- Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, Buidhe and Hog Farm—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the Table of Contents – This page: |
Featured article candidates (FAC) Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools:
| ||||||
|
Nominations
Battle of Trapani
- Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 17:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
This article is about a naval battle between Venice and Genoa, which resulted in one of the most lopsided and humiliating defeats in naval history, as almost the entire Genoese fleet was captured. Part of an on-again, off-again dedicated to medieval, and especially Venetian, naval history, this article was promoted to GA in 2018 and A-class in 2021. I am looking forward to the comments and suggestions on how to improve it further and make it worthy of FA status. Constantine ✍ 17:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
William Utermohlen
- Nominator(s): Realmaxxver (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
This article is about William Utermohlen, who was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1995. Over the next five/six years, his self-portraits would become more distorted until around 2001, where he could not draw anymore.
I started work on this article in late-July 2021, and in that time, it has gone through two unsuccessful FACs (shown above), and two peer reviews (one unsuccessful). After around two and a half months of gradual changes after the second FAC, I think this article is (actually, maybe?) ready for FA-status. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Ceoil
This may have failed in last noms due to lack of feedback. It needs a copyedit, wider (ie book) sourcing, and expansion in areas, all of which are do-able.
- Merged and re-giged the lead, feel free to reverse.
- Utermohlen's self-portraits gained attention after they were published in a 2001 paper from the medical journal The Lancet - paintings are not "published"; should this be reproduced, or detailed/examined ?
- By 2002, he could no longer draw, and was sent to the Princess Louise nursing home in 2004 - is "sent" right here; entered is better, unless he was committed.
- In 1994 Utermohlen was commissioned to make a portrait of a client's family is completely under explained and begs the question too the point of, do you not know, or (less likely) was it a secret?
- "Head I" (2000) consists of a head with eyes, a mouth and a smudge on the left that appears to be an ear.[55] In the centre of the head itself, a crack is shown - keep as one sentence so we know not talking about the other heads...also as Head I is titled...how many were they, and did the follow the same titlinig format? - would be great to expand this section, which seems in part at least, influenced by Francis Bacons' Head series.
- We may have to consult somebody like SandyGeorgia for this, but do any of the source mention that the "masks" may relate to "Facial Masking" prevalent in late stage Parkinson's disease
- The rest of the portraits are of a blank head, one of them erased - do you mean they consist of just the outline of a head, part of one which is scrubbed by an eraser. Now I'm seeing more and more how they are influenced by Francis Bacon which we need to expand on...re obliterated heads, which is what I think the source means, see Three Studies for a Self-Portrait, (Bacon, 1979), and Study for a Self-Portrait—Triptych, 1985–86 . I would really like you to mine sources in this area.
- Patricia explained that his later work such as the Masks series shows similarities to movements such as German Expressionism. - and? This is highly relevant so please don't leave us hanging by only mentioning Expressionism.
- To note, this needs an extensive source review (which I can do) as 1 first time nom, 2 veers towards WP:MED
- More later. Ceoil (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
DMT Biscuit
More comments TBA
- "He moved to London in 1962 and married the art historian Patricia Redmond in 1965." - how relevant towards the lede is this?
- "before returning to London in 1975." - see above.
- I agree with Ceoil, publication seems like a misnomer. Maybe explain the relationship between Utermohlen and the journal.
- "He experienced memory loss beginning in 1991" → "He experienced memory loss, which began in 1991.
- "which included two years in the Caribbean" - relevance?
- wikilink Margaret Lock
- Italicize The Times and provide Tulle's credentials in prose; is she an art historian, anthropologist or physician?
- "Illness" → "Alzheimers", just as we say death rather than pass away
- "Chris Boicos, Utermohlen's art dealer, said that the subject matter of the lithographs were a metaphor for the forthcoming Alzheimer's disease diagnosis a year later" - admittedly, I am somewhat lost with this. Is it implying that Utermohlen was aware/surmised that he was in falling into the thralls of dementia? If he was aware/foresaw and the metaphor is intentional then that should be reflected by the prose.
- "took him to the doctor" - informal; either mention the practitioner's field (physician, psychiatrist, neurologist) or just explain that they sought medical care.
Comments from Wetrorave
Since you gave such a thorough review on Everywhere at the End of Time, it's only fair that I do the same. Will add comments soon enough. Reviewing per WP:FACR of course.Wetrorave please don't 4 April 2022 13:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- 1a is reasonably met after my copyedits. You may want to read Wikipedia:Writing better articles. Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- 1b is one I'm not too certain of. I think the sections Early life and Death could be more comprehensive; the Find sources template at the Talk page should help with this. Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- 1c is met; all sources seem high-quality and the vast majority of sentences are referenced. Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- 1d is met, not much to say here. The article presents a neutral POV. Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- 1e is met. Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- 1f is met per earwig's copyvio detector. All copied sentences are quoted and simple sentences such as "Utermohlen was born in December" are fine to include without quotes. Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- 2a, 2b, and 2c are all met, though the lead may need to be changed per 1b. Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- 3 is not met. This article could definitely include more of Utermohlen's paintings, especially from his earlier cycles (most per pd 1927-1977 criteria). Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- 4 is met. Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I think the biggest problems of this article is that it needs some expanding and addition of more of Utermohlen's paintings. I'd love to see both this and EATEOT featured though. Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Kaze to Ki no Uta
Like its forerunner The Heart of Thomas (brought to FAC last year), Kaze to Ki no Uta ("The Poem of Wind and Trees") is one of the most influential manga works of the 1970s, contributing significantly to the development of Japanese girls comics. I recently expanded the article and brought it to GA status, and to peer review in advance of this FAC. I believe the article now meets requirements for FA status, and welcome any feedback that can further improve it. (Sidebar: I've listed KuroMina as a co-nominator, as they sourced and translated multiple Japanese-language articles that helped to significantly expand the Development section of the article. The co-nomination is not an expectation or obligation to participate in this FAC, though they are certainly welcome to do so.) Morgan695 (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
- According to MOS:INOROUT, periods should be on the outside of quotation marks unless you are quoting a full sentence, so this would apply to instances like "with sad and painful human relationships and emotions." and "solid enough, if rather melodramatic.". There are points where the period is put on the outside, like "from now on, comics will probably be called 'Kaze to Ki no Uta and thereafter'"., so it is more so a matter of going back and making it consistent throughout.
This is my only comment. All of my comments have already been addressed in the peer review. Once this has addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Aoba47 OK, I believe I've corrected the relevant quotations.
AK
- I'll try to review this soon. AryKun (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit for this at the WikiCup.
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Not necessary, but a review at my FAC would be appreciated. AryKun (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- @AryKun Hi, response above.
- Support based on prose. AryKun (talk) 09:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Mindful (song)
"Mindful" is a single from K. Michelle's third studio album More Issues Than Vogue (2016). It is hip-hop and R&B song in which Michelle raps and warns critics to be mindful of her. The song does not take itself seriously, and this playful approach can be best seen in its music video which is set in a colorful trailer park. "Mindful" received positive reviews from critics, but it did not chart anywhere. Regardless, this song just stuck out with me for whatever reason.
I initially worked on this article in 2018 and brought it up to GA status at the time. Last month, I put this up for a FAC, and I received very helpful comments from @Nikkimaria:, @FrB.TG:, @ChrisTheDude:, @Pseud 14:, and @Aza24:, but I decided to withdraw the nomination because I wanted to clarify its single status. Since then, I found an official press release from Michelle's record label so I feel more confident about the article. As always, I would greatly appreciate any feedback! Aoba47 (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support - I supported previously and see nothing to change that now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support per my last review. Except for a minor MoS adjustment I made, I have no complaint. FrB.TG (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Images are appropriately licensed/justified. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Improvements look good. Support per my review in the previous nomination. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- By the time I got around to looking at the article during its last review, I felt it was ready for promotion then (although, knowing absolutely nothing of this artist, I wouldn't have noticed any lack of material). I was going to support, with perhaps a comma comment, when the nominator requested archiving, so I was unable to do so. Considering that they did not know that I was about top support promotion, I felt that was an exceptionally mature and self-reflective approach, and demonstrates a nominator who is willing to go beyond the call of duty to ensure the encyclopedia comes first in the true spirit of FAC. It was a really honorable thing to do. I am pleased to rectify my tardiness now! SN54129 16:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the kind words and for your support. I have tried to become more self-reflective and when I was uncertain about a key element of the song (i.e. its single status), I wanted to make sure that I did my due diligence to do the research and I thought it would be more respectful to do outside of the FAC space to avoid detracting from other nominations. Aoba47 (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
AK
- Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit for this at the WikiCup.
- "More Issues Than Vogue (2016)" → Is listing the year necessary when you mention later the song was released as part of the album on Feb 19, 2016?
- The single was actually released before the album, which was released on March 25, 2016. It is standard to include year that the album was released in this type of situation as sometimes a single can be released in a different than the actual album. The repetition is a bit annoying, but I think it is important to avoid any ambiguity or potential points of confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe link studio album.
- That's a good suggestion, but I do not think it is necessary for two reasons. The concept of an album is pretty universally understood by a majority of readers (at least in my opinion), and having the link so close to the link for the album and T-Pain could raise some sea of blue concerns. Aoba47 (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- "Jet's" → You could replace the apostrophe with {{'}} so it doesn't overlap with the t.
- Overall really nice article, only a couple of very minor nitpicks I could find.
- Not necessary, but a review at my FAC would be appreciated. AryKun (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Frank Russell, 2nd Earl Russell
This article is about... Frank Russell, the second Earl Russell. He wasn't prime minister like the first earl, Lord John Russell, nor a famous philosopher like the third, Bertrand Russell. He had three marriages, all of which ended badly, and other events that marred his life, but he still accomplished a good deal. He was also the last person convicted in a trial before the House of Lords, and the first celebrity to get a Nevada divorce, the two being directly related. Enjoy.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest adding alt text
- Suggest scaling up the trial image
- File:Frank,_2nd_Earl_Russell.jpg is claimed as own work, which given the date seems unlikely to be true
- File:Frances_Elliot_Murray_Kynynmound.png needs a US tag, and to satisfy the UK tag the image description should include steps taken to try to identify the photographer
- Since File:Russell2.jpg is hosted on Commons it needs a tag for country of origin. Ditto File:Russell_leaving_trial.jpg
- File:Russell,_Countessc.1910_(23083012452).jpg: is a more specific copyright tag available? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Support from Tim riley
Happy to support. No complaints about the content – clear, most readable and impressively referenced – and just a few anglicisations and other minor tweaks to suggest, none of them important enough to affect my support.
- Lead
- "likely because authorities there" – for some mysterious reason this is not a BrE idiom. Even more oddly, an adverb in front of it would make it perfectly idiomatic, but without one the normal BrE form is "probably because". There's another "likely" in the Trial before the Lords section (third para). The "most likely" in Second Marriage is impeccably BrE.
- "antiwar" (and also in main text) – the OED prescribes "anti-war" (though I ought to mention that Chambers is happy with "antiwar").
- Education
- "longtime" – both the OED and Chambers hyphenate that one.
- Trial before the Lords
- "dueling" – "duelling" in BrE.
- "pled" – the past tense of "plead" in standard BrE is "pleaded", though I see from Fowler that "pled" is not only AmE but Scottish too, and is also found in some English dialects. (A swift rummage in the archives suggests, as I rather expected, that "pled" was once standard English here – Spenser uses it in The Faerie Queen, but by the 18th century "pleaded" was standard.)
- "occupied by journalist W. T. Stead – I shan't bleat on about false titles but I will point out that you give Stead (and Asquith) spaced initials but T.J. Sanderson and H.G. Wells (and possibly others I haven't spotted) unspaced ones. Better to be consistent one way or the other, I think.
- Second marriage
- "practiced" – in BrE the noun is "practice" but the verb is "practise".
- Third marriage; First World War years
- "wed" – the current (2015) edition of Fowler says of this verb that because of its brevity "the word is de rigueur in the popular press" but it is "irretrievably naff" in more serious writing. I see no reason to argue with that.
- "gambling at bridge" – I imagine this would be auction bridge (a bit early to be contract bridge?) and if so it might be an idea to link to it.
- Labour politician and death (1921—1931)
- "The book was well-received" – Oh, I hate hyphens! I think that one has a well-received book but that a book is well received.
- "permitting local authority" – either a missing "a" or "any" or else the noun should be plural, I think.
- "quickly walked back" – not an idiom familiar to me, though it isn't hard to work out its meaning here.
That's all from me. The article seems to meet all the FA criteria, and I gladly support its elevation. I'd never heard of this character and I have much enjoyed making his acquaintance. – Tim riley talk 09:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
1985–86 Gillingham F.C. season
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Here's my 11th nomination of a season from the history of English football club Gillingham F.C. I was 13 years old at the time and was devastated when the team managed to blow their chance of promotion. Hopefully this article won't do the same - see what I did there.....? :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Battle of Little Blue River
This is probably my last Price's Raid battle FAC for the near future. I brought this one to GA in 2020, and it passed a MILHIST ACR in March 2021, but I've just now gotten around to finishing filling out the sourcing to a state that I believe is FAC-able. Apologies ahead of time for the prose; the fact that I went about a year between really working with it probably doesn't bode well on that front. Hog Farm Talk 04:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments Support from Indy beetle
- while Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon and the Union Army supported the United States and opposed secession. Well, isn't the fact that the army supported the United States what made it the "Union" Army? Do you mean the federal forces stationed in Missouri at the time? Some clarification would be nice, if possible.
- How about "Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon led Union Army forces in Missouri that remained loyal to the United States and opposed secession"? If it would help, I can cut the mention of Lyon, as he's not super relevant to the overall picture, as he was killed in battle in August 1861
- By the beginning of September 1864, events in the eastern United States, especially the Confederate defeat in the Atlanta campaign, gave Abraham Lincoln, who supported continuing the war, an edge in the 1864 United States presidential election over George B. McClellan, who favored ending the war. Per GLOBAL, might be worth clarifying that Lincoln was the incumbent at the time.
- Done
- Is there an appropriate wikilink for the federal conflict with the Cheyenne?
- Done; Colorado War
- Blunt then made the decision to reinforce his outer positions and resist the inevitable Confederate advance. inevitable --> expected/anticapted, ain't much in human history that is truly inevitable.
- Done
- There is public interpretation at the site but no visitor's center. If this means signage, please clarify as such.
- Clarified using another source.
On the whole an excellent article with good scholarship to back it up. -20:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Indy beetle: - Thanks for the review! Replies above, hopefully all have been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 04:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Satisfied with the above responses, nominator has a good track record, sources look good, supporting promotion. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Total Recall (1990 film)
- Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
This article is about the 1990 science fiction action film Total Recall starring Arnold Schwarzenegger that questions how real your mind is if it can't be picked apart and put back together on a whim. It took about 15 years and up to $80 million to bring this project to life and Schwarzenegger had to wait until he could get his friend to buy it before he could be considered for the lead. Noted as one of the most expensive films ever made at the time and among the last major blockbusters to not only use practical effects but use them extensively. Famous for, among other things, a three-breasted woman, and Schwarzenegger committing the world's first do-it-yourself divorce. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
NERVA
This article is about NERVA, the NASA nuclear rocket project. Unlike its forerunner, Project Rover, it developed entire engines and not just reactors for them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Image review—pass no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 03:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93 do you feel that your opposition at the last FAC still applies, or have the redundancy issues been resolved? (t · c) buidhe 04:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: I don't have the time to do an exhaustive analysis, but at first glance, I don't believe they have. These are the combined diffs since the previous FAC at NERVA and Project Rover, and one can see that no restructuring has occurred, nor has substantial unique content been added. Very large portions of the two articles are thus functionally identical. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- As a very rough indicator of redundancy, take a look at this result from Earwig's tool [1]. To be clear, I am not saying there's copyvio here, I'm just trying to estimate shared content. Also, this is a serious underestimate, because Earwig only flags text matches, not content matches. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Your point is accepted. This is an artefact of the way that an encyclopaedia organizes articles around subjects. The separation of Rover from NERVA was there before expansion began, and there was no support for merging. They diverge after the material on Project Rover. While DYK has rules about shared content, there are none at FAC, and my contention is that the NERVA article is complete. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- As a very rough indicator of redundancy, take a look at this result from Earwig's tool [1]. To be clear, I am not saying there's copyvio here, I'm just trying to estimate shared content. Also, this is a serious underestimate, because Earwig only flags text matches, not content matches. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: I don't have the time to do an exhaustive analysis, but at first glance, I don't believe they have. These are the combined diffs since the previous FAC at NERVA and Project Rover, and one can see that no restructuring has occurred, nor has substantial unique content been added. Very large portions of the two articles are thus functionally identical. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support, comprehensive and accurate. There's not much else that I can say. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support An amazing article. I have added some explanatory text on rocket basics so readers don't have to click out to understand the basic concepts. I also mentioned ARPA, because I think it's useful to understand how the existing programs were split up. Other than that, I found it fascinating and complete. I was especially surprised by the budgets and manpower applied, as I had always thought of it as a relatively small program, but with 1,100 people at a single contractor we are certainly in the area of big science! I'm not sure about the use of "reckoned" as that might not translate properly, but that's no reason to hold up an FA. Good to go here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt
- "which may be more efficient than chemical engines" maybe "could" or "might" for "may", since we're dealing with the past?
- " They reluctantly concluded that nuclear rockets were essential for deep space exploration, but not yet technically feasible.[5][6]" Since their reluctant conclusion is quite late in the sentence, I'd put a "while" after "that".
- " This combination of features allows a nuclear engine to outperform a chemical one, they generally aim to have at least twice the specific impulse of a chemical engine.[18]" perhaps the comma should be a semicolon as both parts of the sentence would pass as sentences on their own.
- You shorten Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory both as LASL and as Los Alamos. I might pick one or the other and use it consistently.
- Lewis is double-linked.
- "Then, on 12 April, the Soviet Union launched Yuri Gagarin into orbit on Vostok 1, once again demonstrating their technological superiority." Possibly "their" should be "its" in AmEng.
- " Test Cell C was supposed to be complete in 1960, but NASA and AEC did not request funds for additional construction in 1960, although Senator Anderson provided them anyway." Two things. "But" and "although" in succession makes a sentence feel like a tennis match, and can we lose one use of "in 1960"?
- "The subsequent full-power Kiwi B4A test on 30 November 1962, along with a series of cold flow tests revealed that the problem was vibrations induced as the hydrogen was heated when the reactor was brought to full power that shook the reactor apart (rather than when it was running at full power).[73] " This sentence could benefit from commas or reorganization.
- "Components that would not affect system performance were allowed to be selected from what was available at Jackass Flats" I might cut "allowed to be".
- " Congress cut the NASA's budget to $3.8 billion." Extraneous "the".
- "NASA program funding was somewhat reduced by Congress for the 1969 budget, shutting down the Saturn V production line and cancelling Apollo missions after Apollo 17," My understanding was that Apollo 20 was canceled around New Year's 1970 and the two other canceled missions in September 1970.
- " mostly in California, a state that Nixon needed to carry in the 1972 election.[107]" He didn't as it proved. Perhaps "felt he needed to carry"?
- "Pewee" You mention this for the first time at the end of the article and relate it to Project Rover.
Late Registration
- Nominator(s): K. Peake 14:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
This article is about American rapper Kanye West's second studio album, Late Registration (2005). The album marked a distinctive change in style from West and was a widespread critical success, which has also received much retrospective acclaim. Five singles were released for promotion, including the international hit "Gold Digger", while the album performed well commercially in countries such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The GA review of this article came about way back in 2012 before I was even a user of this site, though I have kept on eye on it these past few years. I have consistently added edits whenever I saw the need over this timeframe and recently, around two weeks have been spent by me preparing the article for FAC! K. Peake 14:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Realmaxxver
Placeholder. Realmaxxver (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- "Late Registration has frequently appeared on professional lists of top albums" Think it would be easier to just say "top albums lists".
- Done --K. Peake 17:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- "West spent more than a year and US$2 million to produce Late Registration.[6]" Would "West spent US$2 million to produce Late Registration, recording it over the course of a year.[6]" work better?
- Done, but I wrote "recording it in over a year" after the comma because that accurately reflects the timespan. --K. Peake 16:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- "and Brion was able to translate the composition and another Levine vocal track in a few hours.[3]" What does this really mean?
- Clarified by writing "effectively work with", as the source is discussing the composition and the vocal track being "meshed". --K. Peake 16:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- "Wall appears alongside West and his GOOD Music labelmate GLC on "Drive Slow", which was recorded in Los Angeles after the two had formed a friendship while posing for a photo shoot for an August 2005 issue of King in a spread titled "Coming Kings".[14]" → "Wall appears alongside West and his GOOD Music labelmate GLC on "Drive Slow". It was recorded in Los Angeles after the two had formed a friendship while posing for a photo shoot for an August 2005 issue of King, in a spread titled "Coming Kings".[14]"
- " ' "My Way Home" is performed solely by West's GOOD Music associate and fellow rapper Common, whose sixth studio album Be was being produced and recorded by West simultaneously with Late Registration.[7][17]" replace "simultaneously with" with "alongside"
- Done, for the above --K. Peake 16:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- "Certain tracks originally produced by West for the album turned into beats for Late Registration.[17]" "the album" could also be "the former"; "Certain tracks originally produced by West for the former turned into beats for Late Registration.[17]"
- Done, but wrote "his own work" instead of the title to avoid closing two consecutive sentences in the same way and because this is the work mentioned alongside Be previously. --K. Peake 16:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- When Jon Brion is already linked in the image caption (In the Recording section) I don't think it needs to be linked in the quote box in the next section.
- Done --K. Peake 16:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- "Kim noticed a clear difference between West's the album and West's previous work, stating," → "Kim noticed a clear difference between Late Registration and West's previous work, stating,"
- I have not done this as not only is Late Registration the most recent album mentioned here, but the last occasion uses its title. --K. Peake 16:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- "Rolling Stone writer Rob Sheffield concurred with this sentiment, analyzing that West "claims the whole world of music as hip-hop turf" and also takes on a "mad quest to explode every cliché about hip-hop identity".[2]" → "Rolling Stone writer Rob Sheffield concurred with this sentiment, analyzing that West "claims the whole world of music as hip-hop turf", taking on a "mad quest to explode every cliché about hip-hop identity".[2]"
- "As the song progresses, its structure gradually morphs and experiences growth musicality." → "As the song progresses, its structure gradually morphs and experiences growing musicality."
- Done, for the above. --K. Peake 16:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Late_registration_cd_cover.jpg needs a more extensive FUR. Ditto File:Heymamakanye.ogg
- Done for both --K. Peake 07:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Former needs more for purpose of use - suggest looking at some recent FAs that include cover images. Later includes "n.a" fields that should be filled in, and purpose of use currently is almost the same as not replaceable. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Done now, I think? --K. Peake 17:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- File:Jon_Brion.jpg is missing evidence of permission
- Nikkimaria Replaced with a different image, please tell me if this alright because I'm not exactly an expert on them to be honest? --K. Peake 07:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- File:Dropout_Bear_Late.png needs a stronger justification since the character also appears in the lead image
- Done by adding more info --K. Peake 07:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Why is it important for this image to be included in addition to the cover image? That is unclear, and keep in mind that the more non-free images included the stronger the justification for each needs to be. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Both images may feature Dropout Bear, but this one shows the inner artwork of the album rather than the cover and the bear is written about in detail within this context here. --K. Peake 17:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- I realize this one shows the inner artwork rather than the cover. What remains unclear is why this is sufficient to justify including both, and why one would not sufficiently illustrate the character. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- The context of the images are totally different because the cover shows Dropout Bear merely stood afront the university's doors, while the inner artwork shows him inside a classroom and reading books. Therefore, the justification is valid especially when significant amount of content is included about the inner appearance. --K. Peake 07:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- The context is not so significantly different to justify both IMO, but let's ping another image reviewer for a second opinion. buidhe? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Should I replace with an actual image of the university or just have no image in this section whatsoever? --K. Peake 17:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- We're not short of images for this article, so it comes down to, do you think such an image would contribute to reader understanding, or would it just be there for decorative purposes? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I believe that adding an image of the university would contribute to understanding since this will show the reader what the original building looks like, as they've already seen a photo of West's bear depicted inside it. --K. Peake 07:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- File:Kanye_West_Air_Canada_Centre_2005_(61886360).jpg is of poor quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Done, I added a replacement image. --K. Peake 07:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Also not great quality - is there a reason we need to include so many images of West performing? Could just leave it out. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- There is no article for the Touch the Sky Tour that supported the album, meaning this is the main article for the tour, thus making an image very appropriate. --K. Peake 17:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Then we'll need a better image. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have found one of a better quality but when you are assessing this aspect, remember images can't be as clear as the originals because then they would be violating copyright rules. --K. Peake 07:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Are you saying these are derived from better-quality originals? That would still be a copyright problem no matter how bad the derived quality is. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, the image is sourced from Flickr and I'm not an expert on Wikimedia but I thought that having celeb images was considered copyright when the quality was high? --K. Peake 17:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, neither quality nor fame impacts copyright - it's just how the photographer licenses the work. A professional could release a high-quality portrait photo of West under a free license; I could take a terrible blurry photo of my cousin and reserve all rights to it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Is photo quality really a problem here? To me, this photo looks to be decent. --K. Peake 07:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
John Minsterworth
- Nominator(s): SN54129 19:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
This article is another—although probably the last—about 14th-century failures, medieval madcaps or bizarre barons. This chap goes to France, gets roundly up his boss' nose, sneaks away while his comrades get roundly beaten by the French, tries to blame everyone else, then eventually deserts to the French and supports a Welsh invasion, is picked up by the English, and, not unsurprisingly, paid a high price for his escapades. Hopefully, you'll join me in getting Minsterworth the promotion that is most certainly not his by right of conquest! Cheers, SN54129 19:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments Support from Tim riley
- Lead
- "Sir Robert Knolles, who contemporaries praised" – whom, please.
- Yus!
- "Minsterworth may have despised Knolles on grounds of the latter's reputation and status, and with others, split away" – I think we have either one comma too many or one too few here – if you want one after "others" I think you want one after "and" as well
- Add comma.
- "despite regular ambushes" – unless they were e.g. every Tuesday and Friday at 11.00 o'clock I think you mean "frequent" rather than "regular"
- A fascinating thought that!
- Service in France and mutiny
- "as a "shadowy... man" – I think, but don't take my word for it, the MoS would like a space before your elliptical dots.
- Sorted all of them; I had a mixture.
- "Historian James Sherborne" – clunking false title
- Definitely articled.
- "the army commenced a chevauchée" – I have bleated at you before about using a genteelism like "commence" when a good plain word like "start" or "begin" is available at no extra cost. (And you do realise that the word "chevauchée" is the exclusive property of Gog the Mild, who may impose a hire charge?)
- In my defence, m'lud, these three articles were written a long time ago. Probably around the same time, when I was obviously more gentile...!
- Usually I would just send the lads round for a full and frank discussion. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Division of the English force
- "continuous ambushes" – I think you probably mean "continual" rather than "continuous" here.
- Check.
- Renegade in France
- "Minsterworth left England for France again in 1372, and it is possible that Minsterworth was communicating" – the repetition of the surname is infelicitous: a pronoun might be better the second time
- Done.
- "communicating treasonably with them by now" – "them" being the French, presumably, but there is no plural noun for "them" to refer back to
- Tweaked.
- "but he was serving Charles V's army by then" – is there an "in" missing before "Charles"?
- Fixed, as part of the above tweak.
- "Soon after, on 20 December 1373, that the escheator of the Duchy of Lancaster was ordered to confiscate all the lands" – the "that" seems to be surplus to requirements. (Afterthought, but perhaps you meant to put the "that" before the first comma, where it would be perfectly happy.)
- Less being more, I removed it.
- "the intended logistics of this campaign, or how it was to be implemented, are uncertain" – if you use "or" you need a singular verb – "is", rather than "are"
- Done.
- "and Charles' plan" – I haven't boggled at "Knolles'" rather than "Knolles's" (though I would write the latter) but Charles' really does need to be Charles's.
- For consistency, I've double-s'd both. But I could have sworn that BrEng favored a single possessive s...? Must've got the wrong end of the stick somewhere.
- It would be an oversimplification to say that Jones' is AmE and Jones's is BrE: most BrE style guides use the latter form but I know at least one that doesn't, and I know some AmE users prefer ess-apostrophe-ess; but as a rule of thumb it isn't too far wrong to think of the shorter form as AmE and the longer as BrE. (As for your "favored", that is unequivocally AmE, but we all know that, don't we, boys and girls?) Tim riley talk 16:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Capture by the English
- "Peasant#'s revolt" – the what?
- Notes
- "Under a royal charter issued him in 1365, Gaunt was authorized" – the z is not wrong, but looks a bit odd in modern BrE: "authorised" would be more usual.
- Done.
Over to you. Tim riley talk 18:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for this Tim; apologies for the tardiness of my response, there aren't enough hours in the day at the moment. As if, ever. Your points addressed with ths edit, hopefully! SN54129 15:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Support. Meets the FA criteria, in my view. Tim riley talk 18:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Appreciate that Tim, as ever. I promise no more gentilisms! Liked the Fowler quote too; somewhat reminded me of Bernard...) and, yes, favored was deliberate mistake of the day :) SN54129 14:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed
- Check that everything in the lead is cited in the body - for example "attempted to have Knolles tried for treason" is not explicitly claimed there
- Check.
- How does Baker meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
- Ah, well, we have two Bakers.Baker, G. P: It's a PhD from a reputable university, supervised by a respected expert in their field, by someone who was subsequently employed at equally respected institutions for their expertise on the same subject (UEA, Southampton and Exeter), and has published in his field. Some of his thesis is replicated in a subsequent piece (Baker 2018), although not completely, so now the one complements the other. For the record though: I would argue for the thesis being a high-quality source in the first place regardless of a later write up (as you'll be unsurprised to hear, most of his article is cited to...the thesis!).Baker, R: A RS for the fact that Minsterworth's "infamy" was still being discussed nearly 300 years later.
- What makes Harrison a high-quality reliable source?
- Well. J. J. Alexander, writing in 1937, discussed the use of antiquarian texts by modern historians. It is true, he said, that some of these writers often had access to now-lost sources, and, likewise, that many of them were researching with the scientific method, but on the whole, "the practice of quoting from eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century sources... is to be deprecated".[1] But for our purposes, is 16 out of 59 an overuse of a source mostly backing simple, if rarely considered, facts, in an area where modern scholarship no longer deeply goes?
- If there's reason to consider it reliable, perhaps not - but is there? Alexander was speaking in generalities rather than regarding this particular source. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- True. I have removed the number of references to Harrison. (Admittedly, only by one.) But he's OK for the local detail—not opinion, you see, just raw fact—that may no longer be available to modern scholars. All the stuff getting burned in 1867, etc.
- If there's reason to consider it reliable, perhaps not - but is there? Alexander was speaking in generalities rather than regarding this particular source. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Leland is missing language
- Excellent eyes, thanks.
- Ormrod: verify location? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree it looks odd :) The US place of publication is, of course, New Haven, but I only have/had access to that printed on Yale's behalf in the UK, in Padstow. Can you see this copyright page? (Note same ISBN too.) Bloody limeys eh! :) SN54129 18:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Cf. Tim, apologies for taking a while to complete this Nikkimaria. See what you think now. Cheers! SN54129 15:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Ceoil
Placeholder. Will get to this over weekend; from the lead looks v interesting. Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'll edit trivial prose stuff directly rather than list demands here, if that's ok, and of course you can revert at will. Ceoil (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Have made some edits
- Convicted of conspiring – alliteration
- whom contemporaries praised for his military prowess – "Whom" is old fashioned, and "military prowess" should be either tactical or strategic acumen or ability
- Right, "military acumen"?
- and, for reasons which are now obscure, - concerns historical method and accuracy; if covered below drop clarifier from lead
- When you get to it, you'll see that it's considered too hare-brained a scheme to make much sense at the time, let alone >600 years later :)
- However, in 1377, while still abroad, he was captured by the English and sent home. Unless missing something..."while still abroad" should be "in France", drop "however"
- Removed however. I went with "abroad" as the geography is a bit complex—he went from Eng > France > Castille > Navarre, where he was finally arrested. And the only place I've mentioned him being before that is France, so I'm kind of skating over the fact that he wasn't arrested there while not having to go into too much detail. Do you see what I mean?
- socially superior - "superior" isn't quite right, maybe use the word higher or rank
- Tweaked the whole sentence.
- The lead is quite sparse; if no image is available would add, gasp!, a brief IB, just to fill up the empty space
- I haven't had much experience with IBs ;) but am not averse. As you say, something to break the walls of text up would be great. This has to have the crappest selection of images ever! Not even a coat of arms. Any particular IB you recommend?
- If not an ib, what about a painting of a repetitively contemporary battel from the Hundred Years' War? Ceoil (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- "All you battles look the same to me, squire" :) Have added an IB, sorry Cass ;) what you think Ceoil?
- More later Ceoil (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Comments Support from mujinga
- Thanks for an interesting read! I just realised you wrote Coterel gang which I also enjoyed a while back. This article tells quite a confusing story and most of the time I could follow it easily. Here are some comments on prose, where I got stuck:
- "The Historian James Sherborne has said Minsterworth caused "much trouble" on the campaign,[4] and Jonathan Sumption described him as an "ambitious hothead".[5] " - perhaps recently garbled, historian doesn't need capitalizing and would suggest introducing both commentators as medieval historians or similar
- Absolutely. Decapped, and have remodelled the sentence to show they are both historians.
- "It was to be the first English army to France intended to be led by a commander below the rank of earl[6] or other peers.[7]" - seems like this could be trimmed to " It was the first English army to France led by a commander below the rank of earl[6] or other peers.[7] "
- Done.
- "resulted in joint command of Knolles " suggest "resulted in joint command by Knolles" or "resulted in the joint command of Knolles "
- Went with "by".
- "This system of shared leadership appears to have led to jealousies and rivalries arising among them" - suggest cutting "among them"
- Done.
- "who had started at the bottom" - bottom of what?
- The ranks. But I've merged the two sentences together, which is hopefully clearer?
- "Geographically his force was recruited from across the country, including locally to Minsterworth—such as Wales and Gloucester—but further afield;" - this reads awkwardly to me, i think the dashes don't help
- Have recast the sentence, hopefully, it reads better now?
- I don't think note2 needs to start with "Although", especially since there's a "though" in the quote
- Good point, tweaked.
- Marches - should this be linked? Welsh Marshes is linked below, which I suppose is currently second mention
- Swapped them over.
- "probably to make enable foraging and increase profits" - extra word here
- I think it was meant to be "probably to make foraging easier and increase profits".
- "escaped into Brittany" - escaped to?
- Done.
- consider "Charles V of France" for heathens like me to keep up with the story
- Apologies, but I couldn't see what you meant; could you clarify where this is?
- "Soon after, on 20 December 1373, the escheator of the Duchy of Lancaster was ordered to confiscate all the lands Minsterworth held of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, Minsterworth's feudal lord in Gloucestershire and the Welsh Marches.[44]" - bit confused by this sentence .. so the escheator was told to confiscate land Minsterworth possessed which was owned by John of Gaunt, who was the Duke of Lancaster? On a reread it's "held of" that's tripping me up
- Changed to "held from"?
- so there's two quoteboxes in "Capture by the English", one has a book reference, one doesn't, which seems inconsistent
- Good spot, done.
- in Pamplona,[46] Navarre - prob a comma after Navarre
- Done.
- [observation] wow that's brutal to send bits of his body to different cities
- A deterrent for any like-minded lads :)
- link messuage to conveyancing (which it currently redirects to)?
- Done.
- i'm not sure how the discussion in the "Estates" section relates to the earlier stuff about the escheator confiscated Minsterworth's holdings ultimately owned by John of Gaunt (although it does clarify my earlier comment for me). But does that mean the land had been confiscated in 1373 or it was spoken about then and only done after his execution?
- Yes, this is a bit confusing, you're right. I've tried to clarify that the outlawry and confiscation took place in '73, but the IPM (from which we get a list of lands) wasn't til '77. Better?
- Does the Baker PhD need a location?
- I only ever use the university location to be honest—they're rarely different.
That's all I got.Mujinga (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for looking in, Mujinga, great to "see" you again (Kennedy Road seems ages ago now!) I've tried to address all your points, except one, which I'll do when you clarify. Now I see you've mentioned me elsewhere—are my dashes getting me into trouble! ;) Cheers, SN54129 13:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Cerro Tuzgle
- Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
This article is about a rather unremarkable volcano in Argentina, which is mostly important because it is one of the few recently active volcanoes in the Puna. There are some ideas to use it or its neighbour Tocomar for geothermal power generation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Mount Price (British Columbia)
This article is about a mountain in the Canadian province of British Columbia. Mount Price is also an andesitic stratovolcano that began forming 1.2 million years ago. A vent on its western slope (Clinker Peak) was the source of two thick lava flows that ponded against an ice sheet within the last 15,000 years. These lava flows were one of the first described occurrences of lava having been impounded by glacial ice. Volcanoguy 03:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- While I don't know whether the article complies with 1c and 1d of WP:WIAFA, but everything else seems to fit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed
- "It is located 10 kilometres (6.2 miles) southeast of the abandoned settlement of Garibaldi above the eastern flank of the Cheakamus River valley" - source?
- Be consistent in when/if you include publication locations
- What makes Liu a high-quality reliable source?
- Fn26: what is given as work title appears to instead be a section title. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: I have dealt with all of this except for the last one because {{cite web}} does not have a section parameter. Volcanoguy 04:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, but you can't address that by putting that info into a parameter in which it doesn't belong. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: I have dealt with all of this except for the last one because {{cite web}} does not have a section parameter. Volcanoguy 04:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
The Holocaust in Greece
This article went through a thorough GAN by Hog Farm and an ACR with comments from CPA-5, Nick-D, Catlemur, and Gog the Mild, and a copyedit by Twofingered Typist, all of which are much appreciated. I subsequently expanded the article from a couple newly published sources, and I think it's ready for FAC. (t · c) buidhe 18:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest scaling up the first two maps, and see MOS:COLOUR
- Some of the captions include claims that warrant citing
- File:Prisoners_sorting_confiscated_property_at_Auschwitz_II-Birkenau.jpg: the description indicates author is unknown, but the source credits authors? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Scaled up maps. All info in captions should be cited already in the article or image description page. The photographers of the Auschwitz Album are unknown, but there are some theories. The museum puts down two of the hypothesized photographers, but I think it's fine to say "unknown". Thanks for the review! (t · c) buidhe 03:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments Support from Indy beetle
- The Jewish community reported that 12,898 Jews fought for Greece in the war; 613 died and 3,743 were wounded There wouldn't happen to be any unique info on what happened to Greek Jewish POWs, would there?
