, should be specified, and the sentence probably moved to the end of the paragraph?
  • The game, and fixed
  • You now link Internet at third instead of first mention in the article body.
  • Fixed
  • DOS is only mentioned in the intro and infobox, should probably be mentioned in the article body somewhere.
  • ...I can't believe I mention all the myriad ports but not the actual release platform. Fixed.
  • Considering its significance, I think more could be said about the graphics in the intro?
  • Added a sentence in the lead, though I'm not 100% on the placement.

Not sure if you're finished, but responded inline to everything up to here. --PresN 03:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Panini

[edit]

As a family friendly only Nintendo fan I know next to nothing of the source material except how "hardcore" it is. I think that's what the cool kids say. Comments soon. Panini! • 🥪 16:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "The player assumes the role of a space marine, popularly known as the Doomguy," - This makes it sound like Doomguy is an unofficial fan-given name. If that isn't the case I'd rearrange to "The player assumes the role of Doomguy, a space marine".
  • changed to "unofficially" instead of "popularly"
  • I see the name was given post-Doom, so I suggest "later referred to as Doomguy" as well.
  • Done
  • "The game begins on the moons of Mars and finishes in hell" - W-what? This isn't a critique, I'm just fascinated.
  • Haha
  • "The designer Tom Hall initially wrote a science fiction plot, but he and his work were removed from the project..." - It's still technically a science fiction plot though, right? You clarify the distinction a bit with "an action-heavy design" afterwards but I recommend mentioning how exactly the original leaned into a different variation of science fiction.
  • Reworded
  • "It has been termed the "father" of the first-person shooter..." - This is an honorific title right? Is it referred to as "the father of the first-person shooter" in the sources? If so, I suggest quoting the whole thing so that honorific title comes across.
  • Done; there's several of similar honorific titles used, so I was leery of having a longer quote in case that implied that only one wording was commonly used, but it's probably ok
  • "...first-person shooter genre and is regarded as one of the most important games in the genre" - "genre" redundancy
  • Done
  • The game's controversy seems to play a role in the article, so I recommend mentioning it in the lead.
  • Added a sentence
Gameplay
  • "While the environment is presented in a 3D perspective, the enemies and objects are instead 2D sprites rendered at fixed angles, a technique sometimes referred to as 2.5D graphics or billboarding." - I'd move this up to the part after the "3D sprites" in the first sentence. This being at the end almost feels like a "Sike! You thought it was actually 3D?"
  • Done
  • "The monsters have simple behavior, either moving toward their opponent if they see or hear them, or attacking by biting, clawing, or using magic abilities such as fireballs." - I suggest "The monsters have simple behavior: they move toward their opponent if they see or hear them, and attack by biting, clawing, or using magic abilities such as fireballs" Just to make it a less lengthy sentence.
  • Done
  • "They will reactively fight each other if one monster inadvertently harms another"
  • ?
  • Not sure how that happened. I meant to say: This seems to be similar to something like Minecraft, where Skeletons will fight each other is one accidentally shoots another. This seems like a trivial mention to me and is not necessary to understand the gameplay.
  • Dropped; it's like the one thing they do that's more complicated then "move towards player and attack", but it's not really a major gameplay point.
Development
  • No pictures of the developers? How am I supposed to read the article without pictures of the developers!?
  • Added
  • More of a joke, it really comes down to your preference. I remember your message on Discord about WP:OWN that included a non family-friendly word so I don't mind which way you swing with this one.
  • Haha, that was like 3 months ago, took me a bit to find what you meant. It's not a big deal- I had the images in the "development of" subarticle, I'd just dropped them here for space reasons and didn't stick them back when the section got long enough for them to fit.
  • "They also decided to cut ties with Apogee Software," - Any info on why out there?
  • Added a bit; basically they thought that Apogee couldn't keep up with demand as well as they liked, though mostly they just thought they could make more money taking the publishing in-house.
  • "Early in development, rifts in the team began to appear." - Although I'm a sucker for narrative storytelling in my articles like this, this feels a little too extreme. It refers to one person and only really comes into play in paragraphs three four; anything prior isn't really problems on the inside as it is basic ideas changing in the early development process.
  • Dropped the sentence
  • Speaking of narrative storytelling, did Hall do anything in the same span of time of Doom's development after his departure that's worth mentioning?
  • Not really for this time period; he went to work for Apogee and worked on Rise of the Triad, which was a Wolfenstein clone. In 1996, he and Romero founded Ion Storm, but at that point we're 3 years past the release of this game and well out of the scope of this article.
  • Best left out then. Thanks for checking!
Reception
  • I feel the negatives side of the critical reception is done well, but the positives needs just the same treatment; I'm mainly referring to the second paragraph. Per WP:DUEWEIGHT, this game is among the greats, but too much attention is given to repetition. You have an excellent structure with the layout, but what's pulled reads to "summarize the game in 4 words to put on the cover"-ey. What specifics of the gameplay were praised?
  • Reorganized the paragraph to contain the negatives together so they don't feel so weighty. I expand out the details of the positives a bit but unfortunately, as far as gameplay specifics go, early 90s game reviews just aren't very good- they're either very short or spend a long time just describing the game and the vibes without really reviewing specifics of the game.
  • "They viewed it as solely a level pack due to the lack of new features and compared it negatively to the hundreds of free fan-made levels available on the internet." - This specifies "they" but only cites on review
  • Fixed- "they" can be for a single reviewer of unknown gender, but I didn't mention a name so it's wrong regardless.

That's all from me! You have done an incredible job and I applaud you for taking on this legendary piece of video game history. I got nothing in need of review so there's no need for the QPQ. Panini! • 🥪 19:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Panini!: Okay, got all the way through the points, responding inline. Thanks! --PresN 16:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then just like, I lend a Support. Good Job! Panini! • 🥪 21:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Red Phoenix

[edit]

(Noting that I will at least make an attempt to come back and do a more detailed review later when I have more time, but this caught my eye tonight.)

A notable fact that appears to be missing from this article's Ports section is that not all the ports have all the levels. For instance, the 32X version is missing nearly a third of the game, and according to the 32X article (also a FA), this was due to time restraints. I understand we have List of Doom ports separately, but if we're going to have a separate section for ports in this article, the fact that significant parts of the game are missing from some ports seems important to note. This seems more significant than differences in graphics or sound, as it's pieces of the game as opposed to simply aesthetics. I wouldn't say a full list of differences is needed here, because we have the list article, but I feel it's worth noting here that some ports are missing levels.

Will add to this section with a deeper review later as long as I can find the time. Red Phoenix talk 02:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done- the "Other versions" section in Reception mentioned that the 32X was shorter, but didn't go into details, so now Ports talks a bit about some having a shorter or longer levelset (without going into exact details about which levels are in which port). --PresN 22:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Smore
  • Alright then! I support the article being featured! (I've never supported an article before, so please inform me if I need to proofread further or submit my vote anywhere. User:UnexpectedSmoreInquisition

Support from Shooterwalker

[edit]

I reviewed this as a "Good Article". The prose was already excellent, for the most part. I feel good about this after the revisions from other editors. I especially appreciate the work of Indrian to make sure the article is thorough, especially for such a historic game. Happy to support this as a featured article. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

[edit]
  • A timestamp for source 28, 32 and 41 might be helpful.
  • Added.
  • International Business Times is generally considered an unreliable source, as per WP:IBTIMES.
  • Removed one use, and replaced the other.
  • Does Wargames Handbook, Third Edition: How to Play and Design Commercial and Professional Wargames have an ISBN?
  • Yes, added
  • I couldn't find the claim that the first-week sales of Doom were 140,000 in the zoomed in the clipped article (citation 65).
  • It's there, 7th visible paragraph, quote: "Doom sold more than 140,000 copies in the first year. Id got so busy that it had to join with another producer, Raven Software, to develop Heretic, a Doomlike fantasy game that id had planned. "We went straight to Doom II," Wilbur said."
My bad, I meant the part with the first-week sales of 200,000 but rechecking source 63, it says that the game sold "a couple of hundred thousand copies".
  • That's actually about Doom (2016), the annoyingly named reboot of the series, unfortunately.
While the source analyzes the 2016 game, it does talk a little bit about the original game e.g. how it popularized the first-person shooter genre but that's already discussed in the article so I guess it's not much of use after all.
@FrB.TG: Replied inline. --PresN 15:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good from me. Pass. FrB.TG (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by RoySmith: pass

[edit]
  • I'm not seeing any issues with licensing. All of the non-free images have appropriate rationales.
  • File:Doom cover art.jpg Needs alt text.
  • File:Doom ingame 1.png Alt text should start with "Screen shot of..."
  • File:John Carmack E3 2006.jpg Suggestion for a better alt: "Photograph of model of a brain mounted on a three-legged robotic base with actuating mechanisms and exposed wires. The brain has a face with mouth and red eyes, and a small arm with grasping hands emerging from each side.
  • File:John Romero - Jason Scott interview (6951215353) (cropped).jpg Suggestion for better alt: "Color photograph of..."
  • File:NeXTstation.jpg I don't feel strongly about this, but I'm not convinced this meets MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Fundamentally, it's a picture of what looks like a generic desktop computer. How is this "an important illustrative aid to understanding" the game? Is there something special about the NeXT which made it a critical part of the game design, and if so, how does this photo enhance the reader's understanding of that? If you do end up keeping the image, I'd suggest a better alt: "Desktop computer, with attached CRT monitor, keyboard, and mouse. All components are gloss black. The monitor and computer base have NeXT logos on them".
  • File:Billdoom.png Alt text should start with "Screen shot of..."
  • File:Doom clone vs first person shooter.png The image gives a lot of rich information which the alt text glosses over. You want to describe the graph visually so that somebody using a screen reader can get the full impact that a sighted person would: Double-line graph. X-axis is years from 1993 to 2002". Y-axis shows usenet post counts ranging from 0 to 1200 per month. Red line ("doom+clone" or "doom+clones") peaks at about 400 in 1996, and tails off to zero again by 2002. Blue line (...) grows mostly monotonically to about 1120 by 2002, with an intermediate peak of about 850 in 2000. The two lines cross in late 1997. Both lines are close to zero before late 1993, when "Doom released" is noted with a visual marker.
  • File:Doom gibs.png Alt: "Screen shot of..."

That's it for me. RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: All done, thanks for the image review! --PresN 20:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The review is a lie. Looks good. RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 October 2023 [55].

1912–13 Gillingham F.C. season

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With 25 successful FAC nominations to date for seasons in the history of my favourite football club, and one looking like it's bearing down on goal with only the keeper to beat, here's number 27. This was technically the very first Gillingham F.C. season, as it was the first under that name, but like most of the seasons in the club's history up to this point it didn't produce much in the way of success. Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "Gillingham also competed in the FA Cup; after holding Barnsley, the previous season's winners of the competition, to a draw at home in the first round, Gillingham were defeated in a replay at Barnsley's ground." I might divide the sentence after "Cup". Also, should Oakwell be piped?
  • "The name change would not be formally approved by the shareholders until the following summer but nonetheless the team played under the new name in the 1912–13 season.[6]" Perhaps rather than "but nonetheless", substitute a semicolon for "but"?
  • "The team ended a six-match winless run by defeating Coventry City 2–1 away from home on 16 November" Do we need "from home"?
That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: - many thanks for your review, all should be done now! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14

[edit]
Source review

Impressive prose as usual- don't seem to be issues there, so I'll do a source review. No spotcheck. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Add Template:Use British English or otherwise appropriate
  • Ref 3 needs author (look at bottom of webpage)
  • It looks like most (if not all) of the newspapers.com citations are to clippings. Anyone can view these clippings, so the lock icon isn't needed. If it linked to the paper itself, it would require login, but viewing just the clippings is not exclusive

ChrisTheDude, I got nothing else, nice job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: - thanks for your review, all done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - wow, impressively fast, I appreciate that! BTW, if you get extra time, I'd appreciate any comments at this FAC- thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MyCatIsAChonk: - sure, I will do my best to take a look over the weekend. BTW, can you clarify if you are both supporting on prose and passing the source review? Thanks!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding me, you think I'd know to clarify by now... support on prose and pass source review MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by NØ

[edit]
  • Dick Goffin is linked twice somewhat closely in the September-December section.
  • I believe this sentence should not have a comma: "Gillingham began the season in poor form, and did not score a single goal in their first six home matches."
  • "Two days later, two goals from Lee secured a 2–0 win away to Stoke, whom the reporter for The Western Times said were "lamentably weak" - Are you sure this should be "whom"? Unless I'm wrong, if it's referring to the goals it should be "which" and if it's referring to Lee or Stoke it should be "who"(?)

Great work and a fun read. If you fancy reviewing one of mine, I have nominated another Meghan Trainor album above.--NØ 17:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan: - thanks for your review. I fixed the first two. In the third instance, "whom" is correct, because Stoke is the object of the verb. See here, where it says "How can you tell when your pronoun is the object of a verb or preposition? Try substituting the subjective-case pronoun he, she, or they for who or whom And then try substituting the objective-case pronoun him, her, or them. If he, she, or they fits, you should use the subjective option: who. If him, her, or them fits, you should use the objective option: whom. Keep in mind that you may have to temporarily rearrange the sentence a bit while you test it." If you rearranged the sentence and replaced Stoke with a pronoun, it would be "the reporter described them as...." not "the reporter described they as....", so per the above, "whom" is correct. Anyway, thanks again for the review, and I definitely plan to take a look at your latest Meghan Trainor FAC quite soon (was intending to do it last night but got dragged to Ikea - fun fun fun!!) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Co-ord query

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: - with this one having five supports and both reviews passed, may I nominate the next in the series? Thanks in advance! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 5 October 2023 [56].

Yugoslav torpedo boat T2

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a dinky little steam torpedo boat of the Austro-Hungarian Navy that saw extensive service in World War I, including being present for the mutiny in the Bocche di Cattaro in February 1918 and as an escort when the dreadnought Szent István was sunk by Italian motor torpedo boats in June 1918. Transferred to the new Kingdom of Yugoslavia post-war, she saw limited use until she was stricken and scrapped immediately before World War II. This article is part of a Featured Topic on the Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy, and I am nominating it after bringing it up to a similar standard as four of its sister ships that are already FAs, with the aim of getting every article/list in the FT up to Featured status eventually. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Present in the Bocche de Cattaro during - is it typical to use the foreign name? The wiki article just uses the English name. If it should use the foreign name, would it not be "Bocche di Cattaro"?
Yes, that was its common name then. Typo fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lack of images is surprising to me- the image used in the infobox makes sense, but none under "Career", even though there's quite a bit discussed?
Sadly none that have acceptable PD licences. The 2020 Freivogel book actually has several photographs of this specific boat, but AFAIK, it was the first publication. This is a common problem with Yugoslav vessels. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that this was French disinformation - "it appears that"? What purpose does this serve in the sentence? If it's unknown, I think a simple "allegedly" would work better
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the evening of 3 November, the 1st Torpedo Flotilla left Sebenico to make a night torpedo attack on the French fleet, which had begun its seventh raid on the Adriatic on 31 October, but by the time they reached the threatened areas, the French had withdrawn as they were running low on coal. - this is rather long- that's fine, but the use of only commas to divide it up is a bit confusing. Using a semicolon before the but may be helpful: "...which had begun its seventh raid on the Adriatic on 31 October; but, by the time they reached..."
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italy declared war on Austria-Hungary on the afternoon of 23 May 1915 - "in" the afternoon?
The Cambridge Dictionary says "We use in with morning, afternoon, evening and night, but we use on when we talk about a specific morning, afternoon, etc., or when we describe the part of the day." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • and 79 T was part of a force - might be intentional, but 79? Isn't this article about 77?
Quite right, typo fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • this force included six of the eight T-group torpedo boats. This force was tasked - "this force" is used twice, choose a different title for one of the instances
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67, no more from me, excellent job on the prose! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, MyCatIsAChonk, all done I think. My cat is also a chonk! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if you get time, I'd appreciate comments at this FAC. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Will review soon. Hog Farm Talk 18:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't forgotten about this; I have been busier than expected with work but will get back to this soon. Hog Farm Talk 18:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" and it is believed that this included the forward gun on T2" - recommend attribution for who believes this
Freivogel, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cernuschi & O'Hara 2015 - the long citation indicates this to be a book chapter, but then p. 37 of this source is cited, which falls outside of the stated page range for the chapter. So does a long citation for another chapter need added?
A ridiculous typo, p. 75 is where the info is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"During the French occupation of Cattaro, the original torpedo tubes were destroyed or damaged, and new ones of the same size were ordered from the Strojne Tovarne factory in Ljubljana." - this, to some degree, lack context. Maybe give a brief indication of when this was occurring (presumably a postware occupation)? Does Freivogel indicate if this was intentional, or accidental, or even known if the French did this or the Yugoslavs?
I think I've explained this better, the French occupied Cattaro in November 1918, and neglected the former A-H Navy ships and also damaged some. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all from me. Hog Farm Talk 16:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All done I think, Hog Farm. I appreciate you following through on this review given your RW challenges. Best of luck with everything, and hope to see you back here soon. You have been a really great contributor in an area that has been sadly neglected. Warm regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: - For the p. 75 one, should it be Cernuschi & O'Hara 2016, not 2015, based on the page ranges listed in the long citations? I anticipate supporting but will hold off an a declaration until the Frievogel situation raised by Sturmvogel is resolved. Hog Farm Talk 02:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, 2016, not 2015. No worries, I'll ping you. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Freivogel 2022 A-H TB book has been consulted and all relevant material added, thanks to some scans from Sturm, Hog Farm. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hog Farm Talk 01:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "could carry 10–12 naval mines". Does this mean that she could carry either 10, 11 or 12 mines, dependant on circumstances which the sources don't reveal; or that she could carry either 10 or 12 mines but there are differing opinions either within a source or between sources? Whichever is the case perhaps the phrasing could be tweaked to reflect it.
Usually it means that it depended on the types or models of mine carried. Some took up more space than others, and therefore less could be carried of those types. This is sometimes mentioned in sources for other vessels, but not (AFAIK) with respect to these boats. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "T2 and the rest of the navy were". It may just be me, but it niggles that "T2 and the rest of the navy" is seen as plaural.
I'm agnostic about it, I've reworded to make it less specific. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is Trieste spelt "Triest"?
That was the name at the time (per WP:PLACE), as it was part of the A-H Empire and it was known by the German/Friulian name. Trieste is the Italian name, which applied after WWI. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The turbines were rated at 5,000–5,700 shaft horsepower (3,700–4,300 kW)". Each, or in aggregate?
In total, clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was allegedly French disinformation". Is it known who made the allegations?
Freivogel states this, attributed to him and reworded a little. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This force was tasked to maintain" → 'This force was tasked with maintaining'?
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 1 February 1918 ..." Suggest a paragraph break here.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found it confusing that the opening paragraph of Post World War I did not retail events in chronological order.
Doh. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the hyphenisation of the ISBN of Sokol be standardised with the other sources?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And that is all I have. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon I've addressed your comments, Gog. See what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your usual masterly job. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Hi PM, just a few small suggestions from me...

  • good article move to above use australian english
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lede

Better, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • This specification was based an expectation - based on an
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Description and construction

  • The T-group had one funnel - no hyphen here? (not used when not adjective in lede at "the T group, ahead"
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • with the F-group to follow. - no hyphen?
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Career

Nice pick-up, linked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • to keep the Austro-Hungarian fleet engaged while they conducted operations in the southern Adriatic - maybe make clearer by swapping "they" with 'the French'?
Definitely better, thanks. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • deployed a force from its main fleet base at Pola to - move Pola link up to first mention at "left Pola soon after to deliver "
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • to Cattaro in the southern - link town? (or are all mentions of Cattaro and of "the Bocche" referring to the bay?)
All the Bay. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • one of 77 T's 66 mm guns was - use apos template
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • referred to only by the numeral - their numeral?
Yes, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • from its main fleet base at Pola to - move naval base descriptor to first linked mention of Pola?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Allies began to evacuate by sea - move link to this first mention from "an Allied naval blockade" just below
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the British drifter Beneficent, but once - Halpern 1987 (p151 and p620) spells it Beneficent but Halpern 2015 (p279 and p628) spells it Beneficient. Did he correct himself or make typo in latter work?
the latter I think. Easily missed by a copy editor. UK Admiralty public records from 1975 [57] use Beneficent, as does Hepper in British Warship Losses in the Ironclad Era 1860-1919 p. 63, and Colledge in Ships of the Royal Navy: Navy-built trawlers, drifters, tugs and requisitioned ships p. 44. Compton-Hall likewise in his books on WWI submarine warfare. The clinchers for me are the Admiralty records. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • to get through the strait and - at "to the Strait during the night" it has a cap
decapped. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Horthy left the naval base of Pola in the upper Adriatic - move location upper Adriatic to first mention of Pola?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At about 23:00 on 9 June 1918, after - move year back to last sentence at 8/9 June?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It varies across articles, but not as much in the main sources such as Freivogel and Warship. Sometimes sources use MAS. 15 and sometimes MAS15 and even MAS-15, but mainly it has the space. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waiting with their engines off, the two Italian boats waited - 2x wait, may be "Waiting" can go?
Yep, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Szent István were abreast her boiler rooms - abreast of?
Yes, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This disaster practically ended - practically has two meanings, can mean nearly/almost or, in fact/actually/essentially. Which are they meaning?
The latter, I changed to "essentially". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interwar period

  • Section name intentional? She didn't make it to WWII so should it be Post World War I?
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • sued for peace - maybe link?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. JennyOz (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your review, Jenny! I think I've addressed them all? Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Jenny, just checking you've seen this? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PM, yep, have been watching changes, but have new questions. Can you pls check eg

Will do final run through tomorrow. Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, have checked all (and made two minor tweaks). I am very happy to s'port but pls confirm the Pola question just above, it reads strangely to me:) JennyOz (talk) 02:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jenny, it was the Bocche, not Pola (which wouldn't have made sense, as you pointed out). Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Notes and references formatted consistently.
  • References are known to me as highly reliable.
  • Freivogel published a book dedicated to the A-H torpedo boats last year. It covers their more minor activities in some detail that is needed for this to be a comprehensive treatment of the boat's history. Email me and I'll send you photos of the relevant pages. This book is needed for any future FACs on these boats and the relevant details should be added to those articles all ready FAs.
  • Oppose as incomplete.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Sent you an email. I have ordered the book. Just received the post-WWII JRM book of his, which is good as usual (although he still needs a better copy editor, "commando bridge" etc). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to ping you, Sturm. Between them, Freivogel's The Great War in the Adriatic 1914–1918 and Cernuschi & O'Hara's tables in Warship 2015/2016 do cover a lot of minor operations involving A-H 250t TBs. Everything that is in them regarding 77T/77/T2 is already included in this article, AFAIK. But I would appreciate a scan of the relevant pages so I can check that the article covers everything. I have also added everything that is in Freivogel's 2021 JRM book. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that I agree with you. Surely Armin Pavić, who took command in 1918, is worth a redlink since he became a rear-admiral in the RYN? Or the occasional defensive minelaying mission? I think that the "76" at the bottom of page 78 and top of 79 is a typo since Joris, commander of 77F in 1914, is mentioned as commander of the division during the mutiny and 76 wasn't even present. It's also in the middle of the section devoted to 77. His actions then and the number of her convoy escort missions in 1917 and 1918 would be useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sturm, I'm not saying there isn't material in it that would be useful for this article, the class article and the other 250t boat articles. I'd appreciate a scan of the relevant pages (I've sent you an email), as it will take a while for the book to get to me from Croatia. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot you have my old WP email. Got them, thanks! Will ping when I've added the additional material. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All done I think, Sturm. See what you think? And thanks again for the scans, I'm looking forward to getting my copy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It dates from 1786. Added PD-AustriaGov and PD-US-expired. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have addressed your comments, Harrias? Thanks for taking a look! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass Looks good to me now. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

PM, are you deliberately placing citations out of numeric order (e.g. after the clause "when French forces withdrew," and "scrapped soon after."? No prob if you do it so the citation order reflects the supported portions of a statement but just in case... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been hacked by CPA-5?! He always used to get very worked up over the numeric order of citations!! (Unlike the MOS, which doesn't care at all..) Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn’t deliberate, I usually keep them in order as a matter of preference. Have fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 4 October 2023 [58].

Open Arms (SZA song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 13:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you gotta go
I guess it's time to go
I gotta let you go
To FAC you go, to FAC you go

Since the two musicians who performed this song—SZA and Travis Scott―recently released another collaboration, I figured it'd be a good of a time as any to nominate one of their previous songs together. It includes a voice recording of SZA's deceased grandmother, which is a heartwarming gesture! Enjoy the article, everyone :) ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 13:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MyCatIsAChonk

[edit]
  • The song begins with a voice clip of Norma Rowe—SZA's grandmother... - instead of a dash, I think using a comma would be better, something like "The song begins with a voice clip of Norma Rowe, who is SZA's..."
    • Fair, but I'd leave out "who is" for concisions
  • Like Scott, Rowe's vocals prominently featured in Ctrl; - add "are" before prominently
    • Not done; the sentence is in the past tense to signify Rowe's history of having her voice in SZA's songs
  • Wl foil
    • Done
  • A solo version of "Open Arms"... - are there multiple solo versions? Otherwise, use "the" instead of "a".
    • It is entirely within the realm of possibility that SZA recorded several demos/takes of the song that would become "Open Arms", and those technically count as versions . the use of the "a" article instead of "the" is to lean on the safe side and accountfor that possibility
  • Note 5 could just be replaced with the Atwood Magazine ref, and include the quote in the quote parameter
  • No citations in the "Credits" section? I'd imagine something similar to the short sentence in Title (song)#Credits and personnel
    • There is now !

Earwig shows no violations, and the sources look reliable and correctly formatted. Very nice work, Your Power! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stopping by and reviewing one of my articles, @MyCatIsAChonk! Sorry for the delays; dealing with a lot of irl stuff so my focus is scattered at the moment . Hope your queries have been sufficiently answered. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 09:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • For the lead, I would shorten sentimental ballad to ballad as that is the more common wordage used.
    • Shortened
  • I think this part, (with lyrics about realizing to leave a former partner to whom the other person has been devoted because it has become harmful for their self-esteem), would improve from further revision as I find that it reads rather awkwardly.
    • Point taken
  • I have a suggestion for the last two sentences of the lead's first paragraph. I think it would be better to combine the part about this being the only SOS track with SZA's grandmother with the sentence on her vocals on CTRL as that would make the significance more obvious.
    • Done !
  • Why not present Ctrl as CTRL? From my understanding, it is presented in all caps and it would match SOS.
    • Most sources do not spell the title in all caps; Ctrl is a play on the "ctrl" keyboard on many PCs, which is itself usually spelled not in all caps
  • I have a comment for this sentence: ("Open Arms" marks Scott and SZA's fourth collaboration—a previous one was "Love Galore" (2017), the second single from Ctrl.) Why only list one of the four collaborations? It puts in my opinion undue weight on one of the four songs so I would either list all four or just say they had four collaborations without listing any. I am leaning toward the latter as the former could be very wordy.
  • For this part, (Many contemporary critics focused on), I would just say critics. It is unnecessary to qualify what type of critics as there is not any other type of reception to confuse it with (i.e. like retrospective reviews).
    • Excised, for both
  • I think the ballad link should be moved up to this part, (a balladic, soft, or heartfelt sound), since it comes first in the article.
    • Removed the part you mentioned; the link would be kept
  • I have a clarification question about this sentence: (Apart from the "traditional" R&B that had been a staple of SZA's past works, many tracks had a balladic, soft, or heartfelt sound.) It implies a division between "traditional" R&B and music with balladic, soft, heartfelt sound, when I think songs can be both. I am just not fully grasping the contrast here. Maybe attributing who is saying this would be clearer and tie it less to Wikipedia's voice and to a person's opinion.
    • no RS says "Open Arms" is R&B, so i thought in my head maybe i should contrast the two sounds in discussion to prepare viewers for how "Open Arms" would be sonically , but u make a good point that the two arent mutually exclusive . perhaps "acoustic vs. R&B" is a better contrast to make
  • For this part, (collaborated a few times beforehand), use the exact number of collaborations they have done as it is known.
  • When discussing "Ok Alright", I would clarify that it appears on Rodeo. It is the only one of the collaborations listed that is not attributed to an album, and it would help readers like myself who are unfamiliar with either artist to find out more context on this particular song.
    • Done both
  • For the images in the "Lyrics" section, I would clarify in the photo captions the year the images were taken.
    • I feel like writing (left, 2017) or (right, 2019) would be too clunky from a reader perspective
      • I disagree to be honest, but I will leave that up to the image reviewer. Adding in the year would only help readers as it is unclear in the current format if the photos were taken around the time the song was recorded/released or much earlier. I think that kind of context is valuable to readers. Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seems like Nikki, the media reviewer below, took no issue with it .
  • I have a question about point of view character. Would it be possible to simplify that to narrator?
    • Good thinking . that definitely couldve been more concisely put
  • Would a link to ride-or-die chick for "ride-or-die" be beneficial? I could see some readers not fully understanding it.
    • definitely ! I had the same instinct with "backshots"
  • The article says that Scott was the focus of critical reviews, and I was just curious if any reviews talked about SZA at all?
    • technically ? No doubt people will comment on her contributions, such as her voice—it is her song after all—but from what I understand, more critics, as cited in the article, prioritised Scott
  • I am uncertain of the relevance of the Midnights paragraph. To be clear, I am not saying to delete it or anything. I just do not fully see the connection between this song and the bonus material released to seemingly compete with Midnights, particularly when the Uproxx article names the other song ("PSA") in its headline over the solo version of this song. Again, not asking you to remove it, but I wanted to get more of your opinion on its inclusion here.
    • I believe it sets the scene for why the solo version of "Open Arms" got an official release in the first place . Saying it was included as part of an album edition with bonus tracks is one thing , and i would have left it at that in the article if that was the case! however , considering the web-exclusive was a surprise release and, despite its bonus tracks, decidedly not the deluxe version that SZA would tease later, there has to be something more to the situation . Thus it feels worth mentioning IMO that the "Open Arms" solo version was released alongside "PSA" to compete with Midnights sales as per Rolling Stone . As you might know these kinds of tactics happen all the time in the music industry (e.g. when Swift released "Anti-Hero" remixes right as Drake's "Rich Flex" was predicted to go #1, making it debut at #2 instead) ; that RS came to this conclusion is not surprising . Sorry for the long ramble—the issue is more nuanced than it seems at first glance, so I feel it warranted a response that lived up to that!
      • No need to apologize. I appreciate it and that clarifies things further for me. That makes complete sense to me. Thank you for taking the time to explain this matter. Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elements from the "Credits" section should be represented in the prose as well. For instance, the studios are not mentioned in the prose and individuals like Dale Becker and Katie Harvey are not mentioned in the prose either.

Wonderful work on this article. I have never heard of this song before, but I still found the article to be very engaging and informative. I hope my comments are helpful and once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I'm glad we met again, and thank you for your review! Everything is, as always helpful, but that's no surprise coming from such a prolific reviewer :) sorry for the week-long delay! Let me know if I've addressed everything. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 11:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

[edit]
@Nikkimaria: i haven't , but i have added one because it proved useful ! thank you for the review :) ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 11:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - would suggest expanding the fair-use rationale a bit. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I did my best to add further substance while keeping things concise. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 09:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Gerald Waldo Luis

[edit]

Hey there! Really great to see you in another FAC again ^_^ I'm gonna do some prose checks, then maybe a source review if no one would step in. GeraldWL 05:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 03:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* "Featuring vocals from American rapper Travis Scott, the song is a sentimental ballad"-- I think "the song" can be changed to "it", since one sentence ago there's already a mention of "the song", thus being repetitive.
    • Made a workaround
  • Link studio album
    • It is a term commonly used enough in music articles and in general that doing so would run afoul of WP:OVERLINK
  • "Rowe's vocals featured prominently" --> "Rowe's vocals had been featured prominently"
    • This would work if the preceding sentence was in simple past tense—thereby necessitating the use of past perfect tense as you suggest—but that sentence was in present tense, so nothing should be changed
  • "fourth collaboration—a previous one was" -- "a previous one" just sounds awkward when read, I suggest "fourth collaboration, with the previous being"
    • I removed this one entirely because whatever the previous collab was is irrelevant
  • "a few" sounds too specific, "some" gives a broader sense of scope
    • Sure
  • Perhaps a genre section in the infobox will be great?
    • No source gave it an explicit genre so no
      • Sentimental ballad and/or R&B? As described in your prose.
        • 1) sentimental ballad is not a genre, merely an "emotional style of music" as stated in our article for it. 2) once again, no source described it as R&B --- see the Music and production section
  • Link studio album
    • See above
  • The "R&B" is linked to contemporary R&B, so shouldn't it be written such too?
    • No. That would be a mouthful. As well, since we live in Contemporary Times(tm) we have to link readers to the R&B more commonplace nowadays. I think there will be no harm done to readers in piping the link.
  • "confessional nature of its songwriting" should probably change "its" to "her" for clarity, and assuming SZA doesnt use it pronouns.
    • Changed to "the"
  • Link DJ or maybe use the longer term disc jockey for clarity
  • "yet incorporated in her discography"-- maybe link to SZA discography?
    • I removed that part of the article, so the suggestion is moot now
  • "or in her words, "a little bit of everything""-- this is kinda redundant, as "an amalgamation of various disparate musical styles" means you already paraphrased her statement, I don't feel like it adds any emphasis like other quotes do.
    • Not really
  • Link sentimental ballad, then unlink the one in the next section
    • Fixed the linking issue
  • "sent their verses"-- does this mean like SZA requested them to maybe help with the songwriting?
    • Well yes sort of . Sending your verses to somebody means you hop as a feature on the song
  • I feel as though paragraph 1&2, and paragraph 3&4, can be combined since they concern the same topic, and I don't see why it is broken down.
    • Doubt it ? Paragraph #1 concerns SZA's debut album and how it drummed up anticipation for the next one, #2 SZA's gradual revealing of what the album would be like, #3 collaborators, #4 SZA's history with Scott . These are themes disparate enough to be divided into paragraphs the way it currently does.
      • I'm gonna check this on Monday, am only able to edit on App rn and am too lazy to go back and forth thru article lol.
        • Okay
  • Shouldn't "Black" be decapitalized?
    • WP:RACECAPS tells us both are acceptable as long as the capitalization is consistent with all races mentioned in the article to avoid othering marginalised groups
  • Link black music
  • "finger-picked guitar"-- maybe add the "acoustic" bit?
    • Fixed
  • "Scott performs with a gentle rap cadence. He uses his lower register, and his vocals are digitally manipulated using Auto-Tune." Should this be in past tense, since production was in past tense? I feel more strongly on the "and his vocals are digitally manipulated using Auto-Tune" part.
    • The song's sound and production is a fixed fact of the song regardless of time, and as such, said facts should be presented in present tense
      • I'd argue that the song's production specifically had already happened. It's like preferring "Spielberg wrote Jaws" in lieu of "Spielberg writes Jaws".
        • It's not really a good analogy---a better one would be "Spielberg wrote Jaws" to "Rob Bisel produced Open Arms"---plus this is more a matter of tense consistency
  • The — in the third para is kind of awkward following the ref; I think a comma can do.
    • True. another person brought it up
  • ""fuck on [her] ex""-- can't this be paraphrased to like, idk, "have sex with her ex"? Lmao-- plus it rhymes.
  • "welcome the other person" --> "welcome each other"
  • "By the end, however," with a comma after end.
    • Done all three
  • "sometime next month" --> "sometime the following month"
    • Not done . Current iteration is more concise
  • "Out of 23 songs, "Open Arms" appears as the 20th track" -- should prob be consistent between "songs" or "tracks"
    • This distinction is okay and not a case of WP:ELEVAR I would argue . When talking about a song that's on an album, we call it a track . Using "track" therefore makes sense
  • "third verse and praising him and" --> "third verse, praising him and"
  • Link slow jam
    • Done
  • "Variety's A. D. Amorosi and the Los Angeles Times's Mikael Wood found the composition of "grand and gorgeous" quality; Amorosi in particular deemed Scott the song's centerpiece." You could prob push both refs to the last sentence, I feel like using the same ref twice in one sentence feels weird when there's an alternative.
    • Disagree. Any given quotation must have the relevant citation included directly after it
  • "and Mendez"-- the "Mendez" is repetitive
    • ? I don't like using "former" and "latter" in articles; this is a matter of personal style
  • "XXL reported some people believed his verse was unnecessary: "'SZA is pouring her heart out in a song & here come Travis Scott talking about backshots... men will never be serious people,' typed one disappointed listener."" Are audience reactions merited here? because the section concerns critical reception, and WP has been very icky about audience responses.
    • I do think it'd be safe to remove it
  • The tracking week ending January 6, 2023, marked SOS's fourth week atop the Billboard 200 albums chart." What does "tracking week" mean?
    • What it says on the tin - starting Friday, Billboard tracks how songs or albums perform commercially for 7 days for one chart issue, then they publish the chart on Saturday of next week.
  • Could prob put a dot after the sentence
    • What sentence
      • The Credits adapted from liner notes bit.
        • Periods don't punctuate phrases
  • "Granny – lead vocals" -- isn't it more efficient to just write the full name? Feel free to correct me, since I'm not an expert in song articles, if perhaps copying the liner notes word-for-word is the requirement
    • That's how Rowe is credited in the liner notes, and we have to adhere to that
      • Aight
  • A portal bar or box would be a fun little addition to the notes or down under the navboxes :)
    • I don't know what you are talking about .
      • Never mind, just a tiny comment, but not really affecting anything.

Welcome back @Gerald Waldo Luis! Haven't seen you around in a while , which makes me delighted to see you again . I hope all your concerns have been answered sufficiently . Have a great week! ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 14:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for replying to my not-so-constructive criticism lmao! Really glad to see you are still active and growing here on WP. I put a couple more replies, and if those are all resolved I'll give a support! Also if you're interested and in the mood for 100b articles, I have peer review up for To Fly! which is still lacking responses. GeraldWL 16:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis: it's okay not really salty about it . most were reasonable . but I'm afraid I can't do any more wikipedia work for a long while after this #idk so apologies for declining your PR offer. I'll explain in my talk page, but trust me it is a lot. Thanks again for your comments. It means the world and then some. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 16:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Source review

[edit]

Reviewing this version, spot-check only upon request and usual caveat about me not knowing the topic that much. What makes okayplayer and thelineofbestfit a reliable source? Source information and formatting seem to be consistent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: thank you for the review. Okayplayer lists their masthead in their about page. Combined with a glance at a random sample of their recent articles, which don't reveal any bad journalism practise/language, it's safe to say they're reliable for this enwiki article. Wrt to Best Fit, Metacritic includes them in their list of approved publications that reviewed SOS. Spotcheck would be appreciated. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 01:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'fraid a spotcheck will have to wait until tomorrow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck
[edit]

Of this URL:

Quite some deviations from the sources, but since this isn't a topic I know well I'll see what the nominators/others have to say. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replies have been made. Thanks to @Jo-Jo Eumerus for the spotcheck and to @Gerald Waldo Luis for responding on my behalf while I was away. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 05:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus ? ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 00:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to ask for copies of the sources I called "inaccessible", if possible. Say per email, I'd like to verify these as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: the Vulture sources you pointed out can be accessed through archive links. As for the ARIA report, this website compiles every song that entered the ARIA chart in 2022, so you can check the peaks there. Alternatively, you can ask the person who contributes to adding chart peaks to many articles, @Ss112, since they likely are subscribed to the weekly charts. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 23:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, what's the state of play with this one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Need the source enumerated under #46 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your Power ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I'm trying my best to find that ARIA source ... I already linked this as an alternative - this website keeps tabs on several ARIA chart archives, so I'm not sure why this was considered in the meantime? ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 07:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are suggesting that the change you have already made may be sufficient, you need to ping Jo-Jo. They are the source reviewer. If you are still searching and failing, you need to consider alternatives, this is dragging on a bit now. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have emailed ARIA to see if they're kind enough to provide an excerpt of the thing. GeraldWL 04:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I just received an email from ARIA providing an excerpt of the cited page to confirm the info. I extracted it to Google Docs: here. GeraldWL 04:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @FAC coordinators: since this should solve everything and an easy pass. GeraldWL 06:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is a pass on my end, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 3 October 2023 [59].

Foreign volunteers in the Rhodesian Security Forces

[edit]
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers an interesting element of the Rhodesian Bush War; the involvement of foreign volunteers (sometimes considered mercenaries) on the side of the repressive Rhodesian regime. Due to secrecy during the war and difficulties accessing Rhodesian records, the number of these volunteers is not known but is generally considered to have been between 800 and 2,000. They were most commonly motivated by racism, but a desire for adventure also played an important part. The Rhodesian government never fully trusted the volunteers, and many deserted after receiving a hostile reception from their Rhodesian comrades who typically considered them to be adventurers. Despite their modest impact on the war, the volunteers are admired by modern white supremacist and far-right groups.

I wrote most of this article last year, and it was assessed as a GA in February 2022 and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review last June. It has since been expanded and copy edited, and I'm hopeful that the FA criteria are met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Cover_of_a_Rhodesian_Army_recruitment_leaflet_sent_to_British_soldiers_in_1976_-_fair_use_claimed.jpg could use a more detailed purpose of use statement
  • File:Rhodesian_Army_Flag.svg needs a tag for the original design
  • File:Air_Force_Ensign_of_Rhodesia_(1970–1979).svg: I'm a bit confused by the licensing here - was the legal successor for this work the UK or Zimbabwe? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those two images form part of a navbox template. I've removed them, as I agree that they can't be assumed to be PD given the somewhat unclear situation with Rhodesian-era copyrights (which is why the article has very few images). Thank you for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
I'll continue once the issues pointed out by the review below have been solved. FunkMonk (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: I think that I've now done this. Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Southern Rhodesia is duplinked in the article body.
  • Link southern Africa, United Nations, and British colony?
  • As a pretty obscure subject to probably many readers, I think the article needs some more context in the beginning, as underlined below, following the comprehensiveness FAC criterion.
  • "white Southern Rhodesians predominately spoke English and had a similar culture to those in other English-speaking countries" Clarify if this is because they were more recent arrivals? Perhaps worth stating when Rhodesia was colonised for context?
  • "Anglophobia,[a] anti-communism, anti-internationalism, and anti-liberalism" While a quote, I wonder if these should be linked?
  • "The academic Michael Evans has written" Could we get a year for context? So we know whether it was contemporary or retrospective?
  • "The historian Donal Lowry has endorsed Evans' views" Likewise.
  • I think it's also important to note for context that what happened to Northern Rhodesia, that it had a similar history and when it became Zambia. I'm sure that event had an effect on these southern factions and how they perceived decolonialism. And also since many readers will wonder why this is called Southern Rhodesia at the start of the article.
  • It seems odd that decolonialism is only mentioned and linked in a footnote. Could perhaps already be linked at "ideology held that the end of colonial rule in Africa".
  • Link black nationalist?
  • "The Rhodesians' brutal counterinsurgency tactics also proved counter-productive." Any notable examples?
  • "to establish bases in Mozambique as Portuguese rule faltered" It seems linking modern countries is discouraged, but perhaps Mozambican War of Independence or similar should be linked instead?
  • "Its editor was a strong supporter of the white Rhodesian cause" Name him?
  • "from Djibouti upon that country's independence" Link an article about this?
  • "The Rhodesian Minister of Defence denied in 1975" Name him?
  • "were generally motivated by personal political and ideological beliefs or a desire for adventure" What is this based on?
  • Now anti-communism is duplinked.
  • "or a desire for adventure" and "Other volunteers enlisted seeking an adventure" seems like the same statement twice in a paragraph?
  • "The academic Luise White has written" and "Similarly, Kyle Burke has noted" again, could get dates.
  • "In 1979 the Zimbabwe Rhodesia[b] government proposed" and "Rhodesia was renamed Zimbabwe Rhodesia" I think that in addition to the footnote, you should mention there in the article body itself that it was the renamed Rhodesia for clarity.
  • "The volunteers also received the same pay as white Rhodesians,[53] between $US 4,000 and $US 7,000 annually." I wonder if anyone can be said about the funding of this without going too much into detail about Rhodesian economics. How could they afford this, was it a wealthy country, and based on what industry?
  • Link neo-Nazi.
  • "but it declined to do so as it was working as a mercenary was legal." I'm not sure I understand this, malformed sentence?
  • "of parliament raised concerns about British citizens fighting for Rhodesia in parliament" Not sure the first "parliament" is needed then, repetitive.
  • "put their futures on the line for the Smith" The Smith?
  • You list some countries and discuss their relationships to Rhodesia, I wonder if there are some articles about the specific countries and their relations?
  • "Some other volunteers left as a result of to the hostile reception" Stray "to"?
  • I wonder why the rather short American volunteers in the Rhodesian Bush War article isn't rolled into this one? Especially considering the far more numerous UK volunteers don't have their own article.
    • That article is too detailed, and poorly sourced, to sensibly roll in (e.g. the table of information on casualties). The topic is also notable in isolation, and the article could be considerably expanded. A separate article could be created on British volunteers if anyone wanted to, and my to-do list for Rhodesian topics includes starting an article on South Africa's role in the war. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro probably needs just a bit more context on what Rhodesia was, that it was a white majority, unrecognised state.
  • "and economic hardship" Hardship isn't mentioned as a factor outside the intro.
  • Link white supremacist in intro, and there also seems other subjects could be linked there.

Oppose from Willbb234

[edit]

Hi, thanks for nominating. I saw this pop up on the FAC feed a while ago but only yesterday I got round to reviewing - I spent a few hours reading various sources and the article and there were some issues in the sample of sources I looked at, which unfortunately has led me to oppose.

  • The volunteer's motivations section is the main place where I concentrated on as it underpins the whole article.
  • You write that The academic Luise White has written that they were commonly opposed to the establishment of governments run by black people and did not have any particular commitment to Rhodesia itself. While the source states that Foreign soldiers raise questions about what might link place and warfare: patria is not the issue, politics is. And the politics are queerly utopian: somewhere communism had to be stopped; somewhere men had to stand up against terrorism; somewhere the western world had to stand fast against the eastern hordes. All these tropes, of course, meant race: it was a black government that these men came to fight against. This gave me pause as the interpretation of the source doesn't seem quite right. I'm not entirely sure that the purpose was actually to come to Rhodesia in order to fight against a black government (although this was undoubtedly a motivation for at least some of the volunteers) and the source certainly does not state that this was a 'common' motivation. I would also note that anti-communism was driven by ideology rather than racism, but that's probably heading into Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth territory.
    • That seems a rather odd interpretation of the source to be frank. White states that "All these tropes, of course, meant race: it was a black government that these men came to fight against". She later notes on the same page that "that fighting for all the tropes that meant white rule was also without any loyalty to a nation, without any historical specificity, or even a sense of place: Rhodesia just happened to be in the right place at the right time for these soldiers". This supports the wording in the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kyle Burke also notes that racism and paternalism underpinned Americans decisions to fight for Rhodesia, which is similar to what White argues; I've added this. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You then write that The most common motivation was opposition to governments led by black people in the lede. This appears to stray further from what the source says. The source doesn't say that this was the "most common motivation". In fact, p. 183-184 of this source doesn't even mention race as a motivation, never mind the "most common" one. It seems that some questionable interpretation of the source has been amplified in the lede.
    • The source here is White, who as I note above does in fact support this statement [Edit: as does Burke]. I've tweaked this though after reviewing some other sources; as you note, other sources focus more on anti-communism and White also notes this was a key factor. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many volunteers were also strongly anti-communist, and wanted to stop the further spread of this ideology in Africa however, the given source doesn't mention that there were 'many' just that There were other men who came to Rhodesia because of their intense belief that Rhodesia was the next battleground against communism. I'm also questioning the PhD thesis used as a source. I tried to find out if this was peer-reviewed, but I couldn't find anything.
    • I've tweaked this per the above, but sources clearly support the use of "many" in this context. This PhD thesis is noted by Pattenden as part of the literature on the topic (which is how I found it), so is fine per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I'd suggest that it's necessary to consult it given Pattenden noted that it's one of the few works covering this topic. The thesis has also recently been turned into this book, but as the book covers the volunteer/mercenary issue in less detail and the thesis meets the requirements I'm not seeing the benefit in reworking the citations; I could do so if you think it essential though, to the extent the material on this topic carried over to the book. Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • My general concerns surround how the information in the sources has been presented here. Considering that we are are not sure of exactly how many volunteers served in the force, how can we be sure of what is the 'most common' motivation or whether 'many' men had certain motivations without sources explicitly telling us? I think there needs to be some considerable work here and some more consideration as to how this is summarised in the lede.
  • I next considered the following sentences: In addition to the actual volunteers, thousands of South African Police and South African Defence Force (SADF) personnel were deployed to Rhodesia by the South African government to serve in or alongside the Rhodesian Security Forces. These men were often directed to wear Rhodesian uniforms, and the South African government falsely claimed that some had volunteered for the Rhodesian Security Forces. and the source [60].
  • Firstly, I'm not sure that the source backs up that the South African government "falsely claimed that some had volunteered for the Rhodesian Security Forces" - this is what the source has to say Indeed, a number of SAP members 'volunteered' to serve alongside their Rhodesian counterparts and so were seconded to and integrated with the RSF.. Maybe the government did, but I don't think we can be sure of this considering the wording in the source.
    • As noted by the source, the South African government was covertly deploying police and military personnel to Rhodesia. People who are 'volunteered' are not in fact real volunteers, so the wording in the article on this issue is correct. I've tweaked the wording to be more specific though. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the bit about uniforms, this is what the source has to say He added that 'in the interests of effective military operations it is further requested that the SADF personnel attached to the ZR Security Forces appear in ZR uniforms' it appears that this was only done towards the end of the war (from about November 1979 onwards) but the implication in the source that this was done throughout the time that South Africans were in Rhodesia perhaps several years earlier. The use of the word 'often' (which isn't used in the source) seems to also have the effect of suggesting that this was common practice or done throughout the second half of the 1970s.
    • That's a good point: I seem to have gotten confused here regrding "These men were often directed to wear Rhodesian uniforms" given this was a request from the Zimbabwe-Rhodesian Government only. I've removed that sentence, and replaced it with material noting that much of this support was provided covertly and more specific wording. The rest of the statement other than that on uniforms was correct. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I was correct initially, but hadn't cited the source I would have originally seen this in (as part of working on the other related articles) - I've done so now. The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission found that South African conscripts were posted to the Rhodesian Army and required to fight wearing Rhodesian uniforms. Nick-D (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another concern I have is the wording here: Opponents of the regime frequently highlighted the issue of 'mercenaries' fighting for Rhodesia, and claimed that they were often mentally unstable and had little regard for civilian casualties while the source states that Opponents of the Rhodesian effort often accused the government of recruiting and employing mercenaries who were unstable and who did not care about the safety of civilians. It's very nuanced, but I think the criticism was over the employment of unstable mercenaries and not over the general employment of mercenaries which included unstable mercenaries. I hope I'm making some sense. Once again, the use of the PhD thesis, especially for a claim like this needs another check. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I'm not saying it shouldn't be used, but I think there should be some clear reasoning why this is reliable.
    • Please see page 184 of the source (which forms part of the citation), where it is stated that "The matter of mercenary service in Rhodesia became an obsession for those opposed to the settler regime". Lots of other sources support this as well, but I don't see the benefit in sourceboming something cited to a reliable source. As such, the source supports the statement. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The approach I generally take is that if I find issues in a sample of source checks, then I'm going to assume that there would be further issues in the rest of the article, so there would be grounds for an oppose based on not meeting WP:FACR 1c. Therefore, I don't believe the issues could be addressed within the FA review and would require further work beyond the review. I do hope that my review is also not coming across as too tough - I try my best to be thorough. Prose seems good and the article is well structured. Once again, thanks for nominating and best of luck with the rest of the review. Willbb234 13:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Willbb234: I think that I've now addressed your comments. To be frank, I don't think that they're major comments, including as you've made some mistakes in reading some of the sources. Apologies for the convoluted editing history with my responses here - I'm perhaps unwisely responding at the end of a busy day! Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the responses. You'll note that I said that it was an "odd interpretation" and not the wrong interpretation. I think part of this stems from the fact that White's style of writing is quite shit. I'm fairly well educated and at times I was struggling to decipher what she was saying. I also found it difficult to differentiate where the factual parts of the source moved into the opinion-based parts.
    • I don't agree with some of your other assessments, but I'm not going to argue over this and I feel it would be best to leave this to others to determine. My decision over an oppose !vote has not changed. Willbb234 18:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Willbb234: That's pretty disappointing to be honest. I think that I've addressed your comments, and to state that I haven't addressed some but not identify what they are is poor form. I'd ask that you strike the oppose if you don't intend to continue the review. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Try again. I outlined my approach above. You can address these issues all you like but the article will require serious work i.e. going through all the sources again and actually making sure that there's no discrepancies between the sources and content. And no, it's perfectly acceptable form. I identified a number of issues and provided a clear rationale as to why this shouldn't be an FA. I wouldn't believe you right now if you told me there's no more discrepancies in the article. It's also not my fault if you're ego can't accept the oppose and you feel the need to try to intimidate me into removing it. That's not going to happen. Willbb234 19:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "Few works by historians have been published on the volunteers, and they are celebrated by far right and white supremacist groups who admire Rhodesia." This seems to combine two unrelated statements as if they are somehow connected.
  • "dominated by the small white minority of its population". This understates the position. I think you should spell out that only whites had votes.
    • I don't think that's correct; as the Politics of Rhodesia article notes, a minority of black Rhodesians had the vote, and could stand for parliament. The system was rigged in various ways though so that the small white minority utterly dominated the colony/country's political system. I've added a link to this article here to help readers understand the situation, which I'd suggest is too complex to attempt to cover in this article. Nick-D (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "virulent forms of Anglophobia, anti-communism, anti-internationalism, and anti-liberalism". Anglophobia seems a curious term and requires clarification as they claimed to stand for true Britishness against the current UK government.
  • "Guerrilla activities began in 1966, and mainly involved small groups operating in northern Rhodesia." from rather than in northern Rhodesia?
  • "The cultural similarities between the white Rhodesian and British communities". What does "British communities" mean in this context?
  • "The Army's structure of administrative corps was similar to that of the British Army". What does "structure of administrative corps" mean? This needs clarifying.
    • I've tweaked the wording and link to clarify this; it refers to how the branches of the army were structured (infantry, artillery, transport, etc). Surprisingly, we don't have articles on the British Army's structure of administrative corps (or that of the Rhodesian Army's) that can be linked here. Nick-D (talk) 06:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While most of the security forces' personnel were black, the Rhodesian government had a strong preference for whites.[23] The army units manned by full time personnel, which included a high proportion of white regular and conscripted soldiers, were the most powerful element of the security forces" This is unclear. You seem to say first that most were black and then most white.
    • I've expanded this para to help explain this situation; I think I was trying to be too concise here - the Rhodesian military was small but quite complex (which some historians note was a reason why it eventually lost the upper hand to the guerrillas) Nick-D (talk) 06:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These organisations provided recruits for the security forces as well as private industry, including farms, mines and timber companies." For clarity, I suggest "as well as for private industry".
  • "It has been alleged that several individuals sought to recruit volunteers". Alleged by who?
    • The source doesn't say, but cites this back to several news stories - I've tweaked the wording to clarify. As it's entirely possible that some of the relevant people are still alive, I suspect that the author was being careful with his wording here, and per WP:BLP this seems sensible for me as well. Nick-D (talk) 06:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many of the volunteers became disillusioned with the Rhodesian cause after joining the country's security forces. This led to desertions.[52] For instance, an American volunteer deserted after five months in 1976 and considered joining the guerrillas as he developed a belief that the Rhodesian Army was "completely racist".[53] Several other volunteers left as they wanted to fight in more intense wars." You mention the disillusionment but only give untypical examples of motives. This paragraph is misleading and would be better merged with discussion of Rhodesian suspicion of the foreign volunteers.
    • I'd been toying with splitting the material on desertions out into a single section, and have just done so. I think that this makes the situation a bit clearer, and hopefully reduces repetition as well. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Numbers of volunteers' section randomly lists estimates relating to varying dates and periods, which is not helpful. The section should be in text format and discuss the estimates.
    • They're not really random, and there's not much to discuss - the sources are generally brief assertions that this is the number with no explanation of what it means. As White notes, it's difficult to understand and compare the different figures as a result of the lack of discussion in the source about what their figure comprises. I think that the current format captures this, and makes it clear to readers that there are a wide range of figures with quite different definitions/time periods. I'll play with some wording (likely in my sandbox), but an option might be to put this in a table, which is what I did in similar (but somewhat less complex) circumstances at Air raids on Japan#Casualties and damage - what do you think? Nick-D (talk) 06:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you need to clarify the difference between the British South Africa Police and the South Africa Police to avoid confusion.
    • The context seems clear though? The BSAP is only mentioned in the context of the Rhodesian security forces, and the SAP in the context of South Africa's involvement in the war. I've added a sentence to make this more explicit, which I hope helps. Nick-D (talk) 06:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The nationalist groups that were fighting the Rhodesian regime and many progressive groups worldwide". "progressive groups" is vague and POV.
  • "but it declined to do so as a mercenary was not illegal". This sounds a bit odd. Maybe "being a mercenary"?
  • "very few men were actually willing to put their futures on the line for the Smith [Rhodesian prime minister Ian Smith] regime". Smith was such a key figure (if I understand correctly) that I think it would be better to mention him earlier and then the explanation would be unnecessary.
  • "Stephen Jeffreys' 1980 play 'The Jubilee Too' included a British volunteer who had returned from Rhodesia as one of its characters.[130]" I do not see how this bare mention adds to the article.
  • "Ware and Campbell wrote in 2022 that the foreign volunteers had little influence on the war, and the pressure from western governments on the Rhodesian government to agree to a transition to majority rule was of greater importance." This seems a non-sequitur comparing two distinct things.
  • Note 23 cites an article in The National Interest. Both the article and the journal seem too controversial to be an RS.
    • The authors appear appropriately qualified and there are no discussions at WP:RSN I can see ruling this source out. The consensus in the few discussions of it at RSN is that it should be treated as an opinionated source rather per WP:NEWSBLOG than a unreliable source. I've replaced the first reference, and attributed the views in the final reference to these authors in the text in line with the advice in the RSN discussions (the previous references attributed these views to them in the text). Please let me know if there are more recent developments casting doubt on this outfit though. Nick-D (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mercenaries: The Scourge of the Developing World. This sounds like a polemic rather than an RS.
    • It's published by a major publishing firm, and the notion put forward in the title is the dominant view of mercenaries in Africa: few experts have anything good to say about them (e.g. see the current coverage of the activities of the Wagner Group in various African countries for a taster of this - the conclusions reached by by historians on the activities of mercenaries in Congo in the 1960s, for instance, are broadly similar). Searching Google Books indicates that this book has been cited in a range of works on related topics: [61]. The author, Guy Arnold, also had a range of relevant expertise according to our article on him. As such, I don't think that there's an issue here. Nick-D (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure it is correct to say that the subject of the article is neglected. The sources section suggests that it is reasonably well covered for such a niche topic. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a statement made in one of few works dedicated to this topic, so I don't see grounds to dismiss it; no other source I'm aware of argues the opposite. It's also in line with what I found researching this article; as is noted in the source, most coverage of the topic in the various works cited in the article is a few pages of a much broader work. There are some big gaps in the literature as a result: for instance, there are no reliable estimates of the number of volunteers and any figures on their casualties, both of which are staples of military history works (no historian I've been able to find even hazards a guess about the casualties). Nick-D (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

[edit]

Hi Nick, adding placeholder, intend to make comments in next week. JennyOz (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Golly, I think I'm finished. Sorry for delay but had to continually wipe and add bits to my notes as changes were being made. Not complaining! Forgive me if anything here has already been addressed. My list is long but it's mostly tiny prose and link type suggestions, very easy to instigate or ignore!


lede

  • with the exact number not being known - an "exact" number would not be possible even with access to all records? Perhaps 'a more precise number' or 'firmer number', etc
  • The volunteers had a range of motivations. - for joining
  • The volunteers generally joined the Rhodesian Security Forces after seeing advertisements or after being contacted by recruiters. The Rhodesian government regarded the volunteers as unreliable - this seems strange, Rhodesia advertised for them but did not appreciate them... should there be something like 'However, the Rhodesian government came to regard the volunteers as ...
    • I think this is OK, and reflects the sources: the Rhodesian government was in fact recruiting people it didn't really want. This was a long way from being the strangest thing the Rhodesian government did. The literature on the war notes that the Rhodesian war effort was riddled with similar counter-productive approaches. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • illegal to serve with the Rhodesian Security Forces due to the sanctions that - unhide international?
  • In many countries it was illegal to serve with - illegal for its citizens to serve?
  • prevent their citizens fighting for Rhodesia due to difficulties enforcing the relevant laws - enforcing their relevant laws
  • The volunteers are celebrated - sometimes celebrated? or is it universal?
  • celebrated by far right and white supremacist groups - hyphen far-right
  • indicated that western governments supported - this is first of many but shouldn't any mention of western governments / countries / etc and of the west, all take a capital W?

Background Political situation

Rhodesian Bush War

Rhodesian Security Forces

Recruitment processes

Volunteers' motivations

Numbers of volunteers

Conditions and service

Nationalists

British government

  • Several Labour Party members of parliament raised concerns about British citizens fighting for Rhodesia in parliament and - avoid parliament x2? perhaps 'Several Labour Party members raised concerns in parliament about British citizens fighting for Rhodesia and...
  • The historian Hugh Patterson noted that - Pattenden? if so move intro ie The historian up to first mention?
  • support among British conservatives for Rhodesia - definitely small c intended here, not party Conservatives? If so maybe 'conservative British/Britons'?
  • "very few men were actually willing to put their futures on the line for the Smith" - re-add regime after Smith

Other foreign governments

Desertion by the volunteers

  • Many of the foreign volunteers deserted before the end of their periods of enlistment - hmm you can't desert after so during their periods of enlistment? or 'Before the end of their periods of enlistment, many of the foreign volunteers deserted'
  • volunteers left as a result of to the hostile reception. - remove to

Literature and historiography

  • A range of works have provided - range is singular so... A range of works has provided
  • Soldier of Fortune ran large numbers of articles on foreigners in the Rhodesian Security Forces during the Bush War; each edition published between 1975 and 1980 included at least one article on the subject. These articles frequently highlighted the experiences of Americans who were fighting in Rhodesia. The articles in Soldier of Fortune reflected Rhodesian government - there are 4x 'article/s' in here - consider swapping "These articles" to 'They' and/or "The articles in Soldier of Fortune" to Some reflected
  • they claimed that the country was a western democracy, the war was being fought against communism and did not discuss the oppression of Rhodesia's black majority - maybe 'they claimed that the country was a western democracy and that the war was being fought against communism. They did not discuss the oppression of Rhodesia's black majority.
  • It was finished in 1980 and published in 1991. - does White give any significance to the 11-year delay in publishing? Ah, I came across that on American volunteers in the Rhodesian Bush War, controversy! Was published under different name ie The White Tribe
    • She says that while the author "seemed to have hinted that the government stopped the publication of Crippled Eagles, I think it is more likely that he understood that this was not the right time for his novel". I don't think that this is relevant to this article. Nick-D (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stephen Jeffreys' 1980 play 'The Jubilee Too' included - italics on The Jubilee Too (MOS:MAJORWORK)
  • Ware and Campell have stated that the foreign volunteers - typo Campbell

References

Categories

Images

  • alt=A map of Africa with Rhodesia's borders highlighted. - more informative to explain 'outlining Rhodesia in the south east of the continent'?
  • alt=Black and white image of seven men in military uniforms below a large flag - ... in differing military uniforms below a large Rhodesian Army flag. It reads, "Your career is here - in the Rhodesian Army"

Template

Late extras

Thanks for your patience! JennyOz (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

I am going to let Jenny do her thing, then give me a ping and I'll have a look through. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick. I have been away and come back to a bit of a backlog, but it is on my list. Feel free to nag me. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: thanks for this. I'll take you up on the offer of nagging, as I'm departing for a lengthy overseas holiday in a couple of weeks, and am hoping to have this nomination wrapped up one way or the other by then. I'll have a laptop, but my Wikipedia time is likely to be pretty limited. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saving this for the evening. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "from the mid-1970s to address manpower shortages". Consider 'from the mid-1970s until 1980 to address manpower shortages'.
  • "As Rhodesia's independence was not internationally recognised and its government and economy were controlled by the small white minority of its population, decisions to volunteer to fight for the country were often motivated by individuals' political views and the issue attracted a degree of controversy." I fail to see how the two parts of this sentence connect. Consider splitting. (It is a bit long anyway.) The part about decisions to volunteer etc seems to be covered in detail in the next paragraph.
  • "after seeing advertisements or after being contacted". Remove the second "after"?
  • "Southern Rhodesia was a self-governing British colony". Suggest including when it started and ended its existence at this point.
    • I've adjusted this para. 00:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  • "had little difficulty in defeating the guerrillas." Is "in" necessary?
  • "whose members were mainly white." Suggest deleting. This has been established in the previous sentence.
  • "The historian Luise White". Should be introduced at first mention.
  • "Those who were combat veterans resented being ...". Every single one of them. Sounds improbable. What does the source say?
  • "leading to protests." By whom? US citizens, foreign countries, the UN, all of these?

That's all I have. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neat. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Have I missed a source review? If still wanting, let's list at the top of WT:FAC... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: no, there hasn't been a source review yet Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it with me. I'll post one shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: this might now be ready to be closed. Willbb234 has maintained their oppose, but I think that I've addressed all their comments and they declined to clarify or expand further. There are four supports, with those editors' comments having touched on Willbb234's concerns, and passes source and image reviews. Nick-D (talk) 03:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the numbers are not the biggest thing but how critical comments have been resolved, or attempted to be resolved, and I think we're good to go in that respect. Certainly other reviewers have had plenty of time to consider the opposing comments and have still come down for promotion, and we have a mix of MilHist and non-MilHist participants. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • there are hyphens in page ranges in footnotes. eg {{sfn|Geldenhuys|1990|pp=59-62, 67}} Should they be endashes?
  • all the sources are of high quality and reliable. The Stackpole book is leveled up significantly by the bona fides of the authors, and is completely fine for what it is being used for.
  • the formatting of the citations is excellent, and it is well footnoted.

Overall, very good. Pass. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 2 October 2023 [62].

Theodore II Laskaris

[edit]
Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a young Emperor of Nicaea (the most powerful successor state of the Byzantine Empire) who wrote several treatises about theological, historical and philosophical themes. He preferred the company of low born intellectuals which led to conflicts with the Nicaean aristocracy. He expanded the territory of his empire but died young due to a chronic illness, likely cancer. His Great Supplicatory Canon to Our Lady is still sung in Orthodox ceremonies. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • Fixed.
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Deleted.
  • File:Theodoros_II_Laskaris.jpg is incorrectly tagged
  • Fixed.
  • File:149_-_John_III_Doukas_Vatatzes_(Mutinensis_-_color).png needs a tag for status in source country, as it's hosted on Commons. Ditto File:150_-_Theodore_II_Laskaris_(Mutinensis_-_color).png
  • Both fixed.
  • File:Hyperpyron_of_Theodore_II_(reverse).jpg needs a tag for the original work
  • Fixed (I hope).
  • File:Aspron_trachy_of_Theodore_II_Laskaris.png needs a US tag for the original work as well as a tag for the photograph copyright
  • Deleted.
  • Deleted.

Thank you for your image review. Borsoka (talk) 09:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added a map and a picture ([63]). Borsoka (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New map also has a colour issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
  • Done.
  • "began at the age when most aristocratic children were taught to write and read" Do we know what that age was?
  • Clarified.
  • "words with multiple meaning" Meanings?
  • Fixed.

Thank you for starting the review. Borsoka (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Elena of Bulgaria died unexpectedly before the end of August." Do we know of what?
  • No, we do not know. This is now mentioned in the article.
  • "Arsenios' allegedly irregular appointment" Why irregular?
  • Explained.
  • The two images under Youth strike me as almost identical. I wonder if it would make sense and take up less space to place them side by side in a multiple image template?
  • Yes, I have been also thinking of it. I deleted Theodore's picture because his portrait is placed in the infobox, so we do not need another one.
  • "Two Macedonian towns, Veles and Skopje" You use ancient Greek names for many locations, but at least Skopje doesn't read much like it?
  • My source is not consequent. What do you suggest? Shall I change the names?
  • Link Michael VIII Palaiologos in image caption. Perhaps even link Byzantine Empire in the same caption?
  • Done, although Nikkimaria noted above that the map is problematic.
  • Link epilepsy?
  • Linked.
  • Linked.
  • "Theodore became a monk" What became of his wife, then?
  • She had died years before Theodore became a monk (as it is mentioned in the article).
Ah, that's what happens when you don't read an article in one go... FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after the Turkish conquest of the region in the 14th century" Something to link?
  • Link added.
  • "Michael VIII married off his three sisters" Probably good to specify if this was John's sisters.
  • Support - looking good to me, only thing left is that it may be difficult to see what the last "he" in the following sentence refers to, but I'm not sure what can be done about it: "He appointed George Mouzalon regent for his underage son, John IV, before he died of either chronic epilepsy or cancer". FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "to forge an alliance with her father, Ivan Asen II". I think it would be clearer to add "Emperor of Bulgaria", even though it means repeating Bulgaria".
  • Done.
  • "When he wed Irene, he served as the commander of the imperial guard." This seems to say that he served during the wedding. Maybe "After his marriage to Irene, he served as the commander of the imperial guard."
  • Alternative solution.
  • "Vatatzes had to defeat the late emperor's brothers, Alexios and Isaac Laskaris, to seize the throne. His victory over his wife's uncles and their Latin allies" I would preferr "His victories over them and their Latin allies".
  • Done.
  • "If Theodore's formal education began around the age of six when most aristocratic children were taught to write and read, he was entrusted to an elementary teacher's care in 1228." This could be clearer. I take it that you mean that the date of 1228 depends on the usual starting age for education, but I had to read it two of three times to get it.
  • Rephrased.
  • "Theodore approached a most renowned teacher, Nikephoros Blemmydes, to take philosophy classes from him." This is ambiguous who was the teacher. Maybe "Theodore asked to join the philosophy classes of a renowned teacher, Nikephoros Blemmydes."
  • Alternative solution.
  • "In his history, Akropolites mentioned". This implies that you have previously mentioned his history, but you have not.
  • Akropolites's history is introduced in section "Education".
  • "visited most Anatolian towns and villages". most? Nicaea only occupied part of Anatolia.
  • Changed.
  • I think it would be misleading because by the time of Theodore's reign the Kingdom of Thessalonica had disappeared, and Nicaea had seized large territories in Thrace, Macedonia and Thessaly.
  • "Vatatzes was making preparations for a new attack on Constantinople, but the ruler of Epirus, Michael II Komnenos Doukas (r. 1230–1266/68), invaded Nicaean territory in Macedonia in the spring of 1252." Grammatically, I think you need a date after "on Constantinople".
  • Changed.
  • "Theodore forbade his father's widow, Anna-Constanza, from returning to her Sicilian homeland. This act outraged her brother, Manfred (r. 1258–1266), who had recently assumed power in the Kingdom of Sicily." The dating looks wrong here. You say Theodore forbade her from returning to Sicily after her husband died in 1254 and that her brother had recently assumed power, but he did not become king until 1258.
  • Manfred, who as an illegitimate son of Emperor Frederick II, assumed power in Sicily when his legitimate half brother Conrad IV died in 1254, but he was crowned king only years later. Borsoka (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Kaliman (r. 1256– )". A dash implies to an unknown date, not in 1256. I would delete it.
  • "Theodore decided to resume negotiations about a church union between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches with Pope Alexander IV". This seems to exaggerate Theodore's authority. Presumably he could only have decided for the Orthodox church in his own territory.
  • I see now that he is decribed as Emperor and Autocrat of the Romans in the infobox but not in the text. All details in the infobox should be in the main text. Also, you should clarify how far his claim to speak for orthodoxy would have been accepted outside his own territory. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted the unverified title from the infobox and modified the text. The source write of the Byzantine Church but in the article's context I preferred to refer to the Nicaean Church to avoid confusion. Borsoka (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is often difficult to follow without a detailed knowledge of local geography. It is unfortunate that the only map is no help as it post-dates Byzantine reunification, but I assume that no better map is available. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "including those of low birth." Optional: 'including some of low birth.'
  • Done.
  • "He made a defensive alliance with Kaykaus II ... He repelled a Bulgarian invasion of Thrace and Macedonia and forced Michael II Komnenos Doukas, the ruler of Epirus, to cede Dyrrachium". If the dates of any of these three are known, their addition would be helpful.
  • Done.
  • "Theodore could not actually risk launching an attack". Delete "actually".
  • Done.
  • "but the change in his position did not prevent him from making arrangements for the publications of his works." I fail to see why it might.
  • Deleted.
  • Sources: all article titles should be consistently in either sentence case or title case. How they appear in their originals is irrelevant.
  • Done.
  • Sources: be consistent as to whether publisher locations are included.
  • Done.
  • The family tree sprawls off screen on every device I have looked at it on. Consider turning it into an image, so that it will display according to user-determined criteria.
  • My device shows it nicely. I do not know how to turn it into an image.
Let's leave that to the image reviewer then.
  • "according to scholarly consensus". Is it necessary to add this? Surely everything in the article is according to scholarly consensus.
  • Deleted.
  • "although tradition required the presentation of three candidates." The presentation of three candidates to whom or what?
  • Done.
  • "the "Arsenite Schism" ". Which was what?
  • "as the new megas domestikos." What is a "megas domestikos"?
  • Modified.
  • "to chase the Bulgarians." Perhaps "chase" → 'pursue'?
  • Done.
  • "they broke into a run in panic". Perhaps 'they retreated in a panic'?
  • Done.
  • "he confirmed the fiscal privileges of Macedonian towns." If all of them, this should be 'he confirmed the fiscal privileges of the Macedonian towns'; if only some, 'he confirmed the fiscal privileges of some Macedonian towns.'
  • Done.
  • "Theodore decided to resume negotiations about a church union". You say resume negotiations, but this is - I think - the first time they have been mentioned. Perhaps briefly introduce them? And which churches were being considered for unification, and why or how did Theodore get a say in this? Re-reading the paragraph about this, it may be helpful if you put things in chronological order: ie the background to the schism before the unification negotiations.
  • A footnote added to provide context.
  • "After he fell victim to a new plot, Rostislav Mikhailovich". I think it would be better to replace "he" with a name.
  • Done.
  • Could "Via Egnatia" be explained in line, per 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."
  • A footnote added.
  • Similarly "ecumenical council".
  • Done.
  • Family: much of the information about Elena has already been given. I suggest consolidating it in one place.
  • Done.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough review and suggestion. I think I addressed all but one. Borsoka (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He ordered that books that he and his father". Is there a way to avoid "that" twice in three words? (I suspect that the second one should be 'which', but I don't insist.)
  • Done.
  • Is Maïos Débélikourtos a person's name? If so, it shouldn't be in italics.
  • Done.
  • Already linked to blinded.
I think that almost every reader will understand what "blinding" means. Virtually none will understand the political implications of blinding a member of the Byzantine royalty. I suggest that you change the link.

A cracking article, which I enjoyed reading. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you also for your edits. One of the sources, Angelov's book is one of the best written biographies I have ever read. Borsoka (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly a little niche for a casual read, especially when I have this article to summarise it. But readable as well as learned sources are a joy, aren't they? Just the blinding issue holding back a support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • You have sources with titles in a mix of title and sentence cases, pick one or the other.
  • Sources and refs are otherwise properly formatted.
  • The sources are highly reliable.
  • Cites 26, 35, 38, 51, 70 validated--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I still do not understand your concern although I re-read sections "Sources" and "Further reading". Could you explain me which of the titles should be changed and how? Borsoka (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All titles should be consistently capitalized, regardless whether in a journal or book, in either title case or sentence case.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, although I think the method was consistent with a clear and consequent distinction between chapter titles and journal or book titles. Borsoka (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look more closely at the journal entry; the template handles that and nothing further needs to be done to distinguish them.
Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Unlimitedlead

[edit]

Reviewed at PR; happy to do so again. Please bear with me. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unlimitedlead, this has been open a long time and I'm looking to close unless you still want to weigh in (promptly...!). Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do not think I will be able to do so in a timely manner. Apologies for any inconvenience. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Borsoka, is there a single source for that extensive family tree? I checked several names there and found them mentioned and cited in the main body but is that true of all of them? At the very least, I'm a bit confused about the recurring name Theodora... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I need 2 or 3 days to check it because I have no access to my library now. Yes, Theodora was a quite popular name. Borsoka (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added a source for the family tree. Yes, all individuals who lived in Theodore's time are mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose Pinging. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Borsaka (sorry for not getting back sooner but internet access was intermittent for a while). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 1 October 2023 [66].

Irere (Alexander McQueen collection)

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For Spring/Summer 2003, Alexander McQueen surprised the fashion world with a mature, romantic collection bursting with soft lace and tropical colors. Irere channeled film, Shakespeare, and Amazonian influences into a three-phase show of pirates, conquistadors, and tropical plumage, set against a film backdrop that reflected the show's narrative. It was a smash hit best remembered for the oyster dress, one of the most recognizable garments of the 21st century, and the skull scarf, which became a brand signature. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GWL

[edit]

Hi! Just want to note that I added nine archives to the references, feel free to adjust or remove if any of them don't work or aren't supposed to have archives! See invisible cmts to see my cmts divided by sections. GeraldWL 09:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 05:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found some duplicate links:
  • Paragraph 2, Concept: "pirates, menacing conquistadors"
  • Paragraph 3, Concept: "Elizabethan fashion elements"
  • Paragraph 1, Significant: "design by John Galliano", "sewn to a bias-cut"
  • Paragraph 2, Reception: "Hoyer of Sydney's Sunday Telegraph"
  • Paragraph 1, Other media: "appeared in Vogue"
  • Paragraph 1, Ownership: ""by Philip Treacy, jewellery by Shaun Leane"
  • Paragraph 2, Recurring: then-assistant Sarah Burton"
    • Handled, I think; I did leave Galliano's second link in there since it's directly relevant to the section and far enough away from the background that I think it's not worth making the reader scroll back up.

Found some duplicate refs:

  • Paragraph 3, Concept: ref 6
  • Paragraph 2, Show: there's [30][8], then [30][8][35]
  • Paragraph 2, Significant: refs 51, 62
  • Paragraph 1, Reception: there's [65][66], then [65]
  • Paragraph 3, Reception: ref 43
  • Paragraph 3, Ownership: ref 78
    • Yeah, these are generally deliberate. Some reviewers get shirty/confused by sentences without refs, even when they're supported by the ref that follows the next sentence. Also, I often reorganize things during the editing process and it's easier for me if each sentence has its refs rather me having to worry about which ref in the next 3 sentences goes with the one I just moved.

Now onto prose.

  • "eponymous fashion house"-- shouldn't eponymous be part of the link too? Ditto with Concept section
  • Done
  • "Its title is claimed to be an Indigenous Amazonian"-- in Concept section you added a link, but not here
  • Done
  • "the size of a basketball court"-- not sure what it's called, but I'm not sure using objects to compare size is effective. Standards of basketball court sizes vary by associations. If no sources mention the specific size perhaps say that it's "said to be the size of..."? Also perhaps this is overlink as well. Ditto for the Staging subsection.
  • It's the comparison given in the source, without defining a specific size (I don't think anyone got out to measure) so I'd prefer to stick with it as-is.
  • I'd say it's much better if it's "said to be", since the comparison with a basketball court itself is ambiguous. Just like how it's not ideal to say, "my arm is the size of two water bottles." GeraldWL 07:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, fair, changed
  • Done
  • "McQueen retrospective Alexander McQueen: Savage Beauty"-- McQueen repetition here, maybe remove the first McQueen.
  • Yep, done
  • "his work featured a degree of craftsmanship that verged on haute couture"-- maybe add "the high-end" before "haute" just so it doesn't need clicking on the link to understand what haute couture is.
  • That would be redundant. Couture is definitionally the highest end of fashion.
  • Ah I didn't notice that!
  • Link runway shows since you also linked this in lead
    • Already linked in the first sentence
  • Link Givenchy
    • Oop, casualty of revisions, fixed
  • "a Spanish Jesuit tries to protect a Paraguayan indigenous tribe"-- more specifically, Guaraní people
    • Yes but a) iirc that's not in the sources I'm using and b) I don't think the detail is necessary to understand the concept (and I'd have to go and give the context of the Guarani being a Paraguayan indigenous tribe anyway)
  • "Amerindian" is a legit word meaning "American Indian" so I'm not sure you need to quote that. Maybe change to the synonymous Native American if you feel that's needed to warrant removing quotes.
    • Mm, I've left as-as and removed the quotes
  • "although Judith Watt claims"-- found a source for ya :)
  • Yeah but that says the word is Portuguese; her claim is that it's Amerindian, which isn't supported by that
  • I'm not sure it's super relevant, I don't really want to get into the weeds of whether it's a loan word to or from Portuguese or what
  • Maybe link politically correct
    • Done
  • "Author Judith Watt interpreted"-- we already knew who Watt is four paragraphs ago.
    • Yep
  • "it retailed for $15,000"-- should it be US$? For all we know so far these are British-made designs, so the $ is kinda ambiguous. But if you insist, this shouldn't be a problem too, I know people would just default their thinking to US.
    • It's USD, the source is WWD; I've clarified
  • Should heels and butterflies be linked? I think it's over.
    • Lost heels but kept butterflies
  • "A short film by John Maybury"-- is there a duration mentioned that'd be a better descriptor than short?
  • "as the "shipwreck dress" swims to a tropical shore after a shipwreck"-- why not link at the first mention of shipwreck?
    • Because it looks silly to link it in the name of the dress when I can just link it half a dozen words later
  • ""acting as co-director and art director""-- same case with the Amerindian thing. Co-director and art director is an official attribution in film credits. Maybe can change acting as to "assuming the roles of"
    • I don't actually have access to the credits to see what McQueen was officially credited as, so I'm going to leave that as a quote
      • I found this source, which states in the Irere column, "McQueen, as well as being a fashion designer, art-directed many photoshoots, he art-directed many films, and this film formed the backdrop to the collection Irere..." So I think it is safe to say it is an official credit; it also isn't an ambiguous credit like "camera guy" (could mean DoP or cameraman), which would make sense to quote. GeraldWL 07:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure we can make that assumption here
  • Adding em or endash to the quotebox author part would make reading it much clearer
    • I don't see that it makes much difference
  • Per its own article, the "A" in "Ancient Greece" shouldn't be caps
    • Tweaked
  • Link NYT
    • Done
  • "the death of Isadora Duncan"-- maybe add "dancer" before "Isadora"
    • Done
  • "WWD said"-- you should provide an abbreviation parantheses in the first mention of WWD. Also later you wrote "The staff writer at Women's Wear Daily"-- whether the abbr or full is used must be consistent
    • Yep, casualty of reordering things
  • Link Technicolor
  • "confirm[ed] the gothic Cockney kid's unique point of view"-- should probably clarify what "gothic Cockney kid" means by either paraphrasing or links
    • Revised a bit
  • "of The New York Times"-- rm this link per my NYT cmt above
    • Swapped
  • Museum overlink
    • I think it's fine
  • "She described two examples in Irere. Shark teeth, used in Irere"-- change the second Irere to avoid repetition
    • Done
  • Since Other media para. 2 is just one statement in two sentences, maybe it'd be better if it's merged in the first para.
    • Yes, done
  • "The Metropolitan Museum of Art (The Met)"-- decaps second "the"
    • Done
  • Perhaps use the full title and link Savage Beauty in fn A since it hasn't been referred to in the body, thus far.
    • Is it not... right there? "in both stagings of the retrospective exhibition Alexander McQueen: Savage Beauty"?
      • I was referring to footnote A, which is located two sentences away from "in both stagings".
        • Ah sorry, fixed
  • "of the retrospective exhibition"-- add 2011 before "retrospective"
    • No, because it was staged twice, 2011 and 2015, and I've referred to both
      • I see-- I only looked at the preview and thought it was a 2011 show, sorry!
  • "purchased from Los Angeles"-- LA's link but not NYC in paragraph 1?
    • Linked NYC
  • "to an Oscars"-- using the official name sounds better
    • Done
  • "Cultural history" and "wedding dress" overlink
    • I think both are pertinent
  • First exlink has archive but not second and third?
    • First is a deadlink that requires an archive, the other two are videos and afair IA doesn't archive YouTube/Vimeo clips
  • I don't think exlink needs accessdate
    • Removed


Gerald Waldo Luis sorry for the delay, and thank you for the review! All responded to/fixed, let me know your thoughts. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I made a couple of replies which I signed so you can find it easier-- also just wanna note I didn't see the Technicolor cmt replied. GeraldWL 07:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Waldo Luis, sorry again for the delay in responding, I have not had the brain juice all week. I've responded to the last few and made the Technicolor tweak I missed the first time. Thanks much for doing the video links :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries about the delay; there is no delay after all :) I did a last read through the article and it seems all good for me now, so I'm supporting! A nice work about a nice work. GeraldWL 05:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks kindly for your review, cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vat

[edit]

Marking a header. I expect not to have too much to say, though -- at a glance it's in strong shape. Vaticidalprophet 07:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content
  • Although he worked in ready-to-wear – clothing produced for retail sale – Does this need to be offset by dashes? It's a definition, yes, but the definition can be given in a non-offset sentence while sounding a little less jarring.
    • I tried it in commas and in brackets and it feels awkward both ways. How would you suggest doing it?
  • For the images in "Concept and creative process", can we fit in an image of a jerkin (maybe swapping something else out?). It's not a familiar article of clothing to most readers.
    • Hmm. Swapped the bird out for a jerkin.
  • If I've ever seen the case for {{non-free no reduce}}, it's on "images of extremely detailed articles of clothing that turn into inscrutable blobs at 'resolution some guys thought sounded good when most people had 640x480 displays'". (This is true across a lot of the McQueen suite, but it really stands out here because the oyster dress is the lead image and the focus of a huge chunk of the article, and I cannot see any of the things the sources talk about.)
    • I dunno, I can see the ruffles fine, and that's really the part that matters. I know we disagree about NFCC to some extent, but I kind of think not being able to zoom right in and see the full detail here is the incentive for users to go to the original article I borrowed the image from and give them clicks
  • Judith Watt argued that McQueen's use of colours for Irere was distinct from what others were doing because it was part of a narrative that explored concepts that were significant to him personally -- unsold on the prose/structure of this sentence.
    • Honestly... yeah. It's kind of an annoying argument that she's making, almost a "not like other girls" thing. Like McQueen is somehow the only one using colors for Artistic reasons. It's hard to phrase in a non-pretentious way, but see what you think.
  • I'm sure you know...wrt "only two copies of the oyster dress are believed to exist", should 'believed as' be understood as meaning this is at all hedged or disputed? I recall the DYK ran with a more certain statement. "Known to exist" might be better if we don't want to give the impression anyone thinks there are more.
    • I am absolutely hedging here, and - ah. Part of it is to do with the article split. The oyster dress article mentions McQueen talking about 20 orders coming in for oyster dresses, but the Harper's ref says only two were ever produced, so I hedged the wording. It's not clear in any source what happened to those orders, although there are several possibilities. McQueen could have been inventing orders; the orders were real but got cancelled; multiple dresses were completed but then destroyed in accidents leaving only two (ie Harper's is mistaking "2 dresses still exist" for "2 dresses were ever made"); or there could be some number of privately-owned oyster dresses that Harper's just doesn't know about. It's hard to say.
      There's also the question of whether the McQueen Archive retains one. Per footnote a, "The catalogue produced for the original 2011 staging of Alexander McQueen: Savage Beauty says that all garments were lent by the Alexander McQueen archive unless otherwise noted. The oyster dress is not so noted, although The Met has owned their copy since 2003." Other garments owned by the Met that appeared in SB were noted as such in the catalogue. In my mind, this indicates some ambiguity as to whether this is a simple error or an indication that the Archive has another oyster dress which they lent to the Met for SB for some reason.
      I've messaged McQueen_vault asking about whether the Archive owns an oyster dress, hopefully he knows and isn't too sick of me to answer. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Left on read; speculation is the best I'm going to get. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind DUPLINK lets you link by section these days (so Gerald's comments might have been wrong, but I don't know exactly what he checked). This mostly stood out to me with regards to the possibility of duplinking the oyster dress in the last section.

That should be all, I think? Not much to say here. Vaticidalprophet 12:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At long last, a response. Thanks for the patience while I got my shit together :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back over, I'm willing to support here. My thoughts on "clothing produced for retail sale" is that it doesn't necessarily need to be offset at all -- it's a definition, but sort of an "explanatory" definition rather than one that needs to be excluded from the flow of text, if you get what I mean. But I don't see holdups here. Vaticidalprophet 01:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

The usual nice piece of work. Just a few niggly bits here

Lead
  • Is there a reason "Indigenous" is capitalised? (ditto on the other uses throughout the article)
    • Yes, generally the same line of thinking as capitalizing Black when it refers to Black people. MOS:RACECAPS and WP:NCET get into the logic of it a bit more.
Concept
  • "It was inspired by imagery from the Age of Discovery: explorers, pirates, conquistadors, as well as imagery drawn from the Amazon rainforest: the culture and garb of the Indigenous peoples of the Amazon, and the colourful plumage of tropical birds like the macaws.": this is a bit of a monster, and I'm not convinced by the use of two colons in there – it could probably be reworked into two sentences.
    • I forgot how much I hate this sentence. Given your comment below about duplication, I've reworked those two paragraphs entirely.
  • The word 'irere': per MOS:WORDSASWORDS, I think I'm right in saying irere should be italicised
    • Normally yes, but it also says that where confusion may result, quotation marks can be used instead. Given the title of the collection is the word on its own and italicized already, I opted for quotation marks to differentiate. (I've swapped them for double quotes now instead of single though, as that was the result of something that's now been altered)
  • The first sentence of the second para ("The collection comprised three distinct concepts presented as a narrative sequence: shipwrecked pirates, menacing conquistadors, and tropical birds") is almost a copy of the second sentence of the first para.
  • See above
  • "One look reportedly used "26 colors and took almost five months to perfect";": is there any need for this to be in a quote? It seems to be an uncontroversial statement of fact that could be paraphrased
    • I'm always a little bit wary of taking McQueen at his word, because he was a bit of a bullshitter, but I suppose this isn't too over-the-top
  • "for a backdrop.[34][35][42][43]" There's a bit of WP:CITEKILL going on there – any chance of combining a couple of the refs to reduce the impact?
    • Wound up pitching Gleason, I think she was an artifact from a previous revision of the sentence. Is 3 okay?
Show
  • Any reason why "56 looks" but "twenty outfits" and "eighteen outfits"
    • Nope, fixed
  • "who famously died": strike "famously"
    • Done

Done to the start of Reception – more to follow. – SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

Reception
  • "brightly-coloured" shouldn't be hyphenated, according to MOS:HYPHEN
    • De hyphened
Analysis
  • Lisa Skogh: who?
    • Contextualised
Ownership
  • "In 2020, Kardashian wore": you can just use "she" here
    • Done
  • As the skull-print scarf became a "brand signature", it may be worth thinking about including an image? I won't press the point and it's not going to affect my final decision
    • I wish I owned one to have a photo of (none on Commons either - I know the McQueen category backwards :P), and I don't think I could get away with NFCC for it since it's not really the focus of the article.

That's my lot – another very interesting piece. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie

[edit]
Images
  • All of the images are CC, CC0 or PD except the oyster dress, which has a complete and acceptable NFUR.
  • All images have alt text.
  • No issues.
Text
  • In 2000, McQueen sold 51 per cent of his company to Italian fashion house Gucci, but retained creative control. WP:CINS on the second comma.
  • he enjoyed swimming and diving, and later in life owned a house by the sea. CinS here. Options include: he enjoyed swimming and diving and, later in life, owned a house by the sea. and he enjoyed swimming and diving, and later in life, he owned a house by the sea.
  • Galliano in 1984, and McQueen in 1992 Another unneeded comma
  • Wikilink Women's Wear Daily on first mention
  • As usual for McQueen, headwear for the show was provided by milliner Philip Treacy, and jewellery by Shaun Leane. Second comma is unneeded.
  • Critic Herbert Muschamp viewed the shipwreck dress during a museum exhibition, and wrote that its tattered state suggested that McQueen was making an analogy between urban life and rough weather. Remove comma (CinS)
  • Melissa Hoyer of Sydney's Sunday Telegraph felt that McQueen had "grown up and toned himself down" under Gucci, and felt that many designs "seemed actually wearable". Remove comma (CinS)
  • The staff writer at WWD called the phases "seemingly unrelated", but wondered if the shipwreck and survival theme was a metaphor for McQueen's rocky journey through the fashion industry. Again, remove comma (CinS)
  • , and with other clothing from Irere in both should be and, with other clothing from Irere, in both

Figured an image review was in order since nobody had done one yet. A source review is also still missing here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC) (Consider: my FAC nomination of WWJ-TV)[reply]

These are all done, thanks for the review Sammi. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (voorts)

[edit]

Reviewed this version. A few comments. Pinging PMC.

  • Refs 4, 5, 13, and 77: Wikilnk the publication titles.
    • Done
  • Ref 39: Add an archive URL.
    • Ran IABot and it didn't add one, I assume because it's an EBSCO link. I'm not qualified to try to fight with it.
  • Ref 74: Set "No pp" parameter to "y".
    • Done
  • Some article citations are in sentence case and some are in title case. Make them all consistent with one style per WP:CITEVAR.
    • Fixed
  • Ref 84: Remove the archive URL for JSTOR.
    • Done
  • Breward and Witek need OCLC links for consistency with the rest of the titles.
    • Done
  • Muschamp: The Google Books link is to a random page. Link to the main page for the book. Also add page numbers for the chapter.
    • It isn't a random page for me, it's the page the quote is from, which is fairly standard (especially when the source isn't being reused). Page number added though
  • Wilcox: Add a link to the Google Books page for consistency with the other references
    • This is not actually mandatory, and there's no gbooks preview for it, so there's no real point
  • Witek: The Google Books link links to a search for the term "shipwreck". Link to the main page for the book.
    • Same as the Muschamp comment.

Sources look reliable, no issues there.

Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (Aoba47)

[edit]
  • The citations are all reliable and high-quality. There are a good mixture of web, print, and scholarly sources. The article uses a consistent citation style. I have noticed something minor, but for the most part, the citations are structured correctly and accurately reflect the sources and support the information represented in the article (at least for those that I have done a spot check on). My comments are below:
  • Sources such as this one accessed via Gale (or Gale General OneFile to be more specific) should be clearly marked in the citations. Without that clarified in the citation, readers would have the impression that they would be taken directly to the website and not a database. The via= parameter could be used to clarify this for readers.
  • Although this is not required for a FAC or a FA (at least to the best of my understanding), I would still encourage you to archive web citations just to avoid any future headache with potential link rot or death.

I hope this source review is helpful. Apologies for posting a second one and I hope I do not cause any offense to the original source reviewer (who has done a wonderful job). I just wanted to point out a minor nitpick. Best of luck with this FAC and wonderful work as always. Aoba47 (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba, I've added the via=Gale thing although I'm curious what's changed, as it hasn't come up when previous articles in this series have been at FA. I typically do archive once I'm done the article but one or two may have been added since or missed. Thanks for popping in, always nice to hear from you! Cheers :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's changed is that citations now give a clearer understanding of what the readers will be accessing when clicking on the link. For instance, when I clicked Citation 67, I was expecting to go straight to the website for The New York Times and find the article there so I was surprised to find that the link lead to a different area. It's the same reason why I mark if a citation is linking to Newspapers.com or Google Books. In my opinion, it just forms a more complete citation for the readers to more fully understand what is being cited. Nice to hear from you as well. This passes my source review, but I would also pay attention to voorts's review of course. Have a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No I realize what had changed with my edits, I was asking what had changed such that you were asking for this when you hadn't previously. I'm not disputing it I'm just curious. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be completely honest, I probably just did not notice it until now. Unless I am forgetting something, I do not think I have done a source review for one of your McQueen FACs and my reviews would have primarily focused on the prose and I would have not gone through the sources as closely as a source reviewer would. 12:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


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/Featured_log/October_2023&oldid=1182507450"