Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 2024

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 September 2024 [1].

Ove Jørgensen

[edit]
Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have an ill-disguised soft spot for Ove Jørgensen. He is (barely) remembered among Homeric scholars as the originator of Jørgensen's law, an early and astute observation about narration in the Odyssey which in many ways set the stage for the modern fascination with narratology in the Homeric poems. After throwing an almighty strop in response to being left out of an academic society, Jørgensen left classical academia with a single publication to his name, and spent the rest of his career as a cantankerous if apparently beloved Classics teacher, an acerbic commentator on ballet and an erudite editor of Dickens. From an article-writing perspective, working on Jørgensen was a rewarding opportunity to bring together a few different threads of scholarship -- he is known for the early part of his career among classicists, for the later part among ballet historians, and throughout by scholars of his lifelong friends Carl Nielsen and Anne Marie Carl-Nielsen, but I think this is probably the first biography to pull together all those different threads of interest in him into a single picture. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
1896, in Baker's Art Gallery -- I've added the link to the Ur-source, at the NY Public Library, here to the Commons page. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, that site credits Baker's as the photographer? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t see it as anything other than ‘this is where we got it from’ - at the very least, it surely means that Bakers exhibited it with the photographer unknown or uncredited? Alternatively, if we say that we don't have good evidence of its first publication (so, it's unpublished by anyone who would have the right to "publish" it in a copyright sense, which doesn't include the NYPL), it's pre 1904, so pd-US-unpublished would cover it anyway. The NYPL page states that they believe it to be PD in the US. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but exhibition doesn't typically meet the legal definition of "published", at least in the US. (Do we know if Baker's is American or something else?) Was there any other publication that we know of prior to the digitization by NYPL? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that Baker's Gallery is this place, founded in Columbus in the 1860s. The NYPL's catalogue states that the photograph was published c. 1896 -- admittedly, the distinction between "produced" and "published" may well be a matter of the metadata that their system allows rather than of copyright law. Part of me wants to take a strict verifiability, not truth position and say that a reliable source (the NYPL) has said it was published in 1896, so that's enough for us -- otherwise, we could use PD-because and explain that the NYPL have identified the image as being in the public domain in the United States? UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Think that last option would be neatest. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero

[edit]

The language field is inconsistently used for non-English sources. Would you like a photo of his grave site? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please on the photograph — done on the sources,I think. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: Ove Jørgensen does not currently have a grave marker in Holmens Kirkegård -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting: thank you. I assume it was normal practice in Denmark, as in most European countries, to disinter bodies after a while and re-use the grave, particularly if they had no living family? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. My understanding after talking with my Danish coworkers is that gravesites in Denmark are rented for a term of years and bodies are disintered if the family is not willing to renew the lease. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That tracks: J. doesn't seem to have had any children or known family, so not a huge surprise, if a bit of a shame. Thank you for trekking out and looking, though! UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FM

[edit]
  • This is well outside my area of expertise, but it's short and it's about a countryman of mine, so I'll have a look once someone more, uh, classically trained has reviewed it. Don't hesitate to ask if you need someone to look over or translate something from potential Danish sources. FunkMonk (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi FM -- thank you for this, very much obliged. For now, could I ask two questions/favours? Firstly, I've included here just about everything I could find that mentions J. at any length: if you can do a cursory look and find anything else written in Danish, could you point me towards it? Secondly, if you know your way around IPA or pronunciation guides, I think one would be very helpful, but I don't really have the Danish expertise to make one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did a search earlier, and the most comprehensive account I could find was in Den Store Danske Encyklopædi.[2] At a glance, the Wikipedia article already seems to cover most of the ground, but I'll give it a closer look when I read the article and see if there's anything that could be added. According to some results, the 2005 text "Den (over)levende tradition / The (Sur)viving Tradition" by Karen Vedel covers Jørgensen, but I can't find it. Don't know much about IPA, unfortunately, but I know how the name is pronounced, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- I used the Den Store Danske Encyklopædi heavily, and I think it's currently the only real biography, apart from this one, in print in any language. Could you give an English approximation of the pronunciation -- I can probably work it into close-enough IPA, or use it as a respell? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't realise it was the same source. That page lists some sources in its bibliography: "Peter P. Rohde i Information 10.11.1950", an article in the Danish paper Dagbladet Information, and "Thure Hastrup i O. J.: Udv. skr., 1971 7–19", which appears to maybe be the foreword to "Udvalgte Skrifter" which you have in the bibliography, and then the last source listed. "Papirer i Kgl. bibl." are papers in the Danish Royal Library. The two first texts should be findable, perhaps with the help of WP:RX? Googling a bit, this journal has some Danish articles by Jørgensen[3], this American article seems to mention him[4], and this Danish museum article[5] states that the period where Jørgensen and other significant figures associated with Carl Nielsen has been described as a "new golden age in Danish spiritual (or intellectual) life". As for pronunciation, when I just type in "Ove Jørgensen pronunciation Danish" in Google, an accurate sound clip is playable straight from the search engine. FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All wonderful -- thank you. Will work my way through it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK - got the "new golden age", the Udvalgte Skrifter forward is coming though the wonderful folks at RX (got a request there for the Dagbladet Information article too, but it requires a Danish or at least Scandinavian institutional login), and J's 1911 article is in there. The Calhoun article is used at length in Jørgensen's law (as C. was really the first to properly codify the "law" and outline its various caveats and exceptions): it might come back when I have a go at expanding the treatment of the law here. I've had a go at adding pronunciation -- please tweak if you can (I used this website to check that the IPA transcription sounded how I thought) UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the IPA is correct, you should not use {{respell}} anyway, since policy forbids its use in approximating languages other than English per WP:RESPELLNOT.
@FunkMonk: Can you confirm vowel length and lack of stød? ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UCC, I believe the 1950 Information article could be his obituary, so could definitely come in handy. TOE, that IPA reader website seems to give a distinct Anglophonic "twang" to everything, so a bit hard to judge, but it seems a syllable is needed for JØrgEnsen, now it sounds even more like the Danish name Jensen with an American pronunciation... I believe that "stød" should be where the otherwise silent g is, if I understand the term correctly. Like "Jør'ensen". Funny, they don't teach you about "stød" in regular Danish class, I guess it's just taken for granted. FunkMonk (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added the stød, which I think gets the right sound -- I used the Icelandic "reader" on the IPA website, as they don't have a Danish one! Agreed on the obituary: I'm not sure I can currently find enough bibliographical information to meaningfully list it in Further Reading, but I'm optimistic that someone will come along in RX (I don't suppose you know anyone likely to have the right login?) UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that explains the more "twangy" sound haha, Icelandic is the farthest you can get from Danish among the Scandinavian langues, would probably sound more correct with the German reader. I'm not sure that Icelandic website you linked at RX has Danish papers? I managed to find the correct issue on Information's archival website[6], but it seems it needs a subscriber's login... Maybe I can ask the Danish National Library, I got free copies of newspapers from them before. This site[7] run by the library also has scans, but you also need to be affiliated with specific universities to log in. FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would be wonderful if you can get anything - I'll add those links to the RX request in case anyone finds it. It looks as thought this one accepts logins via the Danish National Library, which in turn looks like you can create an account using your MitID -- is that anything that makes sense to you? UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just logged in, but unfortunately it says I can't view it anyway, I guess current university affiliation is needed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I first learned about the stød, I asked a Danish friend to explain it to me. She expressed a similar attitude, so it's neat to see you say the same. I found it quite difficult to differentiate hun from hund. On the topic of Danish pronunciation, can you confirm that the pronunciation of Jørgensen contains an /ŋ/ (as in English "sing") before the /s/ and not an /n/ (as in English "sin")? It seems unlikely that the /n/ would not be alveolar, though the rest of the transliteration corresponds to my (limited) understanding of Danish phonology. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would actually just be "n", hard to find a good demonstration, but you can hear it pretty clearly in this video 30 seconds in ("Bodil Jørgensen"):[8] FunkMonk (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carl Nielsen mentions him sixty-three times in his diary" considering the scarcity of sources, I wonder if this is something that has been published and could be used somehow?
    • It has, though the very limited access I have to it (Google Books preview) doesn't really pull up much of use -- I think I've mentioned this briefly in some of the other reviews. If you've got better access to it, would be grateful for anything you can find. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is it called? FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is via Google Books: part of an edited volume of diaries and letters, from what I can see. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "written in German, in the journal Hermes" I wonder if you could just say "in the German journal Hermes": it's less wordy, and it also specifies the journal itself was from Germany, without having to repeat the word "German".
    • True, but that would elide the fact that J. wrote in his second language -- after all, academic journals routinely take submissions in many languages. I'm not sure it's particularly important that the journal was German as opposed to that the article was. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, to me it would be pretty clear from "German journal" and the German title listed right before? German fluency was common for the Danish elite, so it isn't that unusual either way (most Danes still learn it in elementary school). FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Hermes" is a Greek title, and in their last edition, most of the articles were in English -- it really isn't the case that (e.g.) a French journal will only (or even mostly) have articles written in French. I do see your point, but I think the current framing is the right balance between making the important facts explicit and not being too repetitious. Interesting on German fluency -- I suppose that explains the many academic connections between Copenhagen and Berlin in the period -- and, slightly earlier, the outsized number of Danish intellectuals in the Bavarian-run Kingdom of Greece in the decades after independence. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the intro, you present: "with the composer Carl Nielsen and his wife, the sculptor Anne Marie Carl-Nielsen" but in the article it's: "where Jørgensen met the composer Carl Nielsen and his wife Anne Marie". I wonder if her occupation should also be mentioned when she is introduced in the article body? And now she is just presented as a sort of "appendix" to her husband since you don't give her full name there. While I realise it's a repetitive name, since it's the same as her husband's, you do give her full name in the intro after all.
  • "promoting what he saw as authentic, masculine Danish aesthetics – represented by the ballet master August Bournonville" Kind of funny, since he was French/Swedish...
    • Go figure -- plus, of course, ballet is an odd choice for a definingly Danish art form! I suspect that J. was more concerned with the aesthetics and perceived conservatism than the nationality, given that he was happy enough to side with Fokine (who was very classicising and, I think, had similar ideas to J. about aesthetics). UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all from me, any success in getting those extra sources? Otherwise I'll write the National Library one of these days about the possible obituary.
    • Some success, but none with the obituary -- if you've got an "in" with the National Library, that would be wonderful. Otherwise, do you know if Danish Wiki has an equivalent of RX? Honestly, given that it was consulted for the Hartmann article, I would hope that it won't radically change what we know, but it may well have some useful details and I think has value as further reading anyway. Still nothing on his experience/actions under occupation, and the more cynical part of me wonders if that silence itself answers some questions... UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They answered that one has to physically go to the library to access the archive from their computers, so I'm not sure one can even save the info if they aren't a researcher... FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A shame -- I think we shall probably have to draw a blank here for now, then. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ThaesOfereode

[edit]

Feels like a topic I can throw my hat in on. Plus, a named law? Count me in. I hope the below is helpful, though it is a hair nitpicky, admittedly (maybe... this is my first FAR). Pretty much everything below can be challenged; I know the difficulty of trying to write about someone notable with glaring gaps in their life's story.

  • Thank you for the review -- I am hardly in a position to complain about nit-picking, and the more careful eyes that the article can have over it, the better. Replies below: all very wise and pertinent comments, though I think some of the infelicities you've identified are artefacts of the subject matter as much as of its presentation here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm glad I've been helpful so far. Below, I've responded to what I think needed comment or further revision (assume anything not addressed is good to go, addressed elsewhere, or awaiting other action). You'll note that I ask "Can we get a quote from XYZ?" quite a lot; don't feel like each instance needs to be fulfilled. I think just one or two from the suggestions will add something positive to the overall quality of the article, help to contextualize and/or explain critical elements of the piece. I might place slight primacy on contextualizing the Nielsen–Jørgensen relationship better with an appropriate quote from Nielsen's diary, but I will leave it up to you to decide if there is anything worth taking from it. Again, nothing in here is show stopping and if the below are not actionable, I'm still happy to support in its current condition. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I managed to get a little quote in on his ballet views, which has some distinctive turns of phrase -- it's quoted at slightly greater length in the source, but I think doing it as a quote box would be repetitious and would maybe crowd the article a little. I think we've got the most important and distinctive bits. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This article is in great shape; I'm glad you were able to find good additions to the article after bringing it here. Happy to support. Great work. Hope I was half as helpful in this article as you were in mine! ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you -- for your judicious and thoughtful comments, of course, but particularly for your help with the pronunciation. I am always grateful to have someone come along who actually knows what they are talking about! UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Happy to help. Feel free to ping me whenever for IPA/linguistics concerns: I have more papers on the topic than I can count and I'd hate for them to just gather dust! ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Came back to check how this article was doing. Given that it's changed quite a bit, I hope you won't mind me plunging in for a second volley.
  • You want to consider trimming down the lede since it's about twice as long as MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends.
    • MOS:LEADLENGTH has come up at FAC a few times: I don't think I'm speaking out of turn to say that few writers or reviewers have set much in store, at least recently, by the lengths proposed in the table. There's also often a contradiction with MOS:LEAD, which is to me the more important guideline -- that the lead should summarise the key points of the article well enough that readers can use it as a concise summary of the whole. 300 or so words in three and a bit medium-length paragraphs is very much down the line for an FA biography, and by my count it's about 15% of the length of the body. Happy to take suggestions if it's verbose or if there are unimportant details in there -- I know I'm probably too close to the text to see it dispassionately -- but would resist cutting it purely for the sake of meeting the suggested numbers (and they are only that) in LEADLENGTH. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think linking Fear and Trembling in a sacred shudder is incorrect; I think it's probably an Easter egg in any case, but if not, linking Kierkegaard's work seems like the least likely quotation. I think linking Philippians 2 is more appropriate, if the context suggests it is from Scripture, but broadly speaking, I think "a sacred shudder" is likely a metaphor, not a reference, especially given that the Pauline line has a totally different connotation (Jørgensen's "goosebumps in the presence of greatness" vs. Paul's exhortation to persist in obedience to the Divine).
    • Personally, I think it's almost certain that he is referencing "fear and trembling" in the biblical sense of trembling before the Lord (found in Psalm 55 and elsewhere, not just in Philippians) -- I would have linked to an article on the phrase, but there isn't one, and the phrase itself redirects to Kirkegaard (then explains the biblical reference early in the article). Honestly, the linking in that quote is a bit Easter-egg-ish, but it needs to be -- a large part of the point of including that quotation is to get across the sheer density of allusions, flourishes and languages in J.'s writing (he slips into English a paragraph or so later). If you think there's a real doubt as to whether there is a biblical allusion intended (the letter is transmitted in translation, unfortunately, which makes the question a little harder), I will unlink under only very mild protest. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I'm floored that Philippians 2 doesn't have any reference to "fear and trembling"; I guess it's another thing to put on my never-ending to-do list. Regardless, let's say for the sake of argument that the letter does have a clear reference to the biblical phrase. I think the casual reader will interpret that link there as Jørgensen referencing Kierkegaard, not Jørgensen referencing the same source as Kierkegaard. Jørgensen was a learned man and I would be surprised if he had never read the work of his fellow countryman with whom his father's life overlapped; I don't think it would be unreasonable to make that jump, for the reader to assume from the link that Kierkegaard is being referenced. And that's assuming it is a biblical reference. I think the big "if" as to whether that is the precise reference (which I'm willing to concede, given the time/person), the Easter egginess (no fault of the nominator, simply a problem of linking in quotations), and the possible confusion this renders to the reader all conspire to have us remove the link from the article, unfortunately. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be a workable compromise to direct the link to Fear and trembling (biblical phrase)? From a quick Google Books search, it would pass GNG and there's enough material for a stub/start. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. I can't believe there isn't already a page on it. ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good news -- there now is. Link changed to fit. UndercoverClassicist T·C 23:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, this page is really good for having just been set up. Kudos! ThaesOfereode (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe a citation is needed after In Berlin, he began the process of writing what became his 1904 article on the invocation of the gods in the Odyssey.
  • Purely a cosmetic suggestion, so feel free to refute, but there's a sort of staccato in reading when you place footnote markers after commas, semi-colons, etc. Consider using {{multiref}} (or {{multiref2}} for lengthy quotations/explanations) at the end of sentences and just explaining which source states which cause. The sentences Jørgensen began work on a book-length treatment [...] and He became a lifelong friend [...], for example, would benefit greatly.
  • I think there's advantages and trade-offs to both approaches -- I don't necessarily disagree with your view of the aesthetics, but there is also an advantage to keeping citations as close as possible to the material they support, especially when (as often here) we are having to stitch together multiple sources to form a coherent narrative even at the sentence level. WP:CITE has citation markers are normally placed after adjacent punctuation such as periods (full stops) and commas ... The citation should be added close to the material it supports, offering text–source integrity. -- that at least gives licence to the current approach, I think. Purely subjectively, I'm not a fan of how the multiref templates format the references section, especially when it's a long one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Like I said, it's more of a cosmetic change than a necessity. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; withdrawn. It can be difficult to tell which MOS standards have wiggle room and which ones must be strictly followed as a newcomer to FAC. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that, I have nothing else to say; this is still an excellent article. ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these -- I believe I've fixed and/or responded as needed. @Nikkimaria, Tim riley, SchroCat, FunkMonk, and Generalissima: in the interests of transparency, I have made a few additions from Hastrup 1971, so you may (or may not) wish to take another look to see if your view of the article remains the same. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at these additions, my support still stands - indeed, is strengthened by the new edits. - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see you got that source, looks fine to me. FunkMonk (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very scrupulous of you UC. No, I see not the smallest need to revise my opinion and I continue to support. Tim riley talk 20:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that it looks good! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few notes on prose to start.

  • and of Jørgensen's wife – Seems like a WP:POSA thing to add; if he had been born out of wedlock in 1870s Denmark, that would be worth mentioning. Still, if you think this should stand, I think his wife is better than simply "Jørgensen's wife".
    • Yes, I think you're right -- think it's now better formulated as his wife, Louise née Wellmann.
  • an accompanied them to Constantinople – Why? Were they doing something of note there? I'm not sure traveling with someone of note necessarily needs to make it into the details of his life.
    • Sightseeing, particularly ancient monuments -- one assumes J. acted as guide. I've added a link to N's diary on the latter point. I'm struggling to find the duration of the trip (from memory, it was about a month). I'd agree that it's not the most exciting detail, but I think it helps to establish J's relationship with the Carl Nielsens as developing quickly and as more than simple acquaintance (in the original of the infobox image, N. is sitting immediately to J's right). I think he went to Athens with him as well, but couldn't get enough of the diary to be sure (User:FunkMonk may have more luck?) See the point below too. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that it's important to establish the origins of their relationship. Consider adding a crop of the image from the infobox with Nielsen; it might be nice to have a photo of them together given Nielsen's overall importance in the article. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carl Nielsen mentions him sixty-three times in his diary. – I think this needs more context. Is this a lot? How long were they in Constantinople? I would strongly consider the precise dates, if the information exists. If they were in Constantinople together for an appreciable amount of time, it makes sense that Nielsen would reference Jørgensen a lot. Sixty-three mentions on a week's trip is a lot, but sixty-three mentions in a year is hardly noteworthy.
    • It's throughout the whole diary: I don't have context as to how often he mentions other people, but the point is that they were more than passing acquaintances. See above -- Nielsen is really the only true constant across the two halves of J's life, and is indeed the relationship between N. and J. is a not insubstantial part of what makes J. "notable", in the sense of being of interest to scholars -- on a rough count, somewhere not far south of half of the sources that write about him do so as a friend and correspondent of Nielsen. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there any chance that you (or FM) can add an excerpt from the diary? I know you've called it a pretty terse document, but something from Nielsen's diary that contextualizes Jørgensen's (certainly) vast knowledge about the area would be excellent. Equally as good – if not better – would be a quote that explains how they met, why/how they decided to take this trip in particular, etc., which would really help to set their relationship more comfortably in the article.
        No worries. I suspected this would be the case, but I had to at least advocate for it. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this article, Jørgensen observed that Homeric characters typically use generic terms, particularly θεός (theos, 'a god'), δαίμων (a daimon) and Ζεύς (Zeus), to refer to the action of gods, whereas the narrator and the gods themselves always name the specific gods responsible.
    • to refer to the action of gods → to refer to the actions of the gods, right?
    • I'm not a classicist, but it's not clear at all why or how Zeus (a specific god) is used to refer to the actions of the gods in general. Is there a way Homer differentiates between the actions of "zeus" vs the actions of "Zeus"?
      • It's the characters, not the narrators -- the idea is that a character might say e.g. "Zeus gave me good fortune, and I won the fight", but mean that as a general idea that they had divine assistance, rather than specifically singling out Zeus as opposed to e.g. Athena, Hera, etc. There are one or two specific cases where this is broken (some discussed in the relevant article) -- in the Iliad, for example, Achilles sounds as though he's about to do it in Book 1, where he complains to his goddess mother Thetis that Zeus doesn't give him the respect that he deserves, but then goes on to make absolutely clear that he is talking specifically about the king of the gods (perhaps underlining his self-importance and perhaps arrogance?) In the Odyssey, Odysseus describes how Zeus sent a thunderbolt to sink his ship, after he angered the god of the sun -- again, here he's very obviously talking about Zeus specifically, but he does then explain himself by saying that he heard this account from the goddess Calypso later on. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Neat as hell. I think we might consider a way of conveying that to the audience. Can we splice in a quote from Jørgensen's work on it? Might add some nice detail into Jørgensen's writing style and his contemporary insight. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          If you have a look at the Jørgensen's law article, you'll see the best I could do on this -- unfortunately, it has to end up pretty chunky, as Jørgensen doesn't seem to have been interested in formulating it as a "law", rather than making observations on a specific part of the Odyssey. Honestly, I think that would be an undue use of space in this biographical article, though there might well be room to expand our coverage of the law in this one, and I think it has value where it is in the law's article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although most members were qualified as doctors of philosophy, others, including Nielsen, were invited. – Comma bomb here. Consider Although most members were qualified as doctors of philosophy, others – including Nielsen – were invited.
  • In 1916, working alongside the chemist S. P. L. Sørensen, Jørgensen completed and published Sophus's unfinished manuscript of Development History of the Chemical Concept of Acid until 1830. – Did Jørgensen only work on the manuscript in 1916 or was it just published in 1916 but had been worked on in previous years?
  • Jørgensen became an authority on ballet – How? Did he have background? Did he just write a bunch of stuff that others liked?
    • It seems to have come out of nowhere! This is admittedly the biggest problem in writing this article -- with (exactly) one exception, all of the biographical accounts of J. are either by classicists, in which case they stop just before he gets into ballet, or by ballet scholars, in which case they start just afterwards -- nobody has really attempted to write the story of how he got into it. He seems to have been a generally cultured and erudite man, given his multiple expertise in classical poetry, English novels and ballet, but I don't think we have the sources to specifically say where his interest came from. He doesn't seem to have had a formal job, but did write a couple of articles in Tilskueren, which seems to have been a reasonably prominent magazine.
      • Bizarre! Do you have any dates for articles he wrote in that magazine? It would be worth noting that he was writing ballet articles while he was still a professor, for example. As with his law, it would be cool to get insight on his view of ballet in his own words if the articles are accessible. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • He never was a professor (or "even" a PhD, which became a problem for him). His ballet articles, as far as I can tell, begin in 1905, the year he withdrew from academia (though he did write at least one review article of a classical work later, in 1911), but it would be WP:SYNTH to explicitly say that he only started his interest in ballet after/because of his falling-out with the classical establishment. It might be possible to pull a germane quote from one of those articles: I'll have a look. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He condemned the Art Nouveau– – Not sure what this endash is doing here.
  • calling it "quasi-philosophical experiments". → calling them "quasi-philosophical experiments"., right?
  • "standard analysis of ... the rules that govern human speech about the gods" – Probably non-actionable, but is there anything in the MOS about the use of [...] with the brackets vs. without?

A few notes on content.

  • I think, given that Jørgensen's main claim to fame is the eponymous law, I think maybe it deserves an expansion from its current (body) size of one short paragraph. In particular, I think it would be good to describe how Jørgensen originally formulated/supported his thesis and compare his work with modern scholarship (as in, Jørgensen's original formulation has stood the test of time or modern scholarship has departed from the original formulation in XYZ ways). Although, I suspect scholarship on how Jørgensen formulated the law may be scant.
    • It is -- I might come back to this. The basic thrust is that J. had the basic insight, but didn't really attempt to codify it into a solid "law" or to attempt to phrase it in rigorous terms, so later scholars have done that work and applied the "Jørgensen's law" label to it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added a bit here -- from what I can tell, the real mover and shaker is Calhoun; there's some nice later work on the few cases where Jørgensen's law is straightforwardly broken, which usually makes a convincing argument that this would be noticed by the audience and tells us something interesting about what the poet is trying to do, but I think that's really out of scope for this particular article, as most of it happened decades after J's death. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jørgensen's relationship with Carl Nielsen seems... out of place. I can tell that there is something that called you to repeatedly mention this friendship (and I imagine it is worth adding), but I find it difficult to connect it to the content. In "Later career" it's a little clear that Jørgensen had some impact on his marriage, but is there anything that says that they influenced each other's professional work? They traveled to Constantinople together; are there any episodes from that trip (or any other) that show a working relationship? Even a brief vignette would help to make the mention of the friendship feel more at home in the article.
  • A similar thing can be said about the jump from classicist to ballet expert, but I admit there have been weirder jumps with less in the way of information about how A got to B. If any information exists on the topic – acknowledging that that may be a big "if" – it would be undeniably helpful to the reader.

Overall, this is an article in good condition, with hardly any issues in the way of prose. My main concern now is that there are parts which feel disjointed and do not convey importance to the reader well, but I suspect they can be easily remedied or the scholarship is simply non-existent/inaccessible. I suspect Danish-language skill may be a reasonable bottleneck here, but hopefully FunkMonk can assist should you find anything. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
  • "of Jørgensen's wife, Louise Wellmann" jars a little bit. Maybe "of Louise (nee Wellmann)" would suffice?
  • "the philologist Anders Bjørn Drachmann": worth linking philologist, as it's an uncommon term?
  • "Carl Nielsen mentions him sixty-three times in his diary": This is a potentially useful fact, but with no frame of reference it's a bit lost. Is that a lot? Were the mentions positive? Over how long were these spread, etc. Maybe only half a sentence is all that's needed to give it a bit more relevance, but it just looks like a bit of trivia as it stands.
    • See ThaesOfereode's review above -- the point is well made, but we don't have the sources to do any of that, at least as far as I can find. I do think it's got some relevance, and it's not as if we're overloaded with biographical detail: when we've got comparatively little information about someone, I think we do need to drop our standards slightly and include things we might drop out of a fuller account of their life. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was his love of ballet a lifelong thing? It sort of appears part way through the Later career section with no indication of an origin
  • Was the Wanscher lecture connected to ballet at all? It doesn't seem to fit here, being sandwiched between two parts of Duncan

It's relatively short, but I guess if his notability is limited to the eponymous law and his writing on ballet, then that's to be expected, although I was surprised reading of his 1950 death and realising that he lived, presumably in Copenhagen, under Nazi occupation. Was 1930 (the publication of Dickens) the last notable thing about his life until his death? either way, this is, as always, beautifully written and something that made me genuinely interested in someone I've never heard of before, so thank you for that. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, as ever -- you have the nail on the head, and I'm sure there are some very interesting stories to tell about the last two decades of his life. Unfortunately, the sources are truly scanty indeed -- almost none of them are interested in him for his own sake, and only really discuss him in relation to his classical scholarship, his ballet writings or his relationship with the Carl Nielsens. It might be that we can come up with some more, but at the moment I've not been able to, and none of it features in the one real biography of him that I believe exists outside Wikipedia. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. - SchroCat (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Generalissima Looks like you just need a source review.

  • I assume the "Search 'Ove Jørgensen' stuff refers to Google Books usage (since they have yet to perfect ctrl-f technology for physical books)? If so, might be good to provide the Google Books links in the bibliography.
  • Refs are generally laid out and formatted consistently. Good use of columns, and good job navigating a Danish-language source corpus.
  • Burke's Peerage is missing a location.
    Oh, fair point then. - G Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Locations are not needed for publishers who have the name of the location in their title (See WP:CS1); so you don't need them for Oxford UP, Leuven UP, or Stockholm University.
  • Only source that seemed potentially suspicious were Burke's Peerage and Weltzer, but they're used appropriately and sparingly.
  • Looking through academic databases for Ove Jørgensen seems to reveal the exact set of sources you used, so it's safe to say you've done your due dilligence squeezing out whatever you can here.

@UndercoverClassicist: Beyond the minor scruples on formatting, seems like we're pretty much good to go here. Let me know when you've fixed up that stuff. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Precious little from me. The article is in fine shape. A few minor suggestions:

  • "an article in which he outlined the distinctions between how the gods are referred to by mortal characters and by the narrator and gods in the Odyssey" – for precision I'd move "in the Odyssey" to follow "distinctions".
  • "He subsequently travelled to Athens in 1903" – don't think we need "subsequently" as well as the year.
  • I'm having a little difficulty with the calendar: if he spent the 1902–1903 academic year in Berlin it seems odd that he moved to Athens in time to meet the Nielsens and go to Constantinople with them in May 1903. Or was the German academic year quite different from ours?
    • Two possible explanations, I think, though neither is spelt out in the sources -- most likely, the academic year had ended (the week after the end of the Cambridge year is known as "May Week", though in recent times it happens in June), at least for these particular students (who weren't following a particularly formal course of study). Less likely, they could have considered the trip part of their studies, or simply bunked off. He didn't really move to Athens; that was very much a holiday/study trip. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jørgensen … forgotten them" – a 57-word sentence that could do with breaking up, I think, probably after "way of life". And is "expected few to have forgotten" quite right here? "Expected to" sounds like an order – "He expected them to polish his shoes" – rather than expecting that few would have forgotten.
  • "she had reconciled with Carl" – unexpected verb: I'd expect "was" rather than "had", but I may be wrong. Either way, would it not be more neutral to say "she and Carl were reconciled, and she was..." – rather than appearing to put the onus on Anne Marie?
  • "criticising the innovations introduced into European ballet by the dancer Isadora Duncan" – is it correct to say that Duncan introduced innovations into European ballet? She pranced about on European stages and opened a dance school but I'm not sure she dabbled in ballet, or would claim to have done. Perhaps safer to say "introduced innovations to European dance" rather than "introduced innovations to European ballet"?
  • "Personal life and assessment" – a perfectly reasonable header, but the following text deals with assessment and then personal life rather than vice versa.

I am indebted to you for the information that in Danish Great Expectations is Store forventninger. In exchange I offer you some Shakespeare: in Dutch, De vrolijke vrouwtjes van Windsor and in Welsh, Bid Wrth Eich Bodd.

That's my lot. What an interesting man – such a range of expertise! – Tim riley talk 08:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article seems to me to meet all the FAC criteria. I much enjoyed reading and reviewing it. Tim riley talk 10:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Choliamb

[edit]

Somehow I missed this when it first went up, probably because Jørgensen was a complete cipher to me and the name rang no bells when saw it in the list of nominated articles. It's a fine article, almost everything was new to me, and I loved the peek into Wilamowitz's classroom. It is much shorter than your other FAs, but I have no idea how that affects its eligibility. My comment is limited to a couple of little quibbles about the quote from Tyrtaeus:

  • Consider revising the second part of explanatory note c to read simply "a line from a poem by the ancient Spartan poet Tyrtaeus", for two reasons: (1) "Fragment 10" is not the title of the poem, it is simply the number of this fragment in West's edition. It should not be in quotation marks. (2) This particular fragment is not universally known as fragment 10. It was fragment 10 in Bergk's Poetae lyrici graeci, but fragment 7 in Diehl's Anthologia lyrica graeca, which was the standard text for most of the 20th century. It became fragment 10 again in West's Oxford edition (followed by Gerber's Loeb), but it is still fragment 7 in the new Teubner edition by Gentili and Prato. Opinions differ about the merits of West vs. Gentili, but both numbers are still in use, and it is not uncommon to see citations like "Tyrt. 7D = 10W". Expanding this for Wikipedia audiences, you might write "Tyrtaeus, fragment 7 Diehl = 10 West; Gerber 1999, pp. 52–53" in the citation at the end of the explanatory note. This would allow readers in the know to find the poem in whatever edition they are using, and still provides the Loeb reference with its English translation for those who don't care.
    • All quite right -- I have done this with a slightly different phrasing, which I think is more layman-friendly; do let me know if I've mangled it.
  • In the quotation itself, a space is needed between γ' and ὀφθαλμοῖς.
  • Finally, not a quibble but a question: is the quotation itself correctly reproduced from J.'s letter? It ends νεμεσητὰ ἰδεῖν, which caught my eye because the hiatus would be intolerable unless Tyrtaeus observed the digamma in ἰδεῖν. The transmitted text (quoted by Lycurgus) has νεμεσητὸν here, and that is what all modern editions print (Bergk, Diehl, West, Gentili, Gerber). So if Jørgensen actually wrote νεμεσητὰ, he must have been using Peppmüller's revised edition of Buchholz's Anthologie aus den Lyrikern der Griechen, which appears to be the only edition that prints that form. The digamma was pronounced in Archaic Sparta, but it is not regularly observed in what survives of Tyrtaeus's poetry, a fact that has occasioned some discussion (see Dover, "The Poetry of Archilochus", Entretiens Hardt 10 (1964), at pp. 190–193). Nothing for you to do here, but interesting, at least for classicists.
    • As transcribed in the source, yes, it's an alpha with a grave accent. Not impossible that it's Mejer's error rather than J.'s choice, but given what you say about the different versions, I'd suggest that the most likely explanation is as you suggest, that he did indeed write νεμεσητὰ. If anything, we'd expect a modern editor's error to go the other way, and "correct" it to the modern text. I've been slightly bold and made it plural in the translation as well, though I doubt anyone would have noticed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Choliamb (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, Choliamb -- all wise and most welcome. You may enjoy some other bits of J's letters, quoted in that Mejer article, which are a great pen-portrait of v. W. and his lessons -- he describes with some humour the scene of the German undergraduates flailing over giving torturously long line numbers in their shaky Latin, and eventually managing to say so little that Wilamowitz declares he may as well have settled the lesson's debate by drawing lots. I imagine you'll have access to a copy, but if you don't and would like it, will send one to you. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's always the numbers that trip you up, as I learned in high school French. One minute you can be rolling along like a native Parisien, and then all of a sudden things screech to a halt as you try to do the math to come up with dix-neuf cent quatre-vingt-dix-huit. I will have a look at Mejer. Support. Choliamb (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • 'The observation of these distinctions became known as "Jørgensen's law".' I think this could be parsed in two slightly different ways, though as neither is technically wrong perhaps no change is needed. One interpretation is "His observation that these distinctions exist"; the other is "The adherence to these distinctions in the sources". I suspect the latter is intended, though as I say I'm not sure anything should be changed.
  • Perhaps link monograph.
  • The sentence starting "He became a student ..." has both a semicolon and a colon. I look out for this sort of construction because I have a tendency to overuse it myself; I think having two pauses in a single sentence isn't ideal. How about doing something like "... and made his first visit to Berlin that same year ..." in order to avoid the first one?
  • "he began the process of writing": would this lose anything if shortened to "he began writing"?
    • I think so, since the writing process begins with research, thinking and possibly writing (bits of) other stuff -- there's no definitive suggestion that he actually sat down with this title and started writing what we would recognise as this essay. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC) [reply]
  • "In June 1903, Jørgensen and Nielsen travelled to Italy" and "They subsequently travelled to Rome": these phrasings imply that Carl-Nielsen did not travel with them, but Hartmann's phrasing makes it appear that she did.
    You're quite right -- fixed, I hope. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which he considered a snub": I'm using Google Translate so can't be sure I'm right, but doesn't Hartmann say it was indeed ("rightly") a snub? That might justify strengthening the language here. It's not clear to me whether Hartmann is saying Nielsen or Jørgensen considered it a snub: Google gives me "He rightly felt that J. was not invited as a deliberate oversight, and when AB Drachmann offered to introduce him to the company, he bitterly refused", which seems to have two referents for "he".
    • Hm -- Hastrup has it completely the other way, and says that it was totally unintentional, but J had a fatal combination of self-doubt and excessive dignity that meant he took it very personally and very hard. I think the first "he" in that translation is slightly misleading, and the subject of "felt" is Jørgensen (or else impersonal: "it felt like..."): it doesn't make much sense if it's Nielsen, since the person refusing at the end of the sentence can only be Jørgensen. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Weltzer wrote in 1953 that his classes on ...": suggest "Weltzer wrote in 1953 that Jørgensen's classes on ...".
  • No change necessarily needed, but "middle-aged" surprised me in the paragraph on Isadora Duncan, as she was only 26 or 27 when Jørgensen began writing about ballet, and since that paragraph finishes with a sentence also set in March 1905 it seems the whole paragraph refers to his thoughts at that time.
    • Slightly rephrased to avoid that implication. I think there's value in putting that anti-modernist judgement with his condemnation of Duncan etc, especially as the chronology of these events within 1905 isn't exactly clear. On your point about middle-aged, I think you are right to be surprised and that Jørgensen was, as was often his way, being rather harder on her than he might otherwise have been. We could say "the twenty-six-year-old Duncan" if we really want to make it obvious. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If it's clear that the "middle-aged" reference is to Duncan in her mid-twenties, I think a footnote after the word with a sentence giving her age would not go amiss. If it's unclear just when he said this I think no change is needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've done that -- it turns out that Duncan's age is slightly complicated, but she could not have been older than 28. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can see; I'll be supporting when these are resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Top quality work as always. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
  • "after he was passed over for an invitation to a newly formed learned society." What does "passed over for an invitation" mean? Passed over for an invitation to a join the learned society? The main article is no clearer. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is standard English (one can certainly be passed over for a job/promotion/opportunity), but I've changed to "after he was not invited to join..." in the lead. Also added a second "invited" in the body to remove a possible bit of ambiguity there. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 September 2024 [9].

John Silva Meehan

[edit]
Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Silva Meehan was the fourth Librarian of Congress, serving for the three decades prior to the Civil War. The library was a pretty low-key institution at this time; only under Librarian Spofford did it truly become a "national library", and Meehan has received a fair bit of criticism for not getting the ball rolling on this beforehand. Prior to his librarian service, he had a brief and ultimately unsuccessful career as a partisan newspaper editor. I hope this is an enjoyable read to you all! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

[edit]

I'll review this over the coming week. Hog Farm Talk 20:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "he moved to Burlington, New Jersey to work as a printer " - while I disagree with it strongly, MOS:GEOCOMMA is part of the manual of style, so there should be a comma after New Jersey
    • Oops, fixed. - G
  • "Watterston was later described as having been a "librarian of one side of the aisle"" - by whom? The extent to which this quote can be taken at face value depends on if this is the conclusion of a modern historian, or if this is another Duff Green commentary
    • Added attribution. - G
  • "wished to hire an assistant editor at a significant lower rate than what he had agreed for Meehan" - while yes, this is true, I would argue that the use of "significant" here consitutes a form of original research, as we're only given the rates of $1,200 and $800.
    • Removed the word significant.
  • Our article on the City of Washington Gazette attributes the renaming to the United States' Telegraph to Meehan, but this renaming is never directly addressed in this article - can a simple statement that Meehan changed the name be sourced?
    • Done. - G
  • Is the correct spelling "Wharton" or "Warton" for his son's middle name? It looks like Nappo uses "Warton", but McDonough uses "Wharton"
  • McDonough states on page 12 that Meehan had a "reputation as a careful and precise businessman" and that he was thus asked to be the bookkeeper for several unrelated thimgs - is this worth mentioning alongside the Johnston quote?
    • Ooh, great idea! Since this was describing his contemporary reputation, I incorporated it into a paragraph further up into the article. - G

That's it for the first read-through. Hog Farm Talk 22:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

NØ

[edit]

Not a subject matter expert so I am just focusing on prose.

  • "After the firm moved to Washington, D.C., in early 1822, Meehan begun editing and publishing the Baptist weekly newspaper The Columbian Star." - Should this not be "began" instead?
    • Good catch, fixed. - G
  • "He attended school in New York, and later entered work as a printer." - There's a WP:CINS issue here which could be fixed by removing the comma.
    • Fixed. - G
  • Would a link to Baptists somewhere be overlinking?
    • Found a spot! - G
  • "He would leave the paper himself six months later, seeking to separate the Star from his entry into political writing." - nitpicky on my part but is this a better way to put it?: "Six months later, he would leave the paper himself, seeking to separate the Star from his entry into political writing."
    • I think so, fixed. - G
  • "Meehan diligently produced various "want lists" based on earlier catalogs." - It might be a good idea to have a reference directly present at the end of this sentence since there's a quote.
    • Added. - G
There are no major problems with the article from the areas that I analyzed it. Along with the prose, I also checked the alt texts and they look good and succinct. Good work!--NØ 05:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Journalist Arnne Royall ebuked him for his purchasing habits, claiming he had failed to "anticipate the research needs of legislators or scholars", and criticizing the acquisition of a number of books intended for Sunday school students." - Second comma should be removed
    • Fixed. - G
  • "Two major opportunities were presented to purchase expansive collections, but were both denied by Congress" - This comma should be removed as well
    • Done. - G
  • "with shelves placed in accordance to a modified version of Thomas Jefferson's original classification schema" - Shouldn't this be "accordance with a"?
    • Good point, fixed. - G
  • "Books were generally categorized by subject, and within subjects" - Remove this comma too
    • Done. - G
  • There is switching between "catalog" and "catalogue" in the article. The first one is preferred in American English.
    • Fixed. - G
  • "they simply waited out Mann's retirement and the beginning of the 33rd United States Congress, and continued the previous path." - Remove the comma, and this could probably convey the same point without "simply" for added concision!
    • Fixed. - G
Apologies for again raising a point I had touched on earlier after so many days, but the article needs combing through to conform to WP:CINS.--NØ 11:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

[edit]

I'll have a look at this too. If you would like to do a review, I've also got an article at FAC that needs reviews. These are my initial comments:

  • So there are several mentions of "Librarian of Congress" that do not conform with MOS:JOBTITLES. Instances of this I could find are:
    • "the fourth Librarian of Congress" -> "the fourth librarian of Congress".
    • "the Librarian of Congress since 1815" -> "the librarian of Congress since 1815".
    • "Senator James Pearce served as Meehan's partner and ally for much of his tenure as Librarian." -> "Senator James Pearce served as Meehan's partner and ally for much of his tenure as librarian."
    • "from the Joint Committee to the Librarian of Congress" -> "from the Joint Committee to the librarian of Congress"
    • "Rumors that the newly-elected Franklin Pierce had appointed a new Librarian of Congress troubled Meehan." -> "Rumors that the newly-elected Franklin Pierce had appointed a new librarian of Congress troubled Meehan."
    • "asking that Meehan be allowed to continue his role as librarian" -> "asking that Meehan be allowed to continue his role as Librarian"
    • "Meehan additionally served as the Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the Baptist Columbian College." -> "Meehan additionally served as the secretary of the board of trustees of the Baptist Columbian College."
    • Done. - G
  • Names with initials should have non-breaking spaces between the initials as per MOS:INITIALS. E.g. "C. H. Wharton Meehan" should be "C. H. Wharton Meehan", "E. B. Stelle" should be "E. B. Stelle", and "G. P. A. Healy" should be "G. P. A. Healy" instead (look at the wikitext).
    • Fixed. - G
  • "remained unimplemented" -> "were not implemented".
    • Fixed. - G
  • Does Librarian of Congress need to be linked twice in the lead?
    • Fixed. - G
  • There is a citation error with one of the journals.
    • Fixed. - G
  • There is an inconsistency between "U.S. Navy Agent" and "US" in the infobox.
    • Fixed. - G
  • Baptist can be linked in the lead.
    • Done. - G
  • "In January 1815, he returned to New York" -> "In January 1815, Meehan returned to New York".
    • Fixed. - G
  • "In Philadelphia, he partnered" -> "In Philadelphia, Meehan partnered"
    • Fixed. - G
  • "and the Luminary was shifted to a monthly publication." What was it before that?
    • Five times a year; added. - G
  • "The two also served as the chief editors" -> "The two served as the chief editors".
    • Fixed. - G
  • "Rev. James D. Knowles." Does rev stand for reverend? If so, can it be written out in full: "Reverend James D. Knowles".
    • Done. -G

Steelkamp (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Steelkamp: Okay! I think that's all. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington D.C." -> "Washington, D.C."
  • "using notes endorsed by John Peter Van Ness". Is this referring to banknotes? And what does "endorsed" mean exactly?
  • "the most sacred principles of the Constitution". Maybe link Constitution of the United States.
  • "1824 presidential election". Maybe link 1824 United States presidential election.
  • In what way did the election of Adams and the appointment of Clay violate the most sacred principles of the Constitution?
  • Does "Anti-Jacksonian" typically have a capital "A"? There are three instances of it with the "A" capitalised and one instance where it is not.
  • "describing him as the "abused citizen"" -> "describing him as an "abused citizen""
  • "above the political games and corruption that he attributed to the Adams administration." Who is doing the attributing? Meehan or Jackson?
  • "Green wrote to Andrew Jackson in April 23, 1829" -> "Green wrote to Andrew Jackson on April 23, 1829".
  • The Library of Congress is not linked in the body. Can a link to that page be fit in somewhere?
  • "through multiple Whig presidencies". Can Whig Party (United States) be linked?
  • "often not meeting or failing to achieve quorum." -> "often not meeting or failing to achieve a quorum."
  • "Joint Committee was generally" -> "The Joint Committee was generally".
  • "with specific funds funding the republication" -> "with specific funds for the republication".
  • "seeking plant specimens to plant in their home gardens." -> "seeking plant specimens for their home gardens."
  • I think the photo of Alexandre Vattemare should be moved down one paragraph so that it's directly next to the paragraph that he is mentioned in.
  • A non-breaking space should be added to "8:00 am" and "11:00 am" as per MOS:TIME.
  • "spring of 1853." This should be replaced with a month range or year quarter as per MOS:SEASON.
  • Link Smithsonian upon its first mention instead.
  • "still in affect" -> "still in effect".
  • "Rumors that Franklin Pierce". Should be mentioned that Pierce was the president.
  • 1860 United States presidential election is linked in the lead but not the body?

Those are all the comments I have. Overall, this is a well written and engaging article. Steelkamp (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelkamp: Thank you very much for the thorough review! I think I made all the new requested fixes. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! Support. Steelkamp (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • Repetition of "served ... served ... service" in the first three sentences of the lead; suggested "worked" for the second one.
    • Done. - G
  • "he continued to serve as Green's editor": do we know what this really means? If Green was in control after 1826, was Meehan working at Green's direction, or was he more of a managing editor, handling the administrative side of the business? As written it sounds like he was editing Green's work, which doesn't jibe with Green having taken over control.
    • An assistant, I clarified this a bit. - G
  • Four instances of "large" or "largely" in the second paragraph of the lead. Suggest "a purge of numerous incumbent officials" for the first one. "... purchasing large volumes of books ..." is confusing because "volume" also means a physical book, so perhaps "restocking it with substantial purchases of books".
    • Ooh, good recommendations. - G
  • "although reforms such as an overhaul of the library's archaic catalogue system were not implemented": this makes it sound as if this reform was acknowledged as necessary at the time, but he failed to implement it. Is that the case? Or is it just that it was a later librarian who took this on? If so I'd suggest something like "although he left the library's archaic catalogue system unchanged". I see there's a mention of an attempt by Jewett and the Smithsonian to recatalogue the library that Meehan opposed; is this what is being referred to?
    • Yeah, I was noting the Smithsonian part; but I moved this to the next part you suggested. - G
  • "rarely shifted library policy": can we get a more specific indication of what historians think he should have done but didn't?
    • added context. - G
  • "placing Meehan into editorship of the paper": simpler as "making Meehan the editor" or "leaving Meehan as editor".
    • Done. - G
  • "seeking to separate the Star from his entry into political writing": I don't know what this means.
    • Clarified. - G
  • The article says the Jackson campaign indirectly purchased the Gazette, but the next sentence hedges this by saying "the purchase was likely directed". Is it definite that the Jackson campaign made the purchase happen, or not?
    • Oops, changed some sentence ordering here. Jackson's campaign did it; its not definite that it was specifically Eaton. Now that I think about it, I'm not sure the details are needed here. - G
  • 'claiming Meehan held an "indiscriminate opposition"': suggest 'claiming Meehan's editorials [or "articles", or "opinions"] amounted to "indiscriminate opposition"'.
    • Done. - G
  • "with pro-administration presses": I think this needs to be "with the pro-administration press".
    • Done. - G
  • "Watterston sought to transform the Library of Congress into a national library, which Jacksonians feared would represent increased federal power." I don't understand this. I don't think I really know what is meant by "national library" beyond the obvious sense that it's a library established by a national law (in which sense the LoC already was a national library), and in what way can a library be seen as a dangerous element of federal power?
    • Clarified. -G
  • "describing various maintenance taken": I don't think "maintenance" can take "various" as an adjective. Suggest "describing the maintenance needed" or "describing the various maintenance tasks needed".
    • Fixed. - G
  • "Journalist Anne Royall rebuked his purchasing habits" and "Meehan rebuked criticism": the direct object of "rebuke" has to be a person; the criticism or habits have to be the indirect object.
    • Fixed. -G

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from PMC - pass

[edit]

Incoming - will try to do today or tomorrow. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting / nitpicking
Spot checks

Performed at whim

  • Both Carter cites substantively good (fixed a minor typo of May 23 to May 24 as both McDonough and Carter said 24)
  • Smith: Ref 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, all good.
    • I think ref 14 is attributed to the wrong source - pages 39-40 of Smith don't seem to support any of this, and it's attached to another Smith ref
      • Huh. I think thats a mistake - removed it.
  • McDonough: ref 32, 25, 35, 40, 41, 48 good
    • ref 31 supports the first sentence with the appropriation amounts, but I don't see where page 8 discusses Meehan being criticized for buying popular books (doesn't look like it's on p9 either)
    • Fixed. - G
  • Ostrowski 2000: ref 28, 34, 45, all good

I have no major concerns regarding sourcing. Just those few corrections and then we should be good to go. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
Overall
  • There are a several places where WP:LQ has been left behind, and the closing quote mark is placed after the full stop: you should ensure that only full sentences are dealt with this way and that sentence fragments have the full stop after the quote marks.
    • I was unable to find any violations of this; all the sentences that end with a period before the quotation are from the end of sentences. - G
      • Anything that is not a full grammatical sentence should have the full stop outside the quote marks. The following is a (possibly non-exhaustive) list of examples: "purely an act of political patronage." "said to be twice as large as any in Washington." "truly beautiful." - SchroCat (talk) 07:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops. Turns out I misunderstood that part of the MOS: i thought it meant full sentences within the context of the original work. Oops! Now it has been fixed for realsies. @SchroCat: Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However" should only be used at the start of a sentence on rare occasions, and you have if five times in such a position and twice in mid-sentence. You should trim most of the instances used here, given it's one of the words overused by Wiki editors for no beneficial purpose
    • Good advice, reduced. - G
Lead
  • "After this, he saw a brief period of service" is a bit clunky: maybe just "He briefly served" (without the 'After this')
    • Fixed. - G
  • "Returning without seeing combat": The "Returning" is a bit odd without either a 'from' or 'to'. Maybe "After the war" or similar
    • Good idea, fixed. - G
  • "Congress via the spoils system and Green's urging": This needs a tweak, as he wasn't appointed via Green's urging, which is what it says. Maybe tweaking to "Congress via the spoils system and with Green's urging"
    • Fixed. - G
  • "A large fire in December 1851 saw the destruction": Did it see the destruction, or did it cause it?
    • Good fix. - G
Early life
  • "He served as a midshipman on the USS Firefly during the War of 1812, assigned as the flagship of a small group of commerce raiders in the West Indies": This is a bit of an odd sentence. It starts with Meehan as the subject, then switches to the Firefly; the first time I read it (in a slight rush), I thought Meehan was assigned as a flagship
    • Made this two sentences instead. - G
Publishing career
  • "Six months later he would leave the paper himself": I think you need to clarify who "he" is. I think it may be better framed as "Six months later Meehan left the paper," – which is much clearer and cleaner
    • Fixed. - G
  • "Meehan was additionally hired as Green's assistant": You don't need "additionally"
    • Fixed. - G
  • "although he continued to serve as Green's editorial assistant until 1829": you mention in the preceding paragraph that in 1826 he was employed as this for three years, so you don't need to repeat it again.
    • Fixed. - G
  • The Duff Green quote feels slightly disconnected from the relevant paragraph. Maybe moving it from a quotebox to a blockquote directly under the description of Green writing a letter
    • Good idea. - G
  • "than what he had agreed for Meehan": grammatically a little off (in BrEng at least): "than that he had agreed for Meehan" or "than that agreed for Meehan" are both a bit smoother and cleaner
    • Interesting, the former sounds a bit better better to my ears; if it's a potential for confusion though, I fixed it. -G
  • "through "cajolery, threats, and flattery"." This needs in-text attribution, I think.
    • Fixed. - G
Tenure
  • "containing about 16,000 books" -> "and contained about 16,000 books"
    • Fixed. - G
  • "based off Baconian conceptualization of knowledge" -> " based off the Baconian conceptualization of knowledge"
    • Fixed. - G
  • "size, or form" Does this need to be in quotes?
    • Fixed. - G
  • "a number of": best to swap this out for 'numerous' or 'several': at some point someone will replace it and say that zero is a number. (I'm not entirely convinced on their arguments as it's clear from the context, but you may as well future proof if possible)
    • Fixed. - G
Removal
  • "Meehan calmly left his duties" -> "Meehan left his duties" – no need for editorialising
    • Fixed. - G
Legacy
  • "during his tenure": you can lose these three words – he wasn't going to change anything outside his tenure, was he?
    • Fixed. - G
  • What is a "Later historian"? Why not just "Historian", given you date his observations to the year 2000?
    • Good point, fixed. -G

That's my lot – a list of niggles, rather than anything problematic – this is a very interesting and well-written piece, and thank you for it. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by (for now) from UC

[edit]
  • The blockquoted letter from Duff Green has some odd line breaks. Are these original? If so, MOS:CONFORM may apply, if there's no good reason to believe that they change our reading of the letter.
  • There are a few cases where a quotation ends a long-ish sentence and the period/full stop is placed inside the quotes: it should generally be outside (see MOS:LQ).

UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you UndercoverClassicist: I fixed the LQ issue and removed the line breaks in the letter. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Rjjiii

[edit]

I accessed and checked one source, McDonough (1976), for WP:OR, WP:V, WP:CV, and WP:NPOV. Below I've made some notes. I think the article meets NPOV and am just noting how/why for future editors. The other issues are minor.

  • "he renamed the United States' Telegraph": Does one of the other cited sources verify this? McDonough uses the passive voice, so it's not clear who changed the name.
    • Smith doesn't, so I made this passive too to match. -G
  • Meeting NPOV: McDonough (1976) and the Wikipedia article frequently mention James Pearce and the Library of Congress. Both mention the library more than Pearce.
  • "on the grounds that he was a monolingual English speaker": I'm not seeing this on page 6?
    • Interesting. I checked all the sources I could have gotten this from, and I can't find anything. I may have misread something or gotten it mixed up with another source. Just removed that. - G
  • "... he retained his position through multiple Whig presidencies.": I see this on page 22 but not on 6.
    • Oops, fixed. - G
  • This is off-topic, but multiple overlapping and conflicting catalogs sounds like a nightmare to deal with.
  • Meeting NPOV: The article attributes value judgements to McDonough or to others cited by McDonough, like Clay's over-the-top comparison to the mythic burning of the Library of Alexandria.
  • "following the purchase of 36,000" books?
    • Oops, fixed. - G
  • Do we know why Meehan opposed Charles C Jewett's catalogging? Rivalry, stubborness, difficulty? McDonough gives the "useless" quote from Meehan but in a way that's not endorsing Meehan at his word.
    • Sadly none of the sources goes into detail on Meehan's opinion here.
      • Well, dang, - RJJ
  • No copyright violations. All quotes attributed.
  • Two phrasings are possibly WP:CLOP:

MD: "Meehan died suddenly, of apoplexy, at his residence on South B Street, Capitol Hill,"
WP: "Meehan died suddenly from apoplexy at his residence in Capitol Hill, Washington"

MD: "in 1818, began publishing the Latter Day Luminary, a religious journal issued five times a year, sponsored by a committee of the board of managers of the Baptist General Convention."
WP: "began publishing the Latter Day Luminary in 1818, a Baptist religious journal sponsored by the Baptist General Conference"

    • Fixed both of these. - G

And that's it. Hope that helps, Rjjiii (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 September 2024 [10].

Troika (1969 film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Paleface Jack (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An unsuccessful nomination later and some significant copy editing with the help of others, I am renominating this article for a second time. For those of you who don't know about this article it is on an elusive comedy art film. It was directed by artist-turned-filmmaker Fredric Hobbs, and was the first of several that he managed to complete until his retirement from the film industry.Paleface Jack (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support on sourcing, comprehensiveness and prose (having opposed the first nom). This seems to be a visually remarkable but lost film, about which very little is known. I commend PFJ for pulling it all together; a fascinating insight into the genesis of the modern horror genre. Ceoil (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Ceoil! Thouhg it is never classified as horror in any of the sources, it does offer some modern motifs to the genre that are quite fascinating.Paleface Jack (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on sourcing, comprehensiveness and prose per Ceoil. I've had a good hack at the prose and clarified one item in talk. I'm happy that it now meets the standard. John (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John! Paleface Jack (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

That doesn't matter. All article titles should be given consistently in either title or sentence case regardless of how they appear in the original. (That's why you switched from all caps in the previous comment. :-) )
Ok. (I bet I'm even older.)
  • "Dispersed throughout the segment are clips of a procession of the blue people proceeding across an otherworldly countryside, accompanied by a strange vehicle. At this point, the segment cuts from the cave ..." "Dispersed throughout the segment ... At this point ..." doesn't work: If something is dispersed throughout, there is no this point to cut from.
I revised that a little, removing the "at this point and dispersed throughout"--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You missed this one.
  • "Plot": the 'The Blue People' section seems over-long and over-detailed to me.
    It's out of proportion to the other two segments, but that's more because the film is lost, and little is known about those two. It's not too long compared to other film FAs covering a third of the film. I would however like to see it cited, given nobody outside of those directly involved have seen it enough to make notes. Maybe it could be more suscintly worded, though I think readers will want to know. Ceoil (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Thrower's plot synopsis, there are more details with that section than any other portion of the plot. I agree with this assessment and will tone it down a little.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil I chose to use a footnote rather than an outright citation to save a little confusion of the readers wondering why there is a citation for a plot synopsis (not a lot of articles on fioms have one). It adds a little more reasoning to a citation for any editor coming in cause I have had that trouble before.--Paleface Jack (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "from whose extended arm hangs". Just the one arm?
The description given by Thrower reads "A female figure reclines, extending her arm from which hangs the faces and forms of flayed humanity. A bird (an owl?) sits triumphantly astride her extended limb, with various grisly horrors dangling below." I had to simplify that because it becomes too confusing and symbolic for the average reader.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a bachelors degree in arts". Do you mean a bachelor of arts degree?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "Trojan Horse" is the name of a sculpture or artwork it should be in italics.
  • "it incorporates several different narratives and genres for each segment." Optional: "for" → 'within'.
    Agree....done. Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hobbs plays a fictionalized version of himself as the chef and fantom characters." A fantom character is not elsewhere mentioned.
I looked over that synopsis but it does not mention the character of the Fantom. Yet it credits Hobbs as playing the character. It is very odd.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is in much better shape than for its first nomination, well done for sticking with it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Could not have done it without assistance and advise.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Ceoil you have an excellent person on board for that. Nearly there. A couple of comebacks from me above and awaiting further comment or action on the "The Blue People" section. Thinking on't, the "The" of "The Blue People" should only be there if it is a formal title, not if it is being used as part of a descriptor. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The only part I would say that should include "the" is the descriptor of the segment, which includes this in my source.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
  • "homunculus (an artificial human)": That's not quite what a homunculus is – the key part of them is that they are small
Considering the plot synopsis from my source just calls it a homonculus with descriptions that it is make of cloth, I removed the parentheses portion alltogether.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hobbs exits the frame and the film ends": I think there should be a comma after 'frame' between the clauses
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The cast mainly drew from unknown actors": I'm not sure the cast drew anything: "The cast was mainly drawn from unknown actors" works much better
Agreed and done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Morgan Upton, later known for his roles as Wally Henderson in The Candidate (1972)[26] and Mr. Gilfond in Peggy Sue Got Married (1986)": do we need the role names? Seems a bit too tangential and the details clutters the sentence a bit
Agreed and done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these help. - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Alavense

[edit]
  • The use of the Oxford comma should be consistent throughout the text. You have It stars Hobbs, Richard Faun, Morgan Upton, Nate Thurmond, Gloria Rossi, and but Hobbs named them in an interview "The Chef", "Alma Mater" and "The Blue People"
Ah, missed that. THanks for pointing that out. It is fixed now.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a chef wearing ritualistic face paint, begins making - No need for that comma.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A tall insectoid named Rax (Morgan Upton), exits - No need for that comma either.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rax, alongside the Attenuated Man, then join a procession of blue people who embrace him as their "savior" - Is there a typo there and should it be "joins"? Or maybe I misunderstood the whole sentence.
"then joins" sounds incorrect and ebbs the flow, at least for me. Though I am willing to change it if you feel it is better.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The way it is, there's no subject-verb agreement. I think you could say something along the lines of Rax and the Attenuated Man then join a procession of blue people who embrace the former as their "savior". Would that work for you? Alavense (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • from whose extended arm hangs many faces and shapes
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • on a 25-minute - I think it would be better if there were consistency with the note, so either spelled out or in figures, but the same for the three instances.
Agreed and fixed it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • later known for his roles in The Candidate (1972), and Peggy Sue Got Married (1986) - No need for that comma.
Done.
  • Why is the reference after Hobbs drilled the student activists portraying the characters in the marching sequence to march in step laid out that way? Can't the page just be identified using the {{sfn}} template? It's the only instance of this I've spotted throughout the article.
It was left over when I was using that format. I removed it now.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Los Angeles Times should be "the Los Angeles Times".
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The resulting Roseland: A Fable (1970), is - No need for that comma.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really understand the "Legacy" section, given that it is nothing to do with the film.
The legacy of the film was its success, pushing Hobbs forwards to work on several more films. As such, that is why it is included.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that, but then it might be better to mention it. Why not say that the film was a success and that it allowed for more projects in a sentence or two at the beginnig of the section? The way it is now, I think it is a bit disconnected from the rest of the article. Alavense (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some of the excessive details of that to basic info (Birth and death of his film career). Paleface Jack (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the article is about Troika, not about Hobbs's career and should hence focus on the film. Anyway: In 1973, Hobbs wrote and directed his last two films. - That full stop should be a colon. Alavense (talk) 06:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Paleface Jack (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Paleface Jack. Cheers, Alavense (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still unsure about that "Legacy" section, but I guess there's no problem with that, as long as no other user points it out. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I combined that into a sub section of the reception section. Having 2-3 sentences is not enough for a section in of itself. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review - pass

[edit]
I wonder if File:Troika, 1969 film, press release.png's section on NFCC#8 should be capitalized. Regarding File:Trojan Horse, Troika, 1969, press release.png and File:Troika, 1969 film, WWCC Film Festival poster.jpg, in my experience you struggle to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 if your non-free image only illustrates part of the article topic. Not to mention, the latter's rationale is faulty in several points. I worry about File:SFAI.jpg, as it has no EXIF and TinEye says it was used once on http://www.artltdmag.com/index.php?archive&page=show&subaction=1241825259&ucat=18 before it was uploaded to Wikipedia.

#39 and #40 are mistyped. What makes MatchboxCine a reliable source? Same for " Reference Guide to Fantastic Films: Science Fiction, Fantasy, & Horror". I don't think news articles need an ISSN.

The Issn is removed. Refs 39 and 40 are fixed now. I tried looking up some of what you are saying about the image of the University appearing in the site you suggested but have found nothing, not sure what "TinEye" is but I am going to replace it with a better one. As for the press release image, it summarizes the film as promotional material. While the festival poster does have some faults, which I will work on, it is mostly a visual reference of renewed exposure of the film. I not sure how I can use that as a fair rationale. For the Matchbox source, while they are an independent film exhibitor, their screenings are covered frequently in reliable magazines and sources such as Glasgow Times, BFI, Dread Central, etc. For The Reference Guide, I am not sure what you are getting at with that.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just an Update, I chose to bite the bullet and remove the film festival poster.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not particularly clear on what makes " Reference Guide to Fantastic Films: Science Fiction, Fantasy, & Horror" a reliable source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will look into it. Some of these literary sources I find on Google Books are self-published, though this one seemed legit enough. I will see if there is any background on the citation to see if it is as high quality as it needs to be.Paleface Jack (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So looking at the author Walt Lee, I can see he was a film writer, and historian. In his Reference Guide to Fantastic Films, much of that information is compiled by film historian and critic Bill Warren. My only hesitation with the source is that it is admittedly self-published. Although my mixed feelings about the source are on the fence as the authors and people behind the source are well-known academics. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spot-check on this version:
  • 1 OK
  • 2 Doesn't show up on Google Books.
Hm. I just tested it and it does for me.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books pages often show up only to people in particular regions. That's a common hazard when using it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will archive it and see if that will show up for you. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 Can I have a copy of this page?
how so?--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo means could you email them a copy. (Send them a proforma email, they will reply similarly, and you can then send them copies of the pages in question.) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I find the part about Hobbs' own service here, or the one about "Nightmare USA: The Untold Story of the Exploitation Independents". I confess that I find this source hard to read. I notice that at some point you are using the {{rp}} template but otherwise aren't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have since removed the rp template and will send you a better copy of your requested pages. Sorry for their lack of legibility. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Nightmare USA: The Untold Story of the Exploitation Independents" is still not mentioned? The service part is now there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it need to be mentioned again? The part about Hobbs serving is on page 358. The text mentioning it states "Hobbs himself served in the Air Force" and Hobbs' interview with Thrower, he stated "it's an anti-war statement". Paleface Jack (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the mention of Hobbs' service and simplified the sentence. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7 I am not sure what this supports.
The reference supports Hobbs' work up until the film's production.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9 I am not sure what this supports.
Same as reference #7.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 14 Link's broken.
Fixed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 19 OK
  • 21 Don't see the Rax-in-ghost-town thing,
Corrected to just have the citation to note the sculpture appears in the film.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 25 I am not sure that "crucified" here is sufficient to conclude that the writer is calling Nate Thurmond's character "Christ-like", and the #28 #25 combined reference doesn't seem to be supported by either.
The reference uses the wording "Christ-like".--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 28 Not sure what this supports.
The Cast section lists it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 30 Don't see "The "Alma Mater" sequence was shot at the San Francisco Art Institute" in here. Likewise, the #21 #30 combined reference doesn't seem to be supported by either.
The reference lists Hillsburough. I think I either messed up or copy edits made and error. I fixed it. The 21 and 30 citations do support that props and items from the film were exhibited.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 31 OK
  • 33 That snippet is missing a lot of information.
I fail to see what information is "Missing" as its all in the info. Please clarify--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dandelion and double feature aren't mentioned and the JSTOR is broken. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is weird. The Jstor number is correct: https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.28039862 Paleface Jack (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, switched things so they fit the source. Paleface Jack (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is Dandelion mentioned in the JSTOR? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dandelion was mentioned in the Los Angeles Free Press source. The source itself is an advertisement of the film. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 36 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 37 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 38 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 40 OK for part of this.
Which portion is not ok?--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing this source supports is that the film has a copy at Berkeley. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. The Thrower and recent Glasgow Times might be better for that particular blurb then. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over everything. There seems to be no other place this film is stored at. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note to the coordinaters, keep this thread review open for a week or two while Jo-Jo reviews the requested sources.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now only 13 and 36-38 are pending. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated citations 36-38. I unfortunately had to remove citation 13 as i was unable to find a copy of the source anywhere. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I belatedly remembered that I didn't get #2. Neither 7 nor 8 nor 9 say "avant-garde" as far as I can see. I notice that the plot summaries aren't cited, but I figure that the film itself works well enough as a source for these things - save for "Abandoning the conventional narrative structure, Troika consists of an introductory story and three parts, each told in differing narrative styles" which needs independent sourcing. That's all what's left from what I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could have sworn I emailed you a screenshot of #2. I will resend it. As for 7-9, I changed the wording to fit with the source's description, removing avante-garde completely. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, received it. That seems like it wraps up the review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your time and patience, my friend. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 11 September 2024 [11].

John Tonkin

[edit]
Nominator(s): Steelkamp (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Australian politician John Tonkin. This is my first featured article candidate for a politician and, if successful, would by my longest featured article yet. Tonkin was the longest serving member of the Parliament of Western Australia, at 44 years, and was the premier of Western Australia for three years. My main sources are the Australian Dictionary of Biography's entry on Tonkin and a book by Peter Kennedy, supplemented with newspapers from Trove and the Australian Political Chronicle in the Australian Journal of Politics and History. Many thanks to GMH Melbourne for reviewing this article at GAN. I look forward to receiving any comments. Steelkamp (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a full review later, but I'd recommend merging the sections "Early political career", down to ""Premier (1971–1974)" into one section titled "Political career". 750h+ 00:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not have such a large portion of the article under one section and I think the current sectioning works. Steelkamp (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I am not sure, so I will remove that image. Steelkamp (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria is the candidate a pass on images with the above change? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "Tonkin was a minister in the John Willcock, Frank Wise and Bert Hawke governments". I suggest "previously a minister" as you have just mentioned his later premiership.
    • Done.
  • "After working several jobs". "Working...jobs" sounds wrong to me, but maybe it is AusEng?
    • I've reworded this.
  • "Tonkin became interested in politics at a young age as his father was a unionist and a supporter of the Australian Labor Party." I would not say "as". Children of politicians are not necessarily interested in politics. Maybe "His father was a unionist and a supporter of the Australian Labor Party and Tonkin became interested in politics at a young age."
    • Done.
  • "After leaving school age of 15". "After leaving school at 15"?
    • Done.
  • "party figure Joe Chamberlain". "Party figure" is too colloquial and you do not say how it helped him.
    • I will have to take some more time on this one. I'm not entirely sure what Chamberlain's exact position at the Labor Party was at the time. I'm going to take a look at Chamberlain's autobiography to see what I can find there. It's possible that Chamberlain wasn't even in an important role in the Labor Party at the time. In that case, I will just remove any mention of Chamberlain here.
    • Update: I've decided to remove the part mentioning Chamberlain. It seems he wasn't in a position of authority in the Labor Party at the time.
  • "Douglas credit committee" You should explain this in the same sentence. For example, "Douglas credit committee to assess the proposal".
    • Done. I've moved the explanation to the same sentence.
  • I think you need some clarity on this. It sounds like a local proposal from your wording. If I understand correctly, it was a Labor party state committee which examined the theory of a British economist about the solution to the Great Depression and its application by the Federal Australian government. I am not sure it is worth mentioning and I do not think you can say that the committee "ruled" on it.
    • I've made some changes to this section. I think its relevant to mention because it shows Tonkin becoming more involved with internal party affairs and is a result of him gaining a profile from his previous attempts to enter parliament.
  • "became standout members of the backbench" "standout" is POV. Maybe "leading".
    • Done.
  • "Wise was elected to the ministry". What does "elected" mean here"? Were ministers elected by Labor assembly members? You say below that Tonkin was appointed a minister.
    • I have changed it to say that the Labor caucus elected them.
  • "Tonkin spent much of that time on leave without pay". Why? What did he do? Did he serve in action? Was he discharged because he was coming up to 40 years old?
    • I'm not sure. The sources don't say why.
  • "appointed by cabinet to travel to the eastern states to lobby Prime Minister John Curtin". You need to explain that Curtin was federal Prime Minister and I do not think you need to mention eastern states.
    • I reply re federal prime minister in the comment below. I mention eastern states because sources disagree as to whether they visited Melbourne or Canberra (possibly both).
  • You refer to state premier and federal Prime Minister. Are there different titles at different levels in Australia? If so, I think you need to explain as premier and prime minister are synonyms in British usage.
    • I've changed it so that "prime minister of Australia" and "premier of Western Australia" are written out in full the first time those terms are mentioned in the body. I hope that is enough distinction between the two positions. In Australia, prime minister is exclusively used to refer to the head of the federal government and premier is exclusively used to refer to the head of a state government. I've hesitant to use terms such as "federal prime minister" because that is not a term that is used often (if at all) in Australia, and it is not a source of confusion for Australians or those familiar with Australian politics.
  • "Premier John Willcock appointed Tonkin as the minister for education, fulfilling a long-held dream of Tonkin's,[17] and minister for social services, a newly-created position, in the Willcock ministry." This is confusing. Were the appointments simultaneous or successive, and you do not need to say "in the Willcock ministry" as you have said that Willcock appointed him.
    • The appointments were simultaneous, which I think is clear because the sentence begins with "On 9 December 1943", which was the date he was appointed to the ministry.
  • "Tonkin saw his greatest achievements in education being the merging of one-teacher schools into larger schools, commonplace in rural areas. I think it should be "as being". Also, what was commonplace, one-teacher or larger? This is ambiguous.
    • Fixed. I've rearranged the sentence to make this clearer.
  • "Nevertheless, the commission made no findings against Tonkin." What was he charged with? This is not clear.
    • I've decided to completely remove that section. Only the Australian Dictionary of Biography source mentions that, and the royal commission report does not mention Tonkin at all.
  • "state aid for private schools". You do not need to repeat the expression three times in a short paragraph.
    • I've removed the second use of this phrase.
  • "it still retained government". This sounds odd to me. I would say "it still retained power".
    • Done.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Legislative Council" You should explain that this is the upper house.
    • Done, and explained the lower house as well earlier.
  • "The twelve-man ministry was chosen by the Labor caucus and Tonkin had the responsibility of allocating the specific ministerial positions." You should explain this above when you say that Tonkin lost in the caucus election.
    • I've added it to when he is first elected to the ministry as that's where I think it fits best.
  • "The next election was held in December 1943; parliament's term had been extended by one year as a one-off measure due to the war.[14] Labor won for the fourth time in a row, and in the days following, the Labor caucus elected Tonkin to the ministry.[18] Premier John Willcock appointed Tonkin as the minister for education" For clarity, I suggest something like "The next election was held in December 1943. Parliament's term had been extended by one year as a one-off measure due to the war[14] and Labor won for the fourth time in a row. The ministry was chosen by the Labor caucus and the premier allocated their roles. Tonkin was elected and[18] Premier John Willcock appointed him as minister for education". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and so over the course of the Tonkin government, 21 bills were voted down by the Legislative Council". I would leave out "so" as implying that specifically 21 were lost.
    • Done.
  • "Labor had lost its majority and Coalition supporters called for a snap election, believing that the Coalition would win." You should clarify here that the loss was only pending the byelection.
    • Done.
  • "Court was unusually exuberant, even going doorknocking in Belmont". "exuberant" is an odd word here.
    • I've changed that word, although I would have been fine with exuberant.
  • "much to the surprise of Labor MP Don Taylor." How is this relevant to Tonkin?
    • I've removed that part, as its already covered by the word "unusually" in that sentence.
  • "against Liberal candidate Fred Chaney, albeit with a reduction in the seat's margin by around 10 per cent". The article on the byelection says that the Liberals did not stand in the previous election. "a reduction in the seat's margin" is meaningless.
    • Turns out the the source is comparing the by-election with the 1968 result, which I have clarified in the article.
  • "the seat's margin" is meaningless. Maybe "winning the by-election against Liberal candidate Fred Chaney, who was only 12% behind even though the Liberals had not stood in the 1971 state election". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've decided to just get rid of that part. The by-election wasn't very close. The noteworthy part was the decline in Labor support, but as the 1971 election was not contested by the Liberals, making comparisons gets murky. I don't have a map of the electoral districts in 1968 and 1971, so its possible that changes in support for Labor and Liberal could be down to changes in boundaries. Steelkamp (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "however, bureaucrats at the mines department were opposed". "bureaucrats" is POV. Maybe "officials".
    • Done.
  • "boycotted visits to Western Australia by the South Africa national cricket team and South Africa national rugby union team amidst apartheid". "amidst" is odd and unclear. Did he boycott specifically because black people were excluded from representing South Africa or as a general gesture against apartheid?
    • I've added an additional source and reworded this section a bit.
  • "The machine was discarded by the Court government due to being ineffective." Presumably the succeeding Court government.
    • Done.
  • "The appointment angered the party caucus though due to the Tonkin government's one-seat majority and due to Graham being one of the government's better ministers." This is clumsy. Maybe "The appointment angered the party caucus in view of the Tonkin government's one-seat majority and because Graham was considered one of the government's better ministers."
    • Done.
  • "Opposition Leader Charles Court". Here and in othee places I do not think "Opposition Leader" should be capitalised.
    • I would have thought it should be capitalised in those situations because it's directly followed by a persons name as per MOS:JOBTITLES.
  • "Arthur Tonkin. You should clarify whether he was related to John Tonkin, and if so, how.
    • They are not related, which I have clarified.
  • "He delayed further pressure. Maybe "He resisted further pressure".
    • Done.
  • "By that point though, it was too close to the next election for it to be a good idea to change leaders." This should not be stated as a fact but as the opinion of specified people.
    • Done.
  • Presumably, elections were held every three years. This should be spelled out.
    • Done.
  • "a swing against Labor of 0.81 per cent." This is a minimal swing. The article on the election says it was 2.5%.
    • I have clarified that this is referring to the primary vote swing and not the two-party-preferred swing.
  • "Many people laid the blame". This is too vague. What people?
  • "chose not to recontest his seat" What does recontext mean here. He chose not to contest it.
    • I've changed it to "contest", which is simpler and has the same meaning.
  • "This came under controversy" This is clumsy. I think you should say that it was opposed.
    • Done.
  • There does not seem to be any logic which sources you put in the bibliography and which only in the references. I would put them all in the bibliography for the convenience of readers, but this is a personal opinion. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments Dudley Miles. I have responded to everything now. Steelkamp (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I should be able to post comments tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've copyedited as I read through; please revert anything I screwed up.

  • "Tonkin was previously a minister in": suggest "Tonkin had been a minister in"
    • Done.
  • "When Labor won the 1953 state election, he reassumed his role as a minister, most notably serving as the minister for works and minister for water." From a glance at the body he held these roles for the entirety of the 1953 government, so it would seem simpler to say "When Labor won the 1953 state election, Tonkin became the minister for works and minister for water".
    • Well he was also the minister for education for a short while, so I've changed to to "he reassumed his role as a minister, including as the minister for works and minister for water."
  • "By-elections occurred in 1971 and 1973, each resulting in the near defeat of Labor." Suggest "By-elections occurred in 1971 and 1973, each of which was narrowly won by Labor".
    • Done.
  • "He contested the state electoral district of Sussex in 1927 and Murray-Wellington in 1930". Can it be made clear whether this election was for the upper or lower state house?
    • Done.
  • How about making that sentence "He unsuccessfully contested the ..." and then the next sentence could be shortened to "These campaigns helped him gain a profile within the Labor Party"?
    • Done.
  • "appointed Tonkin to the Douglas credit committee to assess C. H. Douglas's social credit theory that ...": suggest just "... to a committee to assess ..."; the name of the committee doesn't tell the reader anything they don't get from the rest of the sentence.
    • Done.
  • I don't think any change to the article is needed, but I'm curious -- were the Australian states issuing money independently of each other, in which case Douglas's theory could have led to a change in Western Australian banking and currency, or was this a more theoretical exercise to determine if the WA state wanted to support Douglas's ideas at the federal level?
    • The latter. Each Labor Party state branch could make its own policy, which could be used to influence the federal party's policy.
  • "The Labor caucus elected Wise to the ministry": does this just mean Wise became a minister? I think in the UK one would say "he joined the cabinet"; "the ministry" isn't a phrase one would use to mean ministerial positions in general.
    • It just means Wise became a minister. The Wikipedia article Ministry (collective executive) seems to be using the word in this way. Each premier's ministry has an article, such as Willcock ministry or Hawke ministry (Western Australia). Also, the source seems to be using ministry in this way. In Western Australia, the ministry and the cabinet are one and the same, but at the federal level and in some states, the cabinet consists of only the more senior ministers.
  • "which led him to put greater concentration on his seat". A bit vague -- did he spend more time in his district, have more meetings with constituents, change his focus to work on issues important to his constituency?
    • The source is a bit vague. All it says is "Concentrating on his electorate after nearly losing his seat in the 1936 poll, ..."
      It appears that source is citing this, which I don't have access to. If you can't get hold of that how about "led him to pay more attention to the needs of his constituency"? Also vague, but perhaps a bit closer to the meaning of the ADB source. I know the oral history source can't be used for much as it's primary, in a sense, but where it's been cited by an RS I think referring to it would be fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That source is already cited for three direct quotes, and you should be able to access a pdf version here. I could only find the part about the "bull at a gate" (pdf page 140) but not the part about concentrating on his constituents. It's probably in there somewhere, but not able to be found using "control f". Either way, I'm hesitant to use that source for anything other than direct quotes. I've managed to expand the period after 1936 using the ADB source by writing "He improved his skills in parliament and adjusted his approach to be less aggressive and more measured." Steelkamp (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)\[reply]
      Sorry, should have recognized that you were already using that source. That works for me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but Tonkin spent much of that time without pay": it's not clear what period this refers to -- May to December 1941? December 41 to January 42? If the former, why "but"? Being called up for deployment in December doesn't imply he should have been paid prior to that date.
    • This is referring to December 1941 to January 1942, which I reckon is clear because the leave without pay part is directly after the part that says the battalion was mobilised.
  • "were appointed by cabinet to travel": should this be "appointed by the cabinet to travel", or is the usual usage in Australian English?
    • This is usual in AusEng. See the Cabinet Handbook, which says "by Cabinet" 15 times.
  • "The next election was held in December 1943 ...": suggesting making it clear we are still talking about WA state elections -- the last seat we mentioned was Curtin's in the federal government.
    • Done.
  • "parliament's term had been extended by one year as a one-off measure due to the war": I don't think we need "as a one-off measure".
    • Done.
  • "...the Labor caucus elected Tonkin to the ministry. Premier John Willcock appointed Tonkin as the minister for education ...". I see you're using "to the ministry" again, so it seems this may be standard usage in AusEng. This makes it sound as if the caucus gets to pick who is in the cabinet, and then the Premier assigns them a portfolio. Is that right? So Willcock couldn't give a portfolio to someone the caucus had not elected, and the caucus had no say in the portfolios of those they elected? If so maybe a footnote explaining this process would be helpful, and if not then I don't understand what's going on here. Added later: I see from the section on 1971-74 that this is indeed how it works, so I would suggest moving the explanation up or (I think the better option) putting the explanation in a footnote at the first point it's relevant.
    • I think you wrote that before I made some changes in response to Dudley's review above. You are correct that the caucus elects the ministry and the premier allocates the portfolios. I've added that this is just a Labor Party rule.
  • "made himself the minister or works and the minister for water supplies". The latter is just given as "minister for water" in the lead. I see from the linked article that the title of the post has varied over the years. I think if you're going to use lower case, I'd stick with one usage throughout -- "minister for water" is probably simplest. If you want to use "Minister for Water Supplies" I would capitalize it as it's the title in use at the time. Either way I think the lead and the body should have consistent usage.
    • The "minister for water" in the lead was a mistake, I meant minister for water. It remains uncapitalised though, due to MOS:JOBTITLES, particularly the part that says "When writing "minister of foreign affairs" or "minister of national defence", the portfolio should be lower-cased as it is not a proper noun on its own (i.e. write minister of foreign affairs or, as a proper noun, Minister of Foreign Affairs; do not write minister of Foreign Affairs".
  • Did Tonkin's 1955 assumption of the role of deputy premier mean he lost his portfolios, or was it just an additional responsibility? And had he been the deputy during the earlier period when it was an unofficial role?
    • He kept his portfolios after becoming deputy premier. He was deputy leader of the Labor Party before that, which means he was unofficially the deputy premier, which is why he was acting premier a few times. I'll see if I can find some sources that show this.
    • Update: I've changed this section a bit with this diff to show that he was in the position unofficially since 1953.
  • Why was Tonkin acting premier in July 1953?
    • Turns out Hawke was attending the Coronation of Elizabeth II over a three-month trip. I wouldn't otherwise write the reason in the article, but since Tonkin's time as acting premier was so long, I decided to add it.
  • Do the sources give any more detail about the "Golden West" name for the bridge? Was Tonkin really choosing to name the bridge after the drink or was it just that "Golden West" was a term in use for the area and the drink was just a product that took advantage of it?
    • It seems the name was chosen because of Gold mining in Western Australia and "golden grain". It was then criticised for being unoriginal and too similar to the soft drink name, regardless of the soft drink company inventing the name or not. Perhaps an unfair criticism, but that's what occurred according to the sources.
  • "the Coalition's alleged secrecy within government" -- this is opaque to someone like me who knows nothing about WA politics. Can it be unpacked a little?
  • "At age 69 years, he is the oldest premier at the time of swearing to date": suggest "As of 2021, Tonkin, who was 69 when he was sworn in, is the oldest person to have become premier of Western Australia". Or is he the oldest for any of the Australian states and territories?
    • Done. He is only the oldest in Western Australia.
  • "Tonkin wanted to make it easier for Hanwright to develop McCamey's Monster": given that this name is somewhat hidden in the linked article, and the name doesn't make clear that this is a mine, suggest "to develop McCamey's Monster, an iron ore mine [or deposit, or discovery, if it was not yet a mine at this point] in the Pilbara region of the state".
    • Done.
  • "has been compared to the later case "Mineralogy v Western Australia": in what way?
    • I've expanded upon this.
  • "free return airfares for people working north of the 26th parallel". What was special about that latitude? And presumably this only applied to public servants? And does this mean that if the government required you to fly somewhere south of that latitude you had to pay for your own travel?
    • The source does not expand upon this. This just applies to public servants, as does the rest of the things mentioned in that sentence. I couldn't find any information online about this, but I did find the currently active Pensioner annual free trip scheme, which is for pensioners living north of the 26th parallel, giving them one return journey by air or coach per year to Perth or elsewhere in the South West Land Division. I would presume the free airfares that Tonkin implemented was similar to that, and would be used to make it more attractive to work north of the 26th parallel, where it's isolated and hard to attract people to work there. As for why they chose the 26th parallel, I would guess its just an arbitrary limit which was easy to legislate, rather than using local government boundaries which would be liable to change.
  • "block supply" -- you link this, but it's a term I'm not familiar with. If it's the standard term in Australia that's fine, but it would be good if it could be rephrased as something more definitional. Maybe something like "to refuse to pass funding legislation" or "budgetary approvals"?
  • The paragraph about the Balcatta by-election has no dates till we get to the September/October comment at the end. Maybe give the date for the YLO's motion of no confidence? And for the conversation between Bryce and Tonkin? And does "By that point" mean "at the time Tonkin suggested he should reveal the unpopular budget" or "September/October 1973"?
    • I've added a date for the by-election when its first announced in the previous paragraph. The source does say that the YLO's motion was "a few days after Burke's election", but I'm hesitant to include that, as I don't want to overdate everything as I think that doesn't make for the best writing. All that matters is that the threats from within his own party came soon after the by-election.
  • "This was opposed when the owners applied in December 2003 to have the house demolished". What was opposed? The decision not to add the house to the register? If so, who by? When East Fremantle rejected the application from the owners did they say it was because it's should have been added to the register?
    • I've reworded this section by changing it to "Stephens' decision became controversial..." I think the following sentences explain the main groups opposing the decision: the Town of East Fremantle, local heritage activists, and the National Trust of Western Australia.

That's everything from a read-through. Nothing major; just a list of nitpicks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Mike Christie, I've responded to all your comments. Steelkamp (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of follow-up comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justification. I have done some minor copyediting.

  • "Tonkin was first a minister from 1943 to 1947." slightly awkward to my eyes, perhaps "first served as minister"?
    • Done.
  • ", among other things." bit of an awkward trailing-off, perhaps just cut?
    • Done.
  • "the economic crisis was caused by a "shortage of purchasing power" and that the government should "take over the control and issue of all money" from the banking system" as the Great Depression has not previously been referred to, this comes slightly out of nowhere and is a bit long-winded to boot. Would suggest trimming to "that the government could help the ongoing economic crisis by "tak[ing] over the control and issue of all money" from the banking system" or similar.
    • Done.
  • I think the 43–71 period would flow better if the sections became subsections of one level-2 heading
    • Done.
  • "On 12 June 1971, Tonkin married Winifred Joan West, a divorcee, at Wesley Church." do we know anything about her—life dates at least would be useful.
    • I've added some information about her.
  • "The financial state of the Government of Western Australia was poor throughout Tonkin's premiership. Tonkin managed to secure A$5.6 million (equivalent to A$68.71 million in 2022) in federal funding at the premiers' conference in April 1971 which went some way towards getting the deficit to manageable levels." do we know precise numbers for the deficit/manageable levels?
    • No, I have not found the precise numbers during my research.
  • "with Tonkin going on a tour of Hanwright's mines" it's not immediately clear that Hanwright was the company of Hancock and Wright.
    • Added that it was their company.
  • Also, the dispute seems to be with the company, rather then the two men specifically, so maybe adjust the section heading?
    • Done.
  • "The Legislative Council blocked legislation that provided private sector employees with four weeks of paid annual leave, ten days of paid sick leave per year, and long service leave after ten years" any idea why it was these specifically?
    • Not sure why those in particular, other than that the Legislative Council often blocked progressive legislation unless the Coalition could get some concessions in return.
  • "Tonkin had for a long time had a rivalry" excessive "had"s
    • Reworded.
  • "Graham had long-held ambitions to take over as leader from Tonkin. According to Mal Bryce, Tonkin was determined to stay as leader at least until Graham retired." might be worth combining these sentences.
    • Done.
  • "the Legislative Council declined to go along with Court's plan" any idea why? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure why. I think it was just a difference in opinion by different members of the party that led to the plan not proceeding.

Thanks for the review AirshipJungleman29. I've replied to all of your comments. Steelkamp (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Do you have any more comments? Steelkamp (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  1. 6 "Parliament of Western Australia. " is the publisher, not the title, so it shouldn't be in italics. #14 seems to have the same problem. The description of The Mirror (Western Australia) makes me wonder if it's actually a "high-quality reliable source". #114, #126 and #128 should say whose media statements these are. What makes streetsofeastfreo.com a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, a first timer's source to text integrity spot check and a plagiarism check are going to be needed for this. Are they something you could handle? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed Parliament of Western Australia to publisher.
  • I've replaced The Mirror citation with a citation to The West Australian.
  • I've changed the media statements to use cite press release and added authors.
  • The homepage of streetsofeastfreo.com says that it is a project by the Museum of Perth in partnership with the Town of East Fremantle.
Steelkamp (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck on this version:

  • 2 OK for the infobox, not sure what it supports in the other cite.
    • That source supports the quotes from Francis Burt.
  • 20 Source's broken.
  • 24 OK
  • 25 OK
  • 30 OK
  • 33 Not on the page given.
  • 35 OK
  • 47 Where does either source say "July"?
    • FN 46 (published 4 May) supports Hawke leaving in May and FN 47 (published 29 July) supports Hawke arriving back in July and Tonkin being acting premier during Hawke's absence.
  • 48 Doesn't say "freeway"
    • I've replaced it with "controlled-access highway", which is the term the source uses.
  • 59 OK but I think the other source is being paraphrased too closely.
    • Reworded.
  • 60 Same as with #59, OK but the other source is being paraphrased too closely.
    • Reworded.
  • 63 Hmm, the other source says that Tonkin then agreed with Court against Wright, should that be said in the article?
    • That is covered later in the article in the "Dispute with Lang Hancock and Peter Wright" section.
  • 64 Where does it say by election?
    • I've added a difference page to support this. I hope that the first paragraph on page 50 is ok, although it is talking about the Ascot by-election specifically, it applies in general.
  • 85 OK
  • 92 Can't find this.
    • Oliver 2003 says "Another outcome of Graham’s retirement was that Alexander Donald ‘Don’ Taylor, the Member for Cockburn, who held the portfolio of Labour Relations, was elected to the Deputy Premier’s position". Kennedy 2014 says "The result sent a shiver through the Labor caucus, which by then had elected Don Taylor as Tonkin's new deputy."
  • 101 Can't see the Kennedy page.
  • 106 Can't access this source.
  • 107 OK
  • 116 Can't access this source.
    • I can send a photo if you email me.
  • 120 OK

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've replied to your email. Let me know if you haven't received it. Steelkamp (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 11 September 2024 [12].

Lise Meitner

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC) and Gah4 (talk)[reply]

This article is about Lise Meitner, the Austrian physicist who was the co-discover of the element protactinium and nuclear fission. She spent much of her scientific career in Berlin, Germany, where she was a physics professor and a department head at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute. She fled to Sweden after Austria was absorbed into Germany in 1938. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text

Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I have switched the lead image to a new one I found in the Library of Congress. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like queries on File:Lise_Meitner12.jpg, File:Otto_Hahn_und_Lise_Meitner.jpg, File:Berliner_Physiker_u_Chemiker_1920.jpg, File:Lise_Meitner_standing_at_meeting_with_Arthur_H._Compton_and_Katherine_Cornell.jpg are still pending, as well as the layout issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverine

[edit]

I'll drop some comments pretty soon. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 14:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- My comments are so minor that you already have my support. Well done! When all is done, I'd appreciate a review of the narwhal FAC. Thanks, Wolverine XI (talk to me) 15:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review by Generalissima

[edit]
  • You bold Elise Meitner in the Early years section, but you already mention this name in the lede - it should probably just be bolded there.
    Yes. Emboldened as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm slightly unclear what "advanced education" means in this context. Merely attending college, or becoming academics in their own right?
    Tertiary education. Suggestions welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Women were not allowed to attend public institutions of higher education in Vienna until 1897, and she completed her final year of school in 1892 I think this would make more sense with the clauses reversed, and moved after the following sentence; this way, it'd flow naturally into the "only career available" part.
    Good idea. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some context on what either her masters or doctoral theses were about could be interesting.
    The title translations are mine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Circumspect" seems like a bit of an obscure word here. Also "egalitarian" is a bit confusing - I know we're talking about how Hahn drank a lot of Respect Women Juice, but it's phrased confusingly in this portion.
    Germany was very formal society at the time. Oppenheimer, for example, once made the mistake of addressing Arnold Sommerfeld as "Professor" instead of "Geheimrat". Removed. I need to strike the right note here. For a man of his time, Hahn was progressive in his attitudes towards women. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later that year, perhaps fearing that Meitner was in financial difficulties and might return to Vienna, since her father had died in 1910, Planck appointed her his assistant at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in the Friedrich Wilhelm University I think it might be best to remove the "since her father had died" clause. Maybe split it up; "Meitner may have entered financial difficulties after the death of her father in 1910. Possibly due to this, Planck appointed her..."
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You reference prices in marks a lot, but a modern reader has no context. Is there a way we can have conversions? There's likely a template for the mark. (Tho these might be best as efns after each quote rather than as in-line text)
    I don't know how to do this. I will ask and see in anyone else does. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Betty Logan showed me how, so added currency conversions to euros. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fortuitous" is somewhat vague, since it can either mean "by chance" or "fortunately". Just using fortunately would be a lot clearer in this context.

That's all for now. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: These changes look great! Happy to Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa

[edit]

This looks interesting. I'll try to find the time to review it in the next few days. As an initial comment, "what was now Nazi Germany" in the WP:LEAD would make more sense to me as "what was by then Nazi Germany". TompaDompa (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • There are quite a few places where I think the article would benefit from being more clear and explicit about the geography and geopolitics. Those conditions, especially during the pre-World War I period, will only become more unfamiliar to readers as time goes on, so I think it important to future-proof the article, as it were. I've made a number of specific comments about this below.
Lead
Early years
Education
Friedrich Wilhelm University
Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Chemistry
World War I and the discovery of protactinium
  • Actinium being element 89 is rather important context that is missing here.
  • "the search for the mother isotope of actinium. According to the radioactive displacement law of Fajans and Soddy, this had to be an isotope of the undiscovered element 91" – I'm confused. They knew about beta decay, and the article has already stated that Hahn and Meitner made money off of radium-228 ("mesothorium"), which beta decays to actinium (as do other isotopes of radium, for that matter). Why did they assume the mother isotope had to be an alpha emitter?
    Presumably they detected alpha radiation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the isotope they had found was a beta emitter, and therefore could not be the mother isotope of actinium." – I understand why beta decay of element 91 cannot produce element 89, but I don't think this is clear to the average reader.
  • "In 1914 Hahn and Meitner developed a new technique for separating the tantalum group from pitchblende, which they hoped would speed the isolation of the new isotope." – this is jumping back in time a bit, so I would say that they had done so.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "not only Hahn but most of the students, laboratory assistants and technicians had been called up" – I gather this is "called up" in the sense of "summoned to serve in the armed forces" as opposed to "personally selected (for some particular purpose more generally)". Maybe I'm an outlier, but I come across this phrase more frequently in the latter sense than in the former, and so think this should be rephrased somewhat to eliminate ambiguity/lack of clarity.
    As a military historian, I have never seen it used in that sense. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is, from what I can gather, rather common in sports. TompaDompa (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they devised a series of indicator tests to eliminate other known alpha emitters. The only known ones with similar chemical behaviour were lead-210 (which decays to alpha emitter polonium-210) and thorium-230" – this doesn't quite work. I might suggest replacing the first "alpha emitters" with "sources of alpha [particles/radiation]". I would also add "via bismuth-210" to the parenthetical statement.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The connection to uranium remained a mystery, as neither of the known isotopes of uranium decayed into protactinium." – I don't think it's clear why a connection to uranium should be expected in the first place? I might also note which those known isotopes of uranium were.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the mother isotope, uranium-235" – technically uranium-235 is the grandmother isotope of protactinium(-231), no?
    Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "uranium-235, was discovered in 1929" – according to the linked article, it was discovered in 1935. Which is wrong?
    The source says it was in 1929. The linked article has no sources, but I found Dempster's 1935 Nature article. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beta radiation
Nazi Germany
Transmutation
  • "Irène Curie and Frédéric Joliot irradiated aluminium foil with alpha particles, and found that this results in a short-lived radioactive isotope of phosphorus. They noted that positron emission continued after the neutron emissions ceased." – neutron emissions? Not alpha particle bombardment? It would make perfect sense to me if positron emission continuing after the alpha irradiation ceased was viewed as evidence of radioactivity (as opposed to the bombardment "knocking loose" positrons directly or something), but I can't quite figure out the text as it is, which is why I'm suspecting an error of some kind (or maybe I'm just bad at nuclear physics).
    You are correct. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Escape from Germany
  • "On 1 August she took the train to Stockholm, where she was met at Göteborg station by Eva von Bahr." – this phrasing makes it sound like she was met by von Bahr at Göteborg station in Stockholm, which is of course nonsensical. Did she take the Stockholm-bound train and disembark at Göteborg? Or did she take the train to Stockholm and was joined from Göteborg by von Bahr? The former sounds much more likely as Kungälv, where they went next, is much closer to Göteborg than to Stockholm.
    The former. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on 9 November" – WP:EASTEREGG.
    removed link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the results of the experiments, particularly the supposed discovery of isomers of radium" – the what now? Unless I've missed something major, this has not been mentioned previously.
    More details in the main article. Alluded to above in the final paragraph on transmutation. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nuclear fission
Nobel Prize for nuclear fission
  • I don't think this heading really works. It sticks out a bit from the other (which it wouldn't if it were plain "Nobel Prize"), but more importantly it belies that Meitner did not receive the Nobel Prize. I don't have any good alternative suggestion right now, however.
    Changed to "Nobel Prize"
  • "On 15 November 1945, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announced that Hahn had been awarded the 1944 Nobel Prize in Chemistry" – this looks like an error, but it isn't one. I would definitely add an explanatory footnote about the one-year delay.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The five-member physics committee included Manne Siegbahn, his former student Erik Hulthén, the professor of experimental physics at Uppsala University, and Axel Lindh, who eventually succeeded Hulthén." – if that's three people, the first and third commas need to be semicolons.
    Added sme-colons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The poor relationship between Siegbahn and Meitner" – that their relationship was poor came as news to me, as there was not really anything obvious above to suggest so—or did I miss it?
    It is the first mention. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The poor relationship between Siegbahn and Meitner was a factor here, as was the bias towards experimental rather than theoretical physics (a bias that did not help Chien-Shiung Wu when she was omitted from the Nobel Prize for her experimental work and the prize awarded to two men for their theoretical work)." - this borders on snide. The intended meaning is clearly that the exclusion was due to bias against women, the implicit (but unsubtle) argument being that even a bias in favour of a particular subfield was later not enough for a woman to be awarded. If the accusation of gender bias is attributable to appropriate sources, make it explicitly and attribute it to those sources. If it is not, remove the implicit one. If the mention of Chien-Shiung Wu being omitted from the Nobel Prize is retained, the year should be given.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hahn's receipt of a Nobel Prize was long expected." – the word "receipt" stands out to me as I almost never encounter it in any other sense than, well, receipt. I would suggest rephrasing here.
    Tightened text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section feels quite a bit like it was written to be later in the article than it currently is, beginning with "Despite the many honours that Meitner received in her lifetime" (as though referring back to the "Awards and honours" section), discussing the poor relationship between Siegbahn and Meitner (which is mentioned in the following section, "Later life", even if only briefly), and just generally covering events that happened at a later point in time than the first couple of paragraphs of the following section. This is, I think, a rather serious issue with the structure of the article at present. My suggestion would be to remove this section, add the Nobel Prize stuff in its proper chronological place in the following section in a "just the facts" manner, and move the analysis of the Nobel Prize stuff to the last section (which could optionally be renamed "Legacy" or something).
    Changed as suggested. (But it was never intended to be later in the article.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Later life
Awards and honours

Ping Hawkeye7. TompaDompa (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with this interpretation of WP:PROPORTIONAL, but even if we I did, it does not agree with the sources. This can be seen in Frisch (1970) pp. 415-416. Of course, it only goes up to 1970. There is also Sime (1999), p. 267. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I quite understand the second part, but if the disagreement here stems from differing interpretations of policy it would seem we are at an impasse and that the coordinators will have to decide whether this is actionable. I took a look at Frisch (1970), and it does indeed list awards and a few other honours (though not things named after her—granted, there may not have been much to list at the time). I am not sure exactly what source Sime (1999) is—suspecting the year might be a typo I looked at Sime (1990) and Sime (1996), though I did not find anything relevant on p. 267 in either case—so I have not been able to check whether the weight in the article matches the weight in that source. TompaDompa (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be pp. 365-366. I am in Europe and have no access to my books at present. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 16:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, of Sime (1996)? That's available on the Internet Archive, and pp. 365–366 covers awards and honours, but not things named after Meitner. TompaDompa (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Hawkeye7, my comments:

A fine article overall, only the source formatting seems to be a bit off. Matarisvan (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon

[edit]

I'm pleased to see an article about a female scientist here, thank you for such an excellent effort. With the caveat that I am not a native speaker, here are some comments. Feel free to ignore.

  • The repetition of her name in bold is not great. I know of no specific guideline but in earlier FAs I have applied the use of " to introduce the commonly used first name. For example Nancy Sophie Cornélie "Corry" Tendeloo. So could Elise "Lise" Meitner be an option?
    There is a specific guideline. MOS:BOLD: "Boldface is often applied to the first occurrence of the article's title word or phrase in the lead. This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I avoided the construct 'Elise "Lise" Meitner' because that would give the impression that it was a nickname, and it was not. Note that she signed her papers "Dr. Lise Meitner". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • who was one of those responsible for the discovery of the element protactinium and the discovery of nuclear fission --> who was instrumental in the discovery of protactinium and nuclear fission
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • department head at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Chemistry there --> can we drop "there"?
    Another editor wanted it clarified that the KWI was in Berlin.
  • to be with other family members --> to be with her family members, or, perhaps: to be with family members
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • She also adopted the shortened name "Lise" --> is it known when?
    Not known. Her matura was recorded under the name Elise Meitner. "Lise's name also changed slightly from its original Elise. In Berlin such things might have caused a flurry of paperwork; in Vienna it made no difference." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • She completed her final year of school --> from reading onwards I gather this is not secondary school. Would it not be better to explicitly say primary school here?
    She went to a high school for girls that went to what in my country would be year 8. This might be consider primary school depending on where the reader is. So it would not be better. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • but women were not allowed to attend public institutions of higher education in Vienna until 1897--> I don't get the "but". And would the list of subjects at school not be better placed with the earlier sentence about final year of school?
    Re-worded to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the girls --> at age 23 she is not a girl. And the others were introduced as other young women. So "women" instead of girls
    She was 22, but point taken. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only four out of fourteen girls --> same thing
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was particularly inspired by Boltzmann --> to avoid confusion, perhaps professor Boltzmann
    Changed to "Ludwig Boltzmann". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Examination of a Maxwell Formula" --> "Examination of a Maxwell equation"
    Sure. Pardon my MilHist German. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thermal Conduction in Inhomogeneous Bodies" --> "Thermal conduction in inhomogeneous bodies"
    Title, so used title case. German conventions are different. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • she went further and made predictions based on her explanation, and then verified them experimentally --> this seems like a notable event that should be described in a bit more detail: what kind of optics issue are we talking about, what did she predict, how did she verify?
    Sources do not say; I have the journal reference, but copies are not available online, or in hard copy outside Germany. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meitner was introduced by Stefan Meyer--> is it known when?
    In 1906. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This led Ernest Rutherford to predict the nuclear atom. She submitted her findings to the Physikalische Zeitschrift on 29 June 1907. --> From this order I infer that Rutherford made the prediction before her publication, and thus that there was some sort of informal communication between them. Is this the case?
    No; he read her paper. Revered the sentences to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • , and shared her love of music --> because of that comma, I read this with Meitner being the subject of the verb shared. But I guess you meant the twins to be the subject, am I right?
    Yes. Not sure what can be done here; changed to "Meitner's love of music". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the first years Meitner worked together with Hahn they co-authored three papers in 1908, and six more in 1909 --> During the first two years Meitner worked together with Hahn, they co-authored nine papers: three in 1908, six in 1909
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • physical separation method known as radioactive recoil --> I assume that is the same as atomic recoil, and thus should be linked, right?
    Yes. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • discovered two more new isotopes --> which ones specifically?
    Sigh. Bismuth-211 and Thalium-207. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this more pitchblende was required, and --> For this yet more pitchblende was required, but
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • who independently discovered it in 1923 --> when did Meitner discover it?
    In 1922. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vor allem steht ihre chemische Verschiedenheit von allen bisher bekannten Elementen außerhalb jeder Diskussion --> I don't think we need the German here
    I would prefer to keep it, so the reder knows that I am not misquoting or misrepresenting Hahn. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • at Manne Siegbahn's new laboratory [sv] --> better link label would be at the Manne Siegbahn Laboratory [sv]
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • amiable --> not sure I would use this. I'm sure Sigvard was amiable, but we might need quite a few sources first before we can say this
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • reached a similar conclusion --> similar to what? + state when he said this
    Moved this paragraph back where it belonged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it remarkable that Meitner lived so long and did not seem to have suffered any radiation damage. She must have been really careful from the beginning. This is just a thought, no need to act on it.
    Ditto for Otto Hahn, who also made it to age 89. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have on prose. I will look at other aspects later today. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More:

Notes section:

References section:

I did a few spotchecks and all checked out fine. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I believe this fine article meets the FA standard. Thanks again for all your work. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John

[edit]

"On 1 August she took the train to Göteborg station in Sweden." I don't think it was possible to do this journey by train in the 1940s. Was it? John (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From Copenhagen to Stockholm? In 1938? Sure. It became difficult after Denmark was invaded in April 1940. (example ticket) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure the Øresund would have been in the way, which was not bridged until 2000. I imagine some kind of ferry or boat train must have been involved in 1938. It sounds funny if you know the geography to just say "took the train". What do the sources say? John (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 August, she left for Sweden. Again the trip was beautiful. Eva von Bahr-Bergius was waiting for her at the Göteborg station. Together they continued by train and then steamer to Eva's home in Kungälv, a small town on the west coast where Lise planned to stay until September.

There was a train ferry when I made the trip in 1998. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the regional administrative board of Skåne train ferry service opened between Elsinore and Helsingborg in 1892, and between Copenhagen and Malmö in 1895. Draken Bowser (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, are you happy with my edits so far? John (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. I note that another editor wanted it clarified that Berlin is in Germany and Stockholm in Sweden. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about calling her "Jewish Austrian" in the lead. Could we say "Austrian Jewish"? John (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I trimmed the "Jewish" from the lead sentence. Her Jewishness was only defintionally important to the Nazis. She was a scientist, not a religious figure. We find out about her ethnicity and the trouble it caused her in her life, but I do not think it is needed in the first sentence. Happy to discuss, of course.John (talk)
      Sure. Meitner's problem was sexism, not racism, up until the Nazis came on the scene. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thanks for your work on this fine article. John (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Well, this is a high-profile topic if there ever was one. Keeping my usual caveat about not being familiar with the topic in mind, I wonder if there is any dedicated discussion to the conflict with the Nazis. It seems like we are using mostly academic publications and major publishers. What makes http://www.orlandoleibovitz.com/Lise_Meitner_and_Nuclear_Fission.html a reliable source? #112, should that give Nobel Prize rather than www.nobelprize.org? Especially since #113 does. Bit inconsistent with retrieval dates - #118 doesn't have one but #145 does? I wonder why only one German biography is used. What is the logic between placing some publications into Further Reading? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Removed www.orlandoleibovitz.com. Changed #112. Added date to #118.
  2. More than one German biography was actually used, but WP:NONENG: English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance.
  3. Further reading: in the case of this article, the Further reading section dates back to 2005 and is actually older than the text of the article. It seems that readers proposed these sources but none of the works was ever used as a source. I do not remove material without a good reason. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mm, in this case I wonder if some of these Further Reading could be used as sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hawkeye7, Gah4 (talk) ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I could incorporate some of them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have cut the Further reading back and added a couple of them to the article. I do not have access to the remaining book. I do have access to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article, but since that is a book review of one of the major sources in the article, I have retained it in the Further reading. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, how's that? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this passes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2024 [16].

KEXP-FM

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere in a room in Seattle Center is a large map of the world, festooned with yellow pins. They tell the story of how a Seattle indie music station turned into a national, even international, audio institution. KEXP-FM (or KEXP, as you'll see it anywhere that isn't pedantic about call sign suffixes) started as KCMU-FM, the 10-watt campus radio station of the University of Washington, in 1972, but it was in the right place at the right time to become one of the standard-bearers for alternative music in a city that broke artists like Kurt Cobain and Soundgarden. After a turbulent early 1990s that included a listener boycott, the university's decision to split management from its public radio station and put it under the computing department, of all places, served as a critical technological catalyst for what it became later after partnering with the Experience Music Project in 2001: an independently owned and operated powerhouse with FM signals in Seattle and San Francisco, studios in Seattle that are a regular stop for touring acts and double as a community space, a massive streaming fanbase (of which I am now a part as a direct result of this project), and a prominent feature of the indie media landscape.

While I have brought five television stations to FA, this is a massive moment for radio station coverage on the English Wikipedia, as there has not been a new FA in radio stations (some 25,000-plus titles in total) since WINC (AM) in 2014. A significant thanks goes out to Maiacosis, who wrote about 15 percent of this page including programming descriptions and provided some of the images used in this article. I also appreciate Lee Vilenski for his 2022 GA review and the Phoenix Suns's gnarly blowout in Game 7 of the 2022 Western Conference semifinals for spurring me to distract myself with a major writing project. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:KEXP_logo_(black_on_orange).svg is confusing me. The source field says orange was added to match the Instagram picture, but the Instagram picture has orange on the bars, not the background; none of the versions linked have an orange background. Is this actually a version used by them, or did we make it up? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Odd indeed. They don't use a hard background with it, but that is their brand orange. I decided to strip the orange and leave a skin invert class to satisfy the original concern about darkmode visibility, Nikkimaria. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "... the station began to grow into one with an international listener base ...": suggest "... began to acquire an ...".
    • Done
  • "began formulating a plan to create a second UW station, one that would be run by students": suggest shortening to "began planning to create a second UW station that would be run by students".
    • Done
  • "Noonan had come from San Francisco, where he was aware of other college stations": do you mean that there were multiple student-run radio stations in San Francisco?
    • Yes. The original quote is, “There were student activities and protests and all these things going on, and none of that information was getting to the students; it just wasn’t being processed. The only thing the UW had was The Daily, and I had worked at some stations back in California that were interviewing people from the Black Panthers; people who were very active in movements back in those days,” he says. “I felt that the students needed an outlet, a voice.”
  • "While there were so few listeners in 1975 that UW administrators ordered a programming overhaul, by 1981, the station was starting to become more adventurous musically". The use of "while" implies there's a logical connection between the two halves of the sentence, but there doesn't appear to be -- "so few listeners" is not in opposition to "adventurous musically" in any way. And the only example of adventurousness given is airing new wave music; this doesn't seem an adventurous thing to do in 1981, when, if my memory is not leading me astray, New Wave was a major (and mainstream) commercial force. I was in the UK at the time, though -- maybe it meant something different in the US? In the UK it meant bands like Elvis Costello and Talking Heads. From some comments further down the article about KJET dropping their alternative music format it seems you're using New Wave to mean alternative but that would not have been the nomenclature back then.
    • This gets gnarly. The New Wave label was contemporary for the period, for sure (some of the stuff I went back and was able to make into public clippings emphasizes this). It seems new wave evolved into alternative? I could use guidance here.
  • "KZAM ... changed due to low ratings": I think this means that KZAM dropped New Wave music but I think it should be clearer.
    • Reworded for clarity
  • Suggest dropping the sentence "A power boost also came" and starting a new paragraph at that point instead.
    • Done
  • "... the beginning of stereo broadcasts for the first time ...": "beginning" is redundant with "for the first time".
    • Done
  • "commercial competition in the form of KJET which had adopted the format in 1982": I don't know what "the format" refers to here.
    • Clarified
  • "foundation of Sub Pop": suggest "foundation of record label Sub Pop".
    • Done
  • "Through the UW": is this normal usage for UW? One would never use "the" in this sort of construction with UT, say, or UCLA. There are more instances of "the UW" later in the article.
    • It's all over their website. There is no specific entry for it, but there are lots of sentences on the UW brand guide with it: It shows that the UW is authoritative, intentional and thoughtful, referring specifically to the UW.
  • "it remains on KEXP's schedule" needs an "as of".
    • Done
  • "two shows hosted by black DJs were added to daytime slots that were exclusively held by Richards, Cheryl Waters, and Kevin Cole": suggest "had been held", if I have the intended meaning correct. What does "exclusively" mean?
    • Tried to reword.
  • Re the analysis by Tableau Software, giving the "broadened" statement first is a bit confusing -- I assume the station broadened its mix in response to the analysis? In which case reversing the order of the clauses would be easier on the reader.
    • Done.
  • You might consider an internal link from the first text mention of the Gathering Space to the section about it lower in the article.
    • Done.
  • "The live room holds special significance as it serves as the backdrop for the station's video podcasts". What would be lost if this were shortened to "The live room serves as the backdrop for ..."?
    • Nothing at all. (This is the section Maiacosis contributed)
  • What is a "correlating fluid simulation"?
  • What are "activated festoon lights"?
    • Reworded this area to be a little less...dense.
  • "The Gathering Space has always included a coffee shop early since its inception". Triply redundant; how about "The Gathering Space has included a coffee shop since its inception"?
    • Done

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Should have responded to everything. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to keep "formulating" or just miss it? Other than that everything looks good except for the New Wave/alternate genre name issue. I am sure I will be supporting, but I'd like to see that sorted out first. Perhaps try posting at one of the music WikiProjects -- I think WP:ALBUMS is pretty well attended. What can you actually tell from your sources? Do they make it clear that the format hasn't changed in decades and also that it was called New Wave once (and I think it needs the caps) and alternative now? If we're going to connect dots across decades where the sources uses different names we need to be able to prove that they are the same thing. Or could we do something that simply reflects the sources such as (and of course I'm making this up): "histories of the station comment that it hasn't changed its format for X years, though it now describes it as alternative rock, instead of New Wave, as it was known in the early 1980s". Or whatever. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie Outright missed "formulating" — my eyes glazed over. I found a source [17] (not linked in article; shadow library) and added it as a footnote. It hints at how nebulous format labeling really was for this. You'll also see "new music" in the early years. The term alternative had not come into use in 1981–82 for this music. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. I think that does it. Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Neutralhomer

[edit]
  • As the editor on the WINC (AM) article, I'd be remiss if I didn't give my 2 cents to this FAC, which will finally add a second FAC to the WPRS project.
  • "By 1992, ten years after becoming listener-supported, KCMU's budget had grown from $20,000 to $180,000. In addition to the two technical improvements in the 1980s, it had added more paid staffers and listeners." Would it be possible to add a "in 2024 dollars" part to the budget line? I've seen it done on other articles, kinda connects it to today.
    • Added as a footnote.
  • I noticed that there isn't anything mentioned about KEXP being the official "soundtrack" station for the Seattle Kraken. A couple sources for that.
    • Already there, last paragraph, "Move to Seattle Center".
  • Just a minor quibble, in the Championing the "Seattle sound" section, I don't see anything about Alice in Chains. Is there anything that you or Maiacosis could find on them and KEXP to tie it all together with the rest of the Seattle grunge bands? Yes, I am an AiC fan. :)
    • I did a special search and did not come up with anything.

Source review by Generalissima

[edit]

As I used to live right next to KEXP, I feel an obligation to look over the sources here.

  • Sources look consistently formatted.
  • There's not a title for ref. 31 (Sexton, Paul; Tilli, Robbert (May 31, 1997)), causing a CS1 error.
  • Before I go do a spot check, I wanted to note that there is a 2020 academic source on KEXP: Brick, Mortar, and Screen: Networked Digital Media, Popular Music, and the Reinvention of the Public Radio Station by Christopher Cwynar. https://doi.org/10.1080/19376529.2020.1738438. I would advise incorporating this into the article, as a specialist academic article is just about the best thing to incorporate into a subject like this to ensure that coverage is truly comprehensive. This would probably require a shortened footnote style of some sort for ease of use.

Let me know when you've gotten the Cwynar source incorporated in, Sammi Brie, and I'll do a source review of the rest. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima Journals do not normally factor into my work, but KEXP is not a normal project. There were some promising tangents in this one, and I added not one but three references off of that. I only cited Cwynar three times, so I didn't feel the need to dip into an sfn (like I did with Bridge at WBPX-TV). Also fixed a source I failed to clip and the missed title on the very recently added Sexton/Tilli source. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: So sorry this took a while.

  • 7A: I think you're missing a cite somewhere here? This doesn't talk about KUOW-FM at all. Everything after "As a result" checks out though.
  • 8A: Yep. That's the date alright.
  • 17: Checks out.
  • 28: Checks out, in that little corner.
  • 42a: Accurate summation of what Cwynar said here.
  • 49a & b: You cite this twice in a row, I don't think the first 49a cite is needed.
  • 46: Checks out, and interesting.
  • 68: Yep.
  • 76: Checks out.
  • 87: Checks out.
  • 89: Also good.

Not much to say other those two errors I found. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima The first issue led me not only to references to fill that void but to some additional material I got to incorporate in the first two paragraphs. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, nice! Everything here looks good. Support on source review and spot check. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eem dik doun in toene

[edit]

I will take a look in the coming days. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "specializing in alternative and indie rock programmed by its disc jockeys" ==> in the infobox, a lot more genres are listed than only these two, and in the body of the article there are these sentences: "Since 2020, the station has also made major changes to its programming and DJ lineup, and it airs specialty shows throughout the week to diversify from its traditional focus on alternative and indie music. As of April 2024, KEXP's specialty shows include the following:". I think it's an idea to use a newer reference in the first sentence of the lede than the one used right now (from 2018). Maybe it's also an idea to alter the sentence as, as I read it, the station isn't only specializing in alternative and indie rock right now.
    • This is a very good point. I am only a recent KEXP listener (not pre-2020), but yeah, the daytime variety mix is not just alt rock. (This also varies, of course, by DJ: see, for instance, Larry Mizell Jr.'s shows.) I think fewer genres listed in the infobox will help.
  • "By this time, the debate was ameliorated" ==> as a non-native English speaker, I had to look up what "ameliorated" means. Maybe you can use a more common term?
    • Changes made here.
  • "1 and 6 am" ==> 1 and 6 a.m. (as you've used a.m. throughout the article).
    • Probably a relic from a general formatting script that did this too often.
  • Some minor comments from me. Interesting and well-written article! Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

voorts

[edit]

comments tk. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Years would be helpful in the subsection headers in the history section, e.g., 1971–1987: Early years as KCMU. I also notice there's some overlap. For example, the aforementioned subsection goes up to 1987, but the next subsection begins in the mid-1980s. Any way to rearrange this to make it more chronological?
    • Reorganized some material (and removed one item I realized had become increasingly irrelevant as the article went on).
  • I think this should be removed. Unlike alums who went into the music industry, this seems less relevant: A KCMU alumnus of this period, who began with the station after KZAM folded, went onto a career in public office: Dow Constantine, later a Washington state legislator and King County Executive, whose future wife worked as a volunteer DJ.
  • The Experience Music Project—now known as the - add (EMP) after Experience Music Project.
    • Done
  • UW engineers invented CD players that could retrieve song metadata from the internet in order to build a real-time playlist - wouldn't they already have metadata if they're playing off of CDs? I'm a bit confused by this.
    • The reference is rather unambiguous here: University of Washington engineers invented CD players that could connect to the Web to retrieve song and band information, which could then be transfered to a real-time playlist at www.kexp.org.
  • ; the next year, the station started offering a rolling archive of its last two weeks of programming, branching out to offer an archive of past in-studio performances - remove the semicolon and make this its own sentence. I'm also not sure what "branching out" means in this context. Can you rephrase?
    • Done.
  • Web streaming was emerging as a major force for listenership around the world. When?
    • This is in the same early 2000s period indicated at the top of the paragraph.
  • The Tacoma simulcast agreement was wound down in March 2006 as being too costly ahead of EMP ceasing to underwrite KEXP's losses, though KEXP did increase its power to its present 4,700 watts that year. The fact that KEXP was experiencing losses just comes out of nowhere in the middle of this sentence with no context. This can be fixed be reorganizing the paragraph to start with their financial troubles (e.g., almost failing to make payroll => this occurring).
    • Reorganized. Great idea.

@Sammi Brie: That's all for now. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update?

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2024 [18].

January 1908 Irish representative peer election

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... an almost forgotten election for an almost forgotten office. Yet interesting both for the winner, the former viceroy of India, Lord Curzon, and for the fact that the two runners up actually tied in the next election, and an obscure means of breaking the tie had to be invoked. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Lead images are quite small and difficult to see
I've replaced the image of Ashtown with a portrait shot which may help here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Bird_notes_and_news_(1912)_(14562015579).jpg: is a more specific tag available?
I've added some and tried to find an individual photographer without luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Baron_Ashtown.jpeg: per the UK tag, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was. Ditto File:Lord_Farnham.jpeg.
Done and also for the new Ashtown image.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Llewee comments and support

[edit]

Hello Wehwalt, I am going to make a few suggestions for this nomination.--Llewee (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Background[reply]

  • A brief explanation of what a United Kingdom peer was and how it was a separate category from a Irish peer would be useful in the background section. I think a brief explanation of what the house of Lords is might be helpful as well.
I've added something along those lines, at least drawing the distinction between UK peers and Irish peers.
  • "This made it inconvenient for Irish peers to vote, and some did not." - Was this because they felt uncomfortable swearing an oath of allegiance to the British state or just for practical reasons?
It was inconvenient for practical reasons. Most IRPs were Unionist and had no objection to swearing an oath to the British crown. It was just inconvenient for practical reasons. There were cases of Irish JPs traveling to England and in one case to Saint Petersburg to administer the oath in the contested 1825 IRP election.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Elections for Irish representative peers lapsed..." — What does this paragraph about events after 1922 have to do with an election in 1908? If it is going to included at all I would suggest moving it to aftermath.
I think it is part of the background to explain why IRPs disappeared. I work from the assumption that anyone chancing on this article will never have heard of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that's understandable--Llewee (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates and campaign

  • "threw himself off a fourth-storey balcony at his Paris hotel" — this sounds like an oddly flippant tone to me, maybe just say "jumped off a..."
Changed to "jumped".
  • "who had been suffering from illness, was killed immediately" — I would suggest taking out the clause about an illness, bluntly I don't think that much matters when you have fallen out of a high window. Also "died" probably works better than "killed" in this instance.
Suicide is a touchy subject on Wikipedia; even though he is long dead, I would rather put in information that explains the action. He was definitely having issues; they had set someone to watch him, which he evaded. How about "fatally injured"?
Fatally injured should be fine. The grammar of that sentence feels quite awkward, could it be reorganised so his illness is introduced first and then his death. (e.g Francis Browne, 4th Baron Kilmaine, an Irish representative peer since 1890, was mentally unwell. On 9 November 1907, he jumped from a fourth-storey balcony at his Paris hotel and was fatally injured.--Llewee (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The newspapers were circumspect in discussing his illness, the one I'm using for a source says he was suffering from insomnia. Let's just stick to the bare essential that he had died.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Writs were subsequently issued in the election for a successor as representative peer" — Shouldn't "in the" be "for an"?
It could go either way but "for an election for a successor" sounds kinda odd.
  • "(who had actually been elected an Irish representative peer in 1905)" — Did that mean he couldn't be a contender?
Since he had a seat for life, there was no point in his running. The press made a mistake.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(the last ever to be created)" — I'm not sure this is particularly relevant but if it is going to be included then clarify "before Irish independence in 1922".
Since the Irish peerage still exits even if IRPs no longer do, it would still be possible for one to be created. Therefore, if I said before 1922, that begs the question of after.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that is fine--Llewee (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "appropriate title as he took up his position as viceroy" — Clarify (possibly in a footnote) that peers were given the title of Lord which was prestigious.
I've added a source to stress he did not want to go to India as Mr Curzon. It doesn't actually say that it is a prestigious title but perhaps it is close enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he found that his health would not permit him to seek a return to the Commons" — I think this could worded more bluntly "he was too unwell to campaign for reelection to the commons"
I'm not sure. Curzon certainly lived a very active remaining 17 years of his life, during which time he came close to being prime minister. I'd rather not rephrase in that way. He had back trouble and he was certainly devastated by the recent death of his wife Mary, but I haven't been able to identify a physical ailment.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's understandable. It just struck me as slightly odd that he was well enough to be a Peer but not well enough to be an MP.--Llewee (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, perhaps 'felt' instead of "found"? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "considered it undesirable that a recent viceroy fight for a parliamentary seat" — Why was this?
He considered it undignified that a former high representative of the King-Emperor scrap for votes. I've added something.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the prime minister, Arthur Balfour, opposed this, and soon after, resigned. The new prime minister, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, also refused Curzon a United Kingdom peerage" — Why did these prime ministers oppose him receiving a peerage?
Because Curzon differed on Indian policy with the Secretary of State for India, William St John Brodrick, which led to his resignation as Viceroy, and Brodrick put the kibosh on the peerage with both Edward and Balfour. When Curzon appealed to the new PM, Campbell-Bannerman, citing precedent that an honour for the returning viceroy was not a political matter (Balfour [and Curzon] was a Conservative and a Unionist and C-B was a Liberal), C-B hemmed and hawed made vague promises but eventually said there was opposition in his party to doing it and he wasn't going to. Curzon got his earldom in the Coronation Honours of 1911, after the deaths of both Edward and C-B. All of which is too much detail in my view.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could just say (perhaps in a footnote) that he was from a different party and disagreed with the government on India policy.--Llewee (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "look with favour on the only way he could see to re-enter public life." — This is a bit non-neutral, maybe just say "support his campaign".
It's not being said with Wikipedia's voice but as a paraphrase of what Curzon wrote.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with considerable satisfaction" — this sounds odd to me, maybe say "with approval"
I'm trying to stick as close to the source as possible. It says "In Unionist circles here the candidature of Lord Curzon as a representative peer for Ireland is regarded with the highest satisfaction". I don't think approval is the same thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It feels like a slightly quaint term to me, but it's not a major issue.--Llewee (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Curzon was opposed for the seat" — I think it would be clearer to say "some opposed Curzon's candidacy".
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They therefore saw no reason to diminish the Irish representation in Westminster during Curzon's lifetime to accommodate an Englishman." — I think a more neutral way of wording this would be "They felt this would in effect reduce the Irish representation in Westminster for the rest of Curzon's lifetime."
I don't know about feeling it, it would. Curzon wasn't Irish and normally the IRPs were elected from among Irish residents. I've rephrased somewhat, look it over.
  • "He had a contentious relationship with his Irish tenantry" — I feel more information could be added here, why was there a boycott against him?
Added.
  • "but considered Curzon's candidacy hard on peers" — I think changing "hard" to "unfair" would sound more formal.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wrote to three candidates, including Curzon," — Weren't there only three candidates in the race?
Lord de Vesci apparently had some designs on the seat. He got the 1909 vacancy, he might have been one of the three. We don't know what was meant.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "since his "happy release from that country", he had ceased to vote" — perhaps add a footnote say he had left Ireland in X year to take up Y position or wherever he'd gone
I assume he sold his Irish lands, but what he meant would be rather speculative.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for Irish representative peer" — Shouldn't it be "peers" rather than "peer"?
Yes. Good point.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the political wilderness" — this could be worded more bluntly (e.g out of politics)
  • " The Kerry News reported that the former prime minister, Lord Palmerston..." — I'm not sure what this sentence has got to do with the election.
Palmerston (Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston) was an Irish peer who had a seat in the House of Commons. The point of the discussion was that Palmerston seems to have feared that the Torys would elect him a representative peer and send him against his will to the House of Lords, and so did not claim the right to vote for representative peer following the argument that was used against Curzon that you had to be have claimed and had upheld the right to vote for IRP in order to be elected an IRP. Of course that argument did not prevail against Curzon. Possibly Palmerston was taking no chances.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Election

  • "like the one later that year in November" — This clause referencing another election which isn't the focus of the page isn't really necessary.
Since that election involved two of the candidates from this one, its worth noting that it still attracted a considerable turnout even without Curzon's participation.
  • "The Irish Times was confident that Curzon would be seated, but stated that..." — I'd say change "but" to "while" because the quote doesn't contradict the first part.
There's sort of an implicit contradiction, because the clause is meant to say that even if Curzon was not seated, he will still have received a considerable honour. But I've changed to "and".
  • "though it required that the peers voting in an election for Irish representative peers have claimed a right to vote" — change "have" to "had"
I think "had" is correct. I could be persuaded otherwise.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

  • "has the distinction of being" — change this to "was"
Was is ambiguous. The books are now closed on the IRPs and Curzon was the only one ever elected who did not live in Ireland, but if I said "was", the reader might wonder if that was true as of 1908 or is that still true. I've changed to "is".
I'm not going to get back to this until Friday or possibly the weekend. I just answered the ones I felt I could easily answer. The rest will follow--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All done now. Proceeding to deal with Gog's, then the IR.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Llewee, are we good?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Llewee, I've added that footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, Ok it seems good to go--Llewee (talk) 12:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "Background", first sentence: You don't give, nor is it possible to calculate, the size of the electorate. It can be implied from "A total of 134 ballots were sent to eligible peers" in the next section, but IMO it would be helpful to explicitly state it at the end of this paragraph.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to fill a vacancy among the 28 Irish representative peers at that time elected to the British House of Lords". Something like 'to fill a vacancy among the 28 Irish representative peers at that time elected to the British House of Lords from there ranks by the 134 Irish peers' might help a reader to grasp more rapidly what this is about.
Included. It's Irish peers eligible to vote. Remember Curzon was not at the time eligible to vote.
  • "and that Ashtown had gained the most votes among those so eligible." I read this as Ashtown gaining the most votes among those eligible to vote. Is it possible to rephrase to clarify?.
I tried to avoid a repetition, but I've spelt it out.
  • " but Farnham was chosen to fill the next vacancy." Perhaps add '... also in 1908'?
  • "one house of the British Parliament". It seems confusing to refer to the Parliament of the United Kingdom as the British Parliament. Given that Britain can be considered a component of the state the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland it seems an unnecessary complication.
  • "signed by two Lords Temporal". Why the upper-case initial letters?
No idea. Done.
  • "Lord Chancellor would instruct the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to have the Clerk of the Crown and Hanaper conduct an election". Similarly.
Ditto.
  • "returnable 20 January 1908" → 'returnable by 20 January 1908'?
No. The writ is returnable, not the ballots. I'm pretty sure that's the proper legal language
  • "who had actually been elected an Irish representative peer in 1905". I am not sure that "actually" adds anything. Perhaps just delete, or replace with 'already'?
  • " He had accepted an Irish peerage (the last ever to be created), to give him the title of "Baron Curzon" or "Lord Curzon" as he took up his position as viceroy", Perhaps ' He had accepted an Irish peerage (the last ever to be created) in 1898, to give him the title of "Baron Curzon" or "Lord Curzon" as he took up his position as viceroy'?
  • Link commoner.
  • "including replacing local labourers with Scottish replacement". Is it possible to avoid using "replacing" and "replacement" within six words?
  • "though this could not be proved." Perhaps 'though this was never proved'?
  • "The M. P. for Liverpool Scotland". Assuming this is written in UKvar, member of parliament is abbreviated to MP.
  • "The January 1908 election, like the one later that year in November, attracted a high turnout from the voters." Is the number of votes cast known?
No.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I haven't specifically replied, I've just gone ahead and done it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC Interesting article – I'd quite forgotten the constitutional position regarding Irish peer elections. Just a couple of very small points from me:

  • The Malcomson quote refers to the "conservative party": I think—in line with MOS:CONFORM—this should be "Conservative Party"
  • "Lentaigne traveled to London": I think it likely he travelled to London

I hope these help. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from KJP1

[edit]

Wehwalt - hope you are keeping well. And what a wonderfully obscure topic (see below)! Some comments/suggestions from me.

Lead
  • Given the topic's obscurity - I doubt one reader in a thousand will have heard of the Irish Representative Peers (IRPs)! - I think the lead needs a brief explanation of the wider context. I accept that you have it in Background, and that there is a link, but I think a short para. in the Lead, probably the second, could explain; their creation - the Acts of Union; their purpose - Irish representation in the UK Parliament after the abolition of the Irish Parliament; and their, oddly small, constituency - fewer than 150 electing 28. I think the third and fourth para.s could be combined to allow for a new second to cover this.
I will add something on the Acts of Union 1800 in the background section and likely a sentence of summary in the lead.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's done now.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Curzon, despite a minimal connection with Ireland" - that "minimal" connection being....? I assume it's his Irish peerage, given that he'd never set foot in Ireland, and didn't own land there. You mention the peerage in the next sentence. I wonder if the nature of the minimal connection could be made explicit. Perhaps something like - "Curzon contested the election as a means of returning to parliament after being denied a United Kingdom peerage by the prime minister, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. His connection to Ireland was minimal; born in Derbyshire, the eldest son of an English peer, he held no land in Ireland and his association was limited to the Irish peerage he had been granted in 1898 on his appointment as Viceroy of India. This slender connection sparked opposition, and his late entry into the race also worked against him. Moreover, he had never asked the House of Lords to affirm his right to vote in Irish representative peer elections, a requirement for participation as a voter, which led some to argue that he was ineligible to stand as a candidate."
I don't know that he owned no land in Ireland, I'm not sure any source I have (and I looked through the relevant bits in four bios of Curzon) actually says that. I've rephrased somewhat, leading with the fact he was an Englishman.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "nor would promotion to a peerage of the United Kingdom end his tenure as representative peer" - "nor would promotion to a peerage of the United Kingdom end his tenure as a representative peer"?
  • Fair enough
  • "Each of the eligible voters would receive a ballot in duplicate by post with a space for the name of the peer whom the voter desired to elect. The ballot was to be signed" - do the sources say what they did with the second copy? Keep it?
One copy was kept at the Crown Office in Dublin (and destroyed by fire in the Four Courts fire of 1922), the other went with the writ and return to the House of Lords.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's an example from the Victorian era of a blank ballot on the National Archives of Ireland site, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the voter's seal affixed, and returned to the Crown Office in Dublin" - link seal and Crown Office?
  • OK.
  • "the right to vote in elections for Irish representative peer" - "the right to vote in elections for Irish representative peers"?
  • Not sure. Peer sounds correct to me.
  • "following the death of the last surviving Irish representative peer, Lord Kilmorey, who died in 1961," - perhaps just, "following the death of the last surviving Irish representative peer Lord Kilmorey in 1961,"?
OK.
Candidates and campaign
  • "Ivo Bligh, 8th Earl of Darnley (who had already been elected an Irish representative peer in 1905)" - I don't follow this. As Darnley was already an IRP, and, as you explain above, only death or dishonour terminated this, how was he again eligible? Were the press just wrong? The first source explains why he wasn't in the Lords as an English peer, which is fine, but he was as an IRP from 1905, so why would he be eligible twice?
He wasn't eligible. The press made a mistake, as best I can tell. I've tweaked it as far as I can go. There wasn't any follow up on this that I could see.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Curzon to be given an earldom, the prime minister, Arthur Balfour, opposed this" - given that this was unusual, going against the general precedent, and that the king specifically asked for it to happen, I wonder whether a brief explanation as to why Balfour opposed an earldom would be helpful, perhaps in a footnote. Kenneth Young covers it quite extensively in his Balfour. In essence, Balfour was concerned over the timing, following on from Curzon's resignation and his publicly-expressed opposition to government policy; "it would never do so to time this public recognition of his services as to suggest that it was in the remotest degree connected to his action in the Curzon-Kitchener dispute. In that dispute he was in the wrong. It would be absurd to take a step which would be universally interpreted as meaning I believed him to be in the right." (Balfour to Lord Knollys 7 October 1905) (Young, p=242).
I'm reluctant to over focus on this. This article really isn't about Curzon's resignation. The thing is, Balfour never honoured him, though I don't know if he did a resignation honours.
I said implement or ignore, so I won’t press the point, but, for me, it is pretty central. The only reason Curzon stood as an IRP was to regain a public platform. He didn’t have one because first Balfour, and then C-B, had denied him the, almost obligatory, post-Viceregal peerage. For me, the reader would benefit from an explanation as to why. KJP1 (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll write something up using the source you mention and insert it tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've used your source (which is available online).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he felt that his health would not permit him to seek a return to the Commons, and that King Edward VII considered that it marred the dignity of the viceregal office" - I'm not sure what the second that is doing?
Deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "asked that the voters look with favour on the only way he could see to re-enter public life" - perhaps, "asked that the voters look with favour on his candidacy as the only route by which he could re-enter public life"?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Manchester Guardian thought it appropriate that Curzon had been backed by Abercorn and Londonderry" - is "appropriate" quite right here? The Guardian is being sarcastic and I wonder whether something like "telling" would better convey that?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "because Curzon was the heir to a British title, and when he inherited that title, he would not vacate his place as Irish representative peer. They therefore did not want to diminish the Irish representation in Westminster during Curzon's lifetime." - would something like this be a little simpler?, "because Curzon, as heir to a British title, would retain his status as an Irish representative peer on his succession, thereby diminishing Irish representation at Westminster."?
I've kept the lifetime, otherwise adopted.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the explosion of a crude bomb" - I appreciate the source does talk of a "crude" bomb, but am not sure what it adds. It's presumably something like "makeshift"?
There's a fair amount of discussion of this in the press, which comes to no real conclusion and seems very colored by viewpoint. I've deleted "crude" and let it go that.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "few if any were Irish nationalists, which 80 percent of Irish constituencies were represented by" - aside from the placing of the preposition, I don't think one would expect many Irish peers at this time to be nationalists. But of Home Rulers, there were a few, David Cannadine suggests at most half a dozen. {The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy p=533}. I wonder if something like this would be a bit clearer, "and very few supported Home Rule for Ireland, the official position of the Irish Parliamentary Party which held over 80 percent of the Irish constituencies."?
I'm presenting O'Connor's perspective here. I'm not sure we need to get into it at the level you suggest, just presenting the perspective of people who thought the whole election was a farce.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Election
  • "like the 2nd duke of Abercorn" - it may be that the source has it, and I think MoS suggests it, but the lower-case d looks odd, especially for a specific Duke.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath
  • "were placed in an ordinary goblet" - to me, it looks like a wine glass and you use "glass" above. Would "wine glass" do? The blue-link for goblet is rather ecclesiastical.
There was a good deal of discussion of this. It was a piece of stemmed glassware, such as ordinarily was used by their lordships for satisfying thirst, not necessarily with water. I think that unless I'm missing something, wine glass is fine. (I personally prefer stemless glassware but most of the time drink from stemmed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these are of some use. Obviously, they are mainly suggestions, which can be considered and enacted, or ignored, as you think fit. KJP1 (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, KJP1, all done. All's well here except I need the ministrations of the medical men more than in the days of my youth. Thanks for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt - I appreciate your accommodating me on Curzon's resignation/Balfour, C-B's unwillingness to elevate. Looking over the other comments, I see I wasn't the only one to raise it, and I think your amendments address the issue very well. As for the other comments, again, I appreciate the responses and am very pleased to Support. Glad you are keeping well, with necessary interventions! I address my own ailments through self-medication with pinot noir, à la Riley, but I understand he's currently hors de combat with a plaster-cast, so he is probably administering it through a straw. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, and have sent a note to Tim expressing my best wishes. Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - PASS

[edit]
  • Just wondering why News Letter and Freeman's Journal have places of publication, but the other newspapers don't – is there a reason?
Yes, since there is no description of the location in the name, and these are relatively obscure Irish journals.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Anson, I'm not sure you need to have that it's in the UK – none of the other sources have a country.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not part of the criteria (and I don't take it into account), but it may be worth archiving the websites? (You have for one, but not the others)
I'm not adept at it, and would prefer that other people with bots do it.

- SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Fascinating stuff. As an Englishman of Irish descent I'm grateful to Wehwalt for a glimpse into Anglo-Irish parliamentary shenanigans. A few quibbles, some drawing on the 1917 edition of Erskine May.

  • Piping
Queen Victoria but King Edward VII – I know those are the titles of the WP articles, but it looks a bit odd here to have the female title in blue and the male one in black.
  • Background
  • "consisted mainly of several hundred hereditary peers of the United Kingdom": I'm not sure that's quite right: there were peers of England, of Scotland, of Great Britain and of the United Kingdom, and I don't think those in the first three categories were absorbed into the fourth.(Erskine May, pp. 6–12). The representative peer arrangements for Ireland followed the precedent of those for Scottish representative peers (sixteen of them) following the 1707 Act of Union (EM, p. 9).
Anson, at page 190, if I read him correctly, does describe England's peerage as merging into the peerage of GB, and then UK. I've spelled it out in a footnote. The Irish and Scottish representative peers weren't quite the same, the Scots only served for one parliament and the voting qualifications were different.
Afterthought: I think perhaps you could skirt round the matter by saying "consisted mainly of several hundred British hereditary peers", which isn't incorrect but avoids the distinctions between the four categories. Tim riley talk 10:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "along with 28 Irish representative peers and certain others, such as some Anglican archbishops and bishops" – the certain others being law lords (of whom there were four between 1876 and 1913 – EM, pp. 11–12 ), and the Lords Spiritual were the two archbishops and the twenty-four senior diocesan bishops (EM, p. 6)
Responding to the above two, I've put all that in a footnote. I have exact statistics as of 1909 but I don't want to put up too much of a wall between the reader and the meat of the article.
  • Candidates and campaign
  • "Commander-in-Chief, India, General Lord Herbert Kitchener" – this gives his title wrongly: unless Kitchener was the younger son of a duke or marquess, which he wasn't, his given name doesn't get into his title. He was General Lord Kitchener, but you could get away with calling him General Lord (Herbert) Kitchener.
  • Ah, I wasn't sure on that point.
  • "… objected because Curzon, as heir to a British title …" – this is the first we've heard of this heirdom, and it might be helpful to flesh it out slightly on the lines of "…objected because Curzon was heir to the British barony of Scarsdale and would retain his status..."
I've simply introduced Curzon as Baron Scarsdale's son and heir.
  • Sentence beginning "Freeman's Journal of Dublin pointed out ..." – I have three minor problems with this:
  • The article headlined "Lord Curzon's Pretentions" is actually headed "Lord Curzon's Pretensions"
  • The article thus headed is on page 6 of Freeman's Journal for 2 January 1908 and not on p. 16.
  • The article doesn't say that Curzon's father was 76 years old: it refers to him (wrongly) as "seventy-seven years old"
Errors fixed, 76 changed, alas, to elderly.

That's all I can find to carp about. Tim riley talk 10:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. All done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article seems to me to meet all the FAC criteria and it has been a pleasure to read and review it. Tim riley talk 13:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks both for the review and the kind words. Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator note

[edit]

Just noting that after today, I may be out for a couple of days for medical reasons, if there are further comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]
lead
  • among the 28 Irish representative peers at that time elected to i'd remove "at that time", but i don't really mind
I prefer the way it is now.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • something required in order to vote in ==> "something required to vote in"
  • eligible to vote, and that remove the comma
  • among those who were eligible to vote ==> "among those eligible to vote"
  • did not apply to candidates, and declared Curzon remove the comma
background
  • House of Lords of Ireland, but provided for Irish representation remove the comma
  • voter's seal affixed, and remove the comma
  • with the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922. i'd change this to either "with the Irish Free State's 1922 establishment" or "with the Irish Free State's establishment in 1922"
candidates and campaign
  • an Irish representative peer since 1890 died in Paris. bit confused here; what does "1890 died in Paris" mean
  • a successor as representative peer ==> "a successor as a representative peer"
I don't agree. It would be "a successor as MP" or "a successor as prime minister"
  • A total of 134 ballots were sent to eligible peers. ==> "134 ballots were sent to eligible peers."
  • It being thought that the viceroy and representative ==> "It was thought that the viceroy and representative" (i think)
  • also refused Curzon a earldom or "a" should be "an"
  • position in spite of the fact that Curzon had ==> "position although Curzon had"
  • supporters of the boycott, but was remove the comma
  • unfair to peers who had been waiting years for the honour ==> "unfair to peers waiting years for the honour"
I dont' agree. The present language better conveys that there were peers who had waited years for the item, although we don't know specifically who was being referred to.
  • people of Ireland, since the remove the comma
  • Irish nationalists, which 80 percent of Irish constituencies "percent" should be "per cent"
  • The number of them who exhibit Irish patriotism of any kind or degree are an insignificant minority. "are" should be "is". "The number" is singular, so the verb should also be singular.
I'm not certain about this. It's referring to multiple people so in BritEng shouldn't it take the plural?
I'm pretty sure. Maybe ask another editor, but i'm pretty sure it's this way. I don't mind too much
It's a quotation in any case from a newspaper so it should probably be left as is.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
election
  • by a number of peers that they ==> "by several peers that they"
  • Irish representative peers had claimed a right to vote, and had that claim upheld by the House of Lords, it did not require the same for the person elected. remove "it"
aftermath
  • Under a procedure set forth in the Act sounds excessively formal. i'd do "Under a procedure outlined in the Act "
I dont' agree. I've read that portion of the Act. It sets out in detail what must be done in the case of a tie, and was done for the only time in the November election.

That's all i got. fine work! 750h+ 13:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a few days before I respond. Health reasons.__Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, just one comment above. No problem. 750h+ 13:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All done or responded to. Thanks, 750h+
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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2024 [19].

Brochfael ap Meurig

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brochfael was king of Gwent in south-east Wales in the late ninth and early tenth centuries. He is chiefly known for having been one of the Welsh kings who submitted to the lordship of Alfred the Great in order to get protection from the oppression of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians. Brochfael was involved in a number of disputes with Bishop Cyfeilliog, who is an FAC below, and was once threatened with excommunication for insulting the bishop. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Is there no image of the subject that could be included?
  • Suggest expanding the alt text

source review from sawyer777

[edit]

yay, a medieval Wales FAC!! one of my favorite topics. i'll get to this in the next few days. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 08:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sawyer777. There is another one below at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyfeilliog/archive1! Dudley Miles (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
aye, i'll give it a review if i've got the time and/or it stalls out & needs more feedback. :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 08:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

alright, let's get to it.

  • in the publishing location, the cities don't need ", UK" (or NY, for Ithaca) after them - there's no ambiguity about which London or Cardiff is being referred to. also, for Oxford University Press, having the location is a bit redundant as it's right in the name. not really a big deal though. overall, citation formatting & consistency is great.
  • no concerns about reliability; Iolo is nowhere to be found, and all of the sources are from solid academic publishers and authors. i see only three old sources, Haddan & Stubbs 1869, Evans & Rhys 1893, and Lloyd 1911, which are used perfectly reasonably.

small spot-check (ref numbers as of this revision):

  • ref 8 (a & b): good
  • ref 10: good
  • ref 15: good
  • ref 18: checked Charles-Edwards and Davies, both check out
  • ref 25: good

no significant issues i could find. support on sourcing. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 10:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Could "charter" be linked?
  • "in order to get protection". 'in order to gain protection' sounds a little more encyclopediac to my ear.
  • "Brochfael's acceded to the throne" ?
  • "and submitted to the West Saxon king." And who might this be? They don't seem to have been previously mentioned.
  • "and thus in an important step towards the unity of England." What unity of England? I think this needs unpacking a little further.

That's all from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

You wait years for an early medieval Wales FAC, and then...

  • Mercia claimed dominion over Wales: in the body, we've only said most of. How much are we talking here?
  • in order to gain protection from the oppression of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians: is oppression the right NPOV word here, or are we unwittingly parroting their/Alfred's spin on the situation? From what comes later, it sounds like the Ur-source here is Asser, who isn't exactly a neutral.
  • That is true, although as a monk of St David's Asser was more concerned with its oppression by the king of Dyfed. However, Asser's description is accepted by historians, and it is hard to see why the kings should have voluntarily submitted to Alfred if Æthelred was not oppressive. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely there's the usual reasons that any ruler submits to another -- most obviously, feeling a choice between voluntarily submitting (hopefully with benefits or at least gentle treatment) and involuntarily submitting? UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the chronological discussions about Gwent vs Glywysing in the body, I'd suggest putting a more concrete date on the map than just "early medieval".
Right, but we have In the seventh century, south-east Wales was one kingdom called Gwent, but by the ninth century it was divided between Glywysing (later Morgannwg and Glamorgan) in the west and Gwent in the east. If we stand by the text of our article, we can therefore say that the map (with Gwent and Glwysing undivided) shows the borders of those kingdoms as they were before the ninth century, at the very least. However, on closer inspection, I have some bigger worries about the map. It has White Castle, which was built after the Norman Conquest, and Grace Dieu Abbey, which wasn't founded until 1226. How certain can we be that the other toponyms and, in particular, the borders are accurate for the time we're discussing? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed the label from Early medieval Wales to Medieval Wales in the light of your comments (also in the Cyfeilliog article). The map shows the area of the kingdoms. There is no better map which we can use which I am aware of, and I think it is much better than having no map. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, but we do need to caption it appropriately. If the borders of Gwent on the map are not the borders of the kingdom of Gwent that we describe, we should say so; if it's a map of 13th-century Wales but happens to have a lot of the right places labelled, we should say that too. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I missed this. The full map in the book is labelled 'Medieval Wales'. If it is of any date it seems to be 11th century as it has Gwent, which was conquered by the Normans soon after the Conquest, and Morgannwg, a name for Glywysing which came in at the end of the tenth century. (The legend says that "9" means Morgannwg and I wrote that it means Glywysing.) I do not have any source for specifying a date, and the map may include some earlier names, but I could change the caption to "Medieval south-east Wales. The number "9" means Morgannwg, a name for Glwywsing which came in by the year 1000." The borders are not exactly known and changed with the conquests and defeats in each generation. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • defeated the Vikings: "the Vikings" weren't (and aren't seen in scholarship) as a single group of people under that name -- we do, however, have the term "Great Heathen Army" for the force that Alfred defeated. Better to use that with some explanation?
I think we could do better, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that the current approach is wrong. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was doubtful about putting in the battle at all as it is only peripherally relevant. I do not think we need to worry about using a term which is widely used by reliable sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ceolwulf's successor as ruler of Mercia, Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians at the Battle of the Conwy: needs a comma after Mercians, but consider reworking to streamline the syntax a bit.
Comma corrected, syntax much the same, but perfectly grammatical and readable. I suppose you could argue that the "Lord of the Mercians" epithet is superfluous in a sentence that says he was, well, lord of the Mercians, and just give his name as Æthelred. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we give any indication of the reasoning and the whys behind the different dates for Brochfael's accession?
  • I do not think that I can find citations for a more detailed explanation. As so often, historians assume knowledge of basic points. There is only one fixed point for Brochfael's dates, Asser's mention of him in the late 880s. Apart from that, it is a matter of historians' judgements on the dates of charters which mention him, and maybe in some cases who is being referred to. Bartrum dates him 830, which is obviously wrong as he is recorded into the tenth century. Davies dates him c.872-910. Sims-Wiliams does not give an accession date (so far as I know) and says that Owain probably became king of both territitories by 893. As this looks too early and it is ambiguous whether it means he replaced Brochfael or his father as over-king I have left it out. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Owain probably became king of both territories by 893. As this looks too early and it is ambiguous whether it means he replaced Brochfael or his father as over-king I have left it out. : I'm a bit uncomfortable here -- taking no position on your judgement here, I think it's OR to say "this looks too early" purely on our own initiative. At the moment, it sounds as though we have Davies saying 910, Sims-Williams saying 893, and Charles-Edwards saying before 918 (which is compatible with either). Has anyone actually put it in print that 893 is impossible? If not, I think WP:DUEWEIGHT means we need to include it, even if we weight it as a minority view. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not agree. Sims-Williams gives as a reason for the 893 date that Owain was recorded as king in 927, and cites pages in Charles-Edwards which do not support 893. Davies dates two charters of Brochfael to 905 and 910, and Sims-Williams has not questioned this dating so far as I know, or provided any reason for his 893 date. I think mentioning the date would be misleading without unreferenced qualifications. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've found out the sources, and I agree that Sims-Williams is light on justification, but he does unambiguously give the terminus post quem for Owain's rule as c. 893, not 927. Rebecca Thomas, here (search "893") also gives 893 as the terminus post quem for Owain gaining control of Glywysing and Gwent. I'm not sure it needs to contradict what's in the article already, but I do think we need at least a footnote to the effect that both Sims-Williams and Davies say that Owain's rule over the two kingdoms began at some point after c. 893. We've given a terminus ante quem, so the other side of the date range is manifestly relevant, and we need to observe both WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:OR here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would give a brief introduction, at least by approximate date, to the Book of Llandaff and the Life of King Alfred.
  • Ffernfael may have been subordinate to Brochfael: may therefore? I think we need something to tie the logic of this sentence into the previous one.
Does the source not connect those two dots at all? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brochfael's father Meurig gave grants in both territories, and Charles-Edwards and Davies think that he ruled them both as king of Glywysing: we've demoted the dissenting view into a footnote. I know it's two against one, but WP:DUEWEIGHT is not a vote -- do we have a separate good reason to think Sims-Williams is wrong? If not, I think we need to give the two sides equal billing.
  • Æthelred's defeat at the Conwy: suggest reminding us of the date, particularly for readers who won't go through the article top-to-bottom.
  • Brochfael and Ffernfael were joint kings of Gwent, and their cousin Hywel ap Rhys was King of Glywysing: this isn't wrong, per the MoS, but the capital on the second king reads oddly, and is inconsistent with how we've approached the same problem in the first sentence (Brochfael ap Meurig was king of Gwent in south-east Wales.. Would suggest decapitalising.
  • three modii (about 120 acres (50 hectares)) of land: you can avoid the awkward double brackets by replacing the outer set with dashes. This comes up twice.
De gustibus -- not a problem. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Latin text should be in lang templates, which will do the italics for you.
  • Quotations that are put into italics for language reasons don't then have quotation marks around them (MOS:"?)
  • Manuscript D of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle : this sounds as if we expect readers to know it already. Suggest "One [date?] manuscript of the ASC, known as Manuscript D, states..." Do the others omit this bit, though? That might be cause for concern?
  • I think Manuscript D of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is self-explanatory, and there is a link for readers who want more information. D is thought to be a northern version dating to the mid-eleventh century, and there is probably a good deal to say on this, but I do not have a source. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a style point rather than a clarity one. I think it's certainly relevant that the source is perhaps over a century later than the events it describes. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • She died in around 910: just around 910 is more concise and, I think, more natural English.
  • King of the people of Gwent: definitely needs a decap of king per MOS:PEOPLETITLES.
  • he may have been the father of Gwriad ap Brochfael: and who was he?
  • This is a difficult one. It is based on Bartrum, whose dictionary covers a vast number of Welsh people in fact and legend up to 1000. It is published by the National Library of Wales and cited by historians, but there are signs of carelessness in some entries. I have changed the comment to a footnote covering Bartrum's speculations. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Davies seems to argue with herself, and give two different dates (and levels of confidence) on Meurig's reign. Why have we given one of those in the body text (implicitly endorsing it) and the other as a footnote?
Personally, I'm not sure we can really do that, unless it's clear from context that one is definitely not the author's intent. I don't think we can definitely say that authors or editors stand more strongly by data presented in prose than data presented in tables. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As with the last one, I enjoyed reading this -- a great job of reconstructing a life where the sources clearly make it difficult to know much for certain. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your very detailed and helpful review UndercoverClassicist. Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles and UndercoverClassicist, how's this review coming along? FrB.TG (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think my points on submission, captioning and dating are still live. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Only two quibbles from me:

  • In the second sentence of the lead I'd lose "while" if I were you, as although the context makes it clear that it just means "and", I feel it safer as a general rule not to use "while" unless you mean it in the temporal sense. There's no real danger here of "the Bishop preached the sermon while the Dean read the lesson" but you might like to consider an "and" or a semicolon instead of the "while".
  • In the Kingship section "Æthelred's defeat at the Conwy in 881" reads a little strangely to my eye. Somehow without the "Battle of…" before it – as at earlier mention – it looks odd, like saying "the Allies' victory at the River Plate" or "Nelson's victory at the Nile" or "the Allies and Axis forces at the Atlantic". Not wrong, but strikes an odd note, though I most definitely do not press the point, or indeed the one above it.
Well illustrated (a pity about the lack of a mug shot, but I see from the above that one is not to be had) and a good range of mostly modern sources. Meets all the FA criteria in my view and I'm glad to support. I always enjoy reviewing Dudley's articles, but this time I had an uncovenanted bonus when my spell-checker announced that Brochfael should be either Rochdale or Bronchial. –Tim riley talk 11:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

[edit]

I'll have a look at this too. If you would like to do a review, I've also got an article at FAC that needs reviews. Steelkamp (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Who is "Brlochfael"? Is that a typo of Brochfael?
  • "Mercia claimed dominion over most of Wales, and in the late 880s Brochfael, Ffernfael and Hywel submitted voluntarily to Alfred the Great, King of Wessex, in order to gain protection from the oppression of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians." Suggest changing to "Mercia claimed dominion over most of Wales, but in the late 880s Brochfael, Ffernfael and Hywel submitted voluntarily to Alfred the Great, King of Wessex, in order to gain protection from the oppression of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians."
  • "The historian of Wales Thomas Charles-Edwards thinks that he may be the Meurig..." It's not clear that this is referring to the father, and not Brochfael ap Meurig.
  • Is there anywhere that "grants" can link to?
  • "In the previous generation, ..." Is this part of the sentence strictly necessary given that the latter part of that sentence establishes that it is talking about the father?
  • I would change "(about 120 acres (50 hectares))" to "(about 120 acres or 50 hectares)" using disp=or in the convert template. This solution avoids using double brackets. Same with "(about 240 acres (100 hectares))" to "(about 240 acres or 100 hectares)".
  • "...which Brochfael gave to his daughter, ..." Is this Brochfael's daughter or Cyfeilliog's daugher?
  • "Manuscript D of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that in 927 Owain, king of the people of Gwent..." Suggest adding a comma after 927 and before Owain.

That's all the comments I have. Steelkamp (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ceoil

[edit]

Have read through (with trivial edits) a few times and have been following the reviews above. Really like these Anglo-Saxon Kingship articles, and this one is very clearly written and precise with no unnecessary padding. Sourcing is excellent, and I gather that info is so scant that it easily passes comprehensiveness. Ceoil (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Ceoil. I have removed the word "believes" in your edits. Some historians strongly object to it as they think it implies an opinion not supported by reasoning, as with religious belief. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah was thinking you might :) Was trying to avoid "thinks" x 2, and there was the hedge "may be" just afterwards. It's something I struggle a bit when writing about the dating of Iron-age artifacts. So no worries. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serial

[edit]
  • Although the caption says that Glywysing is the 9, the map seems to suggest that that is Gwynllyg. Am I misreading it?!
  • The lead doesn't actually say much about Brochfael the king himself, more the regional politics.
  • "having a higher status" > the higher status.
  • Anothr map, showing the broader geography—where Mercia, Wessex etc were positioned in relation to Glywysing would be useful for the background. (Maybe a crop of this?)
  • I agree that a broader map would be helpful, but the one you link to is of Britain in 600, 300 years too early. There is a better map at [20], but it is of the mid 10th century and shows Gwent as one large territory, so it might confuse people. What do you think. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • re. Ffernfael's subordinacy, probably worth adding "Charles-Edwards has speculated", since no-one else has; indeed, it's odd that he doesn't mention the dangers of relying too heavily on charters when it is known that only a (random) percentage have survived.
  • I think "may have been subordinate" is sufficient qualification. Other historians have not made the point because Ffernfael is such a minor figure that he is rarely mentioned. He is only recorded twice, by Asser and as a witness to one charter of his father, and I think he probably died soon after Asser mentioned him, but of course I cannot says so. I take your point about charters and have qualified by saying "Ffernfael does not have any surviving charters of his own". Dudley Miles (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All from me. Nice one Dudley Miles, compact but comprehensive. Cheers, SerialNumber54129 13:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Unlimitedlead

[edit]
  • "Mercia claimed dominion over most of Wales..." Suggest changing to "The Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Mercia claimed dominion over most of Wales..." for clarity.
  • "The historian of Wales..." This sounds like an official title. Suggest revising to: "Thomas Charles-Edwards, a historian specializing in Welsh history, thinks that Meurig...", or something of that vein in order for improved sentence flow.
  • Introduce Wendy Davies; we do not know who she is.
  • Why does Davies postulate a different date?
  • Can more be said about Brochfael's own family? The fact that he had a daughter is suddenly thrust open the reader in the last few sentences.

Please notify me when you have had the chance to reply to my concerns. Great work; it's always nice to see more history articles here at FA :) Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Another very readable article. The only minor point I would raise is the caption on the map, which refers to "Medieval south-east Wales"; as that covers about a millennia, and as the boundaries shifted (or at least territories merged and separated), can we be more precise on the date? Fair enough if the sources don't clarify tyhe point, but worth checking. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks SchroCat. On the map caption, see the discussion with UndercoverClassicist above. Any suggestions how to deal with this welcome. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I like your suggestion further up of captioning Medieval south-east Wales. The number "9" means Morgannwg, a name for Glwywsing which came in by the year 1000, but would like to be even more explicit in the first part: something like Map of south-east Wales, showing sites from throughout the medieval period (c. 600 – c. 1300) (or whatever date range the book uses for "medieval"). It's not ideal that the map doesn't really match our time period, but it's a necessary evil -- however, I think we have to be really clear with readers so that they know what they are and are not getting. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with that too. - SchroCat (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me too. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I forgot to mention in the blurb a curious point, which is that when I created this article, there were already articles about Brochfael in the French and Russian Wikipedias, but not in Welsh. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2024 [21].

Suicidal Tour

[edit]
Nominator(s): – Hilst (talk | contribs) 22:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a tour undertaken by a Brazilian football club which quickly spiraled into chaos, becoming more and more unbelievable as it goes on. My first FAC! – Hilst (talk | contribs) 22:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

Within the week, badger me if I forget. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, slow night at work, so here we are. Please don't be freaked out by the number of comments, I write down everything that comes to mind when reading FACs. Suggested re-phrasings are always suggestions, feel free to do your own thing. If sources don't have info that I'm asking about, don't worry about it. Finally, I'm always open to discussion or disagreement - you're the one who knows the content, and FAC reviewers aren't infallible. And away we go!

Lead

  • "looking to raise funds in friendly matches" - phrasing a bit odd here. Maybe "playing friendly matches to raise funds" or "playing friendly matches as a fundraiser"?
    Picked the first phrasing.
  • Nice use of "who knows what the truth is" footnote :)
    Thanks! :)
  • Sentence two is so, so long. Can it be split?
    Split into two, let me know if it needs to be split further.
  • "misfortune, danger, and tragedy" - this feels a bit like over-egging the pudding. Can we pick one?
    Went with misfortune.
  • Might link Nazism in Brazil since otherwise it's likely to be confusing (or maybe Brazil in World War II)
    Went with Brazil in World War II.

Natal

  • Any details about what the financial crisis was or why it was happening? (Was it related to WW2?)
    Added.
  • Link North Region again
    Done.
  • For the ignorant among us, how would playing exhibition matches make them money?
    I assume it was through ticket revenue, but none of the sources actually spell it out.
    There's nothing more funny yet annoying than running into a situation like that, where every source is like "obviously everyone will know what a blorbo is, I don't have to explain" and then it turns no one knows what the damn blorbo is because no one explained it
  • Recommend linking Brazil in World War II and maybe noting that German U-boats were patrolling the area, because many people might not realize they were
    Linked.
  • Actually, the above three suggestions might fit well in a "Background" section (and you could give some brief background on the team)
    Created the background section.
    Looking good! (years ago I got taught to do Background sections and I've found it's such a help with setting up the rest of the prose)
  • Is Santa Cruz from Pernambuco? I assume yes, but it's not clear - they could just be visiting there. Good fodder for the background section
    Yes. Added to background section.
  • "local state's team" - no link I guess?
    Nope, not even an interlanguage link. :(
  • Might want to clarify that Belem is a city, and add the state
    Added the state.
  • I don't think "by" is needed when you're giving a whole-game score. You don't "win by" 7-2, you win 7-2, and win by 5 points. See what I mean?
    Removed the "by"s.
  • Why is Remo 5 to 3 when everything else is given with a dash? Consistency is important
    Dash'd.
  • Might be worth clarifying that all those teams are based in the city of Belém, as that's not clear from context
    Added. Doesn't read too smoothly imo, but it works.
  • Are there no details in any sourcing about any of these games?
    There's some small details about them in modern sources, but definitely not anything substantial. Contemporary sources have some more stuff, but I'm not if in-game details really matter that much here, since the article is more about the overarching story than anything.
    Ah, just checking, in case any of them had any disastrous incidents :P

Manaus

  • Again, might want to clarify that Manaus is a city, and add the state
    Done.
  • Do we know who invited them?
    Clarified in background section.
  • Was the head of delegation a player also, or like a coach?
    Clarified in background section.
  • I know we don't always link countries, but I think Peru and Guyana are reasonably relevant links here
    Done.
  • Link Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Brazil)
    Done.
  • I know the answer is likely WW2, but why were clubs not supposed to leave?
    Added.
  • "Under the possibility of being suspended for 90 days" - phrasing a bit awkward here
    • Suspended from what?
      I don't know, none of the sources elaborate on what the "suspension" would be.
    • If they can be suspended for leaving, it's not really a request not to leave, is it?
      Clarified, hopefully.
    • I might suggest moving the suspension to the previous sentence, or rewording a bit
      Reworded.
  • "relapsed from the dysentery" - "had a relapse of dysentery" is more correct
    Done.
  • Are first names known for King and Papeira? If so, please include them on first mention; if not, maybe footnote it (if a roster is known, it might be worth putting one in a table in Background)
    I couldn't find Papeira's first name anywhere. Including only King's name is kind of awkward in my opinion, so I'd rather not add it. Added the roster.
    Fair. You may want to footnote somewhere about names being unknown/the one-word-nickname tradition thing
    Done.
  • "both having disobeyed previous medical orders" about what?
    Added.
    To be fair I'm not sure I could restrain myself from eating eggs and lobster either
  • "but all maritime travel was prohibited by the Brazilian government" - since when? they were boating before, no?
    Added date.

Belém

  • "Defender Pedrinho" first name thing again
  • Did Pedrinho still get to play in the game?
    I'm not sure if he did play against Remo, but he did play against Paisandu on the 9th. Added.
  • "was also a club director, and was interested in the player's abilities." - so... he was going to arrest him then seduce him into joining his own team?
    Correct!
    • I'm dying to know how he thought that was going to go, loooool
  • "Sidinho, who had defected to the club a week earlier" - who is Sidinho? What is "the club" that he defected to?
    Added him to the roster at the top (confusingly, there's two players named Sidinho, and sources don't agree on how to spell their names...). "To the club" is a typo, it should've just been "defected the club". Rewrote the whole sentence.
  • "The club then played..." I would flip the clauses in this sentence and remove "then"
    Done? I'll be honest, I'm not happy with either version
    • Fair, I think it works better this way but if you want to change it another way it won't affect my support
  • "before the end of the game" could tighten to "during the game"; similarly "After the end of the match" could be tightened to "After the match"
    Done.
  • commemorated - I think you might want commiserated instead
    Done.
  • "the Taça Cidade de Recife" - the what
    Translated "taça" to "trophy".
    • Sure, but what's the trophy for? I thought these were largely exhibition matches?
      Clarified.
  • "starting the journey back" via? And if by boat, when did the government stop prohibiting maritime travel? (or are we riverboating here)
    Via boat. No idea when they started allowing it again.
    Is it possible to try to track this down? It's just that it sort of presents a thread that can be pulled on. If you can't find it, that's fine.
    No dice.
  • Were the trophies valuable in and of themselves?
    Probably? Since they went out of their way to hide them, they probably had some value, but I can't verify it.
  • "boat was retained" - I think you want detained
    I think either one works, see wikt:reter#Portuguese.
    Sure but we're not writing in Portuguese; "retain" in English lacks implication of legal matters that "detain" has.
    Done.
  • for the Campeonato Pernambucano - context? Even if you just say "the state championship, the Campeonato Pernambucano"
    Done.

Okay! Overall I think this is a well-researched and interesting article. It could use some polishing to get to the FA level, but it's definitely doable and I look forward to seeing it get there. No rush on responses. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: I've addressed all of your comments. Thank you for checking my article! – Hilst (talk | contribs) 22:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hilst:, responses to a few things above, anything not commented on looks fine to me. The question about the value of the trophies has no response - possibly missed? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my god, I have no idea how I missed that. Sorry! Unless I've missed something else, @Premeditated Chaos, it's done! sorry for the pings too lmao – Hilst (talk | contribs) 20:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. I'm a support :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joeyquism

[edit]

Committing to a review in the next couple of days. Congratulations on the successful GAN for this, and welcome to FAC! joeyquism (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hilst: Apologies for taking so long to get to this. The article seems to be in pretty good shape after the preliminary reviews before mine; however, for the sake of being comprehensive, I've noted a few things below. Feel free to refuse with justification:

Lead

  • The introduction of the term "Suicidal Tour" in the lead feels a bit late. From MOS:BOLDLEAD:
If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence:
The electron is a subatomic particle with a negative elementary electric charge. (Electron)
Otherwise, include the title if it can be accommodated in a natural way:
The United States presidential line of succession is the order in which officials of the United States ... (United States presidential line of succession)
Perhaps the lead paragraph can have its sentences rearranged and reformatted so that the first sentence refers explicitly to this term? Otherwise, do not fret too much about this critique; I haven't seen it mentioned in other reviewers' comments, so unless that becomes a point of contention, I will not base my final stance on this entirely. Leaving this as a suggestion.
I thought similar. I have put a proposed draft lead on the talk page of this FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm liking what you've proposed as a solution. joeyquism (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Not sure if "Brazilian Portuguese" needs to be included before "Excursão da Morte".
    Removed.
  • No comma before "due"?
    Not needed with the new lead.
  • I'm noticing that Brazil in World War II is linked here; however, it does not appear to be linked anywhere else in the article. Would this be appropriate as a replacement for World War II link in the Background section?
    I think that link would be a bit too MOS:EGGy for my taste.

Background

  • I'm a bit confused by "subsist off of their suburban football fields" - is there something about the quality of these fields that using them would be seen as subsistence? Sorry if this is a silly question; I'm mostly just wondering. Feel free to tell me if answering does not seem worthwhile.
    They were subsisting off the revenue from leasing them to other people/clubs. Changed it to "subsist off of the revenue from their suburban football fields".
  • What is meant by "buying" here? I'm not into the euphemistic use of words in articles; a clarification would be much better.
    Buying as in paying Transviário so that they would play a few matches against Santa Cruz. Feel free to suggest a reword, I can't think of anything. Removed the quotes around buying.
  • The semicolon after "players" should be a colon, as it's coming before a list
    Done.

Natal and Belém

  • Would it be worth it to mention that this was a relatively untroubled time for the team during their tour? Just an observation; if sourcing for such a claim is not possible, I'd say it's alright to go without it.
    No source says this as far as I can tell, sorry.
  • No double link for Pernambuco; it's linked in the previous section.
    Already done.
  • No comma after "lights off"
    Done.
  • No comma after "3-3"
    That one was added by Gog, btw. Done.

Manaus

  • "Thrice" is a bit of an outdated word; "three times" should be good
    Done.
  • "as they were "attracted by good offers" from local teams - Not sure about the quotes again. Is this quote lifted from the sources, or is there some larger situation that is being euphemized by this phrase?
    Lifted from Aragão 1979.
  • "two players had a relapse of dysentery" - Did they get dysentery again, or did their health deteriorate as a result of having a sustained case of dysentery? Just wondering.
    The latter, I assume.

Belém to Recife

  • "doing evil to a 17-year-old girl" - Same issues as other noted usages of quotes.
    It's a quote from Aragão 1979, who lifted it straight from the mentioned telegram. Rewrote the proceeding sentence slightly so it's easier to determine where it came from. (Also moved the source up since that got left behind in a rewrite.)
  • For footnote D, "Some sources incorrectly report the date as 3 March." - Is this known to be incorrect, or is there simply a discrepancy between sources (there is a difference)? If it's the latter, I would remove "incorrectly".
    It's the latter. Done.
  • No comma after "Cidade do Recife trophy"
    Done.
  • Is there an aftermath/legacy to all of this? Might be a big ask to include, but if there's information/analysis on this tour's impact, I think it would be worth it to include in the article.
    I don't think there is anything out there detailing it's legacy.

Overall, a very nice article on an interesting (albeit tragic) topic. I'll read over it again after my comments have been addressed. Looking forward to hearing back from you, and I hope you're having a wonderful start to your week. joeyquism (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeyquism: All done! Sorry for taking so long to answer your comments, oops. – Hilst (talk | contribs) 21:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hilst: Looking a lot better! Happy to support this for promotion. joeyquism (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Link football in the lead, so we know exactly which sport we are talking about
    Done.
  • In the lead you have "friendly match" (unlinked) but in the body you have "exhibition match" (linked).
    Swapped the links and renamed the second instance to friendly.
    Both should be linked -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.
  • "including a lack of funds, the threat of Nazi attacks and deaths" => "including a lack of funds, the threat of Nazi attacks, and deaths"
    Done.
  • Link the club again in the body (and also show full name, like in the lead)
    Done.
  • "where they beat Transviário Esporte Clube 7–2, Tuna Luso 3–1" => "where they beat Transviário Esporte Clube 7–2 and Tuna Luso 3–1"
    Done.
  • "drew with the Pará state team 3–3, 4–4 with Paysandu" => "drew 3–3 with the Pará state team and 4–4 with Paysandu"
    Done.
  • "While the team's delegation intended for the matches in Belém to be the last ones of the excursion" => "Although the team's delegation intended for the matches in Belém to be the last ones of the excursion"
    Done.
  • "they lost their first game in Amazonas to Olímpico by 3–2" => "they lost their first game in Amazonas 3–2 to Olímpico"
    Done.
  • "the head of delegation and six players" => "the head of the delegation and six players"
    Done.
  • "Defender Pedrinho was sent an arrest warrant" - I am pretty sure that arrest warrants are not sent to the suspect. Maybe "An arrest warrant was issued for defender Pedrinho"
    Fixed.
  • "being accused of "doing evil to a 17-year-old girl"" => "as he was accused of "doing evil to a 17-year-old girl""
    Done.
  • "It turned out that the police officer who ordered his arrest was also a club director" - which club?
    No idea, none of the sources mention it by name.
  • "Santa Cruz entering the field before a game in Belém." - this doesn't need a full stop
    Removed.
  • Do we really need the exact time of King's death and (particularly) funeral? If you feel we do, I think they should be shown using the 12-hour clock i.e. 2.35am and 4.00pm
    Removed the funeral time. I believe the 24-hour format is more appropriate here, since that's the one that is used in Brazil.
  • "At 16:30,[16] before the end of the game" => "At 4.30pm,[16] before the end of the game"
    See above.
  • "but had to return to São Luís due a thunderstorm" => "but had to return to São Luís due to a thunderstorm"
    Fixed.
  • "The players then decided to go to Teresina, Piauí, via train" => "The players then decided to go to Teresina, Piauí, by train"
    Done.
  • "Papeira's briefcase was given to his family, but King's briefcase could not be returned" - just a guess as I can't read the source but I suspect they were suitcases rather than briefcases
    Done.

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Done all, thanks for commenting! – Hilst (talk | contribs) 22:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
[edit]
  • "buying a five-game season for five million Brazilian réis per match" - what does this mean? They had to pay 25 million reis to undertake the tour? Would that not make their finances worse rather than better?
    In the short-term, yes, but I assume the revenue they got from those first few matches was enough to cover the costs.
  • "it took two weeks for the squad to arrive to the state of Amazonas" => "it took two weeks for the squad to arrive in the state of Amazonas"
    Done.
  • "Three players, Cidnho, Omar and França" - first name seems to be spelt wrong
    Fixed.
  • "Papeira played barefoot" - when? This section seems to be describing a journey and doesn't reference any matches
    I don't know. None of the sources say when.
  • "He would play for Santa Cruz shortly after" => "He would play for Santa Cruz shortly afterwards"
    Done.
  • "Santa Cruz suffered their first casualty shortly after" => "Santa Cruz suffered their first casualty shortly afterwards"
    Done.

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: All done! – Hilst (talk | contribs) 19:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "they played over 25 matches". Is the exact number of matches played not known? Ok, one needs to read the unobtrusive note. Suggest 'they played either 26 or 28 matches'.
  • PS. The lead is meant to be a summary of the main article, but I can't see this mentioned in the latter.
I think you missed this one.
Oops. I'm a bit confused by this suggestion: should I add they played either 26 or 28 matches to the main article or should I change the note to say that?
IMO this important enough to be included in the lead - your suggestion works - rather than buried in a note. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Leads are not usually cited, as they are summaries of the main articles, which will be cited.
    Removed.
  • "and had to subsist off of their football grounds". I don't understand how their grounds (why plural?) helped them financially.
    I assume it was through leasing them to third parties. Changed wording so its closer to what's said in the source.
  • "and the monthly payments from their associates." What associates? I mean, are we even talking people or organisations? And why were they paying money to the club?
    People. Associates in this case are fans who pay a monthly/annual fee for benefits like discounted ticket prices and merchandise. Check out the second paragraph of Sports club § Organization
When I ask a question I am not asking it for my benefit, but for that of future readers. You have given a fine succinct explanation in answer to my query, along with a link. Could it be incorporated in line in the article?
I think incorporating it inline makes the paragraph too clunky. I've trimmed the explanation down a bit and added it as a note.
  • "Santa Cruz's directors decided to take a "quick spin" in the North Region". Why the colloquialism and the unattributed quote? 'take a short tour' would be more encyclopedic.
    It's a quote from Aragão 1979. Replaced.
When quoting, bear in mind the MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
  • Who or what were "Transviário Esporte Clube"?
    Clarified.
  • "The tour started at the height of World War II". What does at the height of mean. Perhaps 'in the middle of'.
    Done.
  • "Due to fears of possible Nazi submarine attacks". Replace "Nazi" with 'German'.
    Done.
  • "Afterwards, Santa Cruz traveled to" → 'Afterwards, the delegation traveled to'.
    Done.
  • "Although the team's delegation intended for the matches in Belém". Suggest deleting "for".
    Done.
  • "The club left for Manaus on 25 January". I suggest you stick with "delegation" throughout.
    Done.
  • In the first paragraph of the Manaus section I suggest that you make it clear that they were travelling up the Amazon River.
    Done.
  • "both having disobeyed the medical orders." What were the medical orders, and in what way were they disobeyed?
    They're defined in the previous paragraph. Clarified.
  • "Santa Cruz intended to return ..." This reads oddly. Firstly, in what way is the football club synonymous with the delegation; secondly, I don't see how a football club is capable of intentionality, this is usually reserved for people.
    Changed to delegation.
  • A map of Brazil showing the key places mentioned would greatly help.
    Costa 2020 has such a map, but I don't know its copyright status. I could make a free map, but I have no experience with this sort of thing.
Oh the fun I had (not) doing maps for my first two FACs! So I left myself some notes and a couple of examples at User:Gog the Mild/Misc#Maps. I have added the start of a Brazil map at the bottom - see how good to you I am. The map documentation is at Template:Location map many. The Wikipedia article on each location has its coordinates at the top right, click to get a conversion to decimal. You should be able to take it from there to fill in the other locations. Have fun and shout if you have queries.
Lol, thanks. Done.
Perhaps add the location of Santa Cruz's home ground? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • "An arrest warrant was sent for defender Pedrinho". What do you mean by "was sent for"?
    They received a telegram from Manaus ordering his arrest. Rewrote sentence.
  • "the police officer who ordered his arrest was also a club director". Of which club? Santa Cruz?
    Not mentioned in sources.
  • "Santa Cruz suffered their first casualty shortly thereafter". Suggest 'Santa Cruz suffered their first casualty shortly after'.
    Done.
  • "being accompanied by a large crowd." Suggest deleting "being".
    Done.
  • "Due to King's death, Cidinho, who had defected from Santa Cruz a week earlier, returned to the club." Who was Cidinho, why did he "defect", what does "defect" mean here, and why did King's death cause him to return?
    A player; he left so he could join another club in Manaus, see the last paragraph of the Manaus section; defect as in abandon (wording used in a source, can change if needed); I don't know.
How come we know that Cidinho returned "due" to King's death, but not why? It seems odd and reads very oddly.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Costa 2020 only says: Because of his teammate's death, Sidinho gave up on leaving the delegation and going to play in Manaus. I agree that it's quite odd. I can remove it if you want me to.
Bleh! How would you feel about replacing "due" with 'after'? Thus removing guesses at Cidinhos's motivation.
Done.
  • "A minute of silence was held before the match." It would be more usual to say 'A minute of silence was observed before the match.'
    Done.
  • What is "the Cidade do Recife trophy"?
    I believe its just a random tournament Paysandu made up for a symbolic gift. The source says that "the Paysandu board [offered] the club the Cidade do Recife Trophy, played between those two great clubs and which ended in a draw for each team."
  • "substituting for an injured teammate." The cook won't have been a teammate of the injured player. Better to say something like 'injured member of the delegation'.
    I think "substituting for an injured player" is the best option here.
Yes, that works.
  • "The players returned to playing football on 2 May". "returned to"? They had just played 26/28 matches.
    Changed.
  • You state it is disputed whether 26 or 28 matches were played, then list every one. Which two are disputed?
    Not every match is listed. I don't know which ones are disputed, Aragão 1979 doesn't list all of them.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the moment "The tour became known as the Suicidal Tour (Brazilian Portuguese: Excursão Suicída) and the Death Tour (Brazilian Portuguese: Excursão da Morte)" is in the lead, the summary, but I don't see anything in the main article to be so summarised. Am I missing something? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really sure how that should be included in the article. It feels out of place in "Belém to Recife", and it doesn't really merit it's own section.
Putting it at the end of Belém to Recife seems ok to me. Or retitle the section. (Return home and aftermath?) The number of matches they played also needs to go in somewhere.
After combing through sources, I couldn't find anything about how it became known as that. I don't think that info is really needed anymore since the lead got reworded. Added the match number.
A couple more come backs. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Done! – Hilst (talk | contribs) 17:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

source review from sawyer777

[edit]

an interesting topic and it looks like no one's done a source review yet, so i'll do one this weekend probably. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

alright, getting to it.

  • the sources seem perfectly reliable for this topic; we've got some sports publications and good Brazilian newspapers.
  • Guedes (2023) probably does not need to be a shortened footnote if it's not paginated/sectioned.
    Turned into full ref.
  • not all citations have ISSNs - where they're available, this is useful info to add & will make the cites more consistent.
    Done.
  • all of the sources are in Brazilian Portuguese, so i'll be relying on machine translation for spot-checks. if any Lusophones happen upon this page and take issue with my assessment, i defer to them.
  • spot-check as of this revision:
    • ref 2a - good
    • ref 5b - good
    • ref 11a - good
    • ref 15c - good
    • ref 23e - good

i will continue combing through in case i notice anything else. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sawyer777: Sorry for bothering you, but do you have any further comments? – Hilst (talk | contribs) 10:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no worries - no, i don't think i have any other comments. support on sourcing. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC

As I watched Santa Cruz play a few times when I lived in Recife, it's great to see them at FAC - comments to follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • This is really short and doesn't really do the article justice. There's a lot of information that could be used to give a more complete picture of the tour.
    Expanded a bit.
  • You need to identify where SC were from. At the moment, people have to get into the body to find out one of the key bits of information about the team.
    Done.
  • The image is great, but I think you should make it a bit easier to identify the two dead players, as the two crosses aren't terribly clear. Highlighting, (such as like this) would work. (This is a suggestion only, but it's worth thinking about)
    @SchroCat: I agree. Should I trace over the crosses to make them more clear or should the two players be highlighted like in the linked pic? I'm asking since I couldn't find a high-resolution unmarked version, and having two identification bits seems a bit overkill for me. – Hilst (talk | contribs) 14:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your choice. You can either circle, or maybe make the crosses red - as it's a B&W photo, the colour should make it clear for most people. - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made the crosses red. It's my first time editing an image for an article, so let me know if I did something wrong. – Hilst (talk | contribs) 01:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "The club had poor performances" is a slightly cumbersome (and misleading!) sentence. May be worth rephrasing slightly as:

The team were performing poorly, and the club owed wages to several of its staff, and had to subsist off the revenue from their suburban football fields and the monthly payments from their associates.[c][4]

  • Done.
  • "Santa Cruz's directors" -> "The club's directors"
    Done.
  • "tour in the North Region" -> "tour of the North Region"
    Done.
  • "participate in" -> "play"
    Done.
  • As with the comments below, I also don't understand "buying a five-game season for five million Brazilian réis per match" – you may need to clarify this a little
    Reworded.
Natal and Belém
  • For WP:ACCESS compliance, the caption should read "Santa Cruz's home city of Recife is marked with a blue dot."
    Done.
  • "against the local state's team" -> "against the state team". (I presume this either doesn't exist any more, or was a 'special' team made up of the best of the other local teams?)
    Done. I believe that it was the latter.
  • "Afterwards, the delegation traveled" -> "The delegation then traveled" (they couldn't have travelled before or during)
    Done.
Manaus
  • "plenty of fruits and vegetables" -> "plenty of fruit and vegetables"
    Done.
  • You need to show a conversion for the nautical miles. Use {{convert|10|nmi|km mi|spell=in}}, which gives you "ten nautical miles (19 km; 12 mi)"
    Done.
Belém to Recife
  • "to gather more money" -> "to earn money"
    Done.
  • "The story was fake, and the player was never arrested". You've already said the story was fake, so no need to repeat that, unless you turn it to: "As the accusation was falsified, the player was never arrested"
    Reworded.
  • I think you can upscale the picture a bit – add upright=1.2| to the markup to get it to a better size
    Done.
  • King's death: do we need to know the time? I think we can just stick with the date here.
    Removed.
  • "At 16:30,[21]": I dislike citations so early in a sentence, partly because they distract readers, but partly because all this is supporting is the fact that the time 16:30 happened: it doesn't support that the news broke at this time (that's all in the next set of citations at the end of the sentence). This should be moved to the end to join the others.
    Done.
  • "ship's cook as a player, substituting for an injured player" -> "ship's cook, substituting for an injured player" – no loss of comprehension and avoids the double 'player'
    Done.
  • "presence of German submarines in the sea": you don't need the last three words (where else would they be?)
    Done.
  • "either 26,[1] or 28 matches": that comma isn't needed
    Done.
Citations
  • Is there a reason you've provided a translation for some of the BrPort sources (FNs 6, 9, 12, 19, 20 and 24), but not the others?
    Done.
I hope these help. - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hilst, A nudge on these comments, as you've done the ones below. - SchroCat (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: All done! Thanks for commenting and sorry for the delay :) – Hilst (talk | contribs) 01:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Alavense

[edit]
  • buying a five-game season for five million Brazilian réis per match - I don't understand what that means.
    Reworded. Any better?
  • The team's delegation consisted of sixteen players, a president, who also acted as the treasurer and the team's coach; and a referee from the Pernambuco Sports Federation - I think this would read more clearly like this: "The team's delegation consisted of sixteen players, a president—who also acted as the treasurer and the team's coach—and a referee from the Pernambuco Sports Federation".
    Done.
  • Afterwards, the delegation traveled to Belém, Pará, playing five games against Belém-based teams - Maybe "against teams based in that city"?
    Done.
  • and subsequently lost to Remo 5–3 - I think it would be better to write the result from the perspective of the team the article deals with, so 3–5. There are other instances of this throughout the text.
My bad, then. Ignore what I said there. Thank you, ChrisTheDude. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides, use {{nbnd}} for the results.
    Done.
  • Manaus, Amazonas should be "Manaus, Amazonas," for consistency's sake.
    Done.
  • ordering the arrest of defender Pedrinho, which accused him of - Maybe it's "who was accused of" what you mean?
    Done.
  • with either 26, or 28 matches - No need for that comma.
    Done.

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense: All done! Thanks for commenting :) – Hilst (talk | contribs) 12:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Image licence, placement and ALT text seems OK. I wonder where NordNordWest got the lines in File:Brazil location map.svg from. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are named in the file description: NIMA and WDB II data. NNW (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was rather blind on my part... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 5 September 2024 [22].

Born to Run

[edit]
Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Bruce Springsteen's third studio album Born to Run. A make a break record for the singer-songwriter, it's easy to say he made it (very well). Now regarded by many as his magnum opus (although this editor would argue Darkness on the Edge of Town or Nebraska), I rewrote this article from the ground up and after its GAN it went through a helpful peer review and I believe it's now ready for the star. I'm looking forward to any comments or concerns. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

[edit]

It's great to see an article on a major popular music album here instead of the more common FACs on modern pop. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • " was designed to break him into the mainstream" - bit clunky
  • "the band and producers spent six months alone working on the title track" - seems like trivia for the lead
  • I would say otherwise because it displays how "prolonged and grueling" the sessions were; plus, most songs did not take that long to record, especially at the time. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Springsteen's lack of direction and confidence" - this appears out of the blue after text that stresses that Springsteen was ambitious about the record
  • Removed confidence
  • "Springsteen was sent multiple mixes as he was on the road and rejected all of them, approving the final one in early August." - this needs to be tweaked: if he rejected all of them how could he have approved one?
  • "such as a road can take you anywhere" - I suspect that a 'that' is missing here
  • Fixed
  • ""Born to Run" uses an automobile to escape from a depressing life" - this is unclear
  • "The success of Born to Run revitalized Springsteen's career" - this is unclear given the article previously stresses that the album led Springsteen to move from relative obscurity into stardom.
  • Same issue with that. 'Saved' seems appropriate if it's what the sources used (though it's hard to believe that Springsteen wouldn't have had a decent chance of making a successful music career given his skills). Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had the album been performed live in total before 2008?
  • Not that I could find. Setlists for the Born to Run tours are hard to find. I know he has performed all the songs from Born to Run quite often since 1975, but the album itself in order front to back I could not find. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Apologises for my slow response here - I was travelling and the pings fell through the cracks. Those changes look good, and I think that the FA criteria are met. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • "By 1974 his popularity was limited to United States East Coast" => "By 1974 his popularity was limited to the East Coast of the United States"
  • "Low morale plagued Springsteen's team, including both his manager, Mike Appel, and the E Street Band" => "Low morale plagued Springsteen's team, including both his manager, Mike Appel, and his backing band the E Street Band"
  • Changed to "backing group" so we're not saying band twice
  • "Bittan had a background in symphony orchestra" => "Bittan had a background in symphony orchestras"
  • "Bittan mostly replaced Federici on the album, whose sole contribution" => "On the album Bittan mostly replaced Federici, whose sole contribution"
  • "The stunt generated interest the track" => "The stunt generated interest in the track"
  • "a long saxophone solo from Clemons, which he spent 16 hours replaying to Springsteen's satisfaction;[71] he dictated almost every note played" - it's ambiguous who the "he" is in the last part
  • Clarified it's the latter
  • "The seven known outtakes from the album included" - using "included" doesn't really work when you then list all seven. Change "included" to "are"
  • "The song contains autobiographical elements to Springsteen's youth" - don't think the grammar works here. Maybe "The song contains autobiographical elements related to Springsteen's youth".......?
  • "Following his demise, death and destruction continues across the streets" => "Following his demise, death and destruction continue across the streets"
  • "Springsteen's guitar strap dons an Elvis Presley pin" - I don't think an inanimate object can really "don" something. Maybe "On Springsteen's guitar strap is an Elvis Presley pin"
  • Changed to "An Elvis Presley pin appears on Springsteen's guitar strap,"
  • "The cover was included in a Rolling Stone readers poll" => "The cover was included in a Rolling Stone readers' poll"
  • "receiving both critical praiseand from former Columbia Records president Clive Davis" => "receiving praise both from critics and from former Columbia Records president Clive Davis"
  • "and moved different studios" - should this be "and moved to different studios"? "and moved between different studios"? I doubt he physically moved the studios........
  • Clarified 'between'

Ceoil

[edit]

Placeholder. Was part of the PR and intend to continue the review, but it may be a few days. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil Friendly reminder :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the co-ords re this timing out; I'm a likely support but haven't had the chance to re-look since the PR. Ceoil (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said my piece at the PR, where my main concerns were addressed. Support especially given all the work from other reviewers below. Ceoil (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moise

[edit]

Placeholder for me too. I'll try to start my review soon. Moisejp (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to get started this weekend. Moisejp (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (as usual, I'll add them as I go along, in some cases one at a time):

  • "The band went back and forth between studio recording and live performances." This could be clearer. What exactly does "go back and forth between" mean here? Does live performances that aren't in the studio mean concert performances? Maybe it means some kind of jamming (because it says Springsteen used these to develop new material)? Moisejp (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes concert performances. To me it's clear but I can see how you got confused. Clarified.
  • "Bittan had a background in symphony orchestras and had previously known of Springsteen's music, but Weinberg had not and had experience with various rock bands and Broadway productions." A bit awkward overall. "Weinberg had not" presumably is only referring to "had previously known of Springsteen's music" but it's not totally clear. In a way "experience with various rock bands and Broadway productions" emphasizes the rock/Broadway vs. symphony, which may suggest "Weinberg had not" is also about the symphony, which sounds like an unusual thing to say. Moisejp (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Separated them into different sentences.
  • "The songs themselves feature introductions that set the tone and scene for each." Maybe specify the kind of introduction this is referring to, I imagined you meant extended musical bits before the singing starts. Moisejp (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added "musical"

Thanks, Zmbro. I've finished my first read-through. I'll be busy the next few days but hope to get back to this review later in the week. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 04:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I did another read-through and am now satisfied the article meets the requirements. Moisejp (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
No, I'd say this is the realest Springsteen album. Before he really went commercial and then political ....

My comments:

  • "The album cover, featuring Springsteen leaning on E Street Band saxophonist Clarence Clemons's shoulder, is considered iconic and has been recreated by various musicians and in other media." I'm not sure recreated is the word. Maybe (not sure) imitated?
  • Changed to imitated
  • "By 1974 his popularity was limited to East Coast of the United States," Should be a "the" in there.
  • Fixed
  • "the then upcoming artist Billy Joel" this should probably have a hyphen somewhere in it.
  • Fixed
  • "the label conceded" Maybe "the label agreed"
  • Done
  • "From the Churches to the Jails, The Hungry and the Hunted, War and Roses, and American Summer.[23]" is it worth mentioning that some of these are lyrics in the completed album?
  • "an early version" a demo?
  • "By January 1975, the band had been working for over a year with only one finished track." Maybe " ... the one finished track"?
  • Removed the 'only'
  • "and the highway as a means of escape and coming-of-age journey ... "Jungleland" I'm not quite clear on who uses the highway as a means of escape/comes of age in "Jungleland".
  • The source has the song listed in quotes; I assume the authors grouped it there since the song takes place on a street and tells the story of the Magic Rat and his unnamed girlfriend. Think I should just separate it in a new description? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the songs on Born to Run are not specifically tied to New Jersey and New York" none of them? Really?
  • "According to Masur, the Rat was gunned down by his "own dream"." Why does that need Masur? That's what the lyrics say, "the Rat's own dream guns him down". And the quote makes it sound like it's Masur's words, not Springsteen's.
  • The quote after "symbolizing" is Masur's. Reworded to clarify.
  • "Following his demise, death and destruction continue across the streets until they are left in complete devastation" "they wind up wounded, they're not even dead"?
  • Removed 'death and'
  • "an article by Henry Edwards in The New York Times that slandered both himself and Born to Run." Slandered is a pretty strong word. Is it justified here?
  • The Greil Marcus paraphrase would probably be better as a direct quotation. If you're going to paraphrase at that level of detail, you are probably better off with a quote.
  •  Not done Will come back to this one. I'm sure Ceoil won't approve of the full quote so I wanna get his opinion (I also can't access the source for whatever reason atm). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the album nominated for any awards at the time of its original release?
  • Is the action of the state assembly to try to make the song Born to Run the state's unofficial rock theme worthy of mention?
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina

[edit]

My review will be focusing on prose exclusively. Ippantekina (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ippantekina are you still planning on offering a review? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do, please bare with me as I'm figuring how to contribute to this review taking into account the opinions of other reviewers here--but it's a positive thus far. Ippantekina (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way this article is organized and written, very interesting. My concerns are mostly regarding the tone of language here and there:

  • "... via lyrical imagery steeped in the romantic images of highways and travel" would something like "... via romantic lyrical imagery of highways and travel" work?
  • Done
  • Sometimes the language seems editorializing somewhat ("dense, crisp, and energetic yet difficult-to-achieve", "grueling sessions", "the cinematic storytelling and music"). I'd try to frame them as opinions rather than facts as the current language implies.
  • I'm curious; does this part include false titles? "saxophonist Clarence Clemons, organist Danny Federici, pianist David Sancious, bassist Garry Tallent, and drummer Ernest Carter;"
Yes this reads better. Ippantekina (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a favorite of artists such as Aerosmith and John Lennon" "who had recently engineered Lennon's Rock 'n' Roll album (1975)" I'm unsure how these help with the prose
  • Cut
  • nitpick-y "The songs themselves feature musical introductions that set the tone and scene for each"
  • Cut
  • Attribution needed for quotes e.g. The characters are "grounded",[102] regular people[103] "trapped by the space they inhabit" Utilizing a "four corners approach" to album sequencing
  • nitpick-y "Springsteen has said that" (I was told somewhere that it's best to avoid the present-perfect tense, though I'm open to discuss)
  • I'd strongly disagree that the present perfect shouldn't be used in articles, and in fact I come across lots of articles where I feel it should be used more. The simple past and present perfect serve different functions. The simple past is used when the time in the past that it happened (or was said) is explicitly indicated, or very clear from the context. Or if the person who said it is no longer alive. But the present perfect is open-ended and if it was said somewhat later than what it was being said about (not shortly after), I almost always use the present perfect. Using both tenses in tandem help separate the two timelines of what was initially happening, and what people have said about it later (if you use only the simple past, these two timelines get unnaturally compressed into one). That's a simplified explanation of how their usage is different, and there are nuances when (if it was me) I might have a special reason not to follow such guidelines, but in general that's how I write. Moisejp (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pay extra attention to quotation (WP:LQ) e.g. Masur argues the song "lays out hopes and dreams, and the remainder of the album is an investigation into whether, and in what ways, they can be realized."
  • Fixed
  • I'm not sure if other reviewers have pointed this out, but I'd like to see a short sample of a song that can demonstrate the musical styles/instruments of this album.

— Ippantekina (talk) 09:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina Replies above. I can work on getting a sample of the title track here in a bit. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing my first comments! Some more comments, this time I've read through to "Critical reception":
  • Do we have the location of Eric Meola's photo studio?
  • I think it's common to capitalize East Coast of the US
  • Fixed
  • "Born to Run continued to be a strong catalog seller through the years, re-entering the Billboard Top LPs & Tape chart in late 1980 after Springsteen's fifth album The River was released,[173] and again after the blockbuster success of his seventh album Born in the U.S.A. (1984), spending most of 1985 on the chart.[174][175]" It'd be great if we have a third-party source rather than Billboard for this part. I think the current sources provide just the Billboard 200 chart info and could be a case of SYNTH
  • This paragraph was there before expansion but I never liked it because it interrupts chronological flow, and as you said it's all primary sources. None of the sources I have really back any of this up so I'm going to removed the whole thing if you are fine with that. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was certified triple-platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America in 1986" it was previously mentioned that the album is 6-times platinum
  • "In October 1975,[177] he Springsteen became the first artist..."
  • Fixed
  • "that defines what is a "magnificent" album"
  • Fixed
  • "felt the lyrics were more accessible and having a "universal quality that transcends the sources and myths he drew upon"." grammatical error here?
  • Changed to 'possessed'
  • "Springsteen's homage to girl groups from the 1960s, particularly ones embellishing themes of heartbreak and doo-wop sounds produced by Spector" might this be mentioned in "Music and lyrics"?
  • Format-wise, I suggest adding rowheader to the "Charts" tables, and separate them by year, as sorting doesn't work for the 3 separate years...
  • Fixed

Ippantekina (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. A very well-researched and well-written article. @Zmbro: regarding the audio sample I think a short one of the title track could do (the wall of sound production). That track has been on my Spotify's "On Repeat" for 2 months now fyi... Ippantekina (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I was thinking I've just been procrastinating lol. Thanks again! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

[edit]

Images

  • I worry about the provenance of File:SpringsteenMadison.jpg - it doesn't look like an user-made photo and TinEye claims that it existed once at this page. In my experience, you cannot satisfy WP:NFCC#8 when your image only illustrates a subtopic of the article, so File:Born2Add.jpg probably must go. Otherwise it seems fine, but not all files have ALT text.

Sources

  • I wonder what kind of source "Wings for Wheels: The Making of Born to Run" is.
  • What makes AllMusic a reliable source - I remember that it weren't one.
  • AllMusic is considered reliable over at WP:RSMUSIC: Biography/staff reviews are reliable, but do not use sidebar, as it may be user-generated or otherwise separately sourced from the prose. Their reviews/star ratings are typically included on every album article on this site. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are Vigilla, Hubert and Blum, Jordan reputable reviewers?
  • Why are some Rolling Stone articles online and others not?
  • I think officialcharts.com, live.brucespringsteen.net and brucespringsteen.net can be replaced with the titles of the websites.
  • Fixed
  • Is sputnikmusic.com a reliable source?
  • Don't think that Google Books links need to be archived.
  • Fixed; the IA management console always does that.

Don't know much of the topic or sources but these I inspected seemed to be from reputable authors and publishers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus Replies above. Thanks! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, can I check if you're good with the above? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I wonder if all of these sources like AllMusic pass the "high-quality" part of the WIAFA criteria, though, but I'm afraid I am not well-versed on this aspect of music sources to judge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus I assure you they are :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 I can confirm that they are reliable sources. I understand these sources might seem questionable for a non-Music editor but I assure you they are, and the Music-editing community has curated WP:RSMUSIC for that matter :) Ippantekina (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 3 September 2024 [23].

Jozo Tomasevich

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jozo Tomasevich was a Yugoslav-American economist and historian whose works on Yugoslavia in WWII continue to be widely cited today despite his first book on the Chetniks being published nearly fifty years ago. According to the German historian Klaus Schmider, it is a tragedy that he died before completing the third volume of his planned series on Yugoslavia in WWII which was to be focussed on the Partisans. Even his second volume had to be published posthumously in 2001, with editing by his daughter. I have used his works right across my WP contributions on WWII on Yugoslavia, and his work forms the foundation on which many more recent historians have built. This is my second nom of a historian of WWII in Yugoslavia after Radoje Pajović. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Done, thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Peacemaker67, some comments:

  • "the former Yugoslavia": just "Yugoslavia" would be fine, no?
yes, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is SFSU linked in the lead on second use and not first?
Good question. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps clarify that The Chetniks was part of the 3 volume series and not a standalone book? I thought so till I read the Biblio section.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "so-called" really needed? We have to be neutral and we already say it was a puppet state. Consider removing in the lead and the body?
Actually it is necessary in my opinion, as it was named that, but ironically far from independent. Tomasevich himself called it an Italo-German quasi-protectorate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Klaus Schimder, the RMAS lecturer": Use "a" instead of "the"? I'm assuming Schmider was not the only lecturer at the RMAS.
Yep, whoops. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about this, but wouldn't the Mihailović picture be better placed at the start of the World War II subsection?
Good call, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider adding the ISBN for Tomasevich and Vucinich 1969. Is this the one: 9780520015364? Also, Google Books shows Vucinich here was an editor and not an author.
Done. No, Google Books is often wrong about such things, Vucinich was the author of two chapters as well as the editor. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to The American Historical Review and Nationalities Papers, as done for other journals?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any details on his collaboration with Wayne Vucinich?
Not beyond him contributing a chapter to the book. They taught at different universities in California and I understand they were close colleagues and co-received an award in 1989, and I'd love to know more given the Vucinich brothers were Serbs and Tomasevich a Croat, but they appear to have got along very well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure military biography is the right WPMH task force here, you should consider removing it and retaining only the historiography task force tag.
Excellent point, he was not a military person. Removed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has anyone endeavored to publish the Tomasevic papers at HILA or Volume 3 of his series? I found one article on this from the Washington Post but it was paywalled.
Not that I'm aware of. It would be wonderful if Vol 3 was published. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for taking a look, Matarisvan. I reckon I might have addressed all your comments. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Peacemaker67, above comments all OK. A minor issue I forgot to spot last time: we need page numbers for a couple of the sources, namely Baletić 1997, Prosecutor versus Vojislav Šešelj 2008, Irwin 2000, Auty 1976, Dragnich 1976 and Campbell 1976. The other sources are only one pagers, so those don't have any problems, but these one have multiple pages, so you will need to add the page numbers for them. Matarisvan (talk) 08:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Matarisvan. Strictly speaking, the short "review" citations do not need a page, as the page range given in the long citation is only 2-3 pages long, and anyone wishing to verify them need only read a page or two, and in any case their comments should be read in the context of the whole review. I have added pages for the Baletić and Prosecutor vs Vojislav Šešelj short citations, as they are longer pieces of work. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Matarisvan, sorry about the delay. I think I have completed all these now. It isn't clear whether he was US or Yugoslav at the UN, so I went for a different cat. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to now support for promotion to FA class. Matarisvan (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

[edit]

Placeholder - Pendright (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

Look these changes over
  • His final book was the second volume of the series – War and Revolution in Yugoslavia 1941–1945: Occupation and Collaboration – which was published posthumously in 2001 after editing by his daughter Neda.
after usually means -> in the time following an event or another period <-> in which case, it soumds like the book was edited after its publication - what am I missing?
  • In an obituary in the Slavic Review, Tomasevich was described as "a master of scholarly skills, a person of bountiful erudition, wit and human dignity".
Why is an not his?
All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • Košarni Do is a hamlet of Donja Banda and is today part of the Orebić municipality within the Dubrovnik-Neretva County of Croatia.[1]
today?
Changed to "now". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>I hate quibbling further, but now means at the present time, at this moment or very soon. So, how about dropping the word, or replacing it with something like this: -> Košarni Do is a hamlet of Donja Banda and in (year) became part of the Orebić municipality within the Dubrovnik-Neretva County of Croatia. Pendright (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know when the village became a part of the municipality, and now means at the present time. This is accurate at the present time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>On this one, we'll have to agree to disagree!Pendright (talk)
  • Nado returned to the village in 1894, [and he] married the daughter of his first cousin and worked as a farmer.
Suggest these changes
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1938, he was the recipient of a two-year Rockefeller fellowship and moved to the US,[3] thereby "availing himself of the rich resources of Harvard University".
"availing himself of the rich resources of Harvard University" -> If this is a direct quote, should there be attribution-if not, then should italics be used?
Quotes don't have to be attributed, just closely cited. In this case, it is, to Vucinich. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>Interesting! You can further my education by referring me to something authoritative on the subject. Pendright (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:QUOTE#Attribution. This is not an opinion quote which would require attribution to Vucinich. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>Thank you! Pendright (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other brother living in Košarni Do received the share of the fourth brother who, by then, was a merchant mariner living in New Zealand.[4]
Could drop "other"
I'm not sure I can. There were two brothers living in Košarni Do, and "other" indicates that this is not the one who received Jozo's share of the farm. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

of World War II – and now known by the anglicised Tomasevich – he moved to California.

and then known
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1937, Tomasevich married Neda Brelić, a high school teacher. They were happily married for 57 years and had three children – Anthony, Neda Ann, and Lasta. In 1976, Tomasevich contributed an essay to a book in which he conducted a sociological and historical analysis of his extended family reaching back to the early nineteenth century.
Somehow,Chronologically, these sentences seem out of order?
Not really. He married, they had children, then he wrote a essay about his family history. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>He was married in 1937 and moved to the U.S. in 1938? In any case, it's your call.
  • His widow Neda died on July 5, 2002, at 88.[8]
Is where she died relative?
I don't think so, although it was Palo Alto, like Jozo. Do you think it needs to be added? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>Probably a matter of opinion. Pendright (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added it for completeness. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslavia's economy

  • The first appeared in German in 1934 and was titled Die Staatsschulden Jugoslaviens (The National Debt of Yugoslavia).
during 1934
  • The following year, he had Financijska politika Jugoslavije, 1929–1934 (Fiscal Policy of Yugoslavia, 1929–1934) published in Serbo-Croatian, covering much of the same material but more accessible to Yugoslavs.[1]
  • Does 1929-1934 need to be repeated?
  • which covered
  • A 1940 review of the book in Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, by Professor Mirko Lamer – who later served with the United Nations as an expert at the Food and Agriculture Organization – described Novac i kredit as an important work that filled a large gap in Yugoslav economic literature, and also gave a vivid picture of then-current economic theory.[9]
and it also
These all done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International marine resources and Yugoslav peasants

  • The first [book] was International Agreements on Preservation of Marine Resources, [that was] published by Stanford University Press in 1943.
Suggest the above changes
  • The second book, Peasants, Politics, and Economic Change in Yugoslavia [was] published in 1955, was [and] described by Vucinich as "a study of monumental scope [which] has been widely recognized as the most comprehensive and accomplished study in the field".
Suggest the above changes
These are done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World War II

  • In 1957, Tomasevich received a San Francisco State University grant for Slavic and Eastern European studies.[12]
Suggest -> In 1957, Tomasevich received a grant from San Francisco State University for Slavic and Eastern European studies.[12]
  • The first volume focused on the Chetnik movement led by Draža Mihailović, which was subtitled The Chetniks and appeared in 1975.
In the context used, what does appeared mean?
  • Soon after it was published, the book was reviewed by Phyllis Auty, professor of modern history at Simon Fraser University.
Replace the comma with "who was a
  • The third volume in the planned trilogy, which was to cover the Partisans, was 75 per cent complete at the time of his death,[1] and remains unpublished.
and it

@Peacemaker67: This is it for now. Pendright (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All done I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pendright, I may have addressed all your comments now. Let me know if anything needs tweaking or you see anything else. As always, thanks for your detailed review. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker: Supporting - it's always a pleasure working with you. Pendright (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hurricanehink

[edit]

I figured I'd review this considering I have an FAC of my own.

  • Could you add a caption for the infobox image?
Other than his name, there is really nothing to add. We don't know when it was taken, photos of him are quite rare. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google says Jozo's birthday is March 16, 1908, but there's nothing in this article. Any reason for not including the birth date?
lack of a reliable source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Between 1943 and 1955, Tomasevich published two books on economic matters; one focused on marine resources and the other on the peasant economy of Yugoslavia and both of them received positive reviews." - the last part seems like an add-on, and makes the sentence a bit too long. Perhaps - "Tomasevich published two well-received books on economic matters"?
I went with "positively received" as "well-received" is used earlier. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book was positively reviewed, and twenty-five years later was described as still the "most complete and best book about the Chetniks to be published either abroad or in former Yugoslavia" - the quote doesn't seem important for lead. First, it's unattributed - I see in the body of the text that it was from the Croatian historian Ivo Goldstein, but that doesn't mean his quote should be in the lead. Could you write the same meaning without the quote?
I think it is important for the lead. T's contribution in this area is key to his impact, and Goldstein is eminent. Given it is an opinion, I have attributed it to him. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the so-called Independent State of Croatia. - "so-called" seems a bit biased and pointy for my liking. Could you word it differently?
it is often described in this way (eg by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and others), as ironically it was far from "independent", being essentially an occupied quasi-protectorate propped up by large numbers of Axis troops. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But not on Wikipedia. I would rather "Axis-aligned" or something, since "so-called" is too biased for my liking. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "remains unpublished despite being 75 per cent complete at his death." - is there a reason you don't write it as 75%?
Per MOS:PERCENT, in non-scientific articles either is fine. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention Jozo's father's name, but what about mother?
An excellent question, I am popping into the library tomorrow to look at a source that might have it, but failing that, it isn't in any RS I am aware of. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I cannot find a RS for either of their given names, Nado is a nickname, I've clarified the latter and its meaning. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jozo completed his secondary education in Sarajevo – then part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia – before moving to Switzerland to study at the University of Basel where he earned a doctorate in economics. " - when? This is a pretty important part of his life that you glossed over. Is there anything more about this part of his life?
Just waiting on a source that might help with this, no more than a couple of days. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have been able to locate a bit more on this period of his life, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • thereby "availing himself of the rich resources of Harvard University" - who said this?
it is cited to Vucinich. Given it isn't an opinion, it doesn't need in-text attribution, just close citation, which it has. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Rich resources" is an opinion. The rest of the article says "According to Vucinich". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Rich resources" is an opinion? I would say it is WP:BLUE. Who would challenge the idea that Harvard has "rich resources"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention the siblings, but never by name. Any reason?
They aren't provided in any RS I'm aware of. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more year/date references would be nice for "Early life" section. For example, "After the war, he initially worked at the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco." - When?
I've added a bit on this where it was available. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And a bit more timeframe information from a newly-located source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before the outbreak of World War II – and then known by the anglicised Tomasevich – he moved to California." - again, when? The war broke out in 1939, so there could be a variety of dates.
The source that might provide some answers is at a local university library which I will be able to look at over the next few days. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any update? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded this based on the dates of his Rockefeller fellowship documentation which indicate about when the name change occurred. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did Jozo meet Neda Brelić? For a marriage of 57 years, there's very little on that.
Not known. It appears he was quite reticent about this personal life. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He became an American citizen." - when?
Not known. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What did Jozo die from?
Not known. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is fine, but it seems to focus too much on what other people think about his writings, and too little about his actual life. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are still a lot of unknown parts, which I'm not a huge fan of, like when American citizenship happened, what he died from, any siblings' names, the mother's name, when he went to SF, even the birthday. I get that a lot of this information isn't available, but it's a shame when you Google his birthday, and it says "March 16", but that there's no reliable source for it. The article is decent, for sure, but it's a shame that so much is unknown. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of a response to Hurricanehink's post-review summary, unfortunately Tomasevich was not very forthcoming about his family details in general and even in the chapter he wrote for Byrnes' book (perhaps for privacy reasons given it was during communist times), and neither was his obituarian, Alexander Vucinich, who must have known him and his family well. Given that, and because his notability relates to his work rather than his family, I think I can be forgiven for not being able to find any of these family details. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to a few of the above to clarify what I have been able to add. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Joy

[edit]

Since the name is only partially anglicized, it might make sense to figure out what was the pronunciation. We don't happen to have one at Jozo, while we do have one at Josip, but in case of Tomasevich it would specifically make sense to note how the Americans pronounced his first name because it's not clear it would have been the same as the original. --Joy (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was, but don't have any evidence for my opinion. I'll see if I can find some. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, Joy, I have drawn a blank here. It would be great to find a video where an American historian (like one of the Vucinich's) pronounce his name, but I haven't been able to locate one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, we can leave a note to this effect on the Talk page for later. --Joy (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

As this nomination has been open for five weeks and has yet to garner support, it is liable to be archived in the next few days unless there's a pickup in activity. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David. I've been out of town, but have now addressed the first two reviews and have a crack at HH's shortly. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just working through the remaining comments over the next few days. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tomobe03

[edit]
  • I may be nitpicking here, but the first paragraph of the Early life, education, career and family section and the first sentence of the second paragraph of the same section may give impression to casual readers that Austria-Hungary and Yugoslavia existed at the same time.
No, that's a fair call. Have added a better explanation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "His widow Neda died in Palo Alto..." I'm wondering if either "his widow" or "Neda" is redundant because she's already introduced in the same paragraph as his wife. Striking this, as I realise that he had a daughter of the same name.
  • Regarding Financijska politika Jugoslavije (Fiscal Policy of Yugoslavia) - is that the English translation of the title the book is known as generally? I'd expect Fiscal Policy of Yugoslavia to be translation of "Fiskalna politika Jugoslavije"... or that the English translation of the title is "Financial Policy of Yugoslavia". That is, of course unless the offered English translation is common translation of the title.
Doh, well spotted, not sure what I did there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, I'd say the article appears comprehensive, i.e. I feel I have no question to ask that is not already answered by the prose.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a mention of Peasants, Politics, and Economic Change in Yugoslavia in Splivalo, Josip (1958). "Naučno djelo našeg profesora u Americi" [Scientific Work of Our Professor in America]. Naše more (in Croatian). 5 (1). University of Dubrovnik: 52. ISSN 0469-6255. The short article might be illuminating because it says that the book consists of three parts. The first one provides a review of historical development of of Yugoslav peoples and their common characteristics in economics. The second part reviews agriculture during the WWI and the third one examines agriculture in the interwar period. The review of historical development gives (at least to me) an impression that there's the point where Tomasevich's interest started crossing from economics alone to history. The article also indicates that Joseph S. Davis wrote a foreword for the book.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for spotting that, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All done I think, Tomobe03. Thanks for taking a look! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Happy to support.Tomobe03 (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Review to follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are two ellipses that should have non-breaking spaces before the ..., per WP:ELLIPSES
Fixed, thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "a master of scholarly skills": as this is a quote it should be cited, per MOS:LEADCITE
Well, I could, but I think "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus" applies here, given the quote is cited and attributed in-text in the body, and no-one else has raised it, I really don't think it is necessary here. I'd be happy to attribute it in-text in the lead as well if that would make you more comfortable? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it to your judgement. I suspect that when this hits the front page people may make waves about it, but it's your call. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • "He became an American citizen": any date on this?
I wish. No, I had to find an oblique reference to it in a war crimes trial transcript after failing to find a direct source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It feels odd to have a section titled "early life" that ends with his death age 88. Maybe just call the section 'private life' or similar
Well, it has education, career and family in the title and section as well, not just "private life". I could add "death" to the end? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That, I think, may be a bit of overkill. Again, I'll leave to to your best judgement. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

  • "a master of scholarly skills – needs a closing quote mark
Well spotted, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the lot: very minor stuff in a very readable article - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, SchroCat and sorry about the delay in getting to your comments. See what you think of the above and my changes. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67 ? It's been a couple of weeks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog, I've been hunting a source to try to address a few comments, but will just get on with what I can do now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RoySmith

[edit]

I took a look at some sources:

  • Josip "Jozo" Tomašević was born in 1908 in the village of Košarni Do on the Pelješac peninsula in the Kingdom of Dalmatia , which was then part of Austria-Hungary . [1] probably a nit, but the source doesn't categorize Dalmatia as a "Kingdom", nor does it say anything about Austria-Hungary.
I think it's a nit. I'm working on the basis of WP:BLUE here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Košarni Do is a hamlet of Donja Banda and is now part of the Orebić municipality within the Dubrovnik-Neretva County of Croatia . [1] I'm guessing you've just got the wrong citation because the source doesnt say any of those things.
Yep, I have added citations to the Croatian post office website which details the local government status of these places within the county. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before the outbreak of World War II – and then known by the anglicised Tomasevich – he moved to California. He was on the scholarly staff of the Food Research Institute within Stanford University . During the war, he worked with the Board of Economic Warfare [1] ... After the war, he initially worked at the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco. The source says

    Before World War II he moved to California where he was a member of the scholarly staff of the Food Research Institute at Stanford University. During World War II he was affiliated successively with the Board of Economic Warfare and UNRRA in Washington, DC. After the war he was with the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco.

    so I'm a little concerned about WP:CLOP. I get that much of this is just a chronological history and full of proper names, but it still seems a bit too close to the original. Also, while the source does use the spelling "Tomasevich", I think it's a bit of WP:SYNTH to say "then known by the anglicised ...".
I've changed wording here, hopefully enough. Also, I've found a ref for a year by which he was definitely using the anglicised name, the Rockefeller fellowship in 1950, and have added that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and then the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration in Washington, D.C. from 1944 to 1946. After the war, he initially worked at the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco. [1] [7] Maybe I'm just not familiar with how harvard refs work, but I had to dive into the wikisource to figure out that OAC meant "Online Archives of California". And once I got there, it doesn't say anything about Washington, D.C.
Harv footnotes can be shortened for brevity. If you click on it, it takes you to the footnote list and if you click that it takes you to the full citation. There is no requirement for the footnote tag to be the full name of the organisation. I've tweaked the wording and added a citation to the UNRRA that says its HQ was in DC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • His preference was for a position combining teaching and research, so in 1948 he joined the San Francisco State College (later San Francisco State University). Tomasevich taught there for twenty-five years until he retired in 1973 – except in 1954 when he taught at Columbia University . [1] The source says

    Preferring a professional assignment combining teaching and research, he joined San Francisco State College—now San Francisco State University—in 1948 and stayed there until his retirement in 1973. In 1954 he taught at Columbia University for one year.

    This seems like CLOP again. I wasn't sure about this so I asked for a second opinion from my wife (who writes and reviews scientific papers professionally). She agrees that while it's not word-for-word, its the same sentence and paragraph structure with just a few words changed here or there, which is, as WP:CLOP puts it, "superficial modification of material from another source".
I get what you are saying, but there are only so many ways to present the same factual information about his work. I have attempted to move it a bit more away from the source formulation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1937, Tomasevich married Neda Brelić, a high school teacher. They were happily married for 57 years and had three children – Anthony, Neda Ann, and Lasta. In 1976, Tomasevich contributed an essay to a book in which he conducted a sociological and historical analysis of his extended family reaching back to the early nineteenth century. He became an American citizen. [9] This appears to be mis-cited; it's in [1], not [9].
Not sure what happened there, cited to Vucinich, the citizenship is the only bit that should be cited to the trial case. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stop at this point. Most of the sources used are off-line, which is fine. But in almost every case, when I spot-checked a source that was available to me, I found problems. This does not give me confidence that the rest of the sourcing is correct. Perhaps I'm just being too picky, so maybe somebody else should do some more spot-checking.

Here's some more:

  • Tomasevich died ... in Palo Alto, California.[10] The source just says he was a resident of Palo Alto, not that he died there.
Fixed, also for his wife. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 1940 review of the book in Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv , by Professor Mirko Lamer – who later served with the United Nations as an expert at the Food and Agriculture Organization ... [12] This is not in English so I'm unable to read it, but I'd wager that a review written by Lamer in 1940 says nothing about Lamer's future employment.
Yes, added a citation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first book was International Agreements on Preservation of Marine Resources , that was published by Stanford University Press in 1943 ... [1] The cited source says 1949. WorldCat does indeed say 1943, but you're not citing WorldCat.
Replaced citation with Tomasevich 1943. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soon after it was published, the book was reviewed by Phyllis Auty , who was a professor of modern history at Simon Fraser University ... [16] The source does identify Auty as being from Simon Fraser University, but doesn't say anything about being a "professor of modern history".
Added a citation from her obit in The Independent which shows her role there at the time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third volume in the planned trilogy ... and it remains unpublished. [22] Nit: this should be qualified with {{asof}}.
This is rather difficult to cite, as I am trying to prove a negative. I'm going to leave it as is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Roy, I really must have been tired when I wrote some of this. I will get on to addressing these comments in the next day or so. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi RoySmith, I am assuming that this constitutes a source review? Ta. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would call it a source-to-text spot check. I was mostly looking for WP:V issues. If I spotted any copying problems along the way, I brought those up too, but they weren't my main focus. I believe what you're talking about as a "source review" is more about formatting, consistency, and style which you may have noticed by now aren't what excites me, so I'll leave that stuff to somebody else. RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough RoySmith, thanks. In the light of Peaacemaker's responses would you consider the spot check a pass or a fail? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in a quandry how to answer that. The important issues have all be resolved. Some of the items I noted above were nits. I recognize that I let my personal preferences show through in a few places and agree that WP:FACR has been satisfied in all of those instances.
Where the quandry comes in is that if the spot-check is supposed to be a statistical sampling, I'd have to say that I found more problems in my sample that I should have, and since I restricted my sample to those sources that were available to me on line, it's reasonable to ask whether the sources that were not available to me would also have the same failure rate. I hesitate to speak for @Jo-Jo Eumerus, but it sounds like he agrees with me on that.
So, let me propose that @Peacemaker67 take some time to review the sources on his own, and when he tells me he's satisfied they're in good shape, I'll pick 5 more at random, concentrating on those that are not available to me on-line and ask him to send me scans (or whatever) and I'll verify those. RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is very reasonable. Give me a few days to check everything. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's sound logic. When a sample of 10 out of e.g 100 sources shows that 7 sources have problems, that implies that of the 100 sources about 70 might have problems and thus all 100 need to be reviewed. That said, when evaluating offline sources I've found that asking the nominator to send screenshots or photos of the source by email or Google Drive usually works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 05:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Status on this, Peacemaker67? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Working, nearly done. Give me 24-48 hours and I'll be ready for Roy to take another look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. My hope is that I don't find any problems, and if it takes a bit of extra time to get to that point, that's still a win as far as I'm concerned. RoySmith (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G'day RoySmith. I reckon I might have got through it all now, sorry for the delay. I made a few changes where the wording might have been a bit close to the original, even to my German translations, so hopefully all will be well. I also added a few closer citations and deleted a sentence fragment that seemed superfluous. If you can't access any of the sources, please ping me and I'll email them to you. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll work on this in the next few days. RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67 OK, partly done; no significant issues found so far. Could you send me Violich 1998 and Sanders 1956? RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67 Just want to make sure you saw my note above. RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Roy, sent to your email. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I looked at the following

  • Citations (6), (7), (8), and (9), all to Violich 1998. Most of it verified. As a nit, (7) says page 11, but it's really on page 12. The only significant problem I see is with (8). I’m not seeing this on page 12. Some of it appears on page 10 (“With the establishment of the new Yugoslav state in 1918…”) Some of it appears on page 97 and following (“From Royalist to Communist Yugoslavia and the Republic of Croatia”), but not all. It mentions “Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes” and that it was renamed Yugoslavia, but not that the renaming happened in 1929. It also cites the Treaty of Versailles as the driving factor in the establishment of the Kingdom, which seems like an important detail to leave out. On the other hand, the source also mentions 1918, but the T. of V. was 1919, so I’m not quite sure what the source is trying to say (not your fault!). Also, I didn’t realize until you emailed me that this was available in the Open Library. Adding a URL for that with a “via” attribute would be useful.
  • Citation (35) to Kadazabek 2004. If we accept that “desire for statehood was exploited by the Axis powers who allowed PaveliA's Ustasas to carve a Greater Croatia from the spoils of war,” is what was supports calling Croatia “an Axis puppet state”, then this verifies.
  • Citation (33) to Campbell 1976. Verifies.
  • Citations (29) to Auty 1976 and (30) to Wheeler 1998. Basically verifeis with just one nit: what you've quoted as "a most impressive ... scholarly examination of evidence" would more properly be "most impressive ... scholarly examination ... of evidence" because there's some words you leave out, and the leading "a" isn't in the source.
  • Citation (27) to Sanders 1956. All the claims verify, but as a nit, you can combine the two consecutive citations into one. Also, you said in your email you got this out of WP:Library. I had looked but was unable to find it so a link and via attribute would be useful.

The only real issue is (8). I feel confident that I can read the article and the source and compare them. I feel much less confident to say if the discrepancy I found is significant enough to be an issue so I'll leave that judgement call up to the @FAC coordinators: coordinators. RoySmith (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Roy, corrected (7). The process of Yugoslavia's creation in 1918 as the KSCS and its change of name is uncontroversial and unlikely to be challenged, so I was relying on BLUE here. Nevertheless, I have cited it. Violich is actually not correct here in respect of the driving forces behind the creation of the KSCS (later Yugoslavia). The creation of the KSCS was not actually a result of the Treaty of Versailles, it was a home-grown initiative between the various South Slav groups who took advantage of the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire to combine and form a new country that they had wished for for decades. Of course, the Great Powers eventually acquiesced and formally recognised its formation through the Treaty of Trianon (with Hungary) and the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (with German-Austria) over the next two years. So, I didn't include that bit because it is incorrect. I was relying on the sentence you quoted for the NDH being an Axis puppet state, but have added a citation here as well. I have reworded the Auty/Wheeler bit as you have suggested. I haven't combined the Sanders citations because they are closely citing separate quotations. I have also added the urls to the sources to aid verification, as suggested. Thanks again. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review with caveat

[edit]

I'll do the consistency-and-reliability check, but given what RoySmith found above, another spotcheck or general source-to-text integrity check is necessary IMO. Anyhow, #20 is throwing a harv error. I am not sure that academic publications need a retrieval date. It seems like we are mostly dealing with sound academic publications here, although I am not deeply familiar with the topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

harv error fixed. Had left ref=no in the template when I copied to to the refs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "after completing his formal schooling, he earned a doctorate in economics from the University of Basel in Switzerland". What does "formal" mean here?
have specified what is meant. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "planned to include three volumes". "include" implies additional material. I suggest "consist of".
OK, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he was appointed professor emeritus of economics at SFSU". "professor emeritus" means a retired professor. "appointed" seems the wrong word as implying a special status.
My understanding is that it varies. Not every retired professor is entitled to use "emeritus", it usually involves a continuing relationship with the institution. It is still "bestowed", and sometimes requires a vote or action. In this case, the source (CREES) says "Professor Emeritus of economics at Stanford University", the "at" implying a continuing connection. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The primary agricultural product of the Pelješac peninsula was red table wine, the population were primarily subsistence farmers". This seems contradictory. You cannot subsist on wine - well not entirely.
Fair enough, have specified they were "otherwise" subsistence farmers. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the peninsula did not have any roads until 1946". This needs clarification. They must have had roads, even if they were only dirt tracks.
Then they were not roads, they were tracks. I presume they mean paved, but the source doesn't say that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A track is a road. Merriam-Wesbster defines a road as "an open way for vehicles, persons, and animals". Other dictionaries add especially paved. I would add "paved" as that must be what was meant, but of course that is up to you. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He became an American citizen." I suggest giving the date.
Unfortunately there isn't one in sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The book was published posthumously in 2001 with editing from his daughter Neda Tomasevich." "with editing from" is an odd expression. Maybe "edited by".
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be helpful to list the languages Tomasevich knew.
Haven't got a source for that, the best information is the quote from Schmider but he doesn't specify. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the Vucinich obit is relied upon fairly heavily for description, the article quotes other authorities on the value of his work such as Auty, Schmider, Goldstein and Campbell. I could have added Ramet, Hoare, and Pavlowitch, but thought that would be overkill. Dragnich is fairly typical of the trenchant critics, who frankly are in a small minority. There are far more positive than negative views on his work, and I believe I have reflected the balance accurately. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dudley, I think I have addressed your comments, see what you think. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G'day @FAC coordinators: I reckon this might be about ready to wrap up. Thanks for your forbearance. From Roy's comments above I presume it's over to you to determine if you want Jo-Jo Eumerus to review the sources further or not. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS, however this ends up, I'd like to thank @Peacemaker67 for being extremely solicitous and cooperative as I poked and prodded through the details of the references at a level far beyond what is typical. RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/September_2024&oldid=1245902719"