- All the Greek soldiers including Jews were released after a month. (Bowman 41) Should this be mentioned in the article? I didn't think so because the treatment of Jews appears exactly the same to Orthodox Greeks.
- Something to the effect that they weren't treated differently at this stage would be nice.
- Done
- Something to the effect that they weren't treated differently at this stage would be nice.
- All the Greek soldiers including Jews were released after a month. (Bowman 41) Should this be mentioned in the article? I didn't think so because the treatment of Jews appears exactly the same to Orthodox Greeks.
- The collaborationist Greek government began to see Bulgaria as the main threat and did all it could to secure German support in restraining Bulgaria. From annexing its territory?
- Pretty much, clarified based on the source
- some went mad Is there a better medical term for this?
- All the source says is, "Several people went mad along the way, and virtually no one was able to stand up on arrival"
- but there is no record of him taking action to prevent the deportations, except two letters of protest written after they had already begun. Is it known on what grounds the Greek authorities protested? That the Jews were Greek citizens? It's curious considering the PMs previous comments about solving the "Jewish problem".
- The "Jewish problem" comments were from Logothetopoulos' predecessor. The cited source says that the letters were an example of Greek collaborators hedging their bets and continuing to collaborate while creating exonerating evidence in case of an Allied victory. Source does not elaborate on the content.
- By June 1944, 850 Jews had escaped to Çeşme, despite obstruction from British intelligence. The f was Britain doing obstructing refugees fleeing from an Axis-occupied ally to a neutral nation?
- It was part of their attempt to reduce the number of Jews arriving in Palestine, since the Turkish government was not admitting Jewish refugees but merely allowing them to pass through on the way to the Levant. Nevertheless, these efforts do not seem to have a significant effect and explaining them would take WP:UNDUE space, so I removed this bit.
- All of mainland Greece was recaptured from Axis occupation by November 1944. Recaptured? I'm having trouble finding info here but it seems the Germans mostly withdrew so they could go fight the Soviets on the Eastern Front.
- True, the source is not completely clear on this point. Reworded.
- In Salonica, Jewish camp survivors were often called "unused cakes of soap". Yikes. No further comment.
- Jews found themselves sleeping in improvised shelters Who established and managed these shelters, the Greek government?
- No, the source specifically says that the government did nothing and the survivors had to improvise for themselves. Clarified
- Holocaust denial is illegal in Greece since when?
- After looking at some sources it seems that there is no law against Holocaust denial in particular, although it has sometimes been prosecuted under racial hatred laws with limited success. Rewrote accordingly.
- The Holocaust was obviously an event which focused on Jews, but is it known what happened to other marginalized groups? For example, the article on the Porajmos suggests few to no Roma people were killed in Greece.
- I've tried to integrate the related ethnic violence (e.g. against Chams or Macedonians), but the Romani people are unmentioned in the sources.
-Indy beetle (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for your review! (t · c) buidhe 01:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Storage building owned by the Voliotis family in the village of Lachonia near Pelion, where members of the Hakim family lived and hid during the Nazi occupation This caption is too long for addressing a subject not specifically mentioned in the article. Technically, it doesn't even suggest why the Hakim family was hiding. Could be shortened to the effect of "Storage building in Lachonia where Jews lived in hiding during occupation" or something of the sort. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure what you've seen, but this book argues a very clear connection between German attempts to control inflation in Greece and the dispossession and deportation of Jews. You mentioned the confiscated gold, but I wonder if something is missing here. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Some of Aly's conclusions have been controversial (his heavy emphasis on economic aspects to the exclusion of other factors), and Kavala says that many aspects of the property confiscation haven't been adequately researched yet—so I'm hesitant to be too conclusive. She never suggests that the fight against inflation was the cause of the deportation. (t · c) buidhe 19:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Source review—pass The article relies almost entirely on appropriate scholarship for the subject at hand, with well-published books and peer-reviewed journal article making up the source material. The few instances where this is not the case are citations to appropriate mainstream media outlets and nonprofit memorial organizations.
- The pagination for Droumpouki, Anna Maria (2016). "Shaping Holocaust memory in Greece: memorials and their public history" appears to be incorrect.
- The version I accessed starts at page 1.
- I've corrected this issue; however, I've removed/changed some of the cities listed for places with monuments, since this does not appear to be supported by the source.
- The version I accessed starts at page 1.
- Spotchecks on this version
- Ref 18 does not appear to support the second half of this statement: some 72,000 to 77,000 Jews lived in 27 communities in Greece—the majority in Salonica. It says the majority were Saphardic, but not that they lived in Salonica.
- "Despite the lack of credible statistics, a generally acknowledged number for the prewar Greek Jewish population is between 72,000 and 77,000, with the Jews from the Dodecanese included, albeit as Italian citizens. Some 50,000 of them resided in Thessaloniki." The rest is WP:CALC
- Ah, did not realize that Thessaloniki was Salonica. All good then.
- "Despite the lack of credible statistics, a generally acknowledged number for the prewar Greek Jewish population is between 72,000 and 77,000, with the Jews from the Dodecanese included, albeit as Italian citizens. Some 50,000 of them resided in Thessaloniki." The rest is WP:CALC
- Ref 32 good
- Ref 70 good, but might be worth appending the footnote used in the source material to the citation as well, since that explicitly mentions the diary
- Ref 114 good
- Ref 184 good
- Ref 199 good
- Ref 18 does not appear to support the second half of this statement: some 72,000 to 77,000 Jews lived in 27 communities in Greece—the majority in Salonica. It says the majority were Saphardic, but not that they lived in Salonica.
- The Antoniou & Moses 2018 "Introduction" chapter seems to have some good info on the development of Holocaust historiography for Greece, which seems to be missing from the article.
- Added a bit more about this
-Indy beetle (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about the sentence you added at the end of the article. The book is about the Balkans generally not Greece specifically. I think it could be misleading as the other events in the Balkans sometimes viewed as genocides did not occur in Greece, eg. the genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia, and I've never heard of any other wwii greece events being called genocides. (t · c) buidhe 19:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Removed. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Constantine
Will review over the following days. Constantine ✍ 17:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
55 Wall Street
- Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
This article is about a building in Manhattan, New York City, whose long history can be seen just by looking at the two tiers of colonnades on its eight-story facade. The lower section was constructed for the Merchants' Exchange in 1841 and also housed the New York Stock Exchange and the United States Custom House in the 19th century. The upper section was built when National City Bank took over in the 1900s. At one point, the bank was said to do "more business in its head office than is done under any other nongovernmental banking roof on the face of the earth". The building's massive cruciform banking hall is now an event venue, with people living in condo apartments above.
This page was promoted as a Good Article almost two years ago after a Good Article review by one of FAC's very own coordinators, Hog Farm, for which I am very grateful. In addition, the page received a GOCE copyedit a few months ago from Rublov, whose efforts I also appreciate. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest adding alt text
- I have done this now. Epicgenius (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- File:(King1893NYC)_pg790_THE_OLD_MERCHANTS'_EXCHANGE_ON_WALL_STREET.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: The author of the book, Moses King, died in 1909. However, this is already public domain anyway in the U.S., since the book was published in the U.S. in 1893. Epicgenius (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Is the author of the book the creator of the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- I cannot say definitively. In the King’s Handbook of New York City, it does not seem that artists for each illustration were individually credited. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- In that case I would suggest removing or replacing the life+70 tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have done this. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- In that case I would suggest removing or replacing the life+70 tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Is the author of the book the creator of the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: The author of the book, Moses King, died in 1909. However, this is already public domain anyway in the U.S., since the book was published in the U.S. in 1893. Epicgenius (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Time in Finland
- Nominator(s): LunaEatsTuna (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
This article is about the history and geography of the time zone used in Finland as well as its maintenance. As far as I know, no time zone-related article has yet to achieve FA status, and so I really wish to expand and improve the coverage of this niche yet highly important subject (It indirectly involves almost all 7.9 billion people!). Additionally, the quality of Time in X articles (even important ones such as the United Kingdom) is rather poor at the moment, and so I also hope that perhaps this article could help towards possibly setting a standard for future Time in X articles I wish to improve. This reached GA in January 2022 (thank you Mujinga) and received a PR in March (thanks to Buidhe). It has changed significantly since it achieved GA status, and I think it is worthy of nomination for FA now. Lastly, I also wish to thank LPfi, whose lengthy edit to the history section in October last year unknowingly inspired me to work on this article. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comments
- "In the 19th century, a single time zone across Finland was to be needed" => "In the 19th century, a single time zone across Finland was needed"
- "between Finland its western neighbours" - think there's a word missing there
- "Finland's observance of Eastern Europe Time, while other countries to the west used Central European Time at UTC+01:00 caused" - need a comma before "caused"
- "with the adjustment made one hour earlier at 0:2:00 EET" - that time doesn't look right
- "Hours can be marked with leading zeros especially for the early hours of the night where necessary for clarity [...] but the hour after midnight and later in the morning, the leading zero is usually omitted" - I don't understand this, the two parts seem to contradict each other......?
- That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Done! And I reworded the sentence you mention last to be more comprehensive. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Support from Aoba47
It is a shame that this FAC has not attracted more reviewers as it is nice to see a different topic being represented in this space. I am by no means an expert on this topic as I do not even have a full grasp on time in the United States, but I hope my more outsider position will help in at least some way. My comments are below:
- For this part, two hours ahead of coordinated universal time (UTC+02:00), UTC+02:00 is linked twice. I would remove the first instance as it is not necessary in my opinion and it would avoid a sea of blue.
- I am confused by the mentions of daylight saving time in the lead. The first paragraph says it has been observed since 1983, but the second paragraph says it was done away with at some unspecified date. Could you clarify this for me?
- If Finland is linked in the lede, it should be linked in the article itself for consistency.
- I find the citation placement for this part, advanced 20 minutes and 10.9 seconds to Eastern European Time, to be rather cumbersome. Why not just move the citation to the end of the sentence?
- I'd link the Soviet Union as other geographic areas get linked.
- Daylight saving time is linked twice in the article.
- I would split the "Proposals to end daylight saving time" paragraph into two. I would start a new paragraph with this sentence, As of November 2021, as it seems like a natural break to me. I suggest this because it is a rather long paragraph so I think breaking it into two will help with readability.
- I'd remove the following links: telephone, Internet, computer networks, and internet connection. I am encouraging this as this are rather common concepts that a majority of readers will already understand so the link is not particularly necessary.
I hope this review is helpful. I have focused on the prose as I do not know Finnish so I cannot really delve into the sources in any meaningful way. Once my comments have been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Very helpful! I have made the relevant changes, and reworded your aforementioned sentence on DST to instead read "Daylight saving time was first attempted once in 1942". Hopefully this should avoid the confusion. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Edwininlondon
Nice to see this type of article here at FAC. Some comments:
- The opening sentence is a bit long. Do we really need to have "including Åland" right here?
- In the 19th century, a single time zone across Finland was needed --> would be better if it starts with what was before 19th century
- Daylight saving time was first attempted once in 1942, but abandoned as not useful. In 2017, --> missing here is when it was re-introduced (1981)
- to consider abolishing daylight saving. --> to consider abolishing daylight saving time.
- and each city followed their own --> and what happened in the villages?
- each city followed their own solar time. In 1909 --> This is puzzling to me: at first I thought 1909 was a typo and should be 1809, but then realised that is not even "before the 19th century". Maybe just drop the year and say something a long the lines of "This meant that .."
- via telegraph --> when was the telegraph introduced in Finalnd?
- Kaipiainen, just east of Kouvola. --> is anything known about time further east?
- In 1882, clock synchronisations by telephone were arranged between Finland and Sweden --> anything about Russia? Especially since the topic was train to St Petersburg.
- In 1888, the Diet of Finland (a legislative assembly) .. (Finland was --> 2 sets of parentheses is maybe a bit too much in one sentence
- was proposed in the Diet --> by the Diet?
- without success --> anything known about why it was rejected?
- Nevertheless, the standard railway time spread to common usage throughout the country --> if there is a bit more about how and why this happened, that would be good.
- proposed that Finland adopt Eastern European Time --> link Eastern European Time
- to become the standard time zone for the country --> ideally there is a bit more on this: e.g. impact, reactions by the residents, how did it compare to neighbouring countries
- caused difficulties for businesses --> would be good to give examples. The next sentence has one, but it would be better placed here perhaps
- proposed that the Finnish government switch --> needs a bit of a rephrase, because now it looks as if they propose the government switches but the rest of the country not, so perhaps "switch the time in Finland to"
- the European Union directive --> the name European Union was not in use in 1980, it only came in 1992
More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not keen on the structure regarding daylights saving time. I can see the argument to have some of it in the history section, but now we have some repetition and wrongly placed info I think. I'm not sure how to make it perfect, but let me try to make some concrete suggestions:
- first of all, Further information: Summer time in Europe should move to the header "Daylight saving time"
- As Finland is at high latitude, the sun ... time coordinated with other countries. --> apart from the tone of this being a bit too informal (still) and vague (as an advantage?) and unremarkable (the sun shines in the mornings in the summer everywhere), should this not move up? It seems to convey the reason why it was changed, so perhaps better suited in the history
- would be healthy for Finns --> any specific reasons given?
- Finland has observed daylight saving time since 1981 --> I can live with duplication, given that some readers might jump from the index straight here, but the bit that follows "following the European Union directive on daylight savings time, with the adjustment made one hour earlier at 02:00 EET for the first two years" should not be in this section. The first two years bit should be in the history.
- was reviewing the practice --> repetition of practice
- As of November 2021 --> any more recent updates?
- Geography and solar time --> a map would be good, the tripoint photo could go to an earlier section
- located outside of 22°30' East --> is outside the right word? is simply west not better?
- Finland's standard meridian --> what does that mean? The meridian article doesn't define it either. Plus the infobox calls it "central meridian". One term should be used, not two
- Because of Finland's high latitude, ... and Russia easier. --> this sentence feels misplaced. What follows and what comes before it are closely related and this sentence breaks the flow. Also, I would drop the second part from "which is only" until the end, because it feels a bit repetitive
- At Muotkavaara – a tripoint border between Finland, Norway and Russia – three time zones meet during Finland's winter time; --> commas instead of – is fine I think. And should the semicolon at the end not be a colon?
- in Nikel --> why mention a city? the timezone is for a whole part of the country, not just the city
- leap seconds --> I would expect a bit more on this: when was the first time this was done, how often has it been done, when was the last time?
- "21–04" to avoid confusion with 24:00 --> why deviate from the standard notation twice here? Both should use the period. And I'm not convinced this is a good example of the point being made about leading zeros
- but the hour after midnight and later in the morning --> comma before but and something is missing, perhaps "for the hour"?
- "9–21" --> (e.g. "1.21" and "9.21")
- just checking if I get this right: acceptable is 00:21 and 0.21 and 1.21 and 02.21 and 2.21 and 07.21 and 9.21. But not acceptable are: 01.21 and 09.21?
- spelled out using the 12-hour clock --> does this work for all time or only the whole hour? I mean, does one spell out 9.21 as nine hours and twenty one minutes in the morning? (Languages can get quite odd with this: in Dutch one can actually say "nine minutes before half ten")
- Finland previously used the 12-hour clock --> and how did notation look like then? Something like the English am and pm?
- Europe/Mariehamn for Åland. "AX" --> anything on why there are 2 entries that are identical?
- See also: always tempting to add many links, but now I'm thinking "where is Sweden?" That "bordering country of Finland" feels overkill
I'll look at sources later. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Comments from mujinga
- I enjoyed reviewing this for GA and will give it a read again once the comments from Edwininlondon are dealt with. Just wanted to say now that I agree the first sentence is a bit unwieldy and would suggest breaking it up or starting with a different sentence. Mujinga (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56
- Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
This article is about a cantata by J. S. Bach. I tried to bring it to FA quality in 2018, but failed. Thanks to all who commented then, which helped to improve the article. This cantata is a solo cantata from Bach's third cantata cycle, - both aspects not yet covered in a FA. It is a beloved piece, and one of few that Bach called a cantata. The article was began by Dgies and expanded by Mathsci in 2009. It received a GA review by sadly missed Yash! in 2015. On Bach's birthday, Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
To not get lost in the comments below: Mathsci (talk) is a co-nom, and the discography is in the process of being reduced here to a summary, while the table went to a dedicated article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Image review
no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 17:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments
The autograph manuscript was provided by me in 2018. I was the main contributor in 2009 (before infoboxes were instituted). If User:Gerda Arendt restores Bach cantata to its November 2015 version, that would be an improvement (she has already almost volunteered to do so). With no time pressure, I would be willing to help Gerda to add material from the WP:RS, W. Gillies Whittaker's Cantatas of J S Bach, to improve the section on musical analysis. Possibly freely licensed audio files of parts of the cantata are available (e.g. musopen). Mathsci (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the offer of more analysis and audio. I don't see any relation to Bach cantata which I unwatched, and which is not linked from this cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- You pinged me twice today. I would like to help. Perhaps to clear the air, it might be a good idea to chat in private by email. What do you think? Mathsci (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- It seems you weren't in the mood to reply. Going numerically through the cantatas I found Ich habe genung, BWV 82. I added Gilles Cantagrel and William Gillies Whittaker as WP:RSs. I also found a 1950 public domain recording of Hans Hotter singing "Ich habe genug" and will add the slumber song. Mathsci (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- You suggested to clear air, and I knew of nothing unclear. You suggested email, and I believe openly here is more transparent. What reply did you expect? I think it would help to focus here on this cantata, and move comments for BWV 82 to that article's talk page, and comments regarding Bach cantata on that article's talk page, but with a ping please as I don't watch it. Please drop remarks about my mood which don't belong here. For my mood, look up #Ukraine on my talk. It doesn't belong here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- In this article page you quote "most-beloved" in Jones' 2007 book. However, Jones wrote "best loved", which is not the same. Today one of the lede Bach-archiv images, uploaded by me, appears as a FA on the main page of wikipedia. In your caption, however, you wrote that this was in Bach's handwriting. But that is untrue, as the copyist was Johann Andreas Kuhnau, as explained in the caption of the lede image. I have no idea why Schweitzer's Nobel Peace Prize is mentioned in this article. (It is true that, during WW2, an arrangement of BWV 680 for orchestra was performed as a prayer for peace.) Mathsci (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing out the subtle difference in meaning that I couldn't detect, and my mistake with the attribution to the copyist. - Schweitzer's peace prize is mentioned because some readers may not recognise that this is the same person. Feel free to discuss, and to make the language change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Discuss? I looked for places where audio files have been used as external links in FAs, and found BWV 125 (Herreweghe). I also discovered that there was a February 2021 concert here, featuring Stephan MacLeod and Gli Angeli Genève. It might be useful for creating audio files. MacLeod has been a soloist in Suzuki's cantata group. Mathsci (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- two things:
- Discuss (with others) if Schweitzer's other role in history be mentioned or not.
- Audios would be nice, but my experience in creating them is zero, all assistance is appreciated. I just began the article on MacLeod. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- The CD of MacLeod/Gli Angeli Genève has not yet been released. As the website states:[2] "This album has not been released yet. Pre-order it now. (Will be sent some days before release date)." On the other hand, if you look at bach-cantatas, you can see that only a fraction of CDs for BWV 56 are actually listed, e.g. recordings by Gérard Souzay, Hermann Prey, Bernard Kruysen, etc. For BWV 1, a separate article on the discography was created. A veritable Pandora's box. Curiosity killed the cat. Mathsci (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- two things:
- Discuss? I looked for places where audio files have been used as external links in FAs, and found BWV 125 (Herreweghe). I also discovered that there was a February 2021 concert here, featuring Stephan MacLeod and Gli Angeli Genève. It might be useful for creating audio files. MacLeod has been a soloist in Suzuki's cantata group. Mathsci (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing out the subtle difference in meaning that I couldn't detect, and my mistake with the attribution to the copyist. - Schweitzer's peace prize is mentioned because some readers may not recognise that this is the same person. Feel free to discuss, and to make the language change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- In this article page you quote "most-beloved" in Jones' 2007 book. However, Jones wrote "best loved", which is not the same. Today one of the lede Bach-archiv images, uploaded by me, appears as a FA on the main page of wikipedia. In your caption, however, you wrote that this was in Bach's handwriting. But that is untrue, as the copyist was Johann Andreas Kuhnau, as explained in the caption of the lede image. I have no idea why Schweitzer's Nobel Peace Prize is mentioned in this article. (It is true that, during WW2, an arrangement of BWV 680 for orchestra was performed as a prayer for peace.) Mathsci (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- You suggested to clear air, and I knew of nothing unclear. You suggested email, and I believe openly here is more transparent. What reply did you expect? I think it would help to focus here on this cantata, and move comments for BWV 82 to that article's talk page, and comments regarding Bach cantata on that article's talk page, but with a ping please as I don't watch it. Please drop remarks about my mood which don't belong here. For my mood, look up #Ukraine on my talk. It doesn't belong here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Mathsci, for having added music, references, sound files, wording: I invite you to be co-nom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree to do that, provided there's no particular rush and that improvements can be made in a vaguely systematic way.
General comments
|
---|
There is something jewel-like in the construction of the cantata. Ton Koopman's YouTube talk on BWV 56 emphasises Bach's role as a craftsman: looking at the final page of the autograph manuscript, Bach's conciseness in preparing the 3/4 part of the 2nd recitative with the elegaic reprise of the first aria and the microscopically written final chorale is a miracle. It's similar to BWV 105, which has also been studied by Robert Marshall in great detail. Here there are no problems with authenticity or chronology. I would resuscitate Alfred Dürr's musical analysis (which can be slightly dry) and combine it with that of Whittaker and Cantagrel—a to-do list. (Nikkimaria is very good at making things concise when required.) For reception, that would be slightly easier if it were BWV 82 because the BBC have made one or more programmes reporting on how the music and meaning of "Ich habe genug" has affected a whole array of different people, when confronted by life-changing problems. On the other hand, Koopman has said the same about BWV 56 in his short YouTube talk (as has Schweitzer). There's also André Pirro's book. That universality is apparent in what other recognized musical commentators have written (finding German 19th sources aoart from Spitta would not be time well spent). Standard things like vocal scores have already been discussed in the article talk page, but not the article. (I watched a video of the Dellal Emmanuel group playing from the Wiesbaden Breitkopf parts, using a terrible positive organ and oboes with metal keys, so not barqoque.) When I watched Koopman's first (televised) recording of BWV 56 with Mertens, I was amused that the subtitles of Henry Drinker accompanied the final chorale (which of course is much better in German, particularly for the final detached Jesulein with its closing cadence). Also I smiled when I noticed that the obbligato oboist was unmistakably Marcel Ponseele, who also regularly played with Herreweghe. |
- Mathsci (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- great! - do you also agree to have the table of recordings separately, and leave here a summary with some evaluation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Of course, because there are too many recordings, some of which are not even mentioned in bach-cantatas.com. As with BWV 1, they can be discussed in summary form. Here the artistry of the singer can be important; everybody has their personal preferences—Koopman & Mertens are excellent in their first recording. For BWV 82, this YouTube recording directed masterfully by the organist Bálint Karosi with Harrison Hintzsche (baritone) and David Dickey (baroque oboe) is inspired, but I haven't yet found any of that baroque chamber music quality for BWV 56, where singers and instrumentalists are equally matched. Mathsci (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- great! - do you also agree to have the table of recordings separately, and leave here a summary with some evaluation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Drive-by comments
- The very first sentence is difficult to follow, probably due to its arrangement. How about:
- "Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen (lit. '"I will gladly carry the cross-staff"'), BWV 56, is a church cantata composed by Johann Sebastian Bach for the 19th Sunday after Trinity."
- I was like that, and was reworded in 2018, and I'll try it again as you suggest. --GA
- "Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen (lit. '"I will gladly carry the cross-staff"'), BWV 56, is a church cantata composed by Johann Sebastian Bach for the 19th Sunday after Trinity."
- "Albert Schweitzer wrote in his Bach biography: "This is one of the most splendid of Bach's works."" — why not simply "Albert Schweitzer referred the cantata as "one of the most splendid of Bach's works."?
- That's for those who don't immediately know him and what he did, adding weight to the statement. --GA
- "and its film adaption Brother of Sleep." — perhaps mention the year in parenthesis
- I'm not convinced that it is lead-worthy for the cantata. --GA
- The lead section should preferable be no longer than 4 paragraphs.
- We have intro - text - music - publication - recordings and legacy, and clarity should be of higher value than guidelines, no? --GA
- Yes, but the last lead para is just 1-2 lines long, and can be merged with the previous one (without compromising the clarity, I think) --K.S
- We have intro - text - music - publication - recordings and legacy, and clarity should be of higher value than guidelines, no? --GA
- "Bach was appointed by the town of Leipzig as its" — perhaps "Johann Sebastian Bach was appointed by the town of Leipzig as its"
- As in biographies, once it's clear which person, we only use surnames after the first introduction of the complete name. --GA
- Yes indeed, but the prose should be independent of the lead, not a continuation. We have "Johann Sebastian" in the lead, but never in the prose text. --K.S
- Interesting. Did you know that I never repeat the full name in the prose. Kafka. Jessye Norman. BWV 1.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes indeed, but the prose should be independent of the lead, not a continuation. We have "Johann Sebastian" in the lead, but never in the prose text. --K.S
- As in biographies, once it's clear which person, we only use surnames after the first introduction of the complete name. --GA
- Ref#21: "Corall 2015, pp. 11" — should be 'p.'
- You are welcome to change all minor mistakes! easier for you than describing. Formatting Corall. --GA
- Ref#31: "Wolff 2001, p. 8–9" — should be 'pp.'
- "Ambrose, Z. Philip. "BWV 56 Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen". University of Vermont. Retrieved 22 October 2014" is listed but never used.
- used it now, and fixed the page nos. --GA
That is on a quick read of just the lead and general source formatting. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for helpful finds! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Source review
spotchecks not done. Version reviewed
- "Bach rarely used the word cantata to refer to a composition, and only for solo cantatas" - I see the first part supported in the text, but not the second
- will search, commented out until then --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- "describes the Christian life as a voluntary journey" - source?
- If you mean the lead: it's a summary. Recitative (No. 2) translates to: "My pilgrimage in the world is like a sea voyage", and the chorale speaks of harbour. --GA
- Not disputing the journey part, but I'm not seeing the voluntary part in the text. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I see. "Ich will gerne tragen" translates to "I decide to carry willingly", which I thought I could summarize as "volontarily". Would you have a better suggestion? ---GA
- Willing? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I now tried to include "willing" - good suggestion! - but it led to more changes, please check. My translator has no good term for Schiffahrt, - help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Willing? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I see. "Ich will gerne tragen" translates to "I decide to carry willingly", which I thought I could summarize as "volontarily". Would you have a better suggestion? ---GA
- Not disputing the journey part, but I'm not seeing the voluntary part in the text. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- If you mean the lead: it's a summary. Recitative (No. 2) translates to: "My pilgrimage in the world is like a sea voyage", and the chorale speaks of harbour. --GA
- "which also uses the imagery of a sea voyage" - source?
- see above, additionally, I'm determined to write an article about that hymn. --GA
- Perhaps the situation would be different if such an article existed, but at the moment the text supports that the chorale uses voyage imagery but not necessarily sea voyage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Let's see what sources for the hymn support. Planned for Sunday. - The German See translates to lake, perhaps my mistake. The text clearly has sea but it could be a word to fill a sillable. ---GA
- The hymn article is begun, including a translation of the text. Problem is the term Schifffahrt = voyage by ship, which doesn't distinguish on which kind of water, river, lake or ocean. What can we do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps the situation would be different if such an article existed, but at the moment the text supports that the chorale uses voyage imagery but not necessarily sea voyage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- see above, additionally, I'm determined to write an article about that hymn. --GA
- "the expressive singing required by the soloist has interested also singers and ensembles not specialised in Bach's music. This cantata has been combined with two other cantatas on related topics" - source?
- "expressive singing" can be sourced to Schweitzer, and the sheer quantity of recordings indicates interest. The wording is taken from BWV 51, another one which attracts performers beyond liturgical interest. --GA
- Quantity indicates interest but doesn't necessarily mean interest from non-specialists. I don't think that is a SKYISBLUE situation. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I moved the recordings table to a separate article, and the section will probably change. ---GA
- Quantity indicates interest but doesn't necessarily mean interest from non-specialists. I don't think that is a SKYISBLUE situation. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- "expressive singing" can be sourced to Schweitzer, and the sheer quantity of recordings indicates interest. The wording is taken from BWV 51, another one which attracts performers beyond liturgical interest. --GA
- "The cantata was recorded early" - source? (I expect you mean compared to other cantatas, rather than relative to recording generally)
- You are right, and 1931, the first one known, is early compared to others. We might give just the year, and leave it to the reader's knowledge to put it into perspective. --GA
- Why is Bach Digital a separate section?
- Because it's the key source for the most important historic documents. --GA
- How are you ordering Cited sources?
- By groups, then by authors/editors last name, then those without author by website. I make mistakes, and I'm not alone. --GA
- This needs to be made consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- By groups, then by authors/editors last name, then those without author by website. I make mistakes, and I'm not alone. --GA
- Some of the entries in Cited sources are not cited.
- They probably will be. --GA
- Buelow is credited as an editor, not an author
- fixed, thank you --GA
- Cantagrel title is mispelled
- I didn't add that one, so don't know. Our article on the author has that title, the ref for it has a different one, and the book cover in that ref has yet another, - all mean the same. Which one do you want? - Sadly, my French is only good for menu-reaing. --GA
- Do we know what title appears on the copy that was used? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Mathsci, do we know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Do we know what title appears on the copy that was used? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't add that one, so don't know. Our article on the author has that title, the ref for it has a different one, and the book cover in that ref has yet another, - all mean the same. Which one do you want? - Sadly, my French is only good for menu-reaing. --GA
- Why are there two titles listed for Buelow?
- I don't see that, perhaps fixed? --GA
- Not fixed: "The Late Baroque Era. The Late Baroque Era"
- sorry I was blind for the question --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at the new citation, I think you perhaps mean
|chapter=
rather than|title=
?Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)- taken, always learning - but when I say chapter and chapter-url, I get an error message missing title?? ---GA
- Looking at the new citation, I think you perhaps mean
- sorry I was blind for the question --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not fixed: "The Late Baroque Era. The Late Baroque Era"
- I don't see that, perhaps fixed? --GA
- Be consistent in whether page numbers are included in Books or only in inline cites
- will check, no time to do that right now --GA
- Be consistent in whether you include publication locations
- same --GA
- Dashes should be corrected in titles
- I wonder if I'll ever learn that, sorry. --GA
- Be consistent in how volume numbers are formatted
- see above --GA
- "University of Vermont" is not a work title
- made it publisher --GA
- Blanken appears to be a republication
- changed year to 2015 --GA
- IMSLP ref doesn't match formatting of other web sources
- well, we have this template, - should I not use it? --GA
- AFAICT at the moment it is not cited - are you intending to cite it? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know why IMSLP was mentioned when not in the reviewed version. No plan to cite it, adding to External links. ---GA
- AFAICT at the moment it is not cited - are you intending to cite it? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- well, we have this template, - should I not use it? --GA
- Some of the details in the Recordings table don't appear to be supported by either BCW or the individually cited sources - eg use of period instruments
- it goes by performing group/conductor, and seems helpful to imagine the sound, but could be dropped, of course --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Don't disagree that it is helpful, but it does need citing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- the tendency to split recordings is growing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- split done one direction, the table will become much shorter or completely prose ---GA
- Don't disagree that it is helpful, but it does need citing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- it goes by performing group/conductor, and seems helpful to imagine the sound, but could be dropped, of course --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- FNs 66 and 68 are missing pages
- added, thank you --GA
- Drinker is a digitized book, not an online-only source
- it's under books, no?
- Is the Finscher source a republication? If yes, is it authorized? If no, what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
- I'll check --GA
- removed ---GA
- What makes Shiloni a high-quality reliable source? IMSLP? Discogs? Classicalcdreview? Classical Music Online?
- IMSLP should be good enough for that a piece exists. I'll try to replace the others. Many concern recordings, and I am templted to split off the recordings, as we did for other cantatas. --GA
- Hopefully any source cited here confirms that the piece exists! Given that, is there any specific reason to use this? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- all removed that were there (IMSLP wasn't) ---GA
- IMSLP (still) is listed under Cited sources -> Online sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- finally I found it (in edit mode, - should have thought of that) - removed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- IMSLP (still) is listed under Cited sources -> Online sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- all removed that were there (IMSLP wasn't) ---GA
- Hopefully any source cited here confirms that the piece exists! Given that, is there any specific reason to use this? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- IMSLP should be good enough for that a piece exists. I'll try to replace the others. Many concern recordings, and I am templted to split off the recordings, as we did for other cantatas. --GA
- Bayer Records link is broken. Ditto MDT
- will check --GA
- removed ---GA
- Is "Bach's Third Yearly Cycle of Cantatas from Leipzig (1725–1727), II" an authorized republication?
- External links section shouldn't use citation templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- does it hurt? --GA
- I'm assuming WP:ELCITE exists for a reason. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- do you happen to know which reason? These are mostly former refs. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_40#RFC_on_how_to_format_external_links. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- (I don't see a convincing reason.) I removed 3 formatted the wrong way, but gave one the honour of Further reading. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_40#RFC_on_how_to_format_external_links. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- do you happen to know which reason? These are mostly former refs. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm assuming WP:ELCITE exists for a reason. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- does it hurt? --GA
- Thank you for checking. It's late here, will reply over the next weekdays. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- replied now, some will take more time that I don't have today - again tahnk you for thorough checking! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- some more replies --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Olive Morris
Olive Morris was a Black activist in the 1970s and no doubt would be better known had she not died tragically young. She grew up in South London and became a squatter activist, involved in Black liberation groups such as the British Black Panther Movement, Brixton Black Women's Group and the Race Today Collective. When she studied in Manchester, she was quick to become involved in local campaigns, and upon returning to London her activism continued before being cut short at the age of 27. Her legacy has recently been invigorated by the Remembering Olive Collective and with the help of other contributors I've hopefully improved the page through a Good article review and a peer review. Special thanks go to Amitchell125 and SusunW. I think the article is now in a state ready for the front page, so all constructive criticism is welcome and I hope to reply to any actionable points as promptly as possible. This is my first submission to FAC. Mujinga (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hiya Gog the Mild thanks for adding Olive Morris to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests. Can I doublecheck whether the comments from SusunW and/or Caeciliusinhorto could be enough for a source review? Otherwise should I be asking people for help on this? Mujinga (talk) 10:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Fair point. (I should have thought of it!) @SusunW and Caeciliusinhorto: I am more than happy with the thorough source to text integrity checks. I wonder if either or both of you would care to opine on the more general aspects of sourcing? Eg are sources all high-quality and reliable, are the citation and referencing styles appropriate and consistent etc. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Mujinga and Gog the Mild: you know that I am reluctant to comment on formatting or technical stuff, as it is not my forté. Mujinga and I disagree on the citation style as I find it difficult to read "around" in-line citations, but I grant the reasons they prefer this style are valid. The sources are for the most part high-quality and curated. (I honestly believe that all accessible materials were evaluated in preparing the article.) During the peer-review, Mujinga reformatted materials to reflect title case and consistent ISBN formatting. There are three sources in version 1081103085 the piece by Obi (#27), Abasindi Co-operative (#39) and Lopez de la Torre's (#51) which are blogs/self-published. Obi and Lopez's piece were published by the Olive Morris collective, which was formed by academics seeking to recover Morris' legacy and Abasindi is published by the Manchester Central Library. Thus, IMO it is unlikely that any of them would present materials that might harm their reputations or the subject's and they appear to be reliable. The Abasindi piece could be replaced by a citation to Bettocchi's thesis if deemed necessary. I note that the name is flipped in the Lopez de la Torre (her first name is shown as last). Were it me (I understand that I am OCD and overly detail-oriented), I would add locations to all publishers (at present they only appear for books) and issn and oclc identifiers where available for journal articles, as it is often difficult for those of us with no access to formal library systems to access web links and these identifiers are often requested by those who hold articles to attain copies of them. SusunW (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Gog the Mild – I agree with Susun on the suitability of sources: they're reliable, primary sources are used appropriately, and I can find no high-quality reliable sources that have been omitted. I've fixed the misformatting of the Ana Lopez de la Torre source that Susun identified. I haven't combed through citation formatting in detail, but I don't see any obvious issues with consistency; I'm busy for the remainder of this week but can try to find time over the Easter weekend if nobody else can check that before then. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Mujinga and Gog the Mild: you know that I am reluctant to comment on formatting or technical stuff, as it is not my forté. Mujinga and I disagree on the citation style as I find it difficult to read "around" in-line citations, but I grant the reasons they prefer this style are valid. The sources are for the most part high-quality and curated. (I honestly believe that all accessible materials were evaluated in preparing the article.) During the peer-review, Mujinga reformatted materials to reflect title case and consistent ISBN formatting. There are three sources in version 1081103085 the piece by Obi (#27), Abasindi Co-operative (#39) and Lopez de la Torre's (#51) which are blogs/self-published. Obi and Lopez's piece were published by the Olive Morris collective, which was formed by academics seeking to recover Morris' legacy and Abasindi is published by the Manchester Central Library. Thus, IMO it is unlikely that any of them would present materials that might harm their reputations or the subject's and they appear to be reliable. The Abasindi piece could be replaced by a citation to Bettocchi's thesis if deemed necessary. I note that the name is flipped in the Lopez de la Torre (her first name is shown as last). Were it me (I understand that I am OCD and overly detail-oriented), I would add locations to all publishers (at present they only appear for books) and issn and oclc identifiers where available for journal articles, as it is often difficult for those of us with no access to formal library systems to access web links and these identifiers are often requested by those who hold articles to attain copies of them. SusunW (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Fair point. (I should have thought of it!) @SusunW and Caeciliusinhorto: I am more than happy with the thorough source to text integrity checks. I wonder if either or both of you would care to opine on the more general aspects of sourcing? Eg are sources all high-quality and reliable, are the citation and referencing styles appropriate and consistent etc. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Olive_Morris_died_1979.jpg needs a more expansive FUR, and is any more information available on provenance? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment, the rationale has been expanded. Re provenance, I already contacted the Lambeth Archives and they said "The ownership/copyright status of the Olive Morris collection at Lambeth Archives is complex. Therefore, sadly, Lambeth Archives isn't in a position, to assist with this request." Mujinga (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Just to add, Victuallers has helpfully emailed Remembering Olive Collective, Fawcett Society, Blackpast.org and the National Archives on 17 March to ask if they can supply a free picture. Mujinga (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria There's been no replies to the various email requests, so I guess we can assume we won't get one. I expanded the FUR, anything else I can do on images? Thanks Mujinga (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment, the rationale has been expanded. Re provenance, I already contacted the Lambeth Archives and they said "The ownership/copyright status of the Olive Morris collection at Lambeth Archives is complex. Therefore, sadly, Lambeth Archives isn't in a position, to assist with this request." Mujinga (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Spot check - pass
I did an extensive examination during the peer review and spot checked every reference. I can confirm that the information in the article is supported by the citations. SusunW (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Susun W
- In the second sentence in Adult life and activism, we need context. To avoid repeating 1960s and 1970s, perhaps insert "in the last half of the 20th century".
- "not only notions" begs a comparison. Not only British, "but Caribbean"?
- hmm yes and "style" is repeated from a few sentences earlier .. i'll come back on that one. feel free to adjust since you were already adding stuff here Mujinga (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- flip the references after "his arm was broken" and "ain't no girl" so that they are in numerical order.
- "later beaten in police custody", perhaps "while" in?
- flip the references after "radical feminist" to fix numerical order
- ditto for after "activities without any public funding", "Olive Morris Manuscript Collection at the Lambeth Archives"
Overall, great job. I would like to see a bit in the legacy section on why historians believe she was a significant figure, but others may disagree. SusunW (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely^^^ legacy is more than buildings and street names, but who was influenced and how; the former might be demolished and renamed, but the latter rings through the ages with ripples still seen today. SN54129 15:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed on this, but it's been quite hard to find stuff talking about her historical significance since she is still very much a marginalised figure - as is shown by the problems finding a photograph of her and indeed her political comrades such as Beverley Bryan, Elouise Edwards, Altheia Jones-LeCointe and Liz Obi Mujinga (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Go back to the peer review where I wrote "Longley p 131 says examining her life", several scholars I noted there analyze her significance. SusunW (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- I was replying more to Serial Number 54129 but I do remember that peer review discussion. Longley is talking about the narrative about Morris presented in the archives and her reaction to that. I was hoping the Bettocchi PhD might have more on her legacy but I didn't see much there. Caeciliusinhorto is also asking about legacy below so I'll have to go back into the sources but I don't think there's a huge amount there to be honest. Having said that I'm sure I can find something and perhaps flesh out the work of the Remembering Olive Collective a bit too. Mujinga (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've had another look in the sources: I've added a quote from Fisher and some more info from Ford; I didn't see much more to add from Bettocchi and Longley. I note I recently added a source from Bristol University for Black History Month about the contributions of Obi and Morris. See what you think! Mujinga (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Based on everything I have read, you are correct to not make her "the figurehead", as you said below. The legacy I have in mind and maybe Caeciliusinhorto will look this over too, is something like this very rough first stab at it: An examination of Morris's life provides insight into the collective Black experience in Britain during the 1960s and 1970s.(Longley 2021, p 131; Ford 2016, p 8)(Bryan, Dadzie, Scafe 2018, pp 151, 155) The erasure of the Black community from British history of the period has been challenged by 21st-century scholarship which has examined individual lives of community members like Morris.(Reilly 2019; Longley 2021, p 131; Bettocchi 2021, pp 97-99) Analysis of her life by the Remembering Olive Collective and academics like Ford has brought to light the common struggle of British Black women with women across the African, Asian, and Caribbean diasporas against classism, colonialism, and sexism and the need for more comprehensive study of these intersections.(Reilly 2019) Harrison argues that uncovering Morris's participation in the squatting movement was significant as it showed a lack of academic research into the politics of housing.(Fisher 2012, p 75) Both Harrison and Bettocchi note that Morris's experiences reflected how the politicization of housing and homelessness impacted the Black community, as well as single and/or childless people.(Fisher 2012, p 75)(Bettocchi 2021, pp 99-100) I also see that (Perri W 2019) says her campaigning was successful in motivating the Lambeth council to buy abandoned flats in 1973 to address housing issues. SusunW (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've had another look in the sources: I've added a quote from Fisher and some more info from Ford; I didn't see much more to add from Bettocchi and Longley. I note I recently added a source from Bristol University for Black History Month about the contributions of Obi and Morris. See what you think! Mujinga (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- I was replying more to Serial Number 54129 but I do remember that peer review discussion. Longley is talking about the narrative about Morris presented in the archives and her reaction to that. I was hoping the Bettocchi PhD might have more on her legacy but I didn't see much there. Caeciliusinhorto is also asking about legacy below so I'll have to go back into the sources but I don't think there's a huge amount there to be honest. Having said that I'm sure I can find something and perhaps flesh out the work of the Remembering Olive Collective a bit too. Mujinga (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Go back to the peer review where I wrote "Longley p 131 says examining her life", several scholars I noted there analyze her significance. SusunW (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed on this, but it's been quite hard to find stuff talking about her historical significance since she is still very much a marginalised figure - as is shown by the problems finding a photograph of her and indeed her political comrades such as Beverley Bryan, Elouise Edwards, Altheia Jones-LeCointe and Liz Obi Mujinga (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion! I don't really feel the article needs this, I think there is already enough on her legacy dotted through the article and we have (with your peer review suggestions) contextualized the time of Black liberation struggles in England in which Morris was active. But maybe I can't see the wood for the trees any more. I left it a few days to wait for other opinions, now I'll ping Caeciliusinhorto to see what they think and I'll also ask Carbon Caryatid. Mujinga (talk) 09:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think on the whole I agree with Mujinga on this point. Though I think Susun's proposed text interesting, I also worry that it is more a conclusion to an academic essay than it is a part of a wikipedia bio? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments from GhostRiver
I will take a look at this later. — GhostRiver 17:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- In the infobox, "London UK" -> "London, UK"
- "she was beaten up" -> "she was assaulted"
- "Brixon, South London" potential MOS:SEAOFBLUE concerns?
- "squatted buildings" or "squatted in buildings"?
- "another was used" -> "while the other was used"
- "Her life and work have been commemorated both by official organisations – Lambeth Council named a building after her – and by the activist group Remembering Olive Collective (ROC)." -> "Her life and work have been commemorated both by official organizations like the Lambeth Council, who named a building after her, and by the activist group Remembering Olive Collective."
- "and has featured on lists of inspirational Black British women" This feels like quite a vague statement
- "and then followed them" -> "before following them"
- "Migrants are affected by both local and transnational factors." Sentence doesn't flow as the header of the paragraph; the second sentence feels like a better start
- "access to housing and jobs was"; awkward syntax. Could be read as "access to X and (to) Y" for the singular, or "access to X (thing one) and Y (separate item)" for the plural, if that makes sense
- "Just over five feet tall, she gained a reputation as a fierce activist." Is this where I make a no correlation joke? (In seriousness, the connection between her height and reputation is only implicit as currently worded)
- "She was described as other activists" -> "Other activists described her"
- "wrote
up" - "and several other people" -> "and several others"
- "trumped up charges" unencyclopedic phrasing
- "the prosecution case" -> "the prosecution's argument"
- Why was she sent away from the hospital?
- Here's what the source says (Longley p130): When interviewed by the ROC, Gerlin Bean (2009, pp. 5–6) spent time recounting her experience of Olive’s sudden deterioration in health: ‘She’s always messing around and laughing and carrying on, and then she starts rolling around on the floor, and said: “oh, such a pain”. And I said: “Olive stop messing around” and she said: “no, I really have this pain”’. They urgently took a taxi to King’s College Hospital: ‘we went and then they told her, you know what they told her? That she has gas [laughter], and they gave her some tablets and things and said go away’. But the pain persisted, and it was only after some time that they discovered the true cause of her illness, non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Mujinga (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Mostly very nitpicky prose stuff to cut out fluff, or areas where there's some confusing syntax. Overall very good and informative! — GhostRiver 18:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments, I've implemented changes for some and queried others Mujinga (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi GhostRiver, are you in a position yet to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither are obligatory. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi Mujinga and Gog the Mild, a few points I still want to address.
- I think "assaulted" reads better in the lede, as "beaten up" reads a bit too informal
- I don't love the presence of dashes in the lede still
- Would like the bit from the source to be included that she was sent away with nausea medication.
— GhostRiver 21:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking another look GhostRiver. I've changed to "assaulted" since another reader also flagged that up and added tablets. For the dashes, I think I'll check with editors since it seems a stylistic preference to change it. Mujinga (talk) 09:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Drive-by comment
- Publisher locations are missing from Fisher; Ford; and Scafe.
- When citing books or journal articles it is usual to give only the year of publication. (The latter may also have the volume and/or issue.)
- Gog the Mild (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Caeciliusinhorto
I made a few comments at peer review, but it looks as though the article has expanded quite a bit since then. On the first readthrough this looks good: two quick comments on prose:
- "Her personal style choices challenged not only notions of what it meant to be British" - suggests that we're going to get some sort of "but also challenged foo", but it never comes, and the paragraph ends leaving us hanging.
- "Black" is mostly capitalised throughout, but Longley is described as a "black history researcher" and there's one mention of Morris' "blackness", both lowercased – is this intentional?
Will comment properly later Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Reading through the article again, a somewhat nitpicky point:
- "[Morris was] charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm ... she was accused of kicking an officer. The jury found her not guilty on that charge." - implies to me that there were multiple charges: if so, do we know the verdicts? If not, just "The jury found her not guilty" is probably sufficient.
- You are picking up on a point where the source (the Howe biography) is a bit vague, since it says "As a result, the judge instructed the jury to retire and reach a verdict on the charges facing Morris and Macintosh relating to the assault of PC Reid. Although he provided no formal direction, it was clear that he was asking the jury to find Morris and Macintosh innocent prior to their defence. Conspicuously absent was any direction regarding Howe. The jury found in favour of the defendants, Macintosh was discharged, Morris faced two further charges" (p173). I looked into it a bit further and this BBC source says all three were acquitted so that solves it, the other charges must have not stuck either, so I'll rephrase Mujinga (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm, that's all very vague, isn't it! Good job on finding the other source Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- You are picking up on a point where the source (the Howe biography) is a bit vague, since it says "As a result, the judge instructed the jury to retire and reach a verdict on the charges facing Morris and Macintosh relating to the assault of PC Reid. Although he provided no formal direction, it was clear that he was asking the jury to find Morris and Macintosh innocent prior to their defence. Conspicuously absent was any direction regarding Howe. The jury found in favour of the defendants, Macintosh was discharged, Morris faced two further charges" (p173). I looked into it a bit further and this BBC source says all three were acquitted so that solves it, the other charges must have not stuck either, so I'll rephrase Mujinga (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I also have a few questions where I suspect the answer is "the sources don't say" but I'll ask them anyway:
- When Morris went back to college to study for her O- and A-Levels, I don't suppose we know where? We list her schools and her university.
- The article quotes Longley mentioning Morris' "long-term white-skinned partner", and there are two mentions of Mike McColgan (presumably said partner) in Morris' last year, but do we know anything else about this relationship? When did they meet?
- the closest we've got is his recent obituary (RiP) where it says they met in the mid-1970s Mujinga (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I didn't expect you to find much on these points, but it's always worth checking – ah, well, if the sources don't say something, then there's not much we can do... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- the closest we've got is his recent obituary (RiP) where it says they met in the mid-1970s Mujinga (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Finally, for the section on legacy, has anyone discussed the question of Morris' long-term signficance in the context of the black rights, feminist, or housing equality movements? The Voice "listed eight Black women who have contributed to the development of Britain" and included Morris, but how? Did her campaigning lead to any sort of legal change, or inspire a change in how activist groups organised or campaigned? The Voice doesn't say, but perhaps someone has...
- SusunW is also pressing this point above so I'll have another dip into the sources, I am uneager to make it seem that Morris was THE figurehead of black liberation in the UK but it seems I do need to add more. Thanks! Mujinga (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, if the answer turns out to be "nobody has discussed this and overegging Morris' long-term signficance wouldn't be neutral" then that's fine! If the current state of the article is a genuine reflection of Morris' legacy, then I'm happy with that – but again I just thought it was worth asking. If I find anything potentially worth using, I will let you know! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I'll have a closer look at sourcing over the weekend, but so far the article looks to be in excellent shape and I'm anticipating supporting. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Okay, looking at sourcing now:
- There are a few uses of primary sources, but these all seem to be acceptable either as supporting citations for things backed up by secondary sources, or uncontentious statements of fact.
- The use of radical magazines and books published by independent radical presses seems to be appropriate, and balanced by Mainstream ScholarshipTM
- Overall I'm not seeing any sources that I'm super concerned about the usage of in the abstract.
Going to spot check a few sources, chosen at random (actually random, using a random number generator, not just arbitrarily!). I'm referring to them with the numbers as of this revision.
- 5, the National Archives source: used in discussion of Dick Shepphard School. Supports the claim that the school closed in 1994. Doesn't support that the school was girls' only or that Morris attended it, but the accompanying citations do support both those facts. "Other sources such as BBC News,[4] Brixton Black Women's Group[3] and the National Archives,[5] give different school names" – the BBC news source supports that Morris went to Dick Shepphard School, and presumably the school records held in the National Archives would confirm that, but the source cited is the National Archives' catalogue information for their records on the school, which doesn't support this.
- In the note, 5 is being used the first time to show the school is called Dick Sheppard School, second time to show it closed in 1994. As you correctly observe, other sources are used to show Morris went there. Shall I removed the first mention? Mujinga (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Gah, I've just spent an hour trying to work out what is going on with schools here, and it's all a muddle. A convenient local government publication called something like "Schools in Tulse Hill, 1955-70" is proving frustratingly elusive! There's an archive catalogue entry in London Metropolitan Archives (https://search.lma.gov.uk/SCRIPTS/MWIMAIN.DLL/300073541/2/11/575371?RECORD&UNION=Y&URLMARKER=STARTREQUEST) which suggests that Dick Sheppard School was also called Tulse Hill Comprehensive, not to be confused with the boys' school which is Tulse Hill School (previously the Strand School). Lavender Hill Girls' School clearly existed in some form, and the fact that it was a girls' school suggests a secondary to me. I'd be inclined to throw my hands up in defeat and cut the note back to something like "The ODNB says that Morris went to Heathbrook Primary, Lavender Hill Girls' School, and Tulse Hill School; the BBC says Lavender Hill Primary and the Dick Sheppard School." (With a Wikipedian fear of original research, we might even note that the fact that Tulse Hill School was boys only in 1974 doesn't preclude it from being mixed when Morris was there, though a comprehensive school going from mixed to single sex would be odd!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes working through the school stuff is a bit of a nightmare! We got into it at the bottom of Talk:Olive_Morris#FA_nomination in case you didn't see that already. I'll take another look now. Mujinga (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have chopped the note a bit, now I'm wondering whether to chop it more and to just say in the article "Morris went to several schools in South London" and then only have the first half of the note saying "The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography states: "Olive attended Heathbrook primary school and then Lavender Hill Girls' Secondary School and Tulse Hill secondary school." A BBC News article says "Lavender Hill Primary School and Dick Sheppard School in Tulse Hill"." The alternative is to leave it as is and say the names of then schools in the article but then have the note to explain why the sources differ. I blame the ODNB factcheckers for this mess by the way! Mujinga (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Gah, I've just spent an hour trying to work out what is going on with schools here, and it's all a muddle. A convenient local government publication called something like "Schools in Tulse Hill, 1955-70" is proving frustratingly elusive! There's an archive catalogue entry in London Metropolitan Archives (https://search.lma.gov.uk/SCRIPTS/MWIMAIN.DLL/300073541/2/11/575371?RECORD&UNION=Y&URLMARKER=STARTREQUEST) which suggests that Dick Sheppard School was also called Tulse Hill Comprehensive, not to be confused with the boys' school which is Tulse Hill School (previously the Strand School). Lavender Hill Girls' School clearly existed in some form, and the fact that it was a girls' school suggests a secondary to me. I'd be inclined to throw my hands up in defeat and cut the note back to something like "The ODNB says that Morris went to Heathbrook Primary, Lavender Hill Girls' School, and Tulse Hill School; the BBC says Lavender Hill Primary and the Dick Sheppard School." (With a Wikipedian fear of original research, we might even note that the fact that Tulse Hill School was boys only in 1974 doesn't preclude it from being mixed when Morris was there, though a comprehensive school going from mixed to single sex would be odd!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- In the note, 5 is being used the first time to show the school is called Dick Sheppard School, second time to show it closed in 1994. As you correctly observe, other sources are used to show Morris went there. Shall I removed the first mention? Mujinga (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- 17, "The Psychology of Windrush Style": doesn't explicitly discuss Morris' personal style choices, but there are two other citations (which I do not currently have access to but have requested) which may do that. As a supporting citation it is okay for the claim that the fashion choices of Carribean-British people in the 1960s and 1970s challenged ideologies of Britishness.
- 40, "Black Women's Groups". We write: "Locke had set up the Manchester Black Women's Co-operative (MBWC) in 1975 with Coca Clarke and Ada Phillips; Morris got involved and members later recalled her vigour.[40]: 2, 15". Looking at this version of the article, linked on the CUP website, I think the correct page numbers are 1, 15, and 17? I'm also not immediately seeing support for Morris' involvement in *MWBC* in this article; it talks about her joining *BWMA*, and the two groups seem to have overlapping membership but are distinct entities?
- Damn I printed the open access version of the article and it has 28 numbered pages so there will be differences, I'll fix that now using this authoritative version with 21 pages. On page 14, it says "When discussing the conflict between the MBWC and Ron Phillips over the mismanagement of company funds, Tsele noted that Morris ‘was not in with those sorts of fights, those were just for us, grassroots’, noting that she ‘just used to come and help us with the intellectual bits, about how the system was working’" - so that shows Morris was involved with MBWC (as well as BWMA) Mujinga (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- 40 is also used to support the discussion of the collapse of MBWC and its reformation of Abasindi; it supports the first part of this sentence.
- 41 also used in the discussion of MWBC/Abasindi: along with 38 and 40, this supports the claims made.
- 54: along with 55, supports the claims made about Breeze Yoko's Olive Morris mural.
Other less systematic checks I have done while reading the article for the PR and this FAC didn't bring up concerns, so the main worry is the pagination of ref 40, and whether you've confused MWBC and BWMA in that paragraph? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for that I've think I've answered everything (and note that I recently added another source answering other comments so after 29, numbers are +1). Mujinga (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- I wanted to get back to you sooner, but the last week has been super busy for me. Time for me to stop dithering and support Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Harry
Not a subject I'm familiar with but I'll give it a go. I probably owe you a couple of reviews from my police shootings. At a glance, looks good.
- At the age of 17, she was beaten up Personally, I would say "beaten up" is bordering on too informal for an encyclopaedia but I won't push it if you disagree because it is at least succinct and understandable.
- following an incident That's not a lot of detail, even for the lead. Is there anything else that can be said without bogging down the lead?
- She joined the British Black Panthers... The lead doesn't explicitly say that this is a result of the Nigerian diplomat incident, but the placement implies it. Can we be clearer?
- I'm guessing you would have included it if there was, but is there anything much to say about how/why she or her parents moved to Britain? Were they part of one of the mass migration events from the Caribbean?
- It's a good question, unfortunately there isn't information in the sources. I think even Windrush was mentioned at one point but I took it out because it wasn't backed by the citation Mujinga (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Windrush was what I had in mind when I asked the question, as well as London Transport's recruitment of of workers from the Caribbean, but if we don't know, we don't know.
- It's a good question, unfortunately there isn't information in the sources. I think even Windrush was mentioned at one point but I took it out because it wasn't backed by the citation Mujinga (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- at the Victoria University of Manchester between 1975 and 1978 This is pedantry really, but hey, pedantry is what FAC is all about! By a strict literal reading, that sentence means "in 1976 and 1977", but I'm assuming you mean "from 1975 to 1978".
Very little to criticise really. A succinct yet comprehensive and well-written article. I'll doubtless support once you've had a chance to look over my nit picks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for dropping by! I've replied to the comments Mujinga (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- A couple of replies inline, but the resolution on those is not going to cause me to lose any sleep. For what it's worth, I've read the ODNB and it compares well to this article. I see no evidence of overly close paraphrasing, it appears to support all the claims it's cited for, and everything of importance in the ODNB is also in the Wikipedia article. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Serial
Placeholder, but I usually get a nosebleed if I go that far saarf. SN54129 11:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Never mind south, isn't this about 600 years too modern for you? ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Other commenters are pretty much done just so you know. One thing I'd like to ask is since you use dashes at John Minsterworth, what do you think about the use of dashes in the lead here? Mujinga (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Mujinga: I am wholly embarrassed at not looking at this important article like I said. Apologies, I'll look now. FTR, it was near-support worthy when you nominated it so I don't foresee anything too drastic.Re. dashes, as you know I probably overuse them myself—I find them a useful halfway house between commas and brackets. I think your use in the lead is fine, as it sets off a parenthetical statement while keeping the reading smooth. SN54129 13:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe "she continued her activism while studying at the Univ of Manch".
- Obviously linking the African nations you list would be WP:SKYBLUE, but there might be a case for lining them to their respective liberation struggles? (I certainly don't object to leaving them unlinked either; could be slightly EASTEREGGy, I know. And bloody complicated.)
- "adornment, clothing, and hair styles" - maybe link to Black British identity?
- Perhaps, "grassroots problems affecting her community". H'mm. That double-plurarl doesn't read great either. It's just that, as it is, these undefined problems are a little vague.
- Any chance of more on why her assault led directly to Marxist-Leninism and rad feminism? I mean, the link's an obvious one to those involved in the movement, but in this article, it's unclear that she isn't already either of those things!
- I can't think of a good way of removing the three-month/three-year repetition either.
- How about, "This introduced Morris to Altheia...", then you can lose the third usage in a row of panthers.
- Is it possible to say slightly more about her trip to Morocco? (As her first trip abroad, it stands out.)
- Not wanting to raise obtuse points of law :) but re. "the accused were eventually found innocent"... in Eng law, I think people are found not guilty rather than innocent. I might be nitpicking, though, as the result, of course, is exactly the same!
- I'd forgotten I wrote the Oval Four! Nice to see it linked to a far better article.
- "Upon the demise of the British Black Panthers" -- what happened, briefly?
- You want to choose between suffixing -ise(d) or -ize(d); you currently use a mix of both. FWIW, I think that -ise is more common in BrEng. (Same with organise/organize.)
- -ise is more common in BrEng, but if Mujinga prefers -ize, Oxford English claims to have etymological justification on its side; you are right that consistency is needed! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- "because the publisher refused to use a collective name and it was dedicated to Morris" -- clarify; atm it could mean either it was credited to three women because the publisher refused a collective name and because it was dedicated to Morris, or "because the publisher refused to use a collective name; it was dedicated to Morris". If you see my point.
- "After her death, the MWBC folded after" -- "After her death, the MWBC folded due to", per repetition.
- Link praxis to Praxis (process)?
- What's the meaning behind the newsletter FOWAD!, do we know? A play on Forward! and the group[s name, or an acronym in its own right?
- (drive by comment from someone who has lived lang taim eena di Caribbean) Chu kod do da consider dem "Kriol-speak", aka faawad, (or moving ahead, along, etc. In other words, the meaning would be obvious to anyone familiar with Kriol in the Caribbean and it is doubtful that it has any other meaning, but of course it could). SusunW (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- "began feeling ill"?
- You elide seamlessly from the flatulence to Hodgkins. Was the former effectively a mis-diagnosis? If so, is the implication that—had it been caught earlier—the treatment might have been successful?
- A shame we don't have an image of her grave; unfortunately this category of Wikipedians is very sparsely populated!
- "a feminist Black Power movement in the UK and anthropologist" -- comma, semi-colon even, after UK?
Mostly just suggestions, Mujinga, although a few things could perhaps be clarified. But it's a thoroughly enjoyable read and a worthy tribute. SN54129 14:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Older nominations
1993–94 Gillingham F.C. season
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
After nine successful promotions, here's another season from the history of English football club Gillingham F.C. This will probably be the last one I nominate for a while, as I have finally exhausted my collection of old editions of the Rothmans Football Yearbook :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Support by Lee Vilenski
I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.
- Lede
- until the eighth league game of the season, but in the next game - this is a bit clunky, are we saying they won away from home in their ninth game of the season? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- first time since March 1992 - might be better to also say the rough date when they did win. I'm guessing it was around October 1993. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- knock-out competitions - pipes to a redirect. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Prose
- Is it preseason, or pre-season? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Per the first two results of this Google search, I think either is valid -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- For access issues, could we use:
{| class="wikitable plainrowheaders sortable" |+Results{{sfn|Rollin|1994|p=232}}
instead of
;Results{{sfn|Rollin|1994|p=232}} {| class="wikitable plainrowheaders sortable"
- Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Rochdale pipes to a redirect in the table. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Gillingham played away to Plymouth Argyle of the Second Division and lost 2–0 to their higher-division opponents - seems a little throwaway. Could we get just a tad more info? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- I can't really find any more to say, it seems to have been a pretty uneventful game..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- I was just thinking about mentioning the stadium name or number of spectators or something. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: I thought to check one of my old programmes and managed to add a few extra words -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- I was just thinking about mentioning the stadium name or number of spectators or something. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- I can't really find any more to say, it seems to have been a pretty uneventful game..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Additional comments
Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: - all done, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Happy to support this promotion, with the regular previso on issues being raised by other nominators. Good work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments Support from Mike Christie
Support. I had a few comments, but it was easier to fix them myself. Another very competent article; not much to criticize. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Source review
Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed
- Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be cited anywhere, eg the chairman
- @Nikkimaria: That's the only element that wasn't sourced elsewhere in the article, a source has now been added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Are the matchday programmes paginated?
- No, they're not -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- The Bateson ISBN is not turning up in searches on Worldcat, GBooks or Open Library - can you confirm that it is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, see image at right -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: - any further comments on this, or can you confirm a pass on the source review.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments Support from mujinga
- If you've got a comma before and in "winning 14, drawing 17, and losing 18" then I'd suggest one in "The team struggled in August and September and did not win a Third Division" as well
- " the club's original shirts when it was founded in 1893 featured black and white stripes" might read better as "when it was founded in 1893, the club's original shirts had featured black and white stripes" but it's a nitpick
- "who lost 2–0 to their higher-division opponents" not sure if you need "higher-division opponents" since you've just said "Plymouth Argyle of the Second Division"
- In the "Cup matches" section, should the match details be a fourth level header? Since they seem to be subsidiary to FA Cup, Football League Cup, Football League Trophy
- "News Of The World Football Annual but Images of England: Gillingham Football Club.
- All very nitpicky, hope it can be of use Mujinga (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Mujinga: - all done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Query for the coordinators
- @WP:FAC coordinators: - got another one ready to go already, is it OK to nominate it now or should I leave it a bit longer......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think two weeks is sufficient. Feel free to nominate a second. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Sargon II
- Nominator(s): Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
This article is about one of the most successful ancient Assyrian kings. Sargon II was an imperialist conqueror under whom the Assyrian war machine tightened its grasp on the Middle East but he was also unusually progressive, especially for his time. He worked to maintain justice in his empire, increased the status of women and minority groups, and fostered good relations with both foreign rulers and the peoples he conquered. His primary goal was to initiate a new world order and be remembered for eternity, a dream which was trashed when the theologically problematic manner of his death made his son conduct an extensive damnatio memoriae campaign. Sargon's dream of reverance and remembrance among future generations was not fulfilled until his capital city Dur-Sharrukin was rediscovered by modern archaeologists in the 19th century and he was remembered once again. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Image review
- File:Sargon II proclaimed king.png, File:Capture of Carchemish.png — need to state author's date of death to use {{PD-old-70}}. Not old enough for {{PD-old-unknown}}
- I will see if I can track down the name and date of death of the artist. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Added the artist's name and date of death. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- I will see if I can track down the name and date of death of the artist. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Personally I am not convinced that all of the images help the reader understand the subject better, and think the article would be better off with somewhat fewer of them. I would remove some of the reliefs. (t · c) buidhe 14:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've removed two images; I don't want the article to feel too barren of images at any point either - are there any particular images of the ones left that you feel should be removed? Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Other comments
- I am not really sure what is meant exactly by "new world order" here, since Sargon only controlled a relatively small part of the world. This phrase has virtually no usage in English before the twentieth century, so I guess it seems a bit out of place in an article about ancient history. (t · c) buidhe 14:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Elayi (2017) p. 207 states The inscriptions relating to Khorsabad evoke a kind of new golden age initiated by Sargon, the foundation of a new world order and a new Assyrian Empire so use of the term in relation to Sargon is not something I made up. I would argue that Sargon's actual area of control has no bearing on his wishes or aspirations to inaugurate a new world order – the Assyrians also believed that the Neo-Assyrian Empire did cover the majority of the world. He expanded the Assyrian Empire by quite a lot (in his mind getting closer to completing the world conquest), instituted various quite sudden changes in policy and founded a new enormous capital named after himself. I think "new world order" describes all this pretty well and can't come up with an alternative term that carries the same effect. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Source review
All the sources look acceptable to me. There is a heavy reliance on Elayi 2017, but I cannot find other sources to cite. Spot checks tbd (t · c) buidhe 23:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Only one page from Melville 2016 is cited. Why is this book being ignored compared to Elayi?
- This book by Grant Frame could also be used to diversify referencing. I have access to it and could send chapters as desired.
- I'm concerned that these omissions affect the comprehensiveness and neutrality of the article. For example, Frame has a different theory on Sargon's lineage than is presented in the article; he argues that there's no evidence of illegitimacy. (t · c) buidhe 01:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- The reason why the article heavily relies on Elayi is that Elayi's book is the only one I can access in its entirety. I'm not sure neutrality is greatly affected; the article does say that Most historians cautiously accept that he was Tiglath-Pileser's son and it is true that most regard him to have been a usurper (which does not imply that no one regards him to have been legitimate). I agree that adding in these different viewpoints would be good from a comprehensiveness perspective. As for Frame's book, is it not largely a collection of translations or is there a large amount of relevant historical content as well (you're welcome to send if there is and I can incorporate it into the article)? Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Melville 2019: this is a book review, which is not really ideal, but acceptable imo if you can't access the original source.
- I also have access to the original source; it is a book review but it also contains some of Melville's own research and analysis. Svärd and Melville in a few cases slightly different views on the influence and power of Assyrian women so it felt good to source both since they agree on the statements made here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- "which grew in size and diversity under Sargon's successors. These units were part of the military might of the empire and participated in campaigns." don't think this supported
- It is supported by the sources cited: Svärd (which is also cited here) writes extensively on the growing size and the extra units being added to the queen's forces over the course of the reigns of Sennacherib, Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal on pages 163–166. On page 166 she writes ...seems plausible that these units were more than just an honor guard of the queen — they were part of the military might of Assyria. Melville, referencing Svärd, writes on page 691: As an example, let us consider the queen and queen mother’s association with military units. Svärd has pointed out that the Sargonid period saw a progressive increase in the number and types of troops attached to royal women, and further, that these were active combat units, not just bodyguards. As an example of partaking in military campaigns, Svärd on page 164 mentions the chariot driver Marduk-sarru-usur, part of the queen's forces, who partook in defeating Ashurbanipal's brother Shamash-shum-ukin. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Bagg 2016, pp. 59, 71.
- I don't see how page 71 has any bearing on the content. Page 59 does have a table, but it seems synthy to derive this statement from a table rather than prose. Also, a statement like this should probably be dated since it is always possible that more inscriptions may be discovered in the future, right?
- "In terms of the variety of acts enacted against enemies, Sargon's inscriptions make him out to be significantly less brutal than many other Assyrian kings" I don't accept that this is supported since the cited source just has a table of recorded acts; it does not say that Sargon is less brutal than others.
- You're right - page 71 does not seem relevant here. I agree that the writing of the passage in question is somewhat synthy based on the source. I've replaced it as follows: Atrocities enacted by Assyrian kings were in most known cases directed only towards soldiers and elites; as of 2016 none of the known inscriptions or reliefs of Sargon mention or show harm being done to civilians - the first part is supported by the prose and the second is supported partly by the prose and by the table (no longer says less brutal or makes a comparison of its own, just that neither medium records damage to civilians). I've also added a more proper mention of this to the lead. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- As a sidenote I've tracked down one source that explicitly calls Sargon "more lenient and less oppressive" but it's a weird fringe historical revisionist book so that can't really be used to cite anything. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Coordinator note
This has been open for nearly three weeks and has yet to pick up a general support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Marvel Tales and Unusual Stories
- Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
This article is about a pair of magazines published by a dedicated science fiction fan in the 1930s. William Crawford's ambitions outran his financial resources, but his two semi-professional magazines were a pioneering effort to expand the new science fiction genre beyond the limits set by pulp magazine publishing standards. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Image review–pass it's asserted that the license wasn't renewed, and I am agfing that a thorough search was done. (t · c) buidhe 16:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Image review–pass it's asserted that the license wasn't renewed, and I am agfing that a thorough search was done. (t · c) buidhe 16:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Support from Aoba47
- I would include ALT text for File:Unusual Stories initial announcement.jpg.
- For the lead sentence, would it be more beneficial to expand science fiction to science fiction magazine?
- I would link pulp magazine in the lead just to help readers who may be less than familiar with the subject.
This is more of a placeholder. My above comments are limited to the lead, but I will attempt to do a full review either this Thursday or Friday as those are my "weekends" (i.e. when I have time off work). I look forward to reading this article as I do enjoy reading about these kinds of magazines. One of these days, I should really try my hand at one of these articles. Aoba47 (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- All done; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- This is a super nitpick-y comment. For this citation title (The Time Machines: The Story of the Science-Fiction Pulp Magazines from the beginning to 1950), I would capitalize Beginning.
- Surprisingly that's lower case both on the cover and the title page -- see here, though I see Amazon decided to capitalize it in their listing. I'd be inclined to leave it the way the publisher has it. Or is there some MoS rule about title case for book titles? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I have read through the article, and I believe this is the only thing that I have noticed. I will re-read through the article again though in the next few days just to make sure though. Aoba47 (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your patience with my review. I support the FAC based on the prose. If you have the time or interest, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! I had a look at your FAC, and I see there are currently three supports; I know more is better but I think I'm going to take a crack at a couple of other FACs that don't have three supports yet -- I hate to see something get archived for lack of commentary. If "Mindful" is still languishing in two or three weeks feel free to ping me again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your patience with my review. I support the FAC based on the prose. If you have the time or interest, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments from ChrisTheDude
- "A Pennsylvania fan, William L. Crawford, was an early science fiction fan" - any way to avoid repetition of "fan"? Maybe change the first one to "A Pennsylvania native"....?
- I decided to just cut the mention of Pennsylvania; it's in the bibliographic section but here it's unnecessary detail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Refs in multiple places in the second paragraph are not in correct numerical order
- I've fixed this, because I know it annoys some people, but I don't think it's a requirement -- I don't usually bother because citation numbers aren't very stable -- if you decide to remove a citation early in the article it cause half a dozen cases of out-of-order citations. Anyway, fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- "increased the size from digest to pulp format" - is it possible to clarify what these sizes actually are (eg give the dimensions)?
- Done, in a note to try to avoid interrupting the text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- "reprints of two round-robin stories" - what is a "round-robin story"?
- A story in which multiple authors take turns at the writing. I've linked it; is that enough, or do you think a note in the text is needed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Doesn't the Bibliographic details section just repeat content from the previous section?
- Well, not exactly -- the point of that section is to include all the fiddly little details that would clog up the flow if I were to put them in running text. It's common in magazine reference works to have a section like this, and I think readers familiar with the field expect something like this. If anything I'd rather remove some details from the rest of the article if it feels too repetitious -- perhaps drop the mentions of the page counts, for example? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- ChrisTheDude, pinging in case you didn't see these replies. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: - not a problem at all, sir. Might I enquire as to the possibility of a little QPQ review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1993–94 Gillingham F.C. season/archive1 should you have the time.....? ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sure -- probably some time this weekend. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: - not a problem at all, sir. Might I enquire as to the possibility of a little QPQ review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1993–94 Gillingham F.C. season/archive1 should you have the time.....? ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Source review - pass
- Everything looks fine in terms of reliability and formatting, although I find linking publishers on their first instances usually helpful, should wiki-links exist for them. FrB.TG (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'll make that change this evening. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Now done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'll make that change this evening. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Support by TDWB
- A small thing but should it not be "Marvel Tales and Unusual Stories are two related". I thought non-biographical things just are, they don't cease to be.
- You're right for most things, but there's an exception for periodicals -- see WP:WAS. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- "believed that the pulp magazines of the time were too limited in what they would publish." MIght be apples and oranges, "day" seems more colloquial than time, to me anyway.
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I feel that the final sentence should be split at the "and Parnell and Ashley consider that Crawford was "the man who made the greatest effort to bridge the gap between the amateur and professional magazines." It has two and's one after the other with "and Crawford as a pioneer in his attempts to prove..."
- Split. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Frank Utpatel is a red link, again I don't do reviews often compared to putting things up for review but I thought FAs couldn't have red links.
- No, they're not as common as they once were but red links are still considered a good thing. WP:REDYES is an essay about it, and the FA criteria don't say anything about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I can't really find anything else, it's a brief easy read. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, Darkwarriorblake; replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Léon Degrelle
This article is about a traitor to his nation, a turncoat to his people, and an apostate before God – a Nazi. Léon Degrelle, Belgium's own home-grown Quisling, began his public life as a student journalist associated with a political Roman Catholic youth group. By the end of it, he was a idol of the international pantheon of far right politics, forbidden from ever returning to his homeland. I began work on this article with some wiki-comrades last September and am quite pleased to now present it to FAC. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Previously: GAN, A-class review. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- It has also slipped my mind until to mention that this is a Vital Article (level 5). – ♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Image review &Charleroi image is missing alt text
- File:Degrelle,_Leon.jpg: why is this work believed to be in the public domain?
- According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/France, a published image enters the public domain 70 years after the date of publishing; the newspaper scan that image was clipped from is from 1937. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- If the copyright expired in 2007, it would probably still be copyrighted under US law (see the Hirtle chart). (t · c) buidhe 11:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/France, a published image enters the public domain 70 years after the date of publishing; the newspaper scan that image was clipped from is from 1937. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- File:Léon_Degrelle_à_Charleroi_-_02.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Source review and comments by Buidhe
I'll do another read-through. FYI I have a review open at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First homosexual movement/archive1—another interesting topic in German history. (t · c) buidhe 11:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- The article currently relies heavily on the 1993 Conway book. I wonder why the book in further reading isn't cited? Other sources that may be worth considering:
- Explains Degrelle's antisemitic views. Oddly antisemitism is never mentioned in the text of the article, which seems like an oversight. This may also help.
- Another biography, which seems like a RS
- This source might be helpful expanding a bit on his adoption by post-1945 Nazis
(t · c) buidhe 12:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- I am unaware of how to access these, though thanks to TWL I do have a means of looking for more Francophone sources. On my quest to find the de la Croix biography, though, I discovered that Martin Conway thoroughly rinsed de la Croix's book in 2017. At this point if there's anyone I trust to know Degrelle, and I know from the bibliograhies of other works discussing Degrelle that I'm not alone here, it's Martin Conway. I'll look for some more stuff to break up the wall of Conway and see if this time I can fit in the evolution of Degrelle's antisemitism (I previously didn't discuss because the sources thus far used, Trimbur 2015 excluded, didn't dwell on it either and Degrelle played with his cards very close to his chest anyway). –♠Vami_IV†♠ 13:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- The degruyter source linked above is in TWL. The last one mentioned is on academia.edu, not linked because I don't know if it's a copyvio. (t · c) buidhe 13:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/ielapa.121105496812907 another possible source (t · c) buidhe 16:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- The degruyter source linked above is in TWL. The last one mentioned is on academia.edu, not linked because I don't know if it's a copyvio. (t · c) buidhe 13:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Re the personal life section, I disagree with splitting it out to make it more prominent and I think it makes more sense in something resembling chronological order. Currently you have the section under "Exile in Spain, 1945–1994" even though everything in the section occurred before 1945. (t · c) buidhe 07:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- This has now been (re)affected. – ♠Vami_IV†♠ 13:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Definitely an improvement, but now I'm curious what happened to his five children after the war. Did they stay in Belgium? Also, did Degrelle get divorced after being permanently separated from his wife? (t · c) buidhe 16:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Tempting as it is to do a "where are they now" on the Degrelle brood, I must confess some ignorance - I have not gone looking. One of his children died in a car accident, I forget when. Another is the daughter whose marriage Degrelle attended in '69 in SS uniform. I know nothing else about his other children. As for Marie and Jeanne, the two women Degrelle was married to: I forget when Degrelle and Marie were divorced or when he married Jeanne. I do know though that she was also a divorcee, having been married to a French Nazi exile. Marie remained in Belgium and was sent to prison for a while (covered in Conway 19993 iirc). I could include this in a footnote. – ♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Shouldn't the second wife get a mention in the postwar exile section? How did he reconcile remarriage with traditional Catholic beliefs? (t · c) buidhe 20:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have, with the aid of the French Wikipedia article, found and included details on Jeanne and dates for the... "divorce" with Marie Lemay. As it turns out, she died a few months before Degrelle married Jeanne. As for reconciling marrying a divorced woman... it's Degrelle. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- What about Degrelle's children? I see it claimed in various questionable sources that they were separated from their family and later reunited in Spain, is this true? (t · c) buidhe 17:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, but I recall nothing about where I read that except that it's none of the sources I used for this article (edit: and was able to read; it's been a nightmare to track down French-language works). At least three of his children joined him in Spain; one, a son, died in a car accident, and two of his daughters got married in Spain. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- What about Degrelle's children? I see it claimed in various questionable sources that they were separated from their family and later reunited in Spain, is this true? (t · c) buidhe 17:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have, with the aid of the French Wikipedia article, found and included details on Jeanne and dates for the... "divorce" with Marie Lemay. As it turns out, she died a few months before Degrelle married Jeanne. As for reconciling marrying a divorced woman... it's Degrelle. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Shouldn't the second wife get a mention in the postwar exile section? How did he reconcile remarriage with traditional Catholic beliefs? (t · c) buidhe 20:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Tempting as it is to do a "where are they now" on the Degrelle brood, I must confess some ignorance - I have not gone looking. One of his children died in a car accident, I forget when. Another is the daughter whose marriage Degrelle attended in '69 in SS uniform. I know nothing else about his other children. As for Marie and Jeanne, the two women Degrelle was married to: I forget when Degrelle and Marie were divorced or when he married Jeanne. I do know though that she was also a divorcee, having been married to a French Nazi exile. Marie remained in Belgium and was sent to prison for a while (covered in Conway 19993 iirc). I could include this in a footnote. – ♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Definitely an improvement, but now I'm curious what happened to his five children after the war. Did they stay in Belgium? Also, did Degrelle get divorced after being permanently separated from his wife? (t · c) buidhe 16:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- This has now been (re)affected. – ♠Vami_IV†♠ 13:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: I am still planning to do a full source review, but I don't feel that all my comments above about sourcing/comprehensiveness are addressed, specifically with regard to antisemitism (this source, again is on TWL) and legacy with neo-Nazis (covered in this source, which would be more difficult to access, but you could try WP:RX). (t · c) buidhe 23:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've thankfully found a PDF of the second source on Academia. I'll re-read the De Gruyter source and see what more I can add to the article with it; at the moment I'm seeing a "Beliefs" section under #Personal life. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have sprinkled some observations of Degrelle's antisemitism throughout the article, thanks to Trimbur. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have finally read all but the last two pages of Brüll; his article was indeed valuable. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've thankfully found a PDF of the second source on Academia. I'll re-read the De Gruyter source and see what more I can add to the article with it; at the moment I'm seeing a "Beliefs" section under #Personal life. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Drive-by review by CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
I think that there are some images that can be included to the article, such as File:Léon Degrelle à Charleroi - 01.jpg. Other than that, well done! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- I am aware of prior discussion about image copyright. As far as I know, since this picture was taken in 1 April 1944, it should be in the public domain. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Some smaller things: CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- prior to -> before
- with a view to studying -> to study
- 1904, and -> 1904 and
- Lengthy sentence: "That year, Degrelle joined the Catholic Action for the Belgian Youth (Action catholique de la jeunesse belge, ACJB), a militant clerical youth organization dedicated to Catholic Action founded by the priest Louis Picard, whom Degrelle had met while studying in Namur."
- time period -> time OR period
- On 26 September 1936 he met -> On 26 September 1936, he met
- apparently demonstrating
- Another lengthy sentence: "Degrelle returned to Brussels on 30 July, and found that Belgium had been placed under a military administration and that Rex had in his absence been revitalized, reorganized, and formed a militia known as the Combat Formations (Formations de Combat)."
- weaken local government -> weaken the local government
- a pact, though only so as to not alienate Abetz, -> a pact, though to not alienate Abetz,
- be an inferior people -> be inferior
- 6 July, -> 6 July
- Province of Málaga -> province of Málaga
- following his death Belgium forbade the repatriation of his remains. -> Belgium forbade repatriation of his remains.
- place at Auschwitz, and -> place at Auschwitz and
- with regard to -> about
- then ambassador -> then-ambassador
- had standing to -> had the standing to
- Franch-language -> French-language
A bunch more technical stuff: CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Check Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout to change the order of templates
- See "Order of article elements" section. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Coordinator note
This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a general support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
2021 World Snooker Championship
- Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
This article is about the 2021 version of the World Snooker Championship. Third times the charm! 15 other events are at FA level, so I'm looking to get the latest version up to level. Let me know what feedback you might have. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Sportsfan77777
I'll review the article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Did you have anything for me Sportsfan77777. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Lead
- , that took place from 17 April to 3 May 2021 <<<=== I don't think that comma is needed.
- for the World Snooker Championship to be held ===>>> the World Snooker Championship was held
- , and was the 15th and final ranking event of the 2020–21 snooker season. The tournament was ===>>> The tournament was the 15th and final ranking event of the 2020–21 snooker season. It was
- There were 128 participants in the qualifying rounds, with a mix of professional and invited amateur players ===>>> There were 128 participants in the qualifying rounds, consisting of a mix of professional and invited amateur players.
- , with 16 players reaching the main stage of the tournament where they played the top 16 players from the snooker world rankings. ===>>> The main stage of the tournament featured 32 players, the top 16 players from the snooker world rankings and an additional 16 players from the qualifying rounds.
- , defeating Kyren Wilson ===>>> , at which he defeated Kyren Wilson OR where he defeated Kyren Wilson
- with an additional 106 ===>>> and an additional 106
- Replaced Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Background
- with the final held at Camkin's Hall in Birmingham, England, and the title was won by Joe Davis. ===>>> The final was held at Camkin's Hall in Birmingham, England, and the title was won by Joe Davis. (the misuse of "with" issue)
- The event is organised by World Snooker ===>>> It is organised by World Snooker
- £500,000, from a total <<<=== don't need the comma
- highest-ranked players ===>>> higher-ranked players (it's too many for highest-ranked)
- given byes ===>>> given one or two byes
- Hmm, I'm not so sure of this. You get two byes if your opponent was to quit in two seperate rounds, but generally, the wording is "given a bye until round X". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Defending champion Ronnie O'Sullivan <<<=== I'm supporting using his first name here because it's used in tandem with "Defending champion", in contrast to ChrisTheDude's suggestion below.
- Can't say I care either way. I actually thought Sean O'Sullivan was playing, which is why I got confused. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- a maximum of 33 frames. <<<=== just repeat "best of"? Changing terminology makes it sound different, but I think it's the same?
- Maybe contrast the spectator situation with that of the previous year and/or what was normal for the rest of the events from the same season?
- Hmm, I think we'd be WP:SYNTHing something together to get this to work, but I will take a read of some more sources. [3] doesn't actually cover it. It was (I believe) the only tournament with spectators, but there was (although weirdly limited to the first and last two days) fans in 2020. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Covered the ones that have no comments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm, I think we'd be WP:SYNTHing something together to get this to work, but I will take a read of some more sources. [3] doesn't actually cover it. It was (I believe) the only tournament with spectators, but there was (although weirdly limited to the first and last two days) fans in 2020. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Qualifying
- The defeat for White meant he was not ranked high enough to remain on the World Snooker Tour, but he was later given an invitational place for the following two seasons. ====>>> The defeat for White left him with too low of a ranking to automatically retain his tour card; however, he was later given an invitational tour card for the following two seasons. ("however" is useful for flow here. any reason for not using "tour card"?)
- I don't like "tour card". If you know what it is, great - but it's unnecessarily jargony. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- named "judgement day", took place on 13 and 14 April and the winners qualified for the main stage ====>>> named "judgement day" because the winners qualify for the main stage, took place on 13 and 14 April. (lacks parallelism)
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- First
- 112, to win the match 10–4 <<<=== don't need the comma
- Reigning Masters champion Yan Bingtao played Gould, making five breaks higher than 50 and tying the score at 4–4, having only played eight frames in their opening session. ===>>> Reigning Masters champion Yan Bingtao played Gould, making five breaks higher than 50 and tying the score at 4–4, ending their opening session after only eight frames. (I think? something is off grammatically.)
- Yeah, the comment is that it was 4-4, despite first sessions generally being 9 frames. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Maguire commented that he would be fined for using bad language at the quality of his play <<<=== Rephrase. This wording makes sound like was fined or did use bad language. Or maybe just use the quote: "I’m frustrated. I don’t think there’s a word for how I played. If there is a word, I’d get fined!"
- the last three frames of the opening session to trail 4–5 ===>>> the last three frames of the opening session to only trail 4–5
- was leading 5–4 after the first session. ===>>> ended up leading 5–4 after the first session.
- Ding attempting a pot, only for the black to end in the opposite corner ===>>> in which the black ended in the opposite corner from where Ding was attempting a pot
- after the next session had ended ===>>> after the next session ended
- Identify the two qualifiers who won as qualifiers.
- At the end of the section, state how many qualifiers advanced.
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Second
- 81, 105 and 138 as he led 4–1 ===>>> "81, 105 and 138 to lead 4–1" OR "81, 105 and 138 as he took a 4–1 lead"
- McGill forced a deciding frame ===>>> McGill forced a deciding frame,
- in the next allowing Lisowski ===>>> in the next, allowing Lisowski
- two frames later – a 13–9 victory ===>>> two frames later, a 13–9 victory
- praised Lisowski's play saying ===>>> praised Lisowski's play, saying
- In a replay of the 2018 World Snooker Championship final <<<=== Is "replay" actually used the same as "rematch"?
- 106–6 <<<=== Isn't it 109–6?
- but won the final frame of the second session to lead by three ===>>> but he won the final frame of the second session to lead by three
- At the end of the section, summarize the remaining seeds (e.g. All but three of the top eight made it to the quarterfinals.)
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I'll finish the review in the next day or two probably. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for this. Looks like mostly minor wording changes, which shouldn't be a drama. Will start tomorrow. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- User:Sportsfan77777 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Images
are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- ChrisTheDude, MrLinkinPark333, you both took part in /FAC2, pinging in case you have any further comments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments from ChrisTheDude
- "The tournament was sponsored by sports betting company Betfred, as it has been since 2009" - I'd be tempted to change this to "The tournament was sponsored by sports betting company Betfred, as it had been since 2009", so that it remains valid even after such time as Betfred's sponsorship ends
- "Defending champion Ronnie O'Sullivan" - no need to restate his forename so soon after he was last mentioned
- "serving a year-long ban for controvening betting regulations" - contravening is spelt incorrectly
- "World number one Judd Trump" - this is the first mention of Trump but he isn't wikilinked
- "Williams won three of the next four frames, all with breaks over 70 to win 13–7" - think you need a comma after 70
- "Selby's lead was cut to 8–6, but won" - Selby's lead didn't win, so this should be "Selby's lead was cut to 8–6, but he won"
- "The final was broadcast to a peak audience of 4.1 million viewers on domestic television, equating to 27 per cent of all viewers in the United Kingdom" - this is a bizarre claim as, if I have read it correctly, it means that only around 15 million people in the UK were watching television at that time, which seems a low figure for a country with a population of 67 million. But it's what the source says, so hey......
- Ha, no one watches live TV anymore. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Think that's all I got this time round...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Cheers Chris, I'll get on this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- All done ChrisTheDude Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Cheers Chris, I'll get on this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments by FrB.TG
Generally not my area of Wikipedia-interest but saw that the previous two noms suffered from a lack of feedback.
- "It tournament was organised by the World Snooker Tour" - I think you probably meant "Its" here.
- The lead mentions Matchroom Sports as one of the three broadcasters but the coverage section says, "The tournament was broadcast in the United Kingdom on BBC Television and Eurosport".
- BBC → BBC Television (per coverage section)
- whilst → while - both mean the same thing so we should opt for the simpler one.
- "whilst Maguire commented that he was "frustrated. I don’t think there’s a word for how I played. If there is a word, I’d get fined!"." Use straight apostrophes instead of curly ones per MOS:'.
- "On the resumption of play, Williams won five straight frames to take the match 10–4, saying afterwards that he would "go for everything", indicating he would.." - two usages of verb-ing modifiers read a little strangely. I suggest connecting these two with a conjunction.
- "Higgins won the final three frames of the second session, but Williams won three of the next four frames, all with breaks over 70, to win 13–7." Three instances of 'win' in one sentence.
- "Williams commented after the win that he felt he was playing as well as he had during the 2002–03 snooker season" - I have a hard time understanding this sentence.
- "Bingham also won the next two frames, but frame 22 was won by Selby after the frame" - frame.. frame.. frame
That's all. FrB.TG (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've made the above changes (with a few modifiers) in Special:Diff/1078619309. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Your changes look good but I’d still like a clarification on Matchroom Sports. The lead mentions it as one of the three broadcasters while the body only says BBC and Eurosport. If the lead is true, it should also be included in the body. FrB.TG (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, that must have been deleted at some point. Basically, whilst there were minor coverage in other areas, which we shouldn't list all in the lede, matchroom covered it in any other areas. Now added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Your changes look good but I’d still like a clarification on Matchroom Sports. The lead mentions it as one of the three broadcasters while the body only says BBC and Eurosport. If the lead is true, it should also be included in the body. FrB.TG (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment by MrLinkinPark333
Per Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2021 World Snooker Championship/archive2 and Talk:2021 World_Snooker Championship#FAC source review comments, I did not review Section 2 Summary to Section 2.6 Final as I had found a lot of unverifed / original research. As FAC2 was closed, I worked with Lee to go through the comments I had there on the talk page. Therefore, a source review of all sources for verification / original research issues is needed in all sections from Section 2 to Section 2.6 (Summary to final) is needed. I won't be doing this source review for FAC3 as I went through the ones I brought up with Lee in the talk page. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- No worries. Thanks for your previous comments. I don't believe there is much uncited in this area, but happy for someone to check it over and confirm. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Panini!
My knowledge of snooker only extends as far as eight-ball, so hopefully I should help the article appeal to a broader demographic.
- I'm not sure if others are having the same problem as I am, but a bunch of scores are being thrown around (1–6, 6–3) and I'm unsure of how this conclusion was reached.
- MOS:CUE says that we should have scores written from the perspective of who is being talked about. For example, Robertson trailed 1–6 but later led 9–6. The article does say that the matches are played as the "best of" a certain amount of frames. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
My grasp of article understanding would really benefit from a general description of how to play snooker, probably somewhere in format, possibly? As of late, the article appeals to an audience that has come to this article knowing what snicker is and just wants to know about the tournament statistics.
- I'm not sure I agree with you. The vast majority of the article is a tournament summary in prose. There are results, but that's exactly what you'd need from an article about a sports event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- but this is gonna be on the front page and read by 30k others, most of which would probably like to know this information too. Here are some other statements throughout the article that better solidify my confusion with a lack of explanation:
- "misjudged a pot on a red ball"
- Both pot and "red ball" are linked. I'm not sure what more I can say other than the red ball is a ball, that is red.
- "before going in-off in the next"
- In-off is a type of foul shot. It is linked. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Mentions of specific-colored balls - to me a pink ball is the same as a black ball
- Indeed. There are 22 balls in snooker, 15 red balls (worth 1 point), and then six coloured balls, with different values (pink is worth six, black worth seven)
- "Wilson was placed into a snooker" - Is this like a Yahtzee situation?
- Kind of. It's something that you can both play and be put into. Basically it means you have no clear path to the ball in play, but there's a bit more to it than that. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm also not a fan of how many of these terms link to Glossary of cue sports terms. The glossary itself is confusing (the definition of frame reads "A term for each rack from the break off until a clearance" with three other jargon words linked, so I had to go on a goose chase to figure out the meaning). Is there a way where you could give a basic description of some of these terms?
- The thing is, not really. The glossary has very little to do with this article. The links are there specifically to help clarify what some of these words mean. A frame is an individual game of snooker, but the word game could mean a match. It's a little confusing to try and explain in line. You're better to say that a match is played as the best of X frames, and go with it. It's a little like explaining what a goal is in football, when you are talking about the world cup. I agree the glossary could probably do with a cleanup, but as there's no "featured glossary" pages, I doubt it'll top my list for a while. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Stephen Hendry and black ball are linked twice.
- Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Overall, good work on this article. It's mainly just an archive of numbers so it's pretty hard to screw that up, and the player quotes help shake things up every once in a while. These main two points are my main concerns but a sprinkle of definitions should fix it up in two shakes. Best Wishes, Panini! • 🥪 13:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Tom Holland
Having recently watched a lot of Marvel films, I chose Holland's article to improve due to my lack of time to undertake a bigger actor's article. At 3.3k words, this is the shortest article I have brought to FAC. That said, it is a comprehensive account of the movies Holland has done so far. Enjoy. FrB.TG (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Support - ChrisTheDude
- "he bagged a supporting part" - "bagged" seems a bit slangy IMO
- "Holland resides in Kingston upon Thames in South West London" - you already linked Kingston a couple of sentences earlier, also would it not make more sense to clarify at that point that it's in SW London?
- "In 2017, he told Interview Magazine that he hopes" => "In 2017, he told Interview Magazine that he hoped"
- "Peter advised Holland" => "Darling advised Holland"
- "Made on a budget of 45 million" - 45 million what?
- "he and costars, including Chris Hemsworth lost" - need a comma after Hemsworth to close the clause
- "Brian Truitt of the USA Today wrote Holland" => "Brian Truitt of the USA Today wrote that Holland"
- "directors Russo brothers" => "directors the Russo brothers"
- "through November" - as Holland is British, this article should be written in UK English, and we don't say "through [date]" in the UK. "Up to and including November" would work.
- "reunited him with Avengers directors Russo brothers" => "reunited him with Avengers directors the Russo brothers", also no need to link them again
- "Holland reprised his role as Peter Parker" - no need to link again
- "In November 2021, Holland told GQ that he is doubtful" => "In November 2021, Holland told GQ that he was doubtful"
- "In December 2021, Holland confirmed that he is set to" => "In December 2021, Holland confirmed that he was set to"
- Everything in the first paragraph of the Image section should be in the past tense
- I am not sure about the past tense here. Public image is usually about general observations made by other people about one's personality and style. Writing these in the past tense without giving a year does not seem correct. I checked similar FA-class articles to see how they do it. Amy Adams#Reception and acting style, for example, does this ("Hadley Freeman of The Guardian wrote in 2016", "The journalist Alex Bilmes believes that"):
- "He is currently" - better to give a specific "as of" date
- That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments, Chris. These are the changes I have made in response to them. FrB.TG (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Re the use of the past tense when talking about what someone said about him, my view is that the opinion is as at a point in time so should be framed accordingly. Consider this....if this article is still around in 2080, when Holland is pushing 90, would it be appropriate for it still to say "Jonathan Dean of The Sunday Times [..] takes note (present tense) of his maturity"? I dunno, maybe let's see what other people think...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments, Chris. These are the changes I have made in response to them. FrB.TG (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Panini!
You reached out to me by saying you have "another actor article" as if I wouldn't know who Tom Holland was. I'm wrapped up with another article, so I'll be back soon. One quick check-in, however: a reviewer is only allowed to have one FAC open at a time, and Leonardo DiCaprio doesn't appear to be completed yet. Did you get the greenlight to begin this nomination? Panini! • 🥪 19:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- "Some publications have called him one of the popular actors of his generation." Is a "most" supposed to be here?
- Considering how you specify "the sequels", you can shorten the second movie titles to Far From Home and No Way Home.
- Good idea. Done.
- Life and career
- The last three sentences of the first paragraph cover similar stuff and gets pretty repetitive, and can be shortened; "Since his parents have creative professions he is often inspired by them; he considered his father a role model, who serves as his unofficial manager due to his experience in the industry."
- "In 2017, he told Interview Magazine that he hoped to direct films in 20 years because he likes working with actors." This doesn't really apply to his "early life". Could this find a home elsewhere in the article?
- Definitely not in the No Way Home section. ;) Rearranged.
- "While his performance was praised, he visited the doctor the following day." The way these two statements are combined makes it sound like he did well because of the tonsilitis.
- "Bayona then arranged a meeting, and had Holland write a letter to his mother and recite it as an audition" - As in, the mother in the movie or his real life mother? Did he merely read it aloud or use it as a monologue?
- We have only this info: "..the director pushed Holland to write a heartfelt letter to his mother and then recite it".
- "The Impossible premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival in September to critical success.[25] Made on a budget of $45 million, it earned $180.3 million worldwide." -> "The Impossible premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival in September to critical and commercial success, earning $180.3 million worldwide against a $45 million budget."
- "Holland received critical praise" - For what specifically? This is a general statement, but only one cites one critic afterward.
- The source is not a review of his performance but provides general info about the film. It says, "his performance as the strong-willed and determined eldest son is garnering critical acclaim."
- "and briefly appeared in Billy Elliot the Musical Live" - Was this a cameo? If so, I feel it'd be better to explicitly say so. "Briefly appeared" is vague in comparison.
- Breakthrough as Spider-Man (aka the second half of career)
- "he directed a 3-minute short film called Tweet" - Since there's no article on this subject, could you give a brief description on what it is about?
- "and Peter Travers of Rolling Stone found him 'terrific'." - Simply put, this doesn't add much. If this is all that Travers says about Holland, I don't think it's important enough for inclusion.
- "he owned 30 costumes and bed sheet covers of the character." What a nerd.
- I'd prefer a link to the MCU character instead of the comic character for Ant-Man.
- Similar to my above comment, "having previously won for Captain America: Civil War and Spider-Man: Homecoming" can be shortened to Civil War and Homecoming.
- "He voiced roles in the Blue Sky Studios animation Spies in Disguise (2019), the live-action film Dolittle (2020), and the Pixar animation Onward (2020)." - Wo-wait-hold on-slow down there! These are three large movies spanned across two years that are breezed over in a sentence. It'd be great to hear his experience with these movies as well as what the critics thought, and although it should e kept short for balancing reasons I bet there's some things to say. I'd also like to note that he did a movie "alongside Avengers co-star Sebastian Stan", but he also did this with Chris Pratt and Robert Downey Jr. with two of the above.
- I've added about his costars and box-office performances of the films.
- 'methodical and thoughtful and sensitive', and called him a kind person" - Lots of "and" here.
- "Chaos Walking failed to recoup its budget and received poor reviews." - Anything critical about Holland?
- Yes, two things. Added.
- "No Way Home quickly emerged as the highest-grossing film of 2021" - You link to 2019 in film here.
- Not sure why I did that. I think it was Dr Strange time-travelling. Corrected.
- "a fortune hunter and bartender" - I went to see this movie, and I remember the bartender portion being barely relevant to the plot (although I may be forgetting something). Instead, could you one or two words to describe Nathan's personality in the film?
- I see now that the following sentence needs this bartender piece to make sense. I would say to include the bartender portion in this sentence instead: "Since the character is a bartender, Holland practiced bartending by working shifts at the Chiltern Firehouse, a pub in London."
- I have left the treasure hunting part. For the bartending bit to make sense, I have tweaked the second sentence to "In preparation for scenes where his character is bartending, Holland practiced the work by working shifts.."
- I'd link biopic in "Upcoming projects"
- I like how the "Public image and personal life" section reads; Good Job! However, I think the paragraphs need to be reorganized; paragraphs 1 and 4 are about his public image and 2 and 3 are about his personal life. I'd move paragraph four up to the second paragraphs place to align with the order of the header.
That's all from me! Deal with this and I'll lend a support. Panini! • 🥪 23:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, Panini, for your review. It was very helpful as usual. I think I have addressed all of your comments now. Let me know if I missed something. FrB.TG (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Support Comments by DWB
FYI This is a solicited review but I am impartial about it as I know next to nothing about Holland or film actor articles in general. I have already removed two duplicate links. I am a bit wary of promoting such articles only because he potentially has so much future ahead of him that the article will inevitably expand and change significantly, but it appears to be as complete as it can be for this moment in time.
- I totally understand your concern but I have previously written 10 FAs about actors in their 20s or 30s. One that I wrote was promoted six years ago, and so far I haven't had any problem maintaining any of them. In fact, this is partly why I write such biographies, i.e. they keep me active around here even when I'm not writing something new.
- I can see that Ref #50 is not archived, check for others to make sure this article remains verifiable.
- Ref titles are inconsistent, some are in Title Case and others are in Proper Case. Make it consistent.
- I went for what they're called in the sources. Some refrain from title case so I did exactly that.
- Ref #60, Box Office Mojo isn't linked, and there are other instances of this throughout. My past experience is that every instance of a website/publisher/work should be linked where an article exists as the first instance might not always be the first instance.
- AFAIK, there are usually two standards: linking works on their first instances to avoid overlinking (especially in ones that are crowded with references)—this is usually my preference—or link them every time, although I have seen some not linking publishers at all. It makes me think there is no set rule for this.
- You mention Holland's Instagram in the content, are we allowed to add it under External links?
- I would upgrade "upcoming projects" to a third tier head, there's no reason for it to be a subset of "2018–present: Blockbuster films and mature roles"
- I would maybe change "At one point, he considered becoming a primary school teacher, as he likes children." to "At one point, he considered becoming a primary school teacher, as he enjoys being around children"
- This line "He said she taught him how to properly interact with his fans and thought the media attention to their relationship breached their privacy." Did Zendaya say the attention on their relationship breached their privacy or did Holland?
- I May be alone on this and I'm willing to hear opinions from yourself and others who may want to weight in such as Panini! and ChrisTheDude, but my knowledge of actor articles suggests there is usually a seprate section to discuss awards/accolades/and reception instead of integrating it into his bio, or as well as integrating it. I can see there is a separate article for these, but I would like opinions on if there should be a subsection summary in this top-level article where that content belongs instead.
- Reviews of an actor's each works (usually ones from reputable critics/newspapers/magazines that are representative of other reviews) are included in summary style in career section. Such reception section that discusses the themes, acting style and general reception of an actor's works do not always exist, especially in cases of young actors like Holland because they usually end up being WP:UNDUE quotes of excessive praise from costars or directors. And my research showed exactly this: praise from Spider-Man producers or costars about how excellent an actor he is. This can be done in 10 years or so when Holland begins taking on roles of greater substance and such general analysis can be written then (e.g. like how I have written Leonardo DiCaprio#Reception and acting style).
- That's all I have for now, it otherwise looks fine. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks, Darkwarriorblake. Some really insightful thoughts. Let me know if I addressed your concerns properly. FrB.TG (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi FrB, did you see the comment about the Instagram? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, as per WP:INSTAGRAM, such links should only be used when the subject has no official website or little presence in web, which is not the case here. It was there under external links until a few days ago where an editor made the same argument. FrB.TG (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Alright, good luck FrB. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!
- Oh, as per WP:INSTAGRAM, such links should only be used when the subject has no official website or little presence in web, which is not the case here. It was there under external links until a few days ago where an editor made the same argument. FrB.TG (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi FrB, did you see the comment about the Instagram? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks, Darkwarriorblake. Some really insightful thoughts. Let me know if I addressed your concerns properly. FrB.TG (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
I am leaving this as a placeholder. If I have not posted a review by this time next week, please ping me as a reminder. Aoba47 (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- For File:Tom Holland by Gage Skidmore.jpg, I think it would be beneficial to expand the caption to include where the photo was taken (i.e. 2016 San Diego Comic-Con International).
- Would it be constructive or beneficial to include Holland's response to Martin Scorsese's comments (i.e. the difference between art films and blockbusters like the MCU films)? I'm not familiar with Holland's work, and I honestly know him more for these comments. That could likely be because Holland comments were recent, but comments like "But [Scorsese] doesn’t know what it’s like because he’s never made one" rubs me the wrong way and it may be helpful to add some of these less than stellar moments from him for balance.
- Agreed, it suits in the public image section particularly well, where he calls himself "mouthy" for spoiling plot information to the public. I have also added another one where he said his film Uncharted revived Hollywood cinemas and not Tom Cruise's Mission Impossible 7. A little cheeky on Holland's part to be honest. I hope it also addresses your concern of the article not being balanced enough.
- This sentence (Shifting from live audience to camera made the transition from stage to screen challenging for Holland.) reads rather awkwardly to me and I think it would benefit from revision.
- I do not think the sentence with this quote ("scary environment [...] You can imagine how tiring and brutal that was.") is necessary. The previous sentence already made this quite clear so it feels repetitive to me.
- The lead says Holland chose to pursue an acting career because of his success with The Impossible, but the article attributes his decision to working with Naomi Watts. I would either be consistent with which is the reason or clarify that it was more than one thing that led to this choice.
- In the sentences about The Lost City of Z, there is a fair bit of repetition of "film". (i.e. "first film", "last day of filming", "In the film", "making the film"), and it makes the prose feel rather repetitious and not as fully engaging as it could be.
- There seems to be only quotes for the films he has received positive reviews in. For instance, The Current War does not go into more detail on the negative reviews and even more films like In the Heart of the Sea that had more mixed reviews tilt more positively (although admittedly "adequate" is pretty faint phrase). Just as a note though, I have not fully read the article as this point so I could just be missing it at the moment.
- I have added a negative review for his performance in The Current War. The problem here is that he played little parts in these films and critics didn't weigh in much when it came to Holland. For ITHOTS, most of the reviews focused on his costars but the ones I did find only talked positively about him ("Holland was one of the youngest actors on set but held his own among his well-known castmates by Collider.com, "Holland is a clear stand-out" by Screen Daily, and Holland is "terrific" by renowned critic Peter Travers. The media seems to love him in whatever he is for some reason.
- I think it is notable to mention that Holland performed "Umbrella" in drag for the Lip Sync Battle as that is what makes it notable in my opinion. There's even coverage about how his dad apparently tried to talk him out doing drag for the performance.
My comments go up to the "2018–present: Blockbuster films and mature roles" sub-section. I will attempt to finish my review tonight, but feel free to respond to my comments in the meantime. I hope that my review does not sound too critical of Holland. I am largely indifferent to him, but as I have already said above, I am not a fan of his response to Scorsese (and I am not saying he is always right either lol). Aoba47 (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks, Aoba. Some really great points. I thought his response to Scorcese, who is a masterful filmmaker and was only expressing his personal distaste for superhero films, was rather uncalled for, especially when Scorcese made that comment over two years ago and was not taking a cheap shot at someone's work. Note that this is only my reply to how I personally feel about this situation. My reply on how/if this should affect the article will come tomorrow when I’ll attempt to also resolve your other concerns. FrB.TG (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. I appreciate hearing your perspective about these comments. I am glad that I was not the only one who did not enjoy Holland's responses. I have posted the rest of my review below:
- I have a comment about this part: with Endgame briefly becoming the highest-grossing film of all time. I would avoid this sentence structure (i.e. with X verb-ing). I have been told and seen this note quite a bit in the FAC space. I do not have strong feelings about it, but I just wanted to bring it to your attention.
- To go off of one of my earlier comments, the "Blockbuster films and mature roles" sub-section does a better job in expanding on more negative or less than positive reviews of Holland's work.
- For File:Tom Holland MTV 2018 (02).jpg, I would expand the caption to include where the potion was taken (i.e. a MTV interview) to provide further context to readers.
This should be the end of my review. The article is very well-written, and I believe that once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, Aoba, once again. While I am not a Holland fan myself, it was great to see neutral perspectives from you and other reviewers. The balance between praise and criticism of Holland is really much better now. FrB.TG (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest adding alt text
- File:Portrait_of_a_Young_Man,_c._1535-40,_Hans_Holbein_the_Younger.jpg: location link is dead
- File:Thomas_Nickerson_portrait.jpeg: source link is dead; when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Lee Vilenski
I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.
- Lede
- Whilst not jargon, there are a couple terms that could be a little difficult, and couple perhaps have a link, choreography, tsunami, superhero. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Tsunami linked. As for the other two, I think choreography is a pretty common term and we generally tend not to link genres (unless they are super specific), especially in a film-related BLP, as they can get messy.
- Prose
- Is it not "co-star"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Replaced with co-star.
- James gray pipes to a redirect. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Additional comments
Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Lee Vilenski, just a gentle reminder in case you forgot about this. No worries if you don't have the time for it yet. FrB.TG (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Source review (pass)
- This is not entirely necessary, but I always find it helpful to put citations in numeric order in the prose. So for this part, that Holland was visiting at the time, I would put Citation 9 before Citation 10.
- This is more of a clarification question, but are you only linking the work/publisher on the first instance? That is a perfectly valid choice, but I just wanted to make sure that this was intentional.
- I would link Zendaya in Citation 5.
- In Citation 13, I would clarify that this was uploaded to YouTube, which can be done through the via= parameter. If you have other YouTube citations, I would do the same. Citation 16 mentions YouTube, but I think it would be better and clearer to use the via= parameter.
- Citation 26 should include a note that a subscription is required to access the page as it is an article from The New York Times.
- For Citation 81, I would avoid having "Exclusive" in all caps even if it is represented like this in the article itself. I would only use all caps for acronyms as it can come across as shouting. The same comment applies to Citation 109.
- Citation 92 should be Deadline Hollywood and not just Deadline.
- This is super nitpick-y so apologies in advance, but some of the titles for the Rotten Tomatoes citations include the release year and others do not and it would ideal to be consistent throughout with this.
These are my comments so far. I will look through some of the citations in the near future to make sure all the information is accurately represented, and I will look through the citations again to make sure I did not miss anything. Aoba47 (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- All done, look forward to the next batch. Thank you for the source review as well. FrB.TG (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- For the Roger Ebert citations, I would use the RogerEbert.com link instead since a Wikipedia article exists for the website.
- Done.
- I hate to be this person, but how/why is Dominic Holland's website a high-quality source in this context?
Just adding these two quick comments before I run off to work. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Citation 11 is being used to support that Holland attended Wimbledon College, but I do not see that supported in the prose or in the video interview.
- Could you provide a time-stamp for Citation 13? It's a 13:18 video so it would be beneficial to know where the information is being supported. For videos like this, it would be helpful to have a time-stamp if a certain portion of it is being used to support information. Another example is Citation 16.
- Citation 19 does not support that Holland left Billy Elliot on May 2010.
I have done a spot-check through other citations and everything looks good there. Once my above comments have been addressed, this should pass my source review. I hope that this was helpful! Aoba47 (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Jews in Hong Kong
- Nominator(s): — Golden call me maybe? 12:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
The Jewish community of Hong Kong, although small, has played a great role in the development and history of the city. Taking root from two wealthy Baghdadi trader families of Sassoon and Kadoorie, the Jewish community experienced several waves of growth. As of 2019, there are about 5,000 Jews of different denominations living in Hong Kong.
I rewrote this article a month and a half ago. It was reviewed and passed as a Good Article two weeks ago and also as a Did You Know a month ago. Since then, the article has also been copyedited and I believe it may now meet the FA criteria. — Golden call me maybe? 12:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Drive-by comments
- The following works are cited in the "Literature" section, but never used in the prose:
- Chasin, Stephanie (2008). Citizens of empire: Jews in the service of the British Empire, 1906–1940. University of California Press.
- Pluss, Caroline B. (1999). The social history of the Jews of Hong Kong: a resource guide. The Jewish Historical Society of Hong Kong. ISBN 978-9-6285-3391-6.
- Following are p./pp. errors:
- "Ehrlich 2008, pp. 1186." : should be p.
- "Carroll 2009, p. 74, 79." : should be pp.
- "Ehrlich 2008, p. 1172, 1187" : should be pp.
- "Tigay 1994, p. 209, 211." : should be pp.
- "Gilman 2014, p. 99, 111." : should be pp.
– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Moved the unused books to a "Further reading" section.
- Fixed! — Golden call me maybe? 13:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest adding alt text
- File:Sir_Matthew_Nathan.jpg needs a US tag and information on first publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Done.
- Done. — Golden call me maybe? 16:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- When and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- State Library of Queensland doesn't give any information about the author. Here they state that the original version is a photographic print from 1920, so I believe that's the first publication date. — Golden call me maybe? 07:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately 1920 appears to have been the creation date rather than confirmed as a publication date. Also if the author is unknown we can't claim life+70 - a photo from 1920 could easily have been created by someone who died after 1952. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've replaced the image of Matthew Nathan with a picture of Nathan road as State Library of Queensland doesn't give the required information about the picture. — Golden call me maybe? 14:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Support Comments from a455bcd9
Jews are one of the oldest communities in Hong Kong
: what's the source for the opening sentence?A permanent Jewish community formed in Hong Kong in the 1850s.
: do we know how many Jews were in HK at that time?The social life of the community revolved around the homes of the wealthy Sephardic families of Sassoon and Kadoorie
: first time the Kadoorie family is mentioned in the article (outside the lede), shouldn't we describe who they are?which encouraged the influx of new Baghdadi and Mumbai Jews to Hong Kong
: any numbers available?Wealthy Sephardim distanced themselves from the predominantly poor Ashkenazi.
: first time the word "Sephardim" is used, should probably linked and/or explain that early Jewish migrants were Sephardic.Under his governance [...] the main street of Kowloon was named Nathan Road in his honour.
: Could link to Nathan Road. The street was renamed in 1909, so not "under his governance"In 1911, the Jewish population of Hong Kong reached 230 people. From the early 1920s to the mid-1930s, the number of the Jewish community did not exceed 100 people.
: This is weird, what explains the decline?In the first half of the 20th century
: Shouldn't this paragraph be moved before the one about WWII to follow a chronological order?Another family of Baghdad Jews, the Kadoorie, successfully competed with the Sassoon family.
: this sentence should be moved at the beginning when the Kadoorie family is first mentionedThere were 250 Jews in Hong Kong (half Sephardi, half Ashkenazi) in 1954. The number dropped to 230 in 1959 and further to 200 in 1968 (130 Ashkenazi and 70 Sephardi). In 1974, according to the lists of the Ohel Leah Synagogue and the Jewish Club, there were about 450 local Jews living in Hong Kong.
: do we have an explanation for these variations? Where did the ones who left go? Where did the ones who arrived come from?About 5,000 Jews lived in Hong Kong in 2010 [...] some 2,500 Jews lived in Hong Kong in 2015.
: why such a difference in 5 years?Unlike other parts of China, where the Jewish community is prohibited from holding religious festivals
: I'm surprised, because I can find other sources about the Jewish life in Mainland China or Chabad Beijing.The population of the colony was very fluid, and therefore the 16 oldest graves do not bear the names of those buried there, only identification numbers.
: I don't understand this sentenceduring the reign of the Jewish governor Matthew Nathan
: should we say "reign" or "rule" for a governor?the English-language press in Hong Kong has always been somewhat anti-Israel, which is explained by the general mood of the European press
: this implies that the European press is anti-Israel, is that true and sourced?- This source isn't cited, why?
- May be good to add a table with the evolution of the Jewish population
A455bcd9 (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- @A455bcd9: Thank you for taking your time to review the article:
- 1. Goldstein, Jonathan; Schwartz, Benjamin I. (2015). The Jews of China: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. p.171. Quote: "Jews in Hong Kong followed a similar evolution. Jews were among the first settlers in the 1840s.."
- Per MOS:LEAD: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.". So you should add this information in the article and correctly source it. Also, according to History of Hong Kong: "The region of Hong Kong has been inhabited since the Old Stone Age" so Jews were definitely not "one of the oldest communities in Hong Kong". May be better to follow the source and say that
Jews were among the first settlers after Hong Kong became a British colony in 1841.
. A455bcd9 (talk)- Done! — Golden call me maybe?
- Per MOS:LEAD: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.". So you should add this information in the article and correctly source it. Also, according to History of Hong Kong: "The region of Hong Kong has been inhabited since the Old Stone Age" so Jews were definitely not "one of the oldest communities in Hong Kong". May be better to follow the source and say that
- 2. Unfortunately none of the sources present a number for the 1850s. Goldstein and Schwartz only generally mentions that the "Jewish community began to develop from the mid-1850s", while Tigay writes that "the community was organized in 1857.."
- 3. Done!
- You wrote "another family of Baghdad Jews", but I think you should say that the Sassoon were from Baghdad. Otherwise it's weird. A455bcd9 (talk)
- I'm sorry I don't really understand what you mean. Do you mean that I should inform the readers that both of the families are Baghdad Jews rather than only writing it for the Kadoorie? — Golden call me maybe?
- You wrote "another family of Baghdad Jews", but I think you should say that the Sassoon were from Baghdad. Otherwise it's weird. A455bcd9 (talk)
- 4. Neither Gilman nor Tigay (two sources used for the sentence) give a number.
- 5. The first paragraph of the History section already indicates that the first settlers (the Sassoon family) were Sephardic. It's also made clear that the first Jewish residents were Sephardic with the sentence before the Ashkenazi Jews are mentioned: "In 1882, there were about 60 Sephardic Jews living in Hong Kong."
- Indeed, thanks. By the way, are Baghdadi Jews Sephardic or Mizrahi? (Wikipedia says: "The term "Sephardim", from Hebrew Sefarad (“Spain”), also sometimes refers to Mizrahi Jews (Eastern Jewish communities) of Western Asia and North Africa. Although the millennia-long established latter groups did not originally have ancestry from the Jewish communities of Iberia") A455bcd9 (talk)
- Both. They are a diverse group and include Mizrahi and Sephardim Jews. Here is a quote from the Baghdadi Jews article:
Within these Baghdadi communities, the majority were of Iraqi Jewish origin, but families from Syria, [...] and a handful of Sephardic Jews [...] joined and assimilated into the Baghdadi community.
— Golden call me maybe?
- Both. They are a diverse group and include Mizrahi and Sephardim Jews. Here is a quote from the Baghdadi Jews article:
- Indeed, thanks. By the way, are Baghdadi Jews Sephardic or Mizrahi? (Wikipedia says: "The term "Sephardim", from Hebrew Sefarad (“Spain”), also sometimes refers to Mizrahi Jews (Eastern Jewish communities) of Western Asia and North Africa. Although the millennia-long established latter groups did not originally have ancestry from the Jewish communities of Iberia") A455bcd9 (talk)
- 6. Fixed!
- 7. The explanation is provided right after those sentences: "During this period, there was an outflow of Jewish businessmen to the rapidly developing Shanghai". I've moved the sentence's place to make it easier to understand.
- I would make things even clearer, for instance:
In 1911, the Jewish population of Hong Kong reached 230 people. From the early 1920s to the mid-1930s, there was an outflow of Jewish businessmen to the rapidly developing Shanghai and the number of the Jewish community dropped below 100 people.
- Done! — Golden call me maybe?
- I would make things even clearer, for instance:
- 8. Done!
- 9. Done!
- 10. The source for the numbers, Encyclopaedia Judaica, doesn't give any explanation for the fluctuation of the number.
- 11. Unfortunately no explanation for the decline in the sources.
- So most likely one source is wrong. I would merge the two sentences and add the source for the first figure: "According to X, about 5,000 Jews lived in Hong Kong in 2010; while According to the World Jewish Congress, some 2,500 Jews lived in Hong Kong in 2015." A455bcd9 (talk)
- Done! — Golden call me maybe?
- So most likely one source is wrong. I would merge the two sentences and add the source for the first figure: "According to X, about 5,000 Jews lived in Hong Kong in 2010; while According to the World Jewish Congress, some 2,500 Jews lived in Hong Kong in 2015." A455bcd9 (talk)
- 12. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency source you provided is from 2003, while the source in the article is from 2016. I imagine the Jewish life in mainland China must have changed during this period.
- 13. The source for that sentence on Jewish Historical Society of Hong Kong website was hard for me to understand as well: "The Community was mostly without an official functionary and witness to the fact that the population was a transient one even then, sixteen of the oldest graves bear only a small, numbered marker, with no name". I've deleted the first half of the sentence now to only include the part about the sixteen graves.
- 14. Changed to "rule" since "reign" doesn't sound quite right.
- 15. The source describes the anti-Israeli mood of European press as follows: "[...] the local English-language press maintains a low-grade anti-Israeli stance. However, this may not be conscious editorial policy because most of their published stories relating to Israel are taken from the wire services [...] Thus, the biases in reporting seem to stem from the writers for the Western wire services." I've changed the sentence to better represent its source.
- 16. That source is used several times in the article. You can find it as reference #49 under the References section.
- In that case the author is incorrect, it should be "Miriam Herschlag", and the publisher (or editor) should be "American Jewish Committee": Herschlag, Miriam. “Hong Kong.” The American Jewish Year Book, vol. 98, American Jewish Committee, 1998, pp. 375–85, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23605409. A455bcd9 (talk)
- Fixed! — Golden call me maybe?
- In that case the author is incorrect, it should be "Miriam Herschlag", and the publisher (or editor) should be "American Jewish Committee": Herschlag, Miriam. “Hong Kong.” The American Jewish Year Book, vol. 98, American Jewish Committee, 1998, pp. 375–85, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23605409. A455bcd9 (talk)
- 17. I did initially want to add a table, but in several cases the numbers are given for a general time period rather than a specific year (e.g. "By the beginning of the 20th century, 165 Jews officially lived in Hong Kong..") and almost all known numbers are estimates. — Golden call me maybe? 21:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I still think a table could be useful. A455bcd9 (talk)
- Added to the 21st century section. — Golden call me maybe?
- I still think a table could be useful. A455bcd9 (talk)
- Thanks a lot! I'm happy your changes have addressed my concerns. I'm glad to support the article. A455bcd9 (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Some additional sources on the number of Jews in HK:
- Our Community: "The Jewish community’s population, as of 2015, is estimated to be approximately 5,000 and is comprised of mainly expatriates originating from countries that include the UK, US, France, Australia, South Africa, Israel and Canada who worship in five congregations." (2015)
- Religion and Custom: "The site adjoining the Ohel Leah Synagogue, now containing a residential complex, also houses the Jewish Community Centre which serves all three congregations. The centre offers its 400 member families supervised kosher dining and banqueting, cultural and recreational facilities and operates a fully kosher supermarket, a wide range of activities and classes, as well as a specialist library covering all aspects of Judaica." (2016, three congregations)
- Why most Jews in Hong Kong are not involved with the protests: "Hong Kong, a one-time British colony now controlled by China and given limited autonomy, is home to some 5,000 Jews and a number of Jewish institutions." (2019)
- Hong Kong and the Jews: 6 Facts: "Today, over 5,000 Jews call Hong Kong home." (2019)
- Hong Kong Virtual Jewish History Tour: "The Hong Kong Jewish community experienced rapid growth as Hong Kong prospered, and the population now numbers between three and four thousand" (2020?)
- SYNAGOGUE HISTORY: "Kehilat Zion currently boasts more than 900 members." (2020, one community only) A455bcd9 (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the sources! I've added about the conflicting reports for 2015 and added the 5,000 number for 2019. — Golden call me maybe? 13:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. As you already cite in the article the "Hong Kong Virtual Jewish History Tour" it may be worth adding their estimate as well ("3,000-4,000"). They cite "Jonathan Kaufman, “A Jewish Dynasty in a Changing China,” Wall Street Journal, (May 28, 2020)." So I assume the page is up-to-date as of 2020. (even though it was showing the same estimate in Feb 2017, but we can assume the # didn't change much between 2017 and 2020). A455bcd9 (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- The Jonathan Kaufman source makes no mention of the "3,000-4,000" number. The actual source seems to be Encyclopaedia Judaica, p.518:
By the mid-1990s the Hong Kong community was substantial in size. Its population was estimated at 3,000–4,000 in the mid-1990s and at about 3,000 in 2004.
I added the 2004 number to the table. — Golden call me maybe? 15:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)- So I would add "3,000–4,000" in "~1995" then (based on Encyclopaedia Judaica). But I think "3,000–4,000" can be added based on "Hong Kong Virtual Jewish History Tour" for "today". And my point was that we can use "2020" for "today" as "Hong Kong Virtual Jewish History Tour" cites a source from 2020 (I didn't mean that the Kaufman source made mention of the 3k-4k figure). A455bcd9 (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Done! — Golden call me maybe? 15:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- So I would add "3,000–4,000" in "~1995" then (based on Encyclopaedia Judaica). But I think "3,000–4,000" can be added based on "Hong Kong Virtual Jewish History Tour" for "today". And my point was that we can use "2020" for "today" as "Hong Kong Virtual Jewish History Tour" cites a source from 2020 (I didn't mean that the Kaufman source made mention of the 3k-4k figure). A455bcd9 (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- The Jonathan Kaufman source makes no mention of the "3,000-4,000" number. The actual source seems to be Encyclopaedia Judaica, p.518:
- Thanks. As you already cite in the article the "Hong Kong Virtual Jewish History Tour" it may be worth adding their estimate as well ("3,000-4,000"). They cite "Jonathan Kaufman, “A Jewish Dynasty in a Changing China,” Wall Street Journal, (May 28, 2020)." So I assume the page is up-to-date as of 2020. (even though it was showing the same estimate in Feb 2017, but we can assume the # didn't change much between 2017 and 2020). A455bcd9 (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Some additional sources on the number of Jews in HK:
Coordinator note
This has been open for nearly four weeks and has picked up just the single general support. Unless it attracts further attention over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Oppose from Kavyansh
Oppose on WP:FA?#1c and WP:FA?#2c, due to the following issues:
- Source formatting and reliability:
- Ref#17: Lacks publisher/website
- Ref#42: Lacks publisher/website
- Ref#57: "www.timesofisrael.com" should be just "The Times of Israel"
- Ref#75: Lacks publisher/website
- Ref#79: "The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com" Why two publishing media outlets?
- Multiple sources require en-dash instead of just hyphen. Example: "1550-1950", "Youtai - Presence and Perception", etc.
- What makes https://web.archive.org/web/20160822055907/http://www.clement-jones.com/ps02/ps02_340.htm even a reliable source? For FAs, we require sources to be "high quality reliable sources".
- Same with https://gwulo.com/charles-henri-maurice-bosman. Why is it a WP:HQRS?
- Same with Ref#66 https://www.kehilat-zion.org/index.php?dir=site&page=content&cs=5015. Why is it a WP:HQRS?
- Spot-checking:
- "Among other members of the Jewish community in Hong Kong, the Dutch Jew Charles Henry Bosman (1839–1892) stood out. He was the head of the Bosman and Co. trading house, co-owner of the city's first luxury hotel, and director of the Hong Kong and Whampoa Dock, which was founded in 1863 by Scottish businessman Thomas Sutherland. By 1869, Charles Bosman was the Dutch consul in Hong Kong and ran his own marine insurance company, whose clients included the colony's largest group, Jardine Matheson & Co. Later, Charles Bosman moved to Great Britain and received British citizenship in 1888. He died in London in 1892.":
- Focusing just on verifiability, of the two sources cited, one names him "Charles Henri Maurice BOSMAN". Even the other one names him "Charles Henri Maurice BOSMAN", but a comment (by a reader) states that "the gravestone inscription reads Henry rather than Henri" ([7]). Why do we write him as "Henry"?
- Where is it mentioned that he "stood out" among other members of the Jew community?
- Where is it mentioned that Hongkong Hotel was "city's first luxury hotel"? All the source mentions is that "He was part owner of the Hongkong Hotel in 1968 when it opened".
- To be precise, "director of the Hong Kong and Whampoa Dock" should be "a director". Both the sources mention "a director", implying one of many directors.
- Where is it mentioned that Hong Kong and Whampoa Dock was founded in 1863 by Scottish businessman Thomas Sutherland?? I find no mention of Sutherland or 1863 in any source.
- Where is it mentioned that company's "clients included the colony's largest group" ? All the source mentions is that "one of whose important clients was Jardines". Isn't it WP:OR to assume that they were "colony's largest group"?
- Source says "He later left for England, then became naturalised British citizen in 1888/89." If I am right, writing England as Great Britain is right (vice-versa is wrong), but we mention the year as 1888, while the source writes "1888/89".
- "Among other members of the Jewish community in Hong Kong, the Dutch Jew Charles Henry Bosman (1839–1892) stood out. He was the head of the Bosman and Co. trading house, co-owner of the city's first luxury hotel, and director of the Hong Kong and Whampoa Dock, which was founded in 1863 by Scottish businessman Thomas Sutherland. By 1869, Charles Bosman was the Dutch consul in Hong Kong and ran his own marine insurance company, whose clients included the colony's largest group, Jardine Matheson & Co. Later, Charles Bosman moved to Great Britain and received British citizenship in 1888. He died in London in 1892.":
- "In 1951, Lawrence and Horace Kadoorie founded an association to help local Chinese farmers in the New Territories, and in 1956 established an experimental farm and botanical garden, which eventually developed into Hong Kong's leading research organisation in the field of ecology and agriculture." — I honestly don't find any of this supported by the source ([8]). Where in the source is 1951, Lawrence, them founding an association, and that becoming leading research organisation?
- "James Meyer Sassoon: executive director of the Jardine Matheson Group, Director of Hongkong Land, Dairy Farm International Holdings, Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group and Jardine Lloyd Thompson, Chairman of the China-British Business Council"
- Source ([9]) writes "Jardine Matheson Group Companies, Executive Director, 2013 - 2020". This is 2022, I'll assume he is no longer the "former" Executive director. Rest, most of this again is not mentioned in the source
- Note: the above is not a full source review.
– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
White-headed fruit dove
Another species of pigeon, this time endemic to the Solomon Islands. As you'd expect, the fact that it's endemic to the Solomon Islands means that little is known about it. No free-license photos either, but there is a nice illustration. AryKun (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Image review—pass
- File:Ptilinopus eugeniae map.svg appears to use the outlines of another map File:Solomon Islands adm location map.svg, with slightly different licenses but this seems to be ok per the Creative Commons license compatibility (t · c) buidhe 09:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Eviolite
Here's my set of comments (with the caveat that I am not too familiar with biology):
- Seems comprehensive, based on various searches on Google Scholar and that the format has been used on other similar FAs.
- "lowland, hill, and ridge forest" - this wording confuses me a bit, are "lowland", "hill", and "ridge" all modifying the word "forest"?
- Yes.
- Based on the source, it looks like Gray described it as in the genus Ptilonopus (with an o after the l) - they are likely just alternate spellings, but would still like this cleared up as Ptilinopus does not mention this spelling (or Ptilopus, which the catalogue calls it) at all
- Yeah, Ptilonopus and Ptilopus are misspellings of Ptilinopus.
- Also in the catalog, it seems there's something from 1855? Though I can't comprehend the string of abbreviations there, so maybe it's irrelevant.
- It's Iotreron sp., indicating that someone collected a specimen of this species, identified it as an Iotreron, and that it was subsequently identified as this species after Gould's description.
- "White-headed fruit dove is the official common name" - "White-headed fruit dove" (and "Eugenie's fruit dove" later on) should probably be formatted per MOS:WAW; italics makes sense since you used that earlier for the ancient Greek, but might be confusing with all the italicized scientific names. Not sure what the best way to do this is; I'm leaning towards quoting.
- Added quotes around the names.
- "others treat them as different species but treat P. v. vicinus and P. v. lewisii as subspecies of the white-headed fruit dove" - this is a bit confusing to me; based on the next paragraph, it seems that they reassign two of the several subspecies of P. viridus to P. eugeniae. I think this should be clarified because it was unclear to me that P. viridus had more than two subspecies.
- Attempted rewording.
- "white-breasted fruit dove" - presumably a typo
- Fixed.
- "A 2014 study of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA by Alice Cibois and colleagues" - would it be helpful to include institution/journal/something else, to have some idea about the credentials of this study (given Cibois does not have a Wikipedia article)?
- There's like five different institutions between the authors and adding an institution wouldn't necessarily be helpful since these guys weren't doing it for the institution.
- Not sure if "the lewisii subspecies of the claret-breasted fruit dove" is relevant here when you introduce P. v. lewisii in the paragraph before already
- Removed "of the claret-breasted fruit dove".
- "may either [...], or may" - either the "either" or second "may" is redundant
- Removed second may.
- What does "secondary forest" refer to?
- Forest that's regrown after logging. Linked.
- Any more details for "a juvenile was recorded in September", or is that all the source provides?
- That's all the source says.
- It is probably relevant to add that the population was thought to be decreasing "moderately rapid"ly in 2016 according to the IUCN Red List source (the article currently doesn't explicitly say thet the population is actually decreasing.)
- Added.
That's all, a generally nice article all around. eviolite (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Eviolite, think I've addressed all your concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AryKun (talk • contribs)
Comment (not a full source review). The Avibase site appears to be both used as a citation and itself cites this article, creating a circularity problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Avibase doesn't actually cite Wikipedia, it just shows a small excerpt at the top from Wikipedia, the "source" bit is just for the excerpt. The actual information on the site is by Denis Lepage and Birds Canada. AryKun (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Coordinator note
This has been open for nearly four weeks and has picked up just the single general support. Unless it attracts further attention over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will be liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
My knowledge on birds is rather limited so I will be approaching this article from an outsider perspective. I do love birds though so I look forward to learning more about this one in particular.
- I have a question for the map image in the infobox. Would it be helpful to add a caption similar to the one used in the red panda article?
- Added.
- For this part, It inhabits lowland, hill, and ridge forest, along with neighbouring agricultural areas, shouldn't it be "lowlands", "hills", and "ridge forests" since agricultural areas and foothills are presented in their plural forms? I have the same question for the "Distribution and habitat" section.
- Lowland, hill, and ridge are all modifying forest; I could change it to "lowland forest, hill forest, and ridge forest", but that's a bit repetitive.
- For this part, prefer human-modified areas like secondary forest, gardens, and cocoa plantations, shouldn't it be "secondary forests"?
- Forest here is used to refer to the habitat and is used this way in the sources: eg "preference for hill forest" in the Pigeons and Doves book.
- This is more of a clarification question, but is there a reason why the breeding habits of this bird is largely unknown? I'm just curious because it seems like this bird is still around and is not endangered or threatened so it would seem easy (at least to a non-expert like me) to study its breeding habits.
- Well, there aren't really all too many ornithologists in the Solomon Islands studying this stuff, so that plays a part. Additionally, passing observations like seeing a nest out on a walk only really tell you what the nest looks like and the month that breeding occurs; more in-depth information like the number of eggs and chicks, the time taken for incubation and fledging, the food they feed to chicks, etc requires someone to monitor nesting pairs from the time they lay eggs to when the chicks fledge, which is a lot of work.
- I really enjoy the infobox image as I believe this kind of illustration is under-appreciated, but I am guessing that a photo of this bird is not available (i.e. one that is free use of course)? It is not an issue, but I wanted to ask to make sure.
- Nope, no free-use photos.
This was a fun read. I live in Florida so I am more used to seeing sandhill cranes and it is nice to read about something that is outside of my normal area (both in terms of my geographical area and my Wikipedia editing). My comments are primarily restricted to the prose. I have some image-adjacent questions, but since an image review was already done by an experienced editor, I did not look too hard in that area. Since I am not an expert in this field, I cannot really speak with as much confidence with the source quality and coverage, but the citations are well structured. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Drive-by comments from Morgan695
- "but a juvenile was recorded in September" Missing a year
- Source doesn't give a year. A year isn't necessary either, as the point of this information is to tell what time of the year juveniles are seen, giving an idea as to when the species might breed.
- I think you need to clarify that in the prose of the article itself, e.g. "but a 2001 survey recorded a juvenile in September, suggesting a summer breeding period" or something to that effect.
- Source doesn't give a year. A year isn't necessary either, as the point of this information is to tell what time of the year juveniles are seen, giving an idea as to when the species might breed.
- At just 1106 words of readable prose, this article seems relatively short. While length is not always an indicator of quality or comprehensiveness, a cursory glance at other bird-related featured articles reveals that most bird FAs tend to be double or even triple that length. I don't doubt your claim that this is a topic with limited sources, but from the perspective of a lay reader it just seems somewhat underwritten. Morgan695 (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, nothing more is known about the species. Most of the longer bird FAs are about North American, European, or Australian birds, because these are very well-studied regions. Articles about S American, African, Asian, and Pacific birds tend to be under 2000 words at the most if their biology is relatively well-known, which it isn't here.
Paper Mario: Color Splash
This article is about a video game published by Nintendo back in 2016. It's a part of the Paper Mario series, which you may have seen my work on in the past. This is the part where I try to lure reviewers in by talking about its importance and interesting aspects, but not only are there little positives to say about it, I have never played this game. If you were to ask, "If you have never played this game, why did you work on its article" I would probably respond with, "I don't know".
I was here before with Paper Mario: The Origami King about two years ago. I'm a little frustrated with myself on how I handled some things, and now that I've got a much better grasp of Wikipedia and its policies, things should hopefully go much smoother than last time. This article is currently a good article (review), and received a peer review a little while back (review). It is currently part of a good topic (review), and once this article and one other (probably this) are promoted, will be re-nominated as a featured topic. Panini! • 🥪 21:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
image review
- Suggest adding alt text
- Screenshot FURs need significant improvement - the purpose of use seems to have been copied from the cover image, but these images have a different purpose. Including multiple non-free media requires stronger justification for each. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Nikkimaria! I really appreciate the amount of review work you do around here. Alt text is something that should've been done without someone else pointing it out, so that's a little embarrassing.
- As for your second concern, I could use your opinion; it seems my last FAC had this same issue, and in the end, one of the non-free images was removed. That article had one image of a battle sequence and one of the players just wandering, so there was a clear winner on what was removed. However, the whole paint gimmick is pretty big, but so is the combat... which image do you suggest removing? Or, with proper justification, should I keep them both? I'm doubtful about it. Panini! • 🥪 11:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would suggest keeping the paint - it appears to be the more central gimmick, and "there are cards" seems to be a concept that is more intuitive to understand without seeing it. It might be possible to keep both, but you'd need very strong justification. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria, I've decided against keeping both for the reason you stated. I also went back and updated the other image rationale to better justify its inclusion. Please let me know if more clarification or expansion is needed. I've also completed the alt texts for the other images, and found a better image of the Wii U to use while I was at it. Panini! • 🥪 03:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would suggest keeping the paint - it appears to be the more central gimmick, and "there are cards" seems to be a concept that is more intuitive to understand without seeing it. It might be possible to keep both, but you'd need very strong justification. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments by FrB.TG
- "Color Splash was announced via a Nintendo Direct in March 2016, and released the game worldwide in October 2016." See MOS:NBSP for March 2016 and October 2016.
- "On release, however, the game received generally positive reception from critics, praising the game's graphics, soundtrack, and improved dialogue." I suggest replacing "the game's" with "its" to avoid the repetition of "the game" in a close proximity.
- Fixed
- "Players traverse through a world map containing stages; the goal of each stage is to reach the Mini Paint Star." This could be condensed to "Players traverse through a world map containing stages, whose each goal is to reach the Mini Paint Star." Plus, we would eliminate the repetitive "stage(s)".
- This was similar to how I originally had it, but another user suggested the switch to a semicolon. I won't throw them other the bus, however, and I'll pretend it was all my idea just this once.
- "Depending on how the player collided with the enemy, the player or the enemy may be able to attack immediately." Player ... player, enemy... enemy
- Ah, a double redundar™!
- The plot section uses "reveal" a lot, whose usage I am not a big fan of in an encyclopedia anyway, as it creates an element of suspense.
- I believe it's because I didn't do too much work on this section; I haven't played this game, so I didn't want to mess with the Plot too much and accidentally misinterpret the plotline.
- "The focus of the Paper Mario series shifted towards" - should use "toward" instead as it is the preferred variant in American English, which the article seems to be using.
- Towed
- "Shigeru Miyamoto, the lead designer of the Mario franchise, insisted that only characters from the Mario franchise should be used for the game." Why is Mario franchise linked twice here? It should be only linked here: "...series would replace Paper Mario as the Mario franchise's role-playing series". Also, you don't need "Mario" in the second "Mario franchise" (§ Design and characters).
- "Why is Mario franchise linked twice here?" I have no idea. I've also clarified the meaning behind it a bit.
- "This led the team to create multiple Toads with multiple color schemes to represent their different personalities." multiple.. multiple.
- Multiplied
- "When creating characters, major emphasis went towards" - same as above (toward
s). - "Nick Pino of TechRadar called the petition, "a frightening example of how quickly, and harshly, we judge games we know next to nothing about."[21]" The comma before "a" is unneeded.
- Uncomma'd
- "The game sold 20,894 copies in its first week of release in Japan,[30] the following month having sold 37,093 copies." → "The game sold 20,894 copies in its first week of release in Japan,[30] and 37,093 copies the following month."
- Changed
- "In 2017, the game was nominated for "Favorite Video Game" in the 2017 Kids' Choice Awards, but lost to Just Dance 2017." "In 2017" is unnecessary since "the 2017 Kids'..." also specifies the year.
- Uh-...fair point!
- "Writing for Nintendo Life, Conor McMahon considered the writing" - writing.. writing
- Rewriting
- " In opposition, Dan Ryckert of Giant Bomb disliked how every character was a Toad, and their individual traits weren't enough to keep them individually unique." Contractions (weren't) should be avoided in an encyclopedic writing; you could condense "were [not] enough to" to "failed to".
- Failed
- "They noted how the player purchases cards with coins that can be used in combat, and combat rewards" - repetitive usage of "combat".
- Combated
- "due to the loss of role-playing game (RPG) elements" - not sure why role-playing game is linked here and has the abbreviation in the parenthesis when there are previous uses. You could link it in its first instance and replace the following spelled out ones with the abbreviation.
- This may just be because I've worked on this article out of order, so linking issues may be common elsewhere.
That's it. Nice work. FrB.TG (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, @FrB.TG! I believe I've addressed everything. Panini! • 🥪 19:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Support on prose. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment by CactiStaccingCrane
I don't have much to add here, but the references from 1 to 6 at this version is hard to verify by an outsider. I think that having a source that does not require you to buy the game would be more independent and reliable. I would also suggest to remove these categories: "Mario role-playing games", "Intelligent Systems games", and "Wii U games", because they are the parent of other categories listed in the article. Overall, it's real great work, the prose is solid, and the text-source integrity is preserved. I wish you the best luck on the FAC, though I don't support the nomination because my drive-by comment is not a complete review of any featured article criterion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- @CactiStaccingCrane, per MOS:PLOTCITE, the game credits itself can be used as a source as it's considered a primary source within itself. Since I couldn't find a secondary source that mentions these staff members by name I had to cite the game directly. I've also removed the parent categories you've mentioned. Panini! • 🥪 04:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Alright, looks good to me! It's just a bit harder to verify the source, so I asked you for another independent source. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Coordinator comment
Nearly three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination attracts further interest over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the warning, @Gog the Mild. Has it really been three weeks already? I'll go see who else can leave a review. Panini! • 🥪 16:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps ping the peer reviewers? FrB.TG (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I reached out to Shooterwalker and Jaguar, and since I've had less personal interaction with the others, I'll ping them here instead: SNUGGUMS, Guyinblack25. If you lack the interest a second time, please ignore. Panini! • 🥪 15:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps ping the peer reviewers? FrB.TG (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments from SNUGGUMS
- Starting three consecutive sentences with "The" as you've done under the first paragraph of "Gameplay" feels monotonous. This issue is even worse with FIVE in a row opening that way under "Design and characters".
- Un-the'd
- I'd replace "opposition" from "In opposition, Dan Ryckert of Giant Bomb" with "contrast" or use "Conversely".
- I could've sworn I used converesly at least once. That's my word of the day!
- "The use of the hammer and paint received generally positive comments; Ryckert enjoyed the use of the paint mechanic and had the urge to paint everything in each world to full completion, and although Petit found early levels of the game slow to progress due to the very limited amount of paint that the hammer could hold, the problem became redundant as paint storage increased." is quite a mouthful! You can split that overly long sentence by turning the semi-colon into a period.
- I'm just trying to make sure your mouth is well-fed, that's all. Chew with your mouth closed!
- What benefit does that box quote from USgamer provide when you've already used their review in the main prose of reviews?
- Removed
Thankfully the article is better now than when I found it at peer review. You should be able to spruce it up in a reasonable timeframe. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to leave another review, SNUGGUMS. I've addressed your new comments. Panini! • 🥪 18:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Support by Lee Vilenski
I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.
- Lede
- is a 2016 cross-genre video game - I hate this. "Cross-genre" seems so fantastical it's irrelevant. Can we not just say it's a 2016 video game, and link video game? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- This stems from this and this from a while back. With this in mind, do you still belive I should switch it? I don't really care for the matter.
- I do. If we can't even agree on a genre, it's hardly super important that it needs to be in the lede sentence. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with that statement. Removed, linked video game
- the protagonist Mario and Huey - are these both protagonitists? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Added "and his new ally"
- Bowser pipes to a redirect Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- It became the primary topic recently. Fixed.
- Mario uses a selection of cards that endow Mario - endow him. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed
- Prose
- Players traverse through a world map containing stages, whose each goal is to reach the Mini Paint Star at the end - something missing here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Might have just been the way it was formatted. Rewritten
- New to Color Splash - we don't need to say this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Removed
- new ability - the "new" stuff in general is kinda irrelevant. This isn't an article on previous games. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Also removed, checked for other instances but were none.
- previous title:[15] the storyline - I'm confused why a colon is used here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure why either; removed
- Wii U is overlinked. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have an duplicate link checking script, and there doesn't appear to be any instances were Wii U is overlinked. I did catch some others, though.
- Overall, combat was designed to be an additional hindrance - is hinderance the right word? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure if you questioning it or actually don't think so, but in my opinion, yes; old games relied on combat because they were RPGs, and people kept asking for Nintendo to bring those elements back. However, Nintendo was moving away from the RPG format and therefore centralized the games around a certain gimmick rather than the RPG elements, including combat. It was designed to get in the way rather than be a main focal point.
- Just feels odd to say that a part of your game is designed to be a hinderance! Surely they just mean that isn't not the major gameplay element. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- review aggregator Metacritic - WP:sEAOFBLUE. To avoid, I usually say review aggregator website Metacritic. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Parted the Blue Sea
- IGN called Huey - I am particularly against saying a publication stated something, where there is an author. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Added reviewer name
- Additional comments
Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, @Lee Vilenski! I've fixed the problems listed and left comments on some of your points. Panini! • 🥪 19:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Kharijites
- Nominator(s): AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Being Top Importance in WikiProjects Religion and Islam, this article is about the first Islamic sect. The sect appeared during the First Muslim Civil War in late 650s when a group from the army of the fourth caliph Ali seceded protesting against the proposal to settle the dispute with his opponent, the Syrian governor Mu'awiya, through dialogue. They weakened Ali's authority in his home base who then proceeded to defeat them. One of the survivors killed him in retaliation thus inadvertently assisting Mu'awiya's rise to the caliphate. They vigorously fought the subsequent governments labeling them unjust. The governments on their part severely suppressed them, which eventually caused their disappearance, except for one of their non-violent sect, the Ibadiyya, who survive to this day. I have been working on this article for about two years now. With content help from a subject expert and prose improvements by Al Ameer son, I think the article is now in a position to be judged against the FA criteria. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Drive by
- References should be in chronological order.
- Thanks SN54129. I prefer ordering by last name, and then by year. They seem to be all correctly ordered. --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- You'll get a thorough source review—probably spot checks—but you've got a few p/pp anomalies in your refs, and some of your sources are missing publisher locations and/or page ranges for book chapters. SN54129 15:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies, AhmadLX I sent you up a blind alley: I meant, "inline citations should be in numerical order" (e.g., not [31][34][33], but check for more?). My poor choice of words completely mislead you. Sorry for the confusion! SN54129 12:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, there is no rule about whether inline citations should be in a particular order. (t · c) buidhe 12:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, the reason there's no rule about this (and so many other aspects of the process) is because WP:FA/ has very few rules about anything. However, it is clearly an acceptable request for a reviewer to make and in line with generally accepted custom and practice. See, for example, the following FACs: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]; [18]; that last is fresher than a duck's nostril. The point has been suggested by highly experienced FAC reviewers and as—if not more—pertinently, accepted by your co-ord colleagues as legitimate requests. Yes, you consider them cosmetic, and I don't necessarily disagree; but consistency, particularly of citation, is one of the few "rules" we have, and this has clearly become something of a community norm. SN54129 13:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, there is no rule about whether inline citations should be in a particular order. (t · c) buidhe 12:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies, AhmadLX I sent you up a blind alley: I meant, "inline citations should be in numerical order" (e.g., not [31][34][33], but check for more?). My poor choice of words completely mislead you. Sorry for the confusion! SN54129 12:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129 and Buidhe: That is news to me. I have always been against this and list my cites in the order they occur in the text, or randomly. With the exception of a now-retired reviewer at ACR I can't recall ever being picked up on this, and not at FAC. I quite probably have been, have complied in order not to trivially stretch out a review, and have since forgotten. But I am a little startled to discover that this a "rule", if only because I have never made any effort to comply. Skimming some of my recent FAs, they do seem - serendipitously - to comply. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog, custom and practice, best practice, whatever one calls it, =/= a rule, and only you and one other editor have, in fact, called it one. SN54129 17:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, thank you for the feedback and the links. I sort citations based on authoritativeness of the sources, and if two sources are more or less equally authoritative, I give first the one which is more easily accessible. I think it too is a reasonable choice. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- I couldn't find any p/pp. issues. Could you please point out any specific instances?--AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not SN54129 (of course), but I can help: Ref#43: "Wellhausen 1901, p. 17–18". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Kavyansh.Singh. It has been fixed.--AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Publisher locations are missing for online publications (such as EI3 online or Oxford Bibliographies Online) and for journal articles (which do not need locations (AFAIK)). There were a couple other instances of missing loc, which I've fixed.--AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Missing page ranges are also for online publications, where they do not exist/apply.--AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest scaling up maps and charts, and see MOS:COLOUR
- Scaling done. Have to read MOS:Colour. Will get back on this afterwards. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- File:Allah-green.svg: what "public domain artwork" was this copied from?
- It was in a template, which I've now removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- File:Balami_-_Tarikhnama_-_Battle_of_Siffin_(cropped).jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Nahrawan-Canal.jpg
- Done both. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- File:Dirham_of_Qatari_ibn_Fuja'a.jpg needs a tag for the original work
- Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- File:خريطة_الدولة_الرستمية.jpg: what's the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Replaced map. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments Support by Constantine
Will review over the following days. Constantine ✍ 10:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Did some copyedits, feel free to revert if necessary.
- Thanks. They look very helpful. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
amounting supposedly to a total of 4,000 men why 'supposedly'?
- At Adam Gaiser's suggestion. He said that the numbers in the sources are exaggerated. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Then I would state it like this, e.g. "numbering reportedly up to 4,000 men, although the number is likely exaggerated." Constantine ✍ 20:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I changed it to "numbering reportedly up to 4,000 men". I think "reportedly" does the job of alerting the reader. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- At Adam Gaiser's suggestion. He said that the numbers in the sources are exaggerated. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
elected Abd Allah ibn Wahb al-Rasibi as their caliph. was al-Rasibi really proclaimed caliph, or just their leader?
- Yes he replaced Ali as the caliph in their view. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
they were called Khawarij; the term is anglicized to 'Kharijites' can we add the Arabic singular here as well? It will make clear where the English form comes from.
- Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Why is the photo of the Nahrawan Canal in a different section?
- Just because of space; moving it up breaks the section border and looks a bit ugly. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
where he was taking the Kufans' oath of allegiance link oath of allegiance to bay'ah.
- I think you've already addressed this in your ce. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Can we link the major figures? Even if only as WP:REDLINKs.
- I've added links to the most important ones. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Can we link the Kharijite Rebellion (866–896) somewhere appropriate?
- Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Have reviewed until 'Beliefs and practices', will continue from there as soon as I have some time. Constantine ✍ 07:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
although Ibadi communities in these regions ceased to exist do we have a timeframe for this? Otherwise I would suggest rephrasing to something like 'although the Ibadi communities in these regions disappeared over time.'
- Not really, so I went with the second option. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
the use of the tahkim by the Kharijites the tahkim is mentioned for the first time here, and needs to be explained here, or given earlier, when the motto is introduced.
- That was a stupid mistake on my part. Should have been la hukma. Now fixed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
According to him, the main role in forcing Ali Who? Shaban or Hinds?
- Shaban; specified. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
The Kharijite rebellions after Siffin also had economic origins according to whom? Better still, something like "X attribute the Kharijite rebellions after Siffin also to economic motivations".
- Clarified. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
That's it. The article is well written and impressively comprehensive, as far as I can tell. Being somewhat familiar with the subject, I could follow it without any problems, and didn't find anything major missing. Will do another read-through once the above points are dealt with, but I am ready to support it as it is. Constantine ✍ 19:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Constantine. Looking forward to the rest. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Most of my points above have been addressed, and I've marked them by crossing them out. I've done some additional copyedits, and have some final questions:
the emerging orthodoxy I assume Sunni orthodoxy is meant here? Then I would mention this.
- Actually both Sunni and Shia authors are hostile to the Kharijites; specified now. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
a probable reconstruction of the events I am uneasy with 'probable' here. You mean something like 'reconstruction that might be close to actual truth', but I am not sure this is understood.
- Modified. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
the sources sometimes used the Kharijites are we still talking about the heresiographers here, or the later sources generally?
- Both; histories and heresiographies. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
As these are minor issues, I also don't hesitate to support at this time. Constantine ✍ 20:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Constantine. I think I've addressed all points. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Constantine. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Coordinator note
This has been open for nearly three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Gog the Mild: Thanks. Just give me a week. I will ask a few blokes. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Can you also put it on urgent list?AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Ceoil
Placeholder. First impression (from reading the lead only) is that this is very well written. Ceoil (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sourcing is impeccable, all high quality, recent (ie up to date), and consistently formatted. Ceoil (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Information about Kharijite history and doctrines derive from non-Kharijite authors, and are hostile toward the sect. - should the word contemporary be used here
- Not quite contemporary, but I got your point. I added that they were mainly from the 9th and 10th centuries. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- A small thing, but would right-align File:Nahrawan-Canal.jpg, and place just after the "Under Mu'awiya" sub-header.
- Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- They held that Uthman had deserved his death because of his faults deserved his death is awkward, and "because of his faults" is hopelessly vague.
- Clarified. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, have read it all and am a Support on prose & sourcing (spot check not done as have reviewed earlier FACs by the nominator). Ceoil (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Ceoil. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments Support by Al Ameer
Received a request by nominator to give my thoughts. The subject covers a major group and formative period of Islamic history. I reviewed the article just prior to its nomination, believing it to be ready, but I will review with a keener eye once Ceoil finishes. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- "anti-government activities" → "rebellion" or "rebellions".
- Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- "... their defeat by the Umayyad general al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf" → "their defeat by the Umayyads"
- Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- "They, however, deny any links with the Kharijites of the Second Muslim Civil War and beyond, condemning them as extremists" → "They, however, deny any links with the Kharijites, condemning them as extremists"
- This cannot be done really. As mentioned in the article body, the Ibadis respect and fully own the Muhakkima and the Basran quietists (e.g. Abu Bilal). They disown only the Azariqa, Najdat, and Sufriyya (who in the classical narrative originated during the 2nd Fitna). AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, understood. Is “and beyond” necessary then? —Al Ameer (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Actually yes, because the classical narrative of the tafriq during the 2nd Fitna is incorrect as discussed in the moderates' section. Also, Suffriyya in any case survived for centuries, as did Najda splinters (e.g. Ajarida, Hamziyya) beyond the 2nd Fitna. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, understood. Is “and beyond” necessary then? —Al Ameer (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- This cannot be done really. As mentioned in the article body, the Ibadis respect and fully own the Muhakkima and the Basran quietists (e.g. Abu Bilal). They disown only the Azariqa, Najdat, and Sufriyya (who in the classical narrative originated during the 2nd Fitna). AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- "branded as unbelievers any Muslims" → "branded as unbelievers Muslims"
- Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- "have viewed the Kharijites as religious extremists and having left the Muslim community" → "have viewed the Kharijites as religious extremists who left the Muslim community".
- Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Al Ameer (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Unless pertinent, I recommend trimming the details of Mustawrid's revolt. Maybe split off to an article about and expand it slightly.
- The section on the Kharijite activity under Mu'awiya was added at Gaiser's suggestion; according to him the discussion of the Kharijites of the period b/w Nahrawan and 2nd Fitna should be expanded else it leaves a significant gap in the article. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Link Second Fitna in the 'Second Fitna' section.
- Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I recommend deleting the following, because these details do not seem necessary for this article: "The Azariqa, under the command of Ibn Mahuz's brother Zubayr ibn Mahuz, returned to Iraq, ravaged al-Mada'in, evaded pursuit from Zubayrid forces, and then besieged Isfahan. They were driven from Isfahan and fled to Fars and later to Kirman." Then, I would slightly revise the next sentence to "Reinvigorated by their new leader, Qatari ibn al-Fuja'a, the Azariqa attacked Basra's environs afterward and Muhallab was redeployed to suppress them."
Then link the next mention of Kirman.
- On second thought, it seems important to note their attack on al-Mada'in and siege of Isfahan. Recommend adjusting to "The Azariqa plundered al-Mada'in and then besieged Isfahan, but were defeated. They fled and eventually regrouped in Kirman. Reinvigorated by their new leader, Qatari ibn al-Fuja'a, the Azariqa attacked Basra's environs afterward and Muhallab was redeployed to suppress them." (link Isfahan) Al Ameer (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- No need for "His election came about as a result of his leadership qualities, which convinced Abu Talut's followers to depose him in favor of Najda." We already state in the previous sentence that he became this group's leader. Alternatively, if you want to emphasize Najda's leadership qualities, you could revise those two sentences to just the following: "Najda's leadership qualities convinced Abu Talut's Kharijite faction to elect him as their leader and they became known as the Najdat after him."
- Had added it to emphasize the vulnerability of the position of Kharijite leader. But yeah was a bit repetitive; removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Were the towns Najda raided in Ibn al-Zubayr's domains in Bahrayn? If so, you could remove that bit, and just state that he took over Bahrayn and repulsed a 14,000-strong Zubayrid army deployed against him. Ignore if this was not the case.
- Will check the source tomorrow. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Will check the source tomorrow. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Al Ameer (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- "the Sufriyya became extinct with the passage of time" → "the Sufriyya eventually became extinct"
- "Sufriyya and Ibadiyya sects at this stage are ahistorical" Please specify which stage.
- I see inconsistent use of Sufri and Sufriyya. Sufri should be used as an adjective as in "Sufri revolts" and Sufriyya as a noun, as in "the Sufriyya were led by". I made the change in the Sufriyya section, but this should be done throughout. Same with Ibadi and Ibadiyya, etc. Alternatively, eliminate the dual use altogether and strictly use "Sufriyya" and "Ibadiyya" (in which case I will revert my change). Al Ameer (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have fixed a few instances. Will do the rest soon. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Al Ameer son I think I've done all of them. You might want to have a look. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have fixed a few instances. Will do the rest soon. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Link taqiyya at first mention.
- Should imams be de-italicized as this is an 'integrated' English word by now?
- Link Tripoli.
- "the Abbasid army" → "an Abbasid army", unless this was the empire's main army.
Finished with the History sections, will continue the rest tomorrow I hope. Al Ameer (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- "Sunnis, who later went on accept the leadership" → "Sunnis, who accepted the leadership". Since we are talking about Sunnis and not 'proto-Sunnis' or some other predecessor group.
- "as long as they were Quraysh" → "provided they were Qurayshite" or "provided they were of the Quraysh"
- "Shi'a, who were to assert" → "Shi'a, who asserted", same as above, since you are talking about Shia, not 'proto-Shia'.
- "displaced" does not seem like the right word, perhaps "deposed", unless the Kharijites specifically mean exile or expel (in which case I would use one of those two terms).
- "Although militant like the Azariqa", I would either drop this since it's been well-established by this point in the article that the Najdat and Azariqa were both militant/radical factions of the Kharijites, or, if sourced, something like "While the Najdat generally shared the Azariqa's view toward unbelieving Muslims [or kafirs if you prefer], they allowed marriages with non-Kharijites"
- "Of the moderates, the Sufriyya and Bayhasiyya—followers of Abu Bayhas, who is said to have criticized the Azariqa for going too far and the Ibadiyya for not going far enough, although it is almost certain that this sect too developed later and not during the second civil war as the sources assert—considered all non-Kharijite Muslims as unbelievers, but also abstained from taking up arms against them, unless necessary, and allowed intermarriage with them" → Unless there is an appropriate place to introduce the Bayhasiyya beforehand in the article, in an exclusive sentence, I would move this: "followers of Abu Bayhas ... as the sources assert" to a footnote.
- "Going too far" or "not going far enough" is vague, could this either be specified or revised?
- "fighting jihad" → just "jihad" (with link)
- Should "dhimmi" be de-italicized?
Almost done. Al Ameer (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- The majority of the leaders of the Kharijite revolts in the Umayyad period were Arabs" → "Most Kharijite leaders in the Umayyad period were Arabs"
- You spell out two-digit numbers in the "Tribal affliations" section, but use the numeric form elsewhere. Choose one form for consistency.
- Why does the South Arabian influence on the southern Arabs' culture and collective thinking attract them "more to Shi'ism than Kharijism"? I understand why this would steer them away from Kharijism, but why would it specifically attract them to Shi'ism?
- When kufr is first introduced, mention that kuffar is the plural form, since kuffar appears a couple times in the article without being defined to the general reader.
- "traditional Muslim historians and heresiographers of subsequent centuries" Might help general reader to clarify which centuries are covered by "traditional Muslim historians" since you mention the heresiographers are "of subsequent centuries".
- Basically 9th to 12th centuries. I changed it at first but it looked ugly, so didn't save the change. Can you think of a suitable formulation? AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Finished. Made some copyedits here and there that you may want to check. Al Ameer (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Al Ameer. I've addressed most points. The two exceptions responded to above. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you Ahmad. I trust the Sufri/Sufriyya inconsistency will be cleared up. This is an exceptionally fine article and I am happy to support. Al Ameer (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Al Ameer. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you Ahmad. I trust the Sufri/Sufriyya inconsistency will be cleared up. This is an exceptionally fine article and I am happy to support. Al Ameer (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Al Ameer. I've addressed most points. The two exceptions responded to above. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Funk
I'll have a look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'll continue when Al Ameer's issues are fixed, so we don't thread the same ground. FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Funk, ready for you I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Comments Support by Borsoka
The term al-Khariji was used as an exonym by their opponents for leaving the army of Caliph Ali (see below). Consider completing the sentence instead of placing a "see below" text within the article.For instance, "...for leaving the army of Caliph Ali during the First Fitna".
- Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
They called themselves al-Shurat ("the Exchangers"),... Are you sure Gaiser (2010) verifies the sentence?
- Actually Gaiser (2016); Gaiser (2010) also, but on a different page number. Fixed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
As representatives of the emerging orthodoxy... To which branch of Islam does the term "orthodoxy" refer? Sunnite, Shiite or both?
- As far as the Kharijites are concerned, both. Now specified. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
...the authors tend to portray their own sect... Is the term "sect" neutral? I assume co-religionists of these "sectarians" are mentioned as representatives of "orthodoxy" in previous sentences.
- On neutrality please see my response to point 6 below. As for "Orthodoxy", we are not actually declaring the non-Kharijites as "Orthodox" from a religious point of view but from a historical point of view. The source itself uses the term "Orthodoxy". AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
...(see below)... Do we need this text?
- Removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
...the first sect to arise within Islam ... Is the term "sect" neutral?
- I think there is nothing non-neutral in the term. They were a sect just like other sects of Islam such as Sunnis, Shi'a, Mu'tazila etc. The source starts the Introduction with "The Khārijites were the first sect to crystallize in the Islamic world...". AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Consider deleting "First Fitna" from the "Further information" part of section "Origin" (because the First Fitna is linked in the text).
- Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
...(la hukma illa li-llah) Move to the last sentence of section "Origin" (where the English translation is first quoted).Borsoka (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Introduce Abd Allah ibn Wahb al-Rasibi.
- Well, since his primary claim to fame is him being the first Kharijite caliph, not sure how can one introduce him in other terms. I added "pious" before his name. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
The Kharijites continued to launch insurrections against the caliphate. Five small Kharijite revolts following Nahrawan, involving about 200 men each, were suppressed during Ali's rule. Move it to the previous section before mentioning Ali's assassination.Borsoka (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Introduce Farwa ibn Nawfal al-Ashja'i.
- Stated his clan; I couldn't find anything more suitable to introduce him. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
...near al-Mada'in (Ctesiphon) Is this necessary taking into account that Behrasir is linked?
- Removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
...killed Ibn Ziyad's deputy... In the previous sentence we are informed that Ibn Ziyad was expelled from the city. Did his deputy remain in the city?
- He appointed the deputy when he left. Clarified. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
... Shabib ibn Yazid al-Shaybani (see below) ... Is the "(see below)" part necessary?
- Removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
... Modern historians consider Ibn Saffar to be a legendary figure ... Does the cited source verify the statement about modern historians?
- I think I've now added enough sources. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
... The heresiographers, whose aim was to categorize the divergent beliefs of the Kharijites, invented the Sufriyya to accommodate those groups who did not fit neatly anywhere else. I assume this is not a fact, but a widely accepted scholarly theory. Perhaps we could say, "The heresiographers .... likely/probably/obviously invented the Suffriyya..."
- It is continuation of "Modern historians consider..."; now added specifically. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
During the last days of the Umayyad empire, a major Sufri revolt erupted in 744. Consider mentioning that this happened in Iraq because the previous sentence referred to northern Africa and Oman.Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
The ruling position remained exclusively within the Quraysh for centuries. Is this necessary?
- Admittedly, it was placed in a wrong place and did not fit in the context. Moving it one sentence past also broke the flow, so I had just put it in this wrong place. Now I have moved it to a footnote and rephrased it a bit. Hopefully the context is now clearer. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
...first four caliphs... Consider linking Rashidun.
- Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
..., especially Iraq and Persia ... Is this necessary (taking into account that a mawla of Greek origin is mentioned in one of the following sentences)?
- The vast majority of the mawali was in fact of Persian/Iraqi origin. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Consider introducing Giorgio Levi Della Vida (Michael Cooperson is introduced in a following sentence).
- Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The first Kharijites were supporters of Ali who had rebelled... Perhaps "who rebelled"?
- Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
End of my comments. Thank you for this interesting, well-written and thoroughly researched article. Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Borsoka. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Levantine Arabic
This article is about Levantine Arabic, a variety of Arabic spoken in the Levant. (PR1, Sept 2021 / GA1, Dec 2021 / DYK, Dec 2021 / PR2, March 2022) A455bcd9 (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- FYI, here are the only 2 FA about a spoken language: Nafaanra and Nahuatl. A455bcd9 (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Image review—pass
- File:Modern Levant.PNG — file description states the accuracy is disputed
- File:Arabic Dialects.svg — The image description should include sources for the info displayed on the map
- File:Lebnaan Newspaper issue 686.jpg — I don't think this meets the non-free copyright criteria for use in this article, especially #1 and #8.
- Other images look fine. I don't see any sound files in the article, but if there are any they have not been evaluated. (t · c) buidhe 11:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- File:Modern Levant.PNG: I don't see any dispute so removed that information in the file description. Otherwise we could use File:The Levant 3.png (sourced) or File:Levant (orthographic projection).png
- File:Arabic Dialects.svg: I don't think we can find sources for such a map, I removed it.
- File:Lebnaan Newspaper issue 686.jpg: I don't know enough about non-free copyright criteria, let me know if I have to remove it A455bcd9 (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Lots of duplicate links. You can detect them using User:Evad37/duplinks-alt. (t · c) buidhe 12:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- I removed most of them. A455bcd9 (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: for "Arabic Dialects.svg", I've just realized that the image was present in Schmitt, Genevieve A. (2019). "Relevance of Arabic Dialects: A Brief Discussion". In Brunn, Stanley D.; Kehrein, Roland (eds.). Handbook of the Changing World Language Map. Springer. p. 1385. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-02438-3_79. ISBN 978-3-030-02437-6. as "Fig. 1 Major dialects of Arabic, by region. (Open source)". Could this be used as a source, a posteriori? (or at least a validation by a scholar that the information in the image is reliable) A455bcd9 (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- I removed most of them. A455bcd9 (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Nikkimaria
Oppose at this time. There is considerable citation cleanup needed: many citations are incomplete and the formatting is inconsistent. There are also some issues with article structure, with a very long TOC, short and choppy subsections, and a significant number of one-sentence paragraphs. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi. Could you please provide examples of incomplete citations? I checked during the last peer review and I thought it was okay. Same question regarding formatting. I'm a bit surprised because I only used the automatic citation tool in VisualEditor, and as it auto-formats, I guessed the resulting formatting would be consistent. Chris Capoccia also reformatted refs and used citation bot cleanup. Regarding the other points: I'll improve that later. A455bcd9 (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately automated tools don't necessarily ensure consistency. Some samples of issues (not a full list):
- Some references use the {{citation}} template, while others use cite templates ({{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, etc) - this will produce output that looks different. Also some references use no template at all, eg 278
- Many books are missing publisher - eg footnotes 3, 8, 102, 126, and others
- Some books include publication location (eg 27) while others do not (eg 123). This is an optional parameter, so you should decide to include or not include and then do that consistently.
- When someone translates a work, they should be credited using a translator parameter rather than an author parameter in the citation template
- Citations should generally include at least one of work or publisher - eg 155 has neither. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Crediting translators is optional, I believe, but if you are doing it, I would advise to use the translator parameter as Nikkimaria suggests. (t · c) buidhe 23:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- I replaced {{citation}} templates, added publishers where missing in {{cite book}}, removed all "publication-place" and "location", added translators, added website for 155, and a template for 278 (I think it was the only ref without a template). Do you think citations are okay now? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- The TOC is now way shorter (from ~60 sections and first-level subsections to ~40) and I removed many one-sentence paragraphs and "short and choppy subsections". I think the "Grammar" section is the only one where there may still be some work to do. What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Definitely work needed in Grammar, but not only that. For example, presently the Vocabulary section is only six paragraphs, and yet it has two subsections. With regards to citations, thank you for addressing the specific examples raised, but as noted that wasn't a comprehensive list of issues. For example, footnotes 147 and 148 are both journal references but look quite different; 267 includes "www" in the domain but 265 does not; 123 lists ProQuest as a publisher, but in 20 the platform is credited using
|via=
instead. Some of these are errors: 20 is the correct way of treating platform, 123 is incorrect. Some of these are simply a matter of consistency. But both cases need working through. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)- I think I addressed these issues. I understand that your list wasn't comprehensive, so I tried to address other issues I identified. Besides the Grammar section, is there still some work needed? If so, can I find a comprehensive checklist somewhere with the different criteria (such as "www" in the domain, credit platform with via, etc.) so that I don't bother you? A455bcd9 (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I'm not aware of a comprehensive checklist. WP:CITEHOW and the documentation for the templates will give you some of the information, but a lot of the time it's a matter of manually comparing citations to see where they differ. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. I used the Wikipedia citation bot, not really helpful... I looked at WP:CITEHOW and improved several citations. Is it okay now? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Still problems unfortunately. More examples: footnote 165 is a harv error; some book references include locations while others don't; some journals include publishers while others don't. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Aargh sorry... "some book references include locations while others don't": which book references? There was one that I forgot (Cambridge, just removed) but otherwise the only 6 "location=" used are for conferences (Miyazaki, Istanbul, Doha, Brasov) as it seems to be expected by Template:Cite conference. I added the three missing publishers for journals. I think/hope we should be good now... A455bcd9 (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- By the way you wrote: "123 lists ProQuest as a publisher, but in 20 the platform is credited using |via= instead. Some of these are errors: 20 is the correct way of treating platform, 123 is incorrect." And I initially changed from "publisher=" to "via=" for this reference. However I double-checked and the document says: "Published by ProQuest LLC (2019). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author." So should I change back to "publisher=ProQuest"? A455bcd9 (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- No - ProQuest is publishing a reproduction, but the thesis itself is originally published by the university.
|via=
is the more appropriate position for ProQuest in this case. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)- @Nikkimaria, I worked on the citations, could you please tell me if they're okay now? A455bcd9 (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- They are definitely much better than when we started, but there are still inconsistencies. For example, some references to Ethnologue use regular {{cite web}} templates while others use a specialty template with different formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: thanks. Template:Ethnologue25 only works for languages. The only three references to Ethnologue using cite web are links to Ethnologue's maps. (I changed one) Is that really an issue? If so, what would you recommend? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Using {{cite web}} for all. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: thanks. Template:Ethnologue25 only works for languages. The only three references to Ethnologue using cite web are links to Ethnologue's maps. (I changed one) Is that really an issue? If so, what would you recommend? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- They are definitely much better than when we started, but there are still inconsistencies. For example, some references to Ethnologue use regular {{cite web}} templates while others use a specialty template with different formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria, I worked on the citations, could you please tell me if they're okay now? A455bcd9 (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- No - ProQuest is publishing a reproduction, but the thesis itself is originally published by the university.
- By the way you wrote: "123 lists ProQuest as a publisher, but in 20 the platform is credited using |via= instead. Some of these are errors: 20 is the correct way of treating platform, 123 is incorrect." And I initially changed from "publisher=" to "via=" for this reference. However I double-checked and the document says: "Published by ProQuest LLC (2019). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author." So should I change back to "publisher=ProQuest"? A455bcd9 (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Aargh sorry... "some book references include locations while others don't": which book references? There was one that I forgot (Cambridge, just removed) but otherwise the only 6 "location=" used are for conferences (Miyazaki, Istanbul, Doha, Brasov) as it seems to be expected by Template:Cite conference. I added the three missing publishers for journals. I think/hope we should be good now... A455bcd9 (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Still problems unfortunately. More examples: footnote 165 is a harv error; some book references include locations while others don't; some journals include publishers while others don't. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. I used the Wikipedia citation bot, not really helpful... I looked at WP:CITEHOW and improved several citations. Is it okay now? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I'm not aware of a comprehensive checklist. WP:CITEHOW and the documentation for the templates will give you some of the information, but a lot of the time it's a matter of manually comparing citations to see where they differ. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think I addressed these issues. I understand that your list wasn't comprehensive, so I tried to address other issues I identified. Besides the Grammar section, is there still some work needed? If so, can I find a comprehensive checklist somewhere with the different criteria (such as "www" in the domain, credit platform with via, etc.) so that I don't bother you? A455bcd9 (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Definitely work needed in Grammar, but not only that. For example, presently the Vocabulary section is only six paragraphs, and yet it has two subsections. With regards to citations, thank you for addressing the specific examples raised, but as noted that wasn't a comprehensive list of issues. For example, footnotes 147 and 148 are both journal references but look quite different; 267 includes "www" in the domain but 265 does not; 123 lists ProQuest as a publisher, but in 20 the platform is credited using
- The TOC is now way shorter (from ~60 sections and first-level subsections to ~40) and I removed many one-sentence paragraphs and "short and choppy subsections". I think the "Grammar" section is the only one where there may still be some work to do. What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- I replaced {{citation}} templates, added publishers where missing in {{cite book}}, removed all "publication-place" and "location", added translators, added website for 155, and a template for 278 (I think it was the only ref without a template). Do you think citations are okay now? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately automated tools don't necessarily ensure consistency. Some samples of issues (not a full list):
- OK thanks. Let me know if citations are okay now. I also worked on the TOC and one-sentence paragraphs. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Nikkimaria. I note your withdrawal of your oppose. Does that mean that the source review is a pass? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- No - I did not do a full source review. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Nikkimaria. I note your withdrawal of your oppose. Does that mean that the source review is a pass? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
JBchrch
- To stay on the topic of sourcing, one inconsistency I'm seeing is that sometimes sources are cited with a specific page and sometimes not, e.g. ref 41, 107, 126. I am aware that it would be a huge job to fix that, but alas consistency is part of the FACR. Also is there any "systematic" reason why some sources are cited in "Sources" and referenced through {{sfn}} templates while others are cited directly in the "references"? JBchrch talk 22:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @JBchrch:,
- I checked all sources and added missing page numbers. I think the only sources cited without pages now are:
- Online news articles (for which there's no page, e.g. this one or that one),
- Articles from the Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics that are available online (e.g. here) without pagination,
- "An illusionary power of seduction?" which is also an online journal, so there's no pages.
- Is it okay now? (I think so)
- Sources in "Sources" using sfn: long books cited several times at different pages in the article, and also the main references about Levantine Arabic in general. Sources directly in "References": shorter articles (often only cited once and about a specific point). Does this make sense? What are the conventions here? A455bcd9 (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- @A455bcd9 Thanks -- are you sure you've checked all of them? I still see that ref 104, 108 and 246, for instance, are quoted "in bulk". As for the "Sources"/"References" thing, there is no standard practice, since Wikipedia doesn't mandate a specific citation style, it just has to be consistent. One additional comment as I looked at the article once more: I see that sometimes you list the day-month-year of publication as its publication date, and sometimes only the year (e.g. Brustad & Zuniga 2019, Al Masri 2015). I think listing the year is sufficient, and it will also make it consistent. JBchrch talk 14:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- @JBchrch: I thought the only issue was consistency in terms of appearance (some references with p= or pp=, others without => now they all have this parameter, with a few exceptions I explained). But now I understand that it's not only about visual appearance but also about how accurate each page mention is and you would like each reference to specifically mention the exact page(s) related to the sentence they're attached to. So if it's a 10-page article and the information needed appears on page 5 then you want p=5 instead of pp=1-10. Am I correct? From WP:PAGENUM, I understood that specific page numbers were only required when citing "lengthy" sources. Should I still do it?
- Date format: I've just converted all dates to year in the "Sources" section. But do you think I should do that in "References" as well? Including for news articles? And for journals (for which the format is most likely Month Date)? A455bcd9 (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- @A455bcd9 Your understanding of my suggestion is correct. Given PAGENUM, you can probably attempt to get this through FAC without mentioning page numbers each time, but you would have an easier time getting the designation if the page numbers were cited every time. Also, pay attention to the fact that sometimes there are lengthy works that are cited without a specific page number, such as ref 41. About dates: the "classical" way of doing things is to keep day+month+year for news articles, but to mention only the year for scholarly articles (unless adding the month [and the day] is the only way to individualize the article in question). JBchrch talk 16:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- @JBchrch: OK so I changed all dates to "year only" for scholarly articles (cite book, cite journal, and cite conference) and kept day+month+year for cite news and cite web (when available).
- For the page numbers, just to be clear (before starting what may be a huge task haha), do you mean
Given PAGENUM, you can probably attempt to get this through FAC without mentioning [specific] page numbers each time, but you would have an easier time getting the designation if the [specific] page numbers were cited every time.
? I so, then I'll make page numbers more specific tomorrow or this weekend 😅 A455bcd9 (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)- I've started adding more specific page numbers (almost done...), so never mind my question :) A455bcd9 (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- @A455bcd9 Apologies for the late answer. And yes, just in case, yes that was what I meant :). Good luck this work! JBchrch talk 16:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- @JBchrch no worries! I've actually just finished. I hope it's okay now :) Please let me know if there are still some issues... A455bcd9 (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- @A455bcd9 It looks like things have improved indeed, but I will take a closer look later. Something you could double-check is whether all the book titles are correctly capitalized. For instance, ref 125 and 129 should have more capitals per their "official" titles [19][20]. JBchrch talk 17:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- @JBchrch: it's a never ending task haha! Thanks, I fixed those and all the others I identified. A455bcd9 (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- @A455bcd9 Yes it is 😊. The way I like to think about it is that the article has to be "ready for the printing press" which supposes that Wiki editors have to do the work typically done by publishers, editors and copyrights "in real life". JBchrch talk 18:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- @JBchrch: I have so much respect for all the contributors who improved articles to FA status now... Anyway I think the article is "ready for the printing press" (when it comes to citations at least). But you'll maybe tell me there's yet another point to improve 😅 A455bcd9 (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- @JBchrch Were you able to take a closer look at the citations? A455bcd9 (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- @JBchrch: I have so much respect for all the contributors who improved articles to FA status now... Anyway I think the article is "ready for the printing press" (when it comes to citations at least). But you'll maybe tell me there's yet another point to improve 😅 A455bcd9 (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- @A455bcd9 Yes it is 😊. The way I like to think about it is that the article has to be "ready for the printing press" which supposes that Wiki editors have to do the work typically done by publishers, editors and copyrights "in real life". JBchrch talk 18:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- @JBchrch: it's a never ending task haha! Thanks, I fixed those and all the others I identified. A455bcd9 (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- @A455bcd9 It looks like things have improved indeed, but I will take a closer look later. Something you could double-check is whether all the book titles are correctly capitalized. For instance, ref 125 and 129 should have more capitals per their "official" titles [19][20]. JBchrch talk 17:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- @JBchrch no worries! I've actually just finished. I hope it's okay now :) Please let me know if there are still some issues... A455bcd9 (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- @A455bcd9 Apologies for the late answer. And yes, just in case, yes that was what I meant :). Good luck this work! JBchrch talk 16:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've started adding more specific page numbers (almost done...), so never mind my question :) A455bcd9 (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- @A455bcd9 Your understanding of my suggestion is correct. Given PAGENUM, you can probably attempt to get this through FAC without mentioning page numbers each time, but you would have an easier time getting the designation if the page numbers were cited every time. Also, pay attention to the fact that sometimes there are lengthy works that are cited without a specific page number, such as ref 41. About dates: the "classical" way of doing things is to keep day+month+year for news articles, but to mention only the year for scholarly articles (unless adding the month [and the day] is the only way to individualize the article in question). JBchrch talk 16:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- @A455bcd9 Thanks -- are you sure you've checked all of them? I still see that ref 104, 108 and 246, for instance, are quoted "in bulk". As for the "Sources"/"References" thing, there is no standard practice, since Wikipedia doesn't mandate a specific citation style, it just has to be consistent. One additional comment as I looked at the article once more: I see that sometimes you list the day-month-year of publication as its publication date, and sometimes only the year (e.g. Brustad & Zuniga 2019, Al Masri 2015). I think listing the year is sufficient, and it will also make it consistent. JBchrch talk 14:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment by Joseph
- Very nice and comprehensive article with useful maps and good references. Thanks for your efforts.--Joseph (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Coordinator note
This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next two or three days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Just to understand: how does the process work? Because my natural reaction if you archive this nomination, would be to nominate it again right after as there's only one "Oppose" based on grounds that I consider (maybe wrongly) fixed. A455bcd9 (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- If the nomination is archived, you're not able to renominate for at least two weeks. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Good to know, thanks!
- @Gog the Mild: Nikkimari has just removed their "oppose" and JBchrch (who did not formally oppose as far as I understand) will go on a wikibreak. Does this still mean that this nomination will be closed? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. If in two or three days it hasn't attracted a couple of substantial general reviews, or at least the start(s) thereof, archiving will probably happen. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- OK. Based on the past 3 weeks with 0 general reviews, I guess it's unlikely that there will be "a couple of substantial general reviews" in the next ~48h. So it's likely that you will archive this nomination. And I'll then reopen it 2 weeks later. And potentially this can go on forever? Why would there be more reviewers in 2 weeks when the nomination will be back on the top of the pile (vs being at the bottom in "Older nominations" where I thought people would have an incentive to reduce the backlog)? I'm just curious because I'm struggling to understand the logic behind this process. A455bcd9 (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Logic? This is FAC. Yes, you could keep that up forever. Though it gets old pretty fast. Alternatively, you could ask me or someone who may have a constructive suggestion for thoughts on how a nominator might attract reviewers. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I would love to know how to attract reviewers, what would you recommend? (by the way, I asked a few users with experience in languages/linguistics for a review in the past, without much success, such as Jeppiz, Greyshark09, Chris Capoccia, kwami, delldot, Casliber, Maunus, Mo-Al, and just before your answer I asked Austronesier).
- [I assumed in my previous message—and I was maybe wrong—that it would be impossible to attract two or three reviewers in the next 48/72 hours to conduct a general review. That's why I asked about the reasoning for the FAC process to be follow such a procedure.] A455bcd9 (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- The reasoning, in so far as there is any, is that if you haven't attracted any/several supports in three weeks, it will probably take you quite a while/forever to gain a consensus for promotion. And rather than clutter up the nominations list, it would be better to go away and think about it.
- The accepted wisdom that an editor is well advised to to review a dozen or twenty FACs prior to their own first nomination. It gives them a real grasp of what is needed in an article and the resulting lack of major issues makes FAC regulars more likely to consider reviewing it. While there is no formal quid pro quo, it also generates good will among the FAC regulars and makes them more likely to be sympathetic when they see your name on the list of nominators.
- PR can have a similar effect, and reviewers of an article at PR can frequently be cajoled into following up with one at FAC. As you have identified, editors with an interest in a broad area may respond to a neutrally phrased request - perhaps on their talk page. A similar approach may work with editors who are frequent FAC reviewers even if they have no immediately apparent history of reviewing in an article's area.
- You will no doubt have identified some potential overlap between the suggestions above. Does any of this help? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I understand the reasoning in a situation where there's at least one oppose and no or low support, but here there's nothing on both sides, that's why the process surprises me. But I accept it as it is, of course.
- As you say, it is what it is. And, IMO, it works passably well.
- "The accepted wisdom that an editor is well advised to to review a dozen or twenty FACs prior to their own first nomination.": would be great to mention this on WP:FAC. I did some FAC reviews (Pronunciation of GIF, Jews in Hong Kong, Armenian genocide) but it didn't help because I still don't know what it takes to be a FA. (not being a native English speaker makes me a bit reluctant to review other people's prose as well...)
- I wouldn't worry about inexperience, or perceived weaknesses. Just get stuck in. If necessary, specify what you are assessing against, or where you feel less than wholly sure. Most nominators will let you know if they feel you are in error. (Just mention serial commas on one of mine!)
- After their GA review, Cerebellum said "I think it has a good shot at FA :)"; in their DYK review (approved by Theleekycauldron), David Eppstein wrote "Very thoroughly sourced, easily meeting the additional sourcing requirements of DYK over GA."; and buidhe started their PR (before FA) with "Article looks promising". I understood these various messages as a "lack of major issues". But reading your message I feel like you imply that there are major issues in the current version in the article and that this is the reason why no one has yet started to review it. Did I misunderstand you?
- Yes. I was speaking generally. I have skimmed the lead and read none of the main article.
- I'm just asking these questions because it's my first FAC and I'm a bit puzzled and discouraged by the process.
- Oh yay. I remember my first couple of FACs. FAC is a high level, and so FAC is a tough process, and can seem brutal. And not having a working ACR system in most areas means there is a chasm in level from GAN. All I can say is that virtually everybody in the process wants articles to be promoted. And that the poor response for this one is a little disappointing; possibly the length and/or the specialist area and/or its esoteric nature have deterred people. Or it may just be one of those things.
- I've just left another message on all users who reviewed the article in the past (2 PRs + GA). As I mentioned above, I contacted in the past several editors with a broad interest in languages/linguistics/the Levant/the Arab world without much success. I didn't want to contact them again for this FAC nomination because I didn't want to "spam" them. Should I still do it? A455bcd9 (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Your call, but if it were me, I would. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Got it, will do! In addition to Cas Liber who has started a review below, Cerebellum will review it and Austronesier said they would try to review as well. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- I contacted again all editors who at some point contributed to the article and all Levantine speakers. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- FYI: I contacted a total of 63 active contributors, including all Levantine speakers and all main contributors to Levantine Arabic and related subjects (subdialects, other Arabic varieties, Modern Standard Arabic, ancient Arabic languages, etc.). I also announced the FAC at various projects. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: regarding the process, do we need more participants? (in that case I could try to ping again some of the people I contacted) Or is it more about getting support from existing participants? (esp. Cas Liber? as the buidhe and Cerebellum said they didn't feel qualified to support) A455bcd9 (talk) 09:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- It seems that you have sufficient. Given the number of reviewers currently looking at the article I would be surprised if they were not to generate sufficient input for a closing decision to be reached. However, as this is your first FAC, it will also need the citations to be spot checked for source to text fidelity. I have requested this at the top of the FAC talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: regarding the process, do we need more participants? (in that case I could try to ping again some of the people I contacted) Or is it more about getting support from existing participants? (esp. Cas Liber? as the buidhe and Cerebellum said they didn't feel qualified to support) A455bcd9 (talk) 09:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- FYI: I contacted a total of 63 active contributors, including all Levantine speakers and all main contributors to Levantine Arabic and related subjects (subdialects, other Arabic varieties, Modern Standard Arabic, ancient Arabic languages, etc.). I also announced the FAC at various projects. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I contacted again all editors who at some point contributed to the article and all Levantine speakers. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Got it, will do! In addition to Cas Liber who has started a review below, Cerebellum will review it and Austronesier said they would try to review as well. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Your call, but if it were me, I would. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I understand the reasoning in a situation where there's at least one oppose and no or low support, but here there's nothing on both sides, that's why the process surprises me. But I accept it as it is, of course.
- Logic? This is FAC. Yes, you could keep that up forever. Though it gets old pretty fast. Alternatively, you could ask me or someone who may have a constructive suggestion for thoughts on how a nominator might attract reviewers. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- OK. Based on the past 3 weeks with 0 general reviews, I guess it's unlikely that there will be "a couple of substantial general reviews" in the next ~48h. So it's likely that you will archive this nomination. And I'll then reopen it 2 weeks later. And potentially this can go on forever? Why would there be more reviewers in 2 weeks when the nomination will be back on the top of the pile (vs being at the bottom in "Older nominations" where I thought people would have an incentive to reduce the backlog)? I'm just curious because I'm struggling to understand the logic behind this process. A455bcd9 (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. If in two or three days it hasn't attracted a couple of substantial general reviews, or at least the start(s) thereof, archiving will probably happen. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- If the nomination is archived, you're not able to renominate for at least two weeks. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- On a sidenote, but not really, there is something wrong with the need for many comments to promote an article. That would mean that ceteris paribus articles from esoteric fields have a lower chance of being promoted even if somebody, like A455bcd9, would bring them up to par, and that sounds not fair. Debresser (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Waahaha. Debresser, Your point is on the money in theory, but in practice FAC somehow seems to not work like that. Ie the last eight FACs promoted have been Tom Eastick, First homosexual movement, Jubilee coinage, Clonmacnoise Crozier, Pronunciation of GIF, Pan Am Flight 7, Woodleigh MRT station and Nizar ibn al-Mustansir. They have all made it through the process and I struggle to imagine a more esoteric set of fields. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Comments Support by Cas Liber
Have looked at some of this while on a plane...resuming reading and jotting notes below....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Levantine does not descend from Classical Arabic: they both descend from an unattested common ancestor called Proto-Arabic.- this sounds like you're labouring the point. Would drop the first bit as it means nothing to most readers.- Most Arabs and Arabic-speakers think/believe that Levantine dialects descend from Classical Arabic, that's why I thought it would make sense to mention this information in the lead. But because Classical Arabic isn't mentioned before I deleted the whole sentence. A455bcd9 (talk)
- My understanding is that the numerous varieties of spoken Arabic technically descend from Old Hijazi Arabic. The term Proto-Arabic is probably too ambiguous to be of much use – worse, it typically refers to the most recent common ancestor not of the modern, but of the ancient varieties (which are attested in ancient inscriptions and familiar only to experts). While Classical Arabic is technically not identical with Old Hijazi (c. 1st to 7th centuries), but a standardised literary prestige register between the 7th and 9th centuries – nor, of course, with Old Arabic (which covers various ancient regional dialects of the Arabian Peninsula which later went extinct) nor Proto-Arabic (which is dated to the pre-Christian era) –, the distinction between Old Hijazi and Classical Arabic is fairly subtle, as are questions about chronology, and I can imagine that the usage between scholars is not entirely consistent (but then, I'm not an Arabist). When you try to reconstruct the most recent common ancestor of all the modern spoken Arabic varieties, you probably get something very much like Classical Arabic, so it's not that wrong – not as wrong as, for example, to claim that all North Germanic dialects descend from Old Icelandic. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Florian. According to Al-Jallad 2020a: "In southwest Arabia, some varieties appear to descend directly from Proto-Arabic rather than through the medium of Old Ḥigāzī and have, overall, not converged with major strands of modern Arabic, such as the Rigāl Almaʿ or the Fayfi vernacular." So it may not be the case that "the numerous varieties of spoken Arabic technically descend from Old Hijazi Arabic". And yes, unfortunately, the terminology isn't consistent between scholars... And there's no consensus on most questions. I tried to sum up the situation in Classification of Arabic languages. The term "Classical Arabic" itself isn't clear as explained by Al-Jallad: "Classical Arabic is a vague umbrella term used to cover a wide variety of sources, most often the language documented by the Arabic Grammarians, the reading traditions of the Qur’an, the pre-Islamic Odes, and texts written in the Islamic period. These sources are not homogenous and can vary significantly over time and place. As such Classical Arabic is not a single variety of the Arabic language but should rather be construed as a blanket definition covering what is prescriptively possible in written Arabic in pre-modern times." A455bcd9 (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- FYI @Florian Blaschke, Birnstiel writes in Classical Arabic that: "Traditionally, Classical Arabic has been regarded as more or less identical with the ancestor of all varieties of Arabic, ancient and modern, and thus as nearly identical to Proto-Arabic (Fischer 1997: 187–8). However, many varieties of Arabic both ancient and modern preserve features lost in Classical Arabic and present a state corresponding more closely to what is found in other Semitic languages (Al-Jallad 2018b, Huehnergard 2017, Pat-El 2017). This shows that these varieties of Arabic cannot have developed from Classical Arabic." And later: "Classical Arabic crystallized consequently as a unifying literary standard from the (semi-)conscious efforts of the grammarians in evaluating the different materials as well as the (performative-ritual, not necessarily spoken) language of certain Bedouins." So I don't think that the consensus today is that
When you try to reconstruct the most recent common ancestor of all the modern spoken Arabic varieties, you probably get something very much like Classical Arabic
. (but again, it's not super clear) A455bcd9 (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)- It's news to me that some marginal Arabic varieties in Arabia are thought to be not derivable from Old Hijazi. (Coincidentally, I looked at Razihi and Fayfi recently and thought that they do not look like they descend from Old South Arabian, nor even like they have a strong OSA substratum, already from the phonetics: no ejectives, no laterals, like you might expect, but the usual pharyngealised and dental realisations known from varieties of Arabic. As such, I agree at least that they seem to be some kind of Arabic.) However, we're talking about Levantine Arabic here, and I know of no particular reason (historical or linguistic) why it should not be descended from Old Hijazi (with an Aramaic substratum). For all we know, the Levant was still Aramaic-speaking in the 7th century, except perhaps for the (non-Roman-controlled) hinterland (like the Ghassanid and Tanukhid domains), so it doesn't seem as plausible as in Arabia itself that the local variety of Arabic is descended from some non-Hijazi ancient Arabic variety. So, the mainstream of spoken Arabic at least does seem to be based on Old Hijazi, primarily anyway. Be that as it may, though, this is irrelevant for the present purpose, since you deleted the sentence in question. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- FYI @Florian Blaschke, Birnstiel writes in Classical Arabic that: "Traditionally, Classical Arabic has been regarded as more or less identical with the ancestor of all varieties of Arabic, ancient and modern, and thus as nearly identical to Proto-Arabic (Fischer 1997: 187–8). However, many varieties of Arabic both ancient and modern preserve features lost in Classical Arabic and present a state corresponding more closely to what is found in other Semitic languages (Al-Jallad 2018b, Huehnergard 2017, Pat-El 2017). This shows that these varieties of Arabic cannot have developed from Classical Arabic." And later: "Classical Arabic crystallized consequently as a unifying literary standard from the (semi-)conscious efforts of the grammarians in evaluating the different materials as well as the (performative-ritual, not necessarily spoken) language of certain Bedouins." So I don't think that the consensus today is that
- Most Arabs and Arabic-speakers think/believe that Levantine dialects descend from Classical Arabic, that's why I thought it would make sense to mention this information in the lead. But because Classical Arabic isn't mentioned before I deleted the whole sentence. A455bcd9 (talk)
In the Naming section, how do scholars determine where to demarcate the limits - i.e. why are certain dialects excluded.- I don't know because scholars don't explain. It all seems quite arbitrary and I couldn't find any source explaining clearly the demarcation. For instance Versteegh notes that some sedentary Levantine dialects have Levantine Bedouin features: "But the fact that they are all sedentary does not mean that they never have Bedouin features." (p. 188) but doesn't include Bedouin dialects in his classification. A455bcd9 (talk) Actually I should be more accurate: Arabic varieties form a continuum and there's no clear border between one variety and another (it's even a challenge for computers/AI to precisely identify the dialect of a sentence, example). So they're grouped based on existing social constructs (borders, ethnic groups, religion, etc.). Still, these social constructs can have a performative effect and gradually create clear borders between two varieties. This process is ongoing in the Levant. A455bcd9 (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Casliber: Have you had a chance to look at my answers yet? Let me know if there are other points I should improve. Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The similarity among Levantine dialects is not necessarily determined by geographical location or political boundaries.- "necessarily" redundant here. Examples seems to indicate "not at all" really
Avoid 1-2 sentence short paragraphs
I don't get any sense of how Levantine Arabic differs from MSA or Classical Arabic from reading this article (this should also be touched on in the lead too). Also am a bit worried that the Arabic article touches on this entity very little.
Okay, tentative support as it appears comprehensive and written in as accessible a manner without sacrificing meaning. I am not familiar with the linguistics so will defer to those who know more. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Buidhe
- In the #Speakers by country section, where are the overall national population figures coming from? How were these figures calculated and was this done in a comparable way to counting the number of Levantine speakers? Some of the percentage figures look wrong to me and they could be significantly off if there is a discrepancy, for example in the year that these figures are for. I would at least remove the percentage unless there's a RS that specifically gives a percentage. (t · c) buidhe 09:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- The overall national population figures come from Ethnologue (2022 edition), I added the sources. The number of speakers (for apc and ajp) similarly come from Ethnologue's latest edition. Which percentage figures look wrong to you? The only one that surprised me was Qatar (33%). Ethnologue's estimate dates from 2019 for the language population figures, so it's quite recent and the overall population hasn't changed much since then. And given the large numbers of Lebanese, Palestinians, and Syrians (esp. since the Syrian Civil War), these numbers make sense. (here's another source). Ethnologue gives some of these percentage figures (for Palestine, Jordan, and Syria for instance) but not all of them, so I removed the percentage column. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- "a different type of Arabic, rather than just a modified version of the Classical language" I'm not sure what this is trying to say. Would it make more sense to axe this clause and rely on the next one to convey the linguistic view on the relationship of Classical Arabic to Levantine?
- I simplified the sentence. What do you think? FWIW the source was: "In the preceding chapters, we have concentrated on the features that the Arabic vernaculars or dialects have in common as against the Classical Standard language. In that context, we have shown that they represent a different type of Arabic, rather than just a modified version of the Classical language." A455bcd9 (talk)
- Not sure how the second paragraph in Classification is relevant to the article, since it does not seem to be about Levantine specifically. It would be more useful to cite research on how Levantine is understood across the Arab world, if that exists. I would remove this paragraph and merge the section with the previous one into "Naming and classification" (t · c) buidhe 20:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I merged the sanction and changed the paragraph. It turns out the same paper was also exploring how Levantine is understood across the Arab world. What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk)
- Paragraph 2 and 3 in "Diglossia and code-switching" are not about Levantine but about MSA, which seems excessive. I can see a couple sentences about how MSA is used in Arab societies but the article should be about Levantine rather than about MSA.
- "Titles in Levantine are common" -> do you mean headline?
- I don't know how helpful it is to include seven separate romanizations. Personally, I would only show the most commonly used 2-4 since large tables can be hard to read.
- I agree that it would be great to have fewer romanizations. However, none of them are official or more common. (there's a same issue for Romanization of Arabic and Romanization of Russian btw) If it was up to me I would remove Al-Masri and maybe Liddicoat, just because I'm not a big fan of them, but this seems quite an arbitrary choice. Also, Dimadick wrote below: "My only concern is whether we should add further romanizations to allow for the comprehension of the text for readers who can only read in the Latin alphabet." A455bcd9 (talk)
I made a lot of edits to the page in an attempt to improve readability and conciseness. None of them are absolutely necessary and please feel to revert if I got something wrong. A bot should fix the ref errors soon. (t · c) buidhe 03:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I'm happy with the changes (but don't know enough about the subject to feel comfortable supporting). (t · c) buidhe 10:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for all these edits, the article is way more readable now! I fixed the "citation needed"/"when"/"unreliable source". I made a few changes as well.
- Most importantly, I reverted this (your edit message was: "similarity to other Semitic languages does not necessarily say anything about genetic relationship if these are areal features, need clarification if this is to be kept"). According to the source:
Traditionally, Classical Arabic has been regarded as more or less identical with the ancestor of all varieties of Arabic, ancient and modern, and thus as nearly identical to Proto-Arabic (Fischer 1997: 187–8). However, many varieties of Arabic both ancient and modern preserve features lost in Classical Arabic and present a state corresponding more closely to what is found in other Semitic languages (Al-Jallad 2018b, Huehnergard 2017, Pat-El 2017). This shows that these varieties of Arabic cannot have developed from Classical Arabic.
I think the source is reliable (and cites 3 other reliable sources) and clear so that it is enough to keep the passage as it is. Moreover, it makes sense to me:- Areal diffusion only could not explain why some features are shared by all Arabic vernaculars from Morocco to Central Asian Arabic, especially at a time when travel and communication was slow.
- If the shared features with other Semitic languages are only due to areal diffusion, then Classical Arabic, which was used (spoken and/or written) in the same area would most likely have acquired these features as well (and not be the only Arabic variety that doesn't have them)
- If vernaculars descended from Classical Arabic, as Classical Arabic is itself a Semitic language, it would be quite unlikely for some common Semitic features to be lost in Classical Arabic but then to "reappear" (through areal diffusion) in Classical Arabic's descendants (aka, vernaculars). A455bcd9 (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Comments Support by Cerebellum
First of all, I want to congratulate A455bcd9 for their dedication to this article – 1500 edits on one article! I should also note that these are comments only, I'm not experienced at FAC so I'm not qualified to support or oppose. I'm reviewing backwards, starting at the end, because in the GA review I was burned out by the time I got to the end.
- Last sentence of "Vocabulary" - seems like a WP:REFBOMB, the Economist and ref #303 should be sufficient to support the claim. Although personally I disagree, I think Gulf Arabic is closest to MSA ;)
- #303 only compares MSA to Algerian, Tunisian, Palestinian, Syrian, Jordanian, and Egyptian; that's why another editor (I forgot who) said it wasn't enough. The best is Ethnologue as it is the reference in linguistics (they say: "South Levantine Spoken Arabic [ajp] as spoken in Palestine is the most similar to MSA (Kwaik et al 2018, Harrat et al 2015)"). I removed other references. (for the context: before the paragraph was based only on the scientific papers, then Ethnologue added this sentence based on my suggestion [I'm a contributor to Ethnologue] and around the same time The Economist published their article, with figures based on the Wikipedia article, so it's a bit circular...). A455bcd9 (talk)
- Regular verb conjugation - After past (perfect) and present (also called imperfect, b-imperfect, or bi-imperfect). I suggest adding a sentence along the lines of The present tense is formed by adding the prefix b- or m- to the verb root. I know the table explains this but it will help readers understand why it is called the b-imperfect.
- an equivalent passive on forms V and VI I think "on" should be "in".
- assimilates with "Sun letters" Do the sources capitalize sun?
Other than that, the "Grammar" section strikes me as accurate and comprehensive. More to come. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. The "Grammar" section is largely the work of @SarahFatimaK. I'm grateful for all her work on Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Wikibooks. She's on a wikibreak so she may not review this FAC. There's also a longer Levantine Arabic grammar article if you're interested in this topic ;) A455bcd9 (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Finished the rest of the article, I think it is great! Particularly enjoyed the medieval and early modern sections of History, looks like you've redone those since the GA review. Only two minor comments:
- The Damascus Psalm Fragment, dated to the 9th century but possibly earlier, shed light - should be "sheds".
- They also translated foreign works, such as La Fontaine's Fables - The word "Fables" and "The Little Prince" at the end of the paragraph should be italicized.
I also checked source-to-text integrity for some of the references to Brustad & Zuniga, no issues identified. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, I fixed these two points! A455bcd9 (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Cerebellum, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Not sure I'm qualified to give an opinion but I support. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Comments Support by Csisc
I have to thank A455bcd9 for what he has done for Levantine Arabic. I should recognize that many efforts have been provided to turn the work to what we currently see as an output. I consequently invite A455bcd9 to consider publishing it in Wikiversity:WikiJournal of Humanities. We need detailed referentials for the Arabic varieties as this one to progress research on the Arabic Linguistics. However, I need to raise several points that have not been pointed out by A455bcd9:
- Thanks a lot @Csisc:, I didn't know the WikiJournal, I'll have a look! A455bcd9 (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- The work did not mention that Early modern Levantine Arabic alongside Egyptian Arabic have been considered when Arabic linguists have created Modern Standard Arabic as a more intelligible formal variety of Arabic. Several features of Levantine Arabic have been considered in Modern Standard Arabic including Phonology and Morphology.
- That's an excellent idea. @Onceinawhile: suggested the same thing during the PR. Do you have sources on that? (otherwise I should be able to find it I guess) A455bcd9 (talk)
- I've just checked the "Modern Standard Arabic" entry in the Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics; it doesn't mention these Egyptian and Levantine influences. It only says: "Whereas Modern Standard Arabic intonation seems fairly uniform over regions, word stress in Modern Standard Arabic reflects the local colloquial dialect. Egyptian and Lebanese seem to represent two major patterns of stress and are briefly summarized here." Let me know if you have another good source about that point. A455bcd9 (talk)
- Nothing either in "The Emergence of Modern Standard Arabic" in Kees Versteegh's The Arabic Language. A455bcd9 (talk)
- Levantine Arabic phonology did not explain very well the differences between Syrian, Lebanese and South Levantine. Multiple points should be considered. An example is the assimilation in Lebanese: عندنا is pronounced عنّا.
- There is a dedicated page Levantine Arabic phonology and the article is already quite long. Do you think the main differences can be summed up in one paragraph? If so, do you have a source by any chance? A455bcd9 (talk)
- I've just double-checked all sources I had that are centered on Levantine Arabic in general (and not a specific Levantine dialect) and I added almost all the phonetic variations they mention. As the sources say, "The phonology of LA is characterized by rich socio-phonetic variations", so I think it would not be possible to discuss all the differences here. Phonology even varies inside a city (for instance, between the neighborhoods of Beirut). I think these points should be detailed later in Levantine Arabic phonology. What do you think?
- The History Part can be developed a little bit. You can talk about language contact through colonization and the influence of Phoenician on the spread of Arabic in the region.
- I couldn't find good sources on the history of Levantine Arabic. Do you have one? I mentioned language contact through colonization (the Crusades, the Ottomans, the French and British Mandates/Protectorate]), do you think it should be expanded more? Please note that these points are also mentioned in the "Vocabulary" section so here the "History" section is a bit a duplicate unfortunately. And because the article was long, I created Levantine Arabic vocabulary where readers can find more information. Regarding Phoenician, I don't remember any sources mentioning it. Do you have some? A455bcd9 (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Feel free to ask me for any further information when needed. Thank you. --Csisc (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- A455bcd9: I thank you for your answer. I will be happy to support you with further references. We generally lack reference works in Arabic Linguistics. Your work can be an excellent resource for people interested in Levantine Arabic. First, feel free to expand the Bibliography to include interesting works discussing all aspects of the considered variety. A Bibliography should include books about the Orthography, Writing Systems, Morphology, Sociolinguistics, Pragmatics, Semantics, and Dialectology for North and South Levantine. You can write it as Further Reading part. Concerning the reference that you can use to expand the parts I mentioned, you can refer to Commons:File:Feghali_-_Le_Parler_de_Kfár'abîda.pdf. I have uploaded this book. --Csisc (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Old History and Link with Hebrew and Phoenician: You can find details at https://docenti.unimc.it/marco.lauri/teaching/2018/19450/files/articoli/2017_arabic_in_its_semitic_context.pdf and Al Jallad's Ancient Levantine Arabic. When we deal with the link between Hebrew, Phonenician and Levantine. We are NOT evocating the existence of a Substratum from Hebrew or Phoenician. We are EVOCATING that the use of Hebrew and Phoenician prior to the introduction of Arabic and the similarity between thèse languages and Arabic has allowed an easier spread and usage of Levantine Arabic. --Csisc (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. The first link only mentions "Phoenician" once and it's not relevant to Levantine I think. Al Jallad's Ancient Levantine Arabic is 452-page long and yet "Phoenician" is only mentioned on 4 pages (excluding footnotes and references) and I don't see how this is relevant to Levantine. Let me know if there is a specific page and paragraph that I missed. A455bcd9 (talk)
- The influence of Levantine and Egyptian on the normalization of Modern Standard Arabic: During the 19th Century, Arabic linguists have discovered that Classical Arabic is no longer intelligible to the speakers of the Arabic varieties. They borrowed several morphological, semantic and phonological structures from Egyptian and Levantine to invent a new standard variety of Arabic that is easier to learn for the Middle Eastern Community. An explanation can be found in Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions, and Varieties (pp. 37-46). This variety has grown in use thanks to Arab Renaissance. From a phonological perspective, the description of the IPA for Modern Standard Arabic in 1990 has been based on the observation of a Levantine Arabic speaker. Please refer to https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44526807.pdf. From a morphological and semantic perspective, all the work has been described at https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/43774/external_content.pdf?sequence=1#page=65. You can also refer to Remarks on some syntactic trends in Modern Standard Arabic and Beyond lexical variation in modern standard Arabic: Egypt, Lebanon and Morocco. --Csisc (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I checked Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions, and Varieties and I don't see where it mentions "The influence of Levantine and Egyptian on the normalization of Modern Standard Arabic". It actually says something quite opposite p. 44: "It recognizes the arabiya as the only "true" variety of Arabic and hence implicitly rejects the spoken dialects as corrupt." The passage doesn't mention "Levantine" btw. I checked the other link and couldn't find anything either. Also, as Buidhe said above, "the article should be about Levantine rather than about MSA" so we shouldn't talk too much about MSA, I think these points are too detailed for this article and (if we find reliable sources) should be added to Modern Standard Arabic. Still, please let me know if you have the exact reference (especially the page) of what you would like to see added. A455bcd9 (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Phonology: Feel free to refer to https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Levantine+Arabic%22+phonology&btnG=. --Csisc (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- As said below, these sources could be used in Levantine Arabic phonology but are too detailed for this article (which is already quite long). A455bcd9 (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- A455bcd9: Please also add the Romanized Lebanese Transcription for the Example. Feel free to apply all these proposed changes to the main work as well as to Levantine Arabic phonology and Levantine Arabic vocabulary. --Csisc (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Csisc Unfortunately, the Romanized Lebanese Transcription (Akl's alphabet) cannot be added as it uses characters that are not part of the Unicode standard. I tried to find an image but it is subject to copyright. (Also, please note that there were many versions of this alphabet over time...) Yes I think your remarks would be more fit for Levantine Arabic phonology, Levantine Arabic grammar, and Levantine Arabic vocabulary because this article is already quite long and we can't cover everything here :) A455bcd9 (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- @A455bcd9: Several points are relevant to several parts of Levantine Arabic. History and Further Reading should be accordingly expanded. All the Akl's alphabet has been adapted where all the created letters have been substituted by Unicode ones. Please refer to http://www.lebanonlawreview.org/neo-lebanese/. Concerning the points I have raised and that are relevant to Levantine Arabic phonology, Levantine Arabic grammar, and Levantine Arabic vocabulary, feel free to apply them too so that these works can achieve the same quality as the main work. When this is done, feel free to contact me again to publish the work at WikiJournal of Humanities and have credit for it. --Csisc (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Csisc: regarding the "History": could you please answer my comments above?
- Regarding Akl's alphabet: Lebanonlawreview is not a reliable source in linguistics and I couldn't find their alphabet in a peer-reviewed paper or in a reliable book. So I'm afraid we cannot add it unfortunately. Also, as Buidhe commented earlier that: "I don't know how helpful it is to include seven separate romanizations. Personally, I would only show the most commonly used 2-4 since large tables can be hard to read." so it may be better not to add yet another transcription (still, if we find a Unicode-compatible Akl alphabet we could replace Al-Masri in the table and have the same number of columns).
- Regarding "Further Reading": no worries, I will add a bunch of other sources and ping you in due time :) A455bcd9 (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- A455bcd9: Thank you for your answer. Concerning the transliteration, you can use the same writing system you have use for South Levantine. Concerning Arabizi in Orthography and writing systems part, you can add details from https://repositori.upf.edu/bitstream/handle/10230/27669/Bou_2016.pdf?sequence=3. --Csisc (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Csisc. Thanks, unfortunately it's a master's thesis, so it cannot be used in a featured article (only good PhD thesis can I think, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP). A455bcd9 (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- A455bcd9: Concerning Phonology, I found further references that can be used to expand Levantine Arabic phonology at https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?start=0&q=%22Lebanese+Arabic%22&hl=fr&as_sdt=0,5. Feel free to use it. --Csisc (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks @Csisc, I will! Step by step, first this article, then the subarticles for Grammar, Phonology, Vocabulary. And then... Tunisian Arabic? ;) A455bcd9 (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- A455bcd9: Of course, I will be absolutely honoured to work again on Tunisian when you will publish the work on Levantine Arabic in WikiJournal of Humanities. --Csisc (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- A455bcd9: Concerning Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions, and Varieties, it can be used as a reference for language contact and the development of Arabic languages. Concerning the point on the influence on dialects, it can be found on Page 45 (i.e., Anis Furayha proposal "Nahwa 'arabiya muyassara"). You can find details at https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43191693.pdf. You can find references at https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Influence+of+dialects%22+%22Modern+Standard+Arabic%22&btnG=. --Csisc (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Csisc I've added all the reference books and articles about Levantine in Levantine Arabic#Further reading. Are you satisfied with the present version or do you have a couple of references you would like to add? (we cannot add dozens of them and more detailed references could be added to the subarticles Grammar, Vocabulary, Phonology, etc.) A455bcd9 (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Csisc I check p. 45 of Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions, and Varieties but it says that t he proposal to simplify arabiya to make it closer to natively spoken dialects was refused. And in any case, as buidhe said, this article is about Levantine, not about Modern Standard Arabic. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- A455bcd9: Concerning Al Jallad's Ancient Levantine Arabic, he has evocated the influence of Semantic languages in use on the spread of Arabic language in Levant. However, this was not explicitly evocated. We can drop this. You can instead explain the contributions of Phoenician and Hebrew in the constitution of Proto-Arabic as described in https://www.academia.edu/download/61761938/Al-Jallad_Manual_of_Historical_Arabic_v_2020-1.pdf. --Csisc (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks @Csisc. "the contributions of Phoenician and Hebrew in the constitution of Proto-Arabic" is an interesting subject but it is more for Classification of Arabic languages and the general Arabic article. It is not specific to Levantine either. So I think we can drop it for this article. But for sure we will need to work together on Arabic after ;) A455bcd9 (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- A455bcd9: Concerning the influence of Levantine Arabic on Modern Standard Arabic, this is a bit detailed. However, you can find all required references at https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Influence+of+dialects%22+%22Modern+Standard+Arabic%22&btnG=. You can read https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/412204.pdf (e.g., "A number of borrowings have come into MSA via the dialects. While it is true that some of these may have first been introduced by way of writing, they no doubt soon came into everyday use, and (together with some direct dialect borrowings) were then borrowed into MSA with their plurals and various derivations"). You can also refer to Beyond lexical variation in modern standard Arabic: Egypt, Lebanon and Morocco, Variation in modern standard Arabic in radio news broadcasts: a synchronic descriptive investigation into the use of complementary particles, and Remarks on some syntactic trends in Modern Standard Arabic. If you are not convinced, we drop it. --Csisc (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks @Csisc for the references. I'm convinced that this is an important subject but it is wider than Levantine only. This article should focus as much as possible on Levantine Arabic only so I think that this point (the influence of dialects on MSA) would be better addressed in Modern Standard Arabic (much work is needed on that article by the way...). Therefore, I suggest we drop it for now and take it back when we start working on Modern Standard Arabic. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- A455bcd9: Concerning Al Jallad's Ancient Levantine Arabic, he has evocated the influence of Semantic languages in use on the spread of Arabic language in Levant. However, this was not explicitly evocated. We can drop this. You can instead explain the contributions of Phoenician and Hebrew in the constitution of Proto-Arabic as described in https://www.academia.edu/download/61761938/Al-Jallad_Manual_of_Historical_Arabic_v_2020-1.pdf. --Csisc (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Csisc I check p. 45 of Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions, and Varieties but it says that t he proposal to simplify arabiya to make it closer to natively spoken dialects was refused. And in any case, as buidhe said, this article is about Levantine, not about Modern Standard Arabic. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Csisc I've added all the reference books and articles about Levantine in Levantine Arabic#Further reading. Are you satisfied with the present version or do you have a couple of references you would like to add? (we cannot add dozens of them and more detailed references could be added to the subarticles Grammar, Vocabulary, Phonology, etc.) A455bcd9 (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks @Csisc, I will! Step by step, first this article, then the subarticles for Grammar, Phonology, Vocabulary. And then... Tunisian Arabic? ;) A455bcd9 (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- A455bcd9: Thank you for your answer. Concerning the transliteration, you can use the same writing system you have use for South Levantine. Concerning Arabizi in Orthography and writing systems part, you can add details from https://repositori.upf.edu/bitstream/handle/10230/27669/Bou_2016.pdf?sequence=3. --Csisc (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- @A455bcd9: Several points are relevant to several parts of Levantine Arabic. History and Further Reading should be accordingly expanded. All the Akl's alphabet has been adapted where all the created letters have been substituted by Unicode ones. Please refer to http://www.lebanonlawreview.org/neo-lebanese/. Concerning the points I have raised and that are relevant to Levantine Arabic phonology, Levantine Arabic grammar, and Levantine Arabic vocabulary, feel free to apply them too so that these works can achieve the same quality as the main work. When this is done, feel free to contact me again to publish the work at WikiJournal of Humanities and have credit for it. --Csisc (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Csisc Unfortunately, the Romanized Lebanese Transcription (Akl's alphabet) cannot be added as it uses characters that are not part of the Unicode standard. I tried to find an image but it is subject to copyright. (Also, please note that there were many versions of this alphabet over time...) Yes I think your remarks would be more fit for Levantine Arabic phonology, Levantine Arabic grammar, and Levantine Arabic vocabulary because this article is already quite long and we can't cover everything here :) A455bcd9 (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- A455bcd9: I thank you for your answer. I will be happy to support you with further references. We generally lack reference works in Arabic Linguistics. Your work can be an excellent resource for people interested in Levantine Arabic. First, feel free to expand the Bibliography to include interesting works discussing all aspects of the considered variety. A Bibliography should include books about the Orthography, Writing Systems, Morphology, Sociolinguistics, Pragmatics, Semantics, and Dialectology for North and South Levantine. You can write it as Further Reading part. Concerning the reference that you can use to expand the parts I mentioned, you can refer to Commons:File:Feghali_-_Le_Parler_de_Kfár'abîda.pdf. I have uploaded this book. --Csisc (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
support. The work is outstanding and it needs to become featured. A455bcd9: What I propose is:
- Making the History part without subsection titles. Concerning the red link for "Latin alphabet for Lebanese", please let it refer to Said Akl#Lebanese language and alphabet.
- Concerning the other points, they are more relevant to Modern Standard Arabic. We will certainly work on them when you finish working on Levantine Arabic phonology, Levantine Arabic grammar, and Levantine Arabic vocabulary and also work on Tunisian Arabic.
- Concerning Status and usage, the Education and Films and music parts need to be expanded. Education can become Education and Research. You can talk about when the first linguistic study has been conducted on Levantine Arabic and how research on Levantine Arabic has evolved resulting in NLP and Linguistic research. You can talk about when Levantine Arabic is taught all over the world and whether there are education programs for Levantine. Concerning Films and Music, it can be expanded to include the first traces of songs in Levantine.
- Concerning the transcription in Romanized Lebanese, you can use the same writing system as Romanized Palestinian and finish it.
--Csisc (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! #1: Latin alphabet for Lebanese now points to your suggestion. #2: For sure! #3: "You can talk about when Levantine Arabic is taught all over the world and whether there are education programs for Levantine." => I added this at the beginning of the article (
most commonly taught to non-native speakers outside the Arab world
). "first traces of songs in Levantine": any idea where I could find a source for that? #4: I'll see what I can do. Thanks again for your help and suggestions :) A455bcd9 (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)- I've also just added more references in "Further reading". A455bcd9 (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- A455bcd9: Metonyms of modernity in contemporary Syrian music and painting and Among the jasmine trees: Music, modernity, and the aesthetics of authenticity in contemporary Syria can provide a description of how music evolved in Levantine. Concerning Education and Research, you can find references online about historical works and NLP for Levantine Arabic. An example is Proverbes et dictons de la province de Syrie of 1883. Another example for NLP is Natural language processing for dialectical Arabic: A Survey. --Csisc (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- A455bcd9: I have also seen that you did not describe the Pragmatics of Levantine Arabic. You can refer to https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Pragmatics+Levantine&btnG=. --Csisc (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've also just added more references in "Further reading". A455bcd9 (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Support by Dimadick
Support Very comprehensive in its current form, and the list of citations is unusually large. It also covers well the diglossia prominent in the relative relative region, and provides written samples of Levantine Arabic. My only concern is whether we should add further romanizations to allow for the comprehension of the text for readers who can only read in the Latin alphabet. Dimadick (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! What do you mean by "whether we should add further romanizations"? (I tried to follow WP:MOSAR, even though it's more for MSA) A455bcd9 (talk) 06:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging Dimadick. Nehme1499 21:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- In the "Sample texts" section, part of the Lebanese Arabic text has not been Romanized. Whether it is any different than the Palestinian Arabic is not clear. Dimadick (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes unfortunately the book didn't provide the Romanized version (besides the title) and I wondered whether it could be WP:OR to transliterate it. But if it's not and someone (@Nehme1499?) wants to transliterate it please feel free to do so. A455bcd9 (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not really able to transliterate in that way. I'm only able to do so in the unofficial "text message" system (see Lebanese Arabic#Writing system). So, I would write "al-amir az-z'ghir" as "l amir l z8ir". Nehme1499 07:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes unfortunately the book didn't provide the Romanized version (besides the title) and I wondered whether it could be WP:OR to transliterate it. But if it's not and someone (@Nehme1499?) wants to transliterate it please feel free to do so. A455bcd9 (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- In the "Sample texts" section, part of the Lebanese Arabic text has not been Romanized. Whether it is any different than the Palestinian Arabic is not clear. Dimadick (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging Dimadick. Nehme1499 21:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Nehme1499
Very nice article, I was surprised to see that so much effort has been put into it recently! I just wanted to comment regarding the infobox image: I had created the image back in 2018 using Microsoft Paint, to which A455bcd9 made a minor change. I think it would be nice if someone, who had a more sophisticated software at hand, could recreate the image from scratch in better quality. The sources are already listed there, so it would just be a matter of mapping based on the Jordan/Syria language border map. For Turkey, we'd manually include the Adana, Mersin and Hatay provinces. Nehme1499 09:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks @Nehme1499! I agree it would be nice to have a better quality map: I've just posted a request in the map workshop. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nehme1499, @Guerillero made File:LevantineArabic.svg. What do you think? Looks great to me, I made a few comments here (mainly on the colors + borders). Feel free to comment there as well. A455bcd9 (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- A little late here, but shouldn’t the Negev region be excluded from this map, since the article states the Arabic spoken there is not a Levantine dialect in the Naming section? Also not consistent with another map in the article, File:Arabic Dialects.svg. Al Ameer (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ideally you're probably right. However, the sources we have include the Negev in their map to say that Levantine is widespread across Israel. Actually if we wanted a really accurate map we would only include localities with significant Arab populations: File:Map of Arabic speaking localities in Israel.png (other areas are either empty or populated mainly by non-Levantine speaking Jews) But anyway, we have to follow the sources. A455bcd9 (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think it would be a good idea to have dashes instead of full colour for Israel and the Mersin/Adana/Hatay area (and potentially other areas?), to indicate that Levantine Arabic in those regions isn't the primary language. Regarding the Negev, is there a source that states that Levantine Arabic is spoken there? I'd be very surprised if that was the case. Nehme1499 07:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes there are two sources: Ethnologue, which says that South Levantine is "widespread" in Israel (meaning, spoken on the whole territory) and Brustad and Zuniga which have a map coloring the whole Israel. So unfortunately, we cannot use dashes I think and we have to respect whatever sources we have. I would love a better source to exist but despite A LOT of research, I haven't been able to find any...
- By the way, if we want to be correct, we should also exclude Jewish settlements from the West Bank. But the map is not the territory, the map will always be wrong, it's just of model of the reality, and I think we have to accept the current one as the best we can have for the moment (unfortunately!). A455bcd9 (talk) 08:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think it would be a good idea to have dashes instead of full colour for Israel and the Mersin/Adana/Hatay area (and potentially other areas?), to indicate that Levantine Arabic in those regions isn't the primary language. Regarding the Negev, is there a source that states that Levantine Arabic is spoken there? I'd be very surprised if that was the case. Nehme1499 07:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ideally you're probably right. However, the sources we have include the Negev in their map to say that Levantine is widespread across Israel. Actually if we wanted a really accurate map we would only include localities with significant Arab populations: File:Map of Arabic speaking localities in Israel.png (other areas are either empty or populated mainly by non-Levantine speaking Jews) But anyway, we have to follow the sources. A455bcd9 (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- A little late here, but shouldn’t the Negev region be excluded from this map, since the article states the Arabic spoken there is not a Levantine dialect in the Naming section? Also not consistent with another map in the article, File:Arabic Dialects.svg. Al Ameer (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Nehme1499, @Guerillero made File:LevantineArabic.svg. What do you think? Looks great to me, I made a few comments here (mainly on the colors + borders). Feel free to comment there as well. A455bcd9 (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the other maps of Levantine Arabic / Arabic dialects in the Levant, once the SVG map is completed:
- c:File:Levantine Arabic Map.jpg and c:File:Levantine Arabic Map 2021.jpg should be deleted as the SVG map would be identical, but more accurate and of better quality
- c:File:Levantine Arabic Map v4-ar.png, c:File:Levantine Arabic Map v4.png and c:File:Levantine Arabic Map.png should also be deleted as they are inaccurate and are mostly OR
- c:File:Map Arabic in the Levant.jpg should also have its own SVG better-quality version, with other languages in the Levant region (such as Najdi, Levantine Bedawi, Assyrian, Hebrew, etc.) Nehme1499 06:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not against deleting these files but I think the practice on Wikimedia Commons is to keep all files and never to delete them (unless there's a copyright infringement). A455bcd9 (talk) 08:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Regrettably, A455bcd9 is right. The most you can do is add a pointer to the higher-quality or more correct file. (t · c) buidhe 19:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Nehme1499: I added the new map to Levantine Arabic. As we cannot easily delete the previous files, I added a pointer to the new map as recommended by buidhe saying that "This file has been superseded" (see for instance: File:Levantine Arabic Map 2021.jpg). I also updated all articles on all Wikipedias using one of the old maps. Please let me know if you're in a position to support or if there are other things that need to be improved :) A455bcd9 (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- By the way you can actually ask for the old maps to be deleted by following this procedure. A455bcd9 (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you (and Guerillero) for taking care of the map, it looks much better now! Regarding my position: unfortunately, I have almost no knowledge about linguistics (as much as the subject is interesting to me), so I don't feel qualified to support. I really hope other users (who have more expertise on the topic) can voice their opinion. Nehme1499 12:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- No worries, I understand! :) A455bcd9 (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Nehme1499, if you don't feel able to support (I know zilch about linguistics and I have to close this!) I would appreciate it if you could confirm that you have no reason to oppose - assuming that that is the case. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: I do not. I neither have reasons to support nor oppose. Nehme1499 16:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Nehme1499, if you don't feel able to support (I know zilch about linguistics and I have to close this!) I would appreciate it if you could confirm that you have no reason to oppose - assuming that that is the case. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- No worries, I understand! :) A455bcd9 (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you (and Guerillero) for taking care of the map, it looks much better now! Regarding my position: unfortunately, I have almost no knowledge about linguistics (as much as the subject is interesting to me), so I don't feel qualified to support. I really hope other users (who have more expertise on the topic) can voice their opinion. Nehme1499 12:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- By the way you can actually ask for the old maps to be deleted by following this procedure. A455bcd9 (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Nehme1499: I added the new map to Levantine Arabic. As we cannot easily delete the previous files, I added a pointer to the new map as recommended by buidhe saying that "This file has been superseded" (see for instance: File:Levantine Arabic Map 2021.jpg). I also updated all articles on all Wikipedias using one of the old maps. Please let me know if you're in a position to support or if there are other things that need to be improved :) A455bcd9 (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Regrettably, A455bcd9 is right. The most you can do is add a pointer to the higher-quality or more correct file. (t · c) buidhe 19:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Al Ameer
Great work overall, but some concerns and comments I hope the nominator could address. As I do not know much about linguistics, these will be mainly concerned with History, prose and MoS.
- "... proving that these varieties cannot have developed from Classical Arabic" reads as a thesis statement. Because it’s in Wikipedia’s voice without attribution, it implies the statement is uncontested. If it is uncontested, could you confirm? If not quite, then I would suggest: "Many Arabic varieties preserve features lost in Classical Arabic and are closer to other Semitic languages, which, to most scholars, indicates these varieties did not develop from Classical Arabic."
- According to the source:
Traditionally, Classical Arabic has been regarded as more or less identical with the ancestor of all varieties of Arabic, ancient and modern, and thus as nearly identical to Proto-Arabic (Fischer 1997: 187–8). However, many varieties of Arabic both ancient and modern preserve features lost in Classical Arabic and present a state corresponding more closely to what is found in other Semitic languages (Al-Jallad 2018b, Huehnergard 2017, Pat-El 2017). This shows that these varieties of Arabic cannot have developed from Classical Arabic.
I didn't find any scholar contesting this statement in recent years. So I think it is uncontested today. But I'm happy to add "according to most scholars" if you think it is necessary. A455bcd9 (talk)
- "considered the most beautiful variety by Arabs"—though backed by two RS, this seems too bold of a statement as there are hundreds of millions of Arabic speakers and I cannot imagine they all consider Levantine to be the most beautiful dialect. Perhaps qualify this statement?
- The sources are: 1/ a small survey of native (NS) and non-native speakers (NNS) concluding:
In response to the question “Which Arabic dialect(s) do you think sound the most beautiful?” both NS and NNS preferred the Levantine dialect.
(52% of the votes among native-speakers) and 2/ Schmitt:Any Arabs outside of the Levant consider Levantine Arabic to be more beautiful in comparison to other dialects in the Arab world.
I added "by most Arabs" to qualify the statement. Let me know if this is okay for you. A455bcd9 (talk)
- "With the Muslim conquest of the Levant, some Arabic speakers settled in the Levant". I think more specifics are warranted. Perhaps "The 7th-century Muslim conquest brought a wave of Arabic speakers who settled in the Levant" or something along these lines.
- The source only says:
With the advent of Islam, the entire Levant became the new home of Arabic speakers originating from the Arabian Peninsula as well
I modified a bit the sentence but I'm reluctant to use the term "wave" because we don't know how many Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula settled in the Levant and wave implies a big number I think. What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk)
- Since about eight decades passed between the conquest and the institution of Arabic as the language of administration, I would split this off into a separate sentence and state "In the early 8th century, under Umayyad. rule, Arabic replaced Greek as the language of administration".
- According to Magidow:
Greek had little success in becoming the spoken language of the Levant, in spite of nearly nine hundred years of Greek administration prior its replacement by Arabic in the seventh century CE.
Sources I have don't mention the early 8th century, do you have such a source? A455bcd9 (talk)
- Link Samaritans
- Already linked above (in "Ethnicity and religion"). Should I still link it? Or duplicate link? A455bcd9 (talk)
- "Eventually, Aramaic nearly disappeared", any general idea when?
- No because it didn't disappear as it is still spoken today. So we would need to define "nearly". Sources don't mention that. They just say it was a very long and gradual process. A455bcd9 (talk)
- There are Arabic names of places and persons written with diacritics (el-Rāʿi, Ṭannūs al-Ḥurr), while most others do not. I would remove for consistency.
- Several duplicate links which should be removed. You can use this side-bar tool to highlight these.
- I removed many of them. I kept those where different terms point to the same article because I think it can help readers. For instance, "Latinize" and "Romanization" linked to Romanization, or "invisible copula" and "no copula" linked to zero copula. If this is not okay let me know. A455bcd9 (talk)
Will continue over the next day or two. Al Ameer (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot @Al Ameer son for taking the time to review this nomination :) Please let me know if my answers addressed your comments. A455bcd9 (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Hamlet chicken processing plant fire
- Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
This 1991 chicken processing plant fire was one of worst moments in North Carolina's modern history, killing 25 workers (making it the second deadliest industrial disaster in the state) and disrupting life in the small Southern town of Hamlet for a generation. The tragedy was largely the fault of the owner, who locked the fire exits and had his workers make repairs with improvised parts. He went to jail for a few years and the state government took a brief interest in fixing holes in safety enforcement. The article was originally an FA back in 2007, but was so deficient it was delisted four years later. I have rewritten the article top to bottom, largely thanks to a historian's scholarship which shed much needed-light on the events preceding and following the conflagration. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Reminder to update Wikipedia:Former featured articles#Former featured articles that have been re-promoted if this is re-promoted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Since it's a descriptive title it might work better not shoehorning it into the first sentence. I think "On September 3, 1991 an industrial fire caused by a failure in a hydraulic line destroyed the Imperial Food Products chicken processing plant in Hamlet, North Carolina." is better prose than what you have now (t · c) buidhe 05:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Done.
Support
I followed this article on its last go-round as an FA, and am most pleased to see Indy beetle restore this horrific story to the prominence it deserves, using updated and high quality sources, and expanding the article almost three-fold. I picked my nits and reviewed the medical content and sourcing on talk. Nice job on a horrid topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- One more from me. The first paragraph of the lead mentions the 25 dead and 54 injured, but that same info is repeated in para 3 of the lead. In the third para, instead of:
- "Casualties totaled 25 dead and 54 injured to varying degrees; most of the deceased were killed by smoke inhalation. Of the dead, 18 were female and 7 were male. One was a vending deliveryman, the rest were Imperial workers."
- how about --->
- Most of the deceased were killed by smoke inhalation. Of those who died, 18 were female and 7 were male. One was a vending deliveryman, the rest were Imperial workers.
- "Casualties totaled 25 dead and 54 injured to varying degrees; most of the deceased were killed by smoke inhalation. Of the dead, 18 were female and 7 were male. One was a vending deliveryman, the rest were Imperial workers."
- or some such ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Done. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- One more from me. The first paragraph of the lead mentions the 25 dead and 54 injured, but that same info is repeated in para 3 of the lead. In the third para, instead of:
Drive-by comment from Sdkb
Hi Indy beetle! I regrettably don't have time to give this a review, but I just wanted to note one thing looking at the infobox. The fields |Accused=
, |Convicted=
, |Charges=
, |Verdict=
, |Convictions=
, and |Sentence=
seem like they ideally ought to be handled in a better way that creates less redundancy. E.g. Roe is currently listed twice, and the fact that there was one conviction is implied from the fact that we only have one name. I'm not sure whether this stems from larger problems with {{Infobox event}} (in which case it's beyond the scope of FAC) or the particular implementation of it here, but just something to consider. Best of luck with this nomination! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've revised this info, largely a remnant of the old version of the article. I could go without it in the infobox, since while Roe was found guilty of criminal conduct, it's obvious that this incident was much larger than a criminal case. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Serial #
Placeholder for review. SN54129 19:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- 92145: Cough! Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Ovinus
Will review over the next few days. Ovinus (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC) Extended comments are on talk page. Ovinus (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC) Initial comments:
- "with many unable to escape due to blocked exits" feels a bit shoehorned in there. Is the point that the plant was unsafe? I think the last sentence is good enough
- I can reword it if you want, but if you look up "Hamlet chicken plant fire", particular retrospective news articles, the two most common things you'll find are "blocked exits" and "no safety inspection", so it seemed important to mention this off the bat.
- Overall the lead is rather plump and overly detailed (e.g.,
"Of those who died, 18 were female and 7 were male. One was a vending deliveryman and the rest were Imperial workers.""in violation of safety rules" is pretty obvious and the decision's egregiousness speaks for itself.) Perhaps the less salient details could be filtered out so it's less of a play-by-play- Some of that is probably there because I asked for more detail about the victims in the lead. Indy, whatever you think best here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Was sxpecting some disagreement here, so my rationale is that the lead should only contain one to two medium-length paragraphs detailing the incident itself; the (current) first and last paragraphs are much more important by giving context. C.f. recently promoted FA Space Shuttle Challenger disaster which only spends one paragraph on the actual disaster. I think a compromise is reasonable, esp in this case. But Sandy's makes a good point; mentioning that the victims were mostly African American and women is quite sensible. I'm more hesitant about information like "Fueled by a combination of the hydraulic fluid, chicken grease, the fryer vats' soybean oil, and natural gas"... I just don't see how that informs a reader interested in the ramifications of this tragedy, unless they're an engineer.... :P Ovinus (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not fussed either way you all decide to go ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Err, most of those killed were indeed women, but the racial breakdown on victims was split evenly. I've removed the "Fueled by..." bit as I see why its extraneous. I thought it was important to mention that these were explicitly safety violations; not every country has fire and worker safety codes that are supposed to be followed.
- (edit conflict) Was sxpecting some disagreement here, so my rationale is that the lead should only contain one to two medium-length paragraphs detailing the incident itself; the (current) first and last paragraphs are much more important by giving context. C.f. recently promoted FA Space Shuttle Challenger disaster which only spends one paragraph on the actual disaster. I think a compromise is reasonable, esp in this case. But Sandy's makes a good point; mentioning that the victims were mostly African American and women is quite sensible. I'm more hesitant about information like "Fueled by a combination of the hydraulic fluid, chicken grease, the fryer vats' soybean oil, and natural gas"... I just don't see how that informs a reader interested in the ramifications of this tragedy, unless they're an engineer.... :P Ovinus (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Some of that is probably there because I asked for more detail about the victims in the lead. Indy, whatever you think best here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- "record-high state-imposed fine for safety violations" quantity?
- Added.
- "according to the city manager" Does this quote need to be attributed?
- It is attributed to the city manager. Since this is the only part of the story that really involves this local official I didn't think it prudent to mention his name, unless you think clarity is necessary.
- Considering the incriminating statement, I think the attribution is needed, but "city manager" suffices. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Identified by name now. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: So far the article is looking very thorough and giving good context. As with the lead, there are spots in the body that I finda bit too much, e.g. "Food safety inspectors from the [USDA] visited the plant daily to examine the quality of the chicken, check for insects and varmints, and ensure that the facility's workers and processes were hygienic" could just be "Inspectors from the [USDA] visited the plant daily." Hopefully others can weigh in Ovinus (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- As you'll see below, the fact that USDA inspectors were aware of and did not stop the fire code issues created some problems. Since it was chalked up to a matter of training and jurisdiction, I though it important to detail what the USDA inspectors were actually doing there. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Ovinus, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Soon; I've left a few things to discuss on the talk page. Ovinus (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Ovinus, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Source review
Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed
- Was the labelled fire exit blocked or locked? This is inconsistently reported
- Both are true, more infamously the locked doors (which is very specific, the fire report mentions some doors being "blocked" as well).
- FN132 is missing page number
- Web source; url added.
- FN152: author name doesn't match source, and what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
- Name corrected. The publisher of the Organica magazine is Aubrey Organics, and while the company still exists, it seems they abandoned their magazine. The company definitely seemed to be attempting to appeal to the young New Age health crowd, and thus you'll see their magazine advertised their organic products (shampoos and whatnot) while also publishing articles about environmental activism and whatnot to get the youngins all excited. So it makes sense why they'd have an article about two filmmakers who created a short documentary on a workers' disaster. Is it "a high-quality reliable source"? Probably not. But the claim it is supporting (that a "20-minute documentary titled Hamlet: Out of the Ashes" was made) is relatively minor, and its clear from the article that the author interviewed the filmmakers and community members. Either way, I'm not beholden to keeping this here, it was just another small fact.
- FNs 130 and 155 should use the same formatting
- Done.
- Be consistent about when/whether you include publication locations
- Should be fixed.
- How does Dixon meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
- Dixon got his PhD (so we can presume the dissertation was a success) and reviewed Simon's book for the Journal of Social History. He is currently the managing editor of Labor: Studies in Working-Class History, a journal with ties to both Georgetown University and Duke University Press [21][22].
- This supports that he is now an expert in the field, but for SCHOLARSHIP looking for "cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- His adviser thesis adviser was Joseph A. McCartin, who I think would qualify as a "recognized specialists in the field".
- This supports that he is now an expert in the field, but for SCHOLARSHIP looking for "cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Dixon got his PhD (so we can presume the dissertation was a success) and reviewed Simon's book for the Journal of Social History. He is currently the managing editor of Labor: Studies in Working-Class History, a journal with ties to both Georgetown University and Duke University Press [21][22].
- Be consistent in whether you include publisher for magazines
- Not sure what you're getting at with this?
- For example Fishwick includes publisher, but similar refs do not. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- All of the trade-based publications should now have publishers listed (since the Loss Prevention Bulletin and the NFPA Journal in particular seem inextricably linked to their publishing organizations as a matter of source credibility).
- For example Fishwick includes publisher, but similar refs do not. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure what you're getting at with this?
- The LaBar source is not a news source. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed.
Harry
Comments mostly on prose, but I do have some experience writing FAs on events.
- The Hamlet chicken processing plant fire was an industrial fire It's a common pitfall of Wikipedia articles because of the way we structure our lead sentences, but can we avoid saying "the fire was a fire"?
- I'm not sure how else we'd get a clean link to industrial fire, which seems relevant.
- injured 54, with many unable to escape the ", with" construction, though tempting and common, is ungrammatical. "Many of whom" or similar would be preferable.
- Revised.
- due to locked exits seems a little passive to me, and begs the question "why were the exits locked?"
- This is explained in the next paragraph.
- The link on safety is a bit of an Easter egg; fire alarm is probably unnecessary as a commonly understood term; tractor-trailer delivery truck is unnecessary ("truck" would suffice; it's a common English term and the type of truck isn't relevant)
- Shortened on the truck thing. I don't think the safety thing is that much of an issue, since it's the exact type of safety which is pertinent. I also don't see why linking "fire alarm" is really much of an issue, seeing as it is relevant to the subject and the exact text would be there regardless of the possibility of a wikilink.
- in violation of safety rules without going to too much detail, whose rules? Legislation, regulation, company policy?
- Now in violation of federal safety regulations
- Some were able to escape through the plant's front door, while others could not leave due to locked or obstructed exits That "while" isn't doing anything. Suggest replacing it with a semicolon or full stop. And this is the first we've heard of obstructed exits, as opposed to locked ones?
- See above. Obstructed does not preclude locked, a lock is a form of obstruction.
- , while one maintenance worker kicked another unnecessary "while". Joining two semi-related facts like this into one sentence is tempting, but there's nothing inherently wrong with short sentences.
- Two sentences now.
- Most of the deceased were killed by smoke inhalation "dead" would suffice per WP:EUPHEMISM and the princniple of writing in plain English
- Changed. Point taken on plain English, though I'd argue that being "deceased" is not a euphemism.
- Most of the deceased were killed by smoke inhalation. Of those who died, 18 were female and 7 were male. One was a vending deliveryman and the rest were Imperial workers. I know I just said there's nothing inherently wrong with short sentences, but that's three closely related facts in separate consecutive sentences, making for a choppy read.
- Semicolon insterted.
- hit with seems a little informal
- Revised.
- Fire survivors just "survivors" would suffice in the context of an article about a fire; "adverse" can also be inferred from the context
- Removed "fire".
- he served only about four years "only" is editorialising; stick to the facts and let the reader form their own opinion
- Removed “only”.
- including whistleblower protections, while the state inspector corps ", while" again; this one is particularly problematic because it implies the events happened concurrently
- Changed to "and".
That's just the lead for now but I would imagine similar improvements could be made in several places in the body. I'll be back when I have time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Assisted by employment agencies run by the the way the sentence is structured suggests that the local governments/employment agencies deliberately recruited people matching that profile, whereas I'm guessing it's a (mostly) unintentional consequence of the nature of the work and the location.
- Understood, removed.
- In 1989, the inspectors noticed a large amount of flies amount → number
- Done.
- 90 reported for work, with the other 30 ", with" again
- Done.
- ostensibly because of their experience with complex conflagrations "ostensibly" is a loaded word that suggests that what follows in untrue
- Simon makes it clear that this is Fuller's claim. "Ostensibly" is a little harsh, but it seemed convenient. I don't know how the Cordova Fire Department would have gotten such experience anyway unless one of the town mills had caught fire, but I've never seen any sources to suggest that.
- He said he felt there were more than sufficient You don't need "he said" and "he felt"
- Removed "he felt"
- Between 50 to 60 you need an "and" if you're using "between".
- Done.
- municipal officials declined, with the city attorney citing "unresolved liability issues the "with" adds nothing here.
- Removed "with".
That's it from me. I had some issues with the lead, and I might have a little bit more to say on those, but I'm very impressed with the body. I found it a moving and very readable account of a tragic and disturbing event. The description of the chain of events in particular is excellent—it tells the reader exactly what happened, in plain English, without imparting judgement or opinion. A model of what I look for in an FA about an event. With just a little bit of prose tinkering, I'm sure I'll be supporting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Battle of Glasgow, Missouri
A cousin to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Capture of Sedalia/archive1. The Confederates need weapons, so they raid a town on the Missouri River, getting weapons and supplies and burning a steamboat. Hog Farm Talk 16:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild
Having just looked at this for ACR I may as well recuse and rereview it.
- "gave Abraham Lincoln, who supported continuing the war, an edge in the 1864 United States presidential election over George B. McClellan, who favored ending the war." This doesn't come across as relevant to the rest of the article. Suggest either deleting or expanding a little. Preferably the latter.
- I've added a sentence about Southern hopes for McClellan
- "who had fewer than 10,000 men on hand". Any ideas on the split of infantry and cavalry and if there were any artillery?
- I believe it was nominally split between infantry and cavalry, but I'm not finding good breakdowns between the two or much comment on artillery, with the sole exception breakdowns of Ewing's scratch force at Pilot Knob. Collins just gives the overall total; Suderow (a newly-added source) just gives muster totals from August; Sinisi talks about reduced strength due to a botched vaccination but not a force breakdown, and I can't find anything super useful in Lause, Kennedy, or Nichols.
- Optional (just a thought): Consider adding something like 'The breakdown of this force is unclear.' 'It is not known how much, if any, artillery was available to Rosecrans.
- Unfortunately, the sources don't even say that. They're just silent on the issue.
- Optional (just a thought): Consider adding something like 'The breakdown of this force is unclear.' 'It is not known how much, if any, artillery was available to Rosecrans.
- "who had fewer than 10,000 men on hand"; "whose garrison was increased from 1,000 men to 7,000". Was that 7,000 of the 10,000? Or had additional Union troops entered the state? If so, from where?
- I've clarified that Rosecrans received reinforcements at St. Louis, and that the increase to 7,000 was from bringing troops in from elsewhere in the state and from calling up more militia
- " Attacks against the post on September 27 failed ... and decided to divert the aim of his advance from St. Louis westwards to Jefferson City." Yet the map shows him continuing towards St Louis until 1 October and only turning west at Franklin.
- I've added some detail about what was going on here from a book specifically about the Pilot Knob fiasco
- Ah. That's better.
- "Price determined that Jefferson City was too strong to attack, and began moving westwards along the course of the Missouri River." I don't understand - the map shows the Confederates turning west and following the Missouri a week before they reached Jefferson City.
- Rephrased
- "On the 11th, Sanborn moved north and skirmished with the Confederates, who abandoned the town". Which town?
- Clarified (Boonville)
- "and then crossed the Missouri at Arrow Rock". Is it known how they crossed?
- Added (ferry)
- "to effectively fire across it". Do you mean 'to fire across it effectively'?
- Done
- "The Union had no artillery available." Perhaps 'The Union force had no artillery available.'?
- Done
- "The line was anchored by". What line?
- Clarified
- "drove away some Confederates from the riverbank". Maybe 'drove some Confederates away from the riverbank'?
- Done
- "Clark's force, delayed an hour while trying to cross the river". Which river?
- The Missouri. Clarified
- "on both sides of their line." I think you mean 'on both ends of their line.'.
- Corrected
- "give a maximum number of thirty-two wounded and eight to eleven killed". Why the switch to giving figures in words?
- This was a response to a comment of yours in the ACR - ""32 wounded and eight to eleven killed". Could we have these numbers either all spelt out or all as numerals?" I can switch to numerals if preferred, although I find using the numerals for the small numbers a bit jarring
- I find the switch jarring! The MoS leans towards standardisation but I am happy to leave it as a personal preference issue.
- "An engine removed from the riverbed at Glasgow during World War II". Is it significent that it was removed during WWII? If not, suggest just stating the year. (Or 'during the early 1940s'.)
- Source doesn't give a year. I've specified that it occurred during a WWII scrap drive to indicate the significance (surprisingly, I'm having trouble finding a particularly good place to link the WWII scrap drive concept)
Gog the Mild (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: - Replied above - one not done (for now), and I'm having trouble finding something for the breakdown of Rosecrans's 10,000. I've also added two new sources used briefly for background information. The Suderow book published by SEMO should be fine for reliability, and Battle Cry of Freedom is basically above reproach there. My formatting might need checked though. Hog Farm Talk 05:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Looks good. One very optional suggestion above, but I am supporting and unwatching. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Source review - pass
When I did the source review for this article's ACR nomination five days ago I did so to FAC standard, so I shall merely repeat my conclusions:
- The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gog the Mild (talk • contribs) 18:57, March 4, 2022 (UTC)
Image review—pass
Per ACR (t · c) buidhe 04:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support on 1a, 2, 3, and 4 per my review at the ACR. I have no additional comments at this time. (t · c) buidhe 00:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia
Support on all criteria (except images, reviewed by Buidhe). My review is on talk; nitpicks addressed. A U. S. Supreme Court case resulted from the fire started by Harding, related to an insurance company claim. The findings left insurance company practices intact, so the case has no lasting significance, is of no significance to the Battle article, and amounts to "just another lawsuit", ho-hum. It needs not be mentioned to meet comprehensiveness. If Insurance Co. v. Boon were of any significance, it should have an article, but I can find no reason for that to be the case, as it changed nothing about insurance claims during war. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm a bit surprised that none of the print sources I consulted mentioned it. Hog Farm Talk 15:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Because it's inconsequential; I only found it because it is mentioned on article talk (I always, and believe reviewers always should) review the article talk page, and its archives, in search of POV swept under the rug or comprehensiveness issues :0 Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie
Suggest linking Abraham Lincoln, 1864 United States presidential election, George B. McClellan, militiamen.- Done
I assume, since you mention how many of Rosecrans' men were militiamen, that this implies they are weaker troops than the regular army. If so, could we add an adjective or two to make that clearer? Perhaps "poorly trained", or "less experienced", or "untested", or whatever applies.- I've clarified with "without experience in major battles"
"and militia, including by calling up some of the Enrolled Missouri Militia": "including by calling up" is a bit ugly. Could we do something like "and militia, including some of the Enrolled Missouri Militia, who were called up after the Battle of Pilot Knob" or "who were called up at short notice", or whatever the sources will support?- Went with the short notice one
You mention Bloody Bill Anderson joining the Confederates, and the dates given make it appear that it was on or after October 9. Our article on Anderson (which is featured, as it happens) says he met Price in Boonville on October 6. Is one of the two articles incorrect, or is the sequence more complicated than it appears?- Collins implies that it was on the 10th. Nichols says directly in two places that it occurred on the 11th. Sinisi also places it at the 11th, discussing the event in some detail (Price was giving a speech, Anderson's boys rode up, Price made them get rid of the scalps, Anderson gave Price a brace of pistols, Price sent Anderson away with orders he didn't follow). I'm not sure if Wood in the Anderson article is wrong, or if October 6 is the day Anderson began riding towards Price
- User:Mark Arsten hasn't edited since 2020, and in fact lost his admin bits, so perhaps HF you will just make adjustments needed to William T. Anderson so we don't have to see it at FAR :) :) (Nice review, Mike Christie! Now we have an example of what I do not mean when I use the term prose nitpicks, as these are all issues of substance.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Brownlee's Gray Ghosts of the Confederacy discusses Anderson in-depth, and places the meeting on October 11, as well. Brownlee also doesn't mention the bit with the trained horse as well (see below). Hog Farm Talk 20:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for cleaning that up. And thanks for the compliment, Sandy! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Brownlee's Gray Ghosts of the Confederacy discusses Anderson in-depth, and places the meeting on October 11, as well. Brownlee also doesn't mention the bit with the trained horse as well (see below). Hog Farm Talk 20:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- User:Mark Arsten hasn't edited since 2020, and in fact lost his admin bits, so perhaps HF you will just make adjustments needed to William T. Anderson so we don't have to see it at FAR :) :) (Nice review, Mike Christie! Now we have an example of what I do not mean when I use the term prose nitpicks, as these are all issues of substance.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Collins implies that it was on the 10th. Nichols says directly in two places that it occurred on the 11th. Sinisi also places it at the 11th, discussing the event in some detail (Price was giving a speech, Anderson's boys rode up, Price made them get rid of the scalps, Anderson gave Price a brace of pistols, Price sent Anderson away with orders he didn't follow). I'm not sure if Wood in the Anderson article is wrong, or if October 6 is the day Anderson began riding towards Price
Again referring to the article on Anderson, a footnote saying that Anderson ignored Price's instructions might be worthwhile.- Footnote added
The description of the Union defences is not very clear to me (I have read very little military history so have no instincts about what to expect). I would expect the defensive line of a location to encircle that location, is the line described specifically a defensive line set up in expectation of the Confederate attack?- @Mike Christie: - I've added a sentence describing the shape of the interior line - it ran east from the river before curving north. Does this help it make a little more sense? Hog Farm Talk 19:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- That's a big help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: - I've added a sentence describing the shape of the interior line - it ran east from the river before curving north. Does this help it make a little more sense? Hog Farm Talk 19:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
The attempt by Clark to surrender a battle which was shortly won seems unusual enough to mention in the lead.- Added. It's not the most unusual I'm aware of - I'm currently reading a book about the Second Battle of Springfield, and it mentions the Confederate commander there send a surrender offer to a Union force after he had spent an entire day unsuccessfully trying to capture the place.
Another question about Anderson: this article says he fatally beat someone on the night of October 21-22; the article on Anderson talks about a wealthy Union supporter whom Anderson himself beat, partly because he had freed his slaves. Are these the same incident? They don't match up but even Anderson probably didn't beat multiple residents to death in just a few days.- Per Lause, this is apparently the same incident, although none of Sinisi, Nichols, Lause, Collins, or Monnett (the most relevant sources I have handy) attribute his motivation to freeing his slaves. I've added a mention of the rape from Lause. Likewise, the claim of trampling him to death with a horse does not appear in any of the sources I have, and frankly Wood in the Anderson article isn't a strong enough source for more extraordinary claims like a specially trained horse stomping people to death (full disclosure: I've used a different book by Wood as a source for two FAs, but not for any extraordinary claims like that) Nichols and Lause imply the primary interest was monetary.
There's no location given for Suderow & House.- Added
How are you sorting "An Industrial History of Missouri"? If it's by title, I'd expect it to precede Kennedy; if by "Missouri Bureau of Labor Statistics", which could be regarded as the author, I would expect it to precede Monnett.- I'm not sure how I was trying to sort it; I've moved it above Kennedy.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Re the Anderson article - I've been able to adjust the wording of the date of meeting Price (confirmed in Wood that it was the date he left), and the bit about the trained horse is supported by the reliable Castel (confirmed via google books), so the Anderson article looks fine now. I also spot-checked a few other things in a copy of Wood from a local library. Hog Farm Talk 23:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. And I always think it's a pleasant surprise when an article you link to from an article you take to FAC turns out to be featured as well; it gives me the feeling that we're making progress. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Support. Very clear and readable, and a pleasure to review. My only suggestion, which doesn't affect my support, would be to add a map showing the defensive lines and positions, if the sources are definite enough to make that possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@WP:FAC coordinators: - May I have a dispensation for a second nomination since this one seems to maturing nicely? Hog Farm Talk 04:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Daisy Pearce
This article is about Daisy Pearce, one of women's Australian rules football's leading pioneers and a prominent current player/media personality (and future coach, if the recent news is anything to go by). I've put a fair bit of time and research into this one, and got it to GA status last year, so keen to know what you guys think/how you guys might like me to improve it further – thanks! Kind regards, 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Kavyansh
How can I not review "Daisy"! Expect some comments soon – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- It has clearly taken a lot of effort to write and improve this article, and all your work is very much appreciated. The first thing, and perhaps the most major point that concerned me is the sources. I'll admit have just read the lead, but from a look at sources, I see various sources whose reliability cannot really be judged. For featured articles, we require sources to be "high quality reliable sources". How are "afl.com.au", "SportsTG", "AFL Community", "girlsplayfooty.com", etc. the reliable sources of highest quality? Another issue with the sourcing is use of many primary sources: "westernbulldogs.com.au", "melbournefc.com.au", "aflplayers.com.au", "womens.afl". 71 of the 175 sources are directly or indirectly from the website of Australian Football League (AFL), a primary source. There are also other issues like overuse of direct quotations in "Legacy" section, duplicate linking, adding Instagram link in External links, etc. Can you elaborate as to how did you find sources for the article, and why does the article meets WP:FA?#2c? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Kavyansh.Singh – I'll try and address your points as best as I can. I've rectified the smaller issues that you've mentioned so far, though I've intially left out the first links after the lead if I thought they were helpful and links that technically link to the same article but different areas, e.g. Melbourne / Melbourne – would this be allowed, or would I just have to limit it to one?
- Regarding the sources, most if not all of the bits of information that just cite a single source, whether it be The Australian or melbournefc.com.au, only cite those sources because they were the only ones that I could find for those tidbits; some of the time, I might have used a club website as a second or third source when something like SEN or Fox Sports was already there – if you want me to remove those instances where there's already a better source, more than happy to, but a lot of the time when you see something from AFL Media (afl.com.au or womens.afl), it's probably because it was the only thing I could find/that was reporting on that particular piece of information. Granted, SportsTG, AFL Community and girlsplayfooty.com might not be the Herald Sun, but they were, again, the only ones I could find/that were reporting on that tidbit. I would argue that AFL Media is independent from the AFL and not just a primary source that's biased/selective in the content that it produces, as it produces stories about the good, bad and the ugly in the AFL world (even at AFL HQ), same as the newspapers and TV/radio networks, but that's a whole other story – my point being that because it gives such a wide coverage of the AFL and AFLW, hasn't been shown to necessarily be given preferential treatment by the league or its clubs and (I would argue) very reliable from a journalism standpoint, I'm not sure that it should necessarily be brushed off as a primary source/unusable in a featured article, but hey, that might not amount to much.
- As for how I found sources, I follow AFL Media pretty closely for the reasons above, but in some cases, I'll also do a Google search to find other sources on certain bits of information. Before the article reached GA status, it had bits of information that were unsourced or improperly sourced, so I did the best I could to Google these areas to find what sources I could and include them if I thought that they were reliable enough – some periods of Pearce's life/career were more widely reported on than others, clearly, and there were certain bits of information that I was forced to remove/leave out because I couldn't really find anything to source it with, so I believe that the article's been improved from that standpoint. Regarding your last question, did you mean 2c or 1c? I believe that I've maintained a consistent use and format of citations throughout the article, but if I'm wrong, please let me know how I can improve this further.
- Otherwise, let me know if any of this makes sense/you need further clarification, and otherwise what else needs doing – I'm fairly new to this process/the jump to featured article status, but keen to learn and take on what I can, even if it's because the article isn't quite ready yet. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 03:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- By over-linking, I was particularly referring to double linking in the prose itself (independent of lead), like AFL Players Association, but I'm confident you'll fix that too. Multiple links to sections withing the same article is allowed. So if I understand you correctly, the article has various information which only a particular sources cite. Then why is that information important enough to be mentioned in the article? If there is something significant, I'd expect a lot of media commentary on it. Even if AFL Media is independent from the AFL, and even if it is reliable, what makes it among the highest quality of reliable sources? Don't get me wrong, I know almost nothing about sports; this is entirely a non-expert's perspective, but I think we should write an encyclopedia article from widely reported facts. Are there no books/academic work about her life? Regarding my last point, I meant 1c, apologies. All in all, I don't think you'll get a consensus here that sourced are WP:HQRS. I am not convinced that the article meets the criteria, at-least for sourcing. I won't oppose,
but I am suggesting withdrawal(changed – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)). But please don't be discouraged, we need more FAs about women, especially in sports. I'll be happy to give this article a review outside of FAC once all the sourcing concerns are resolved. I am open to reconsider, if other feel the other way. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- By over-linking, I was particularly referring to double linking in the prose itself (independent of lead), like AFL Players Association, but I'm confident you'll fix that too. Multiple links to sections withing the same article is allowed. So if I understand you correctly, the article has various information which only a particular sources cite. Then why is that information important enough to be mentioned in the article? If there is something significant, I'd expect a lot of media commentary on it. Even if AFL Media is independent from the AFL, and even if it is reliable, what makes it among the highest quality of reliable sources? Don't get me wrong, I know almost nothing about sports; this is entirely a non-expert's perspective, but I think we should write an encyclopedia article from widely reported facts. Are there no books/academic work about her life? Regarding my last point, I meant 1c, apologies. All in all, I don't think you'll get a consensus here that sourced are WP:HQRS. I am not convinced that the article meets the criteria, at-least for sourcing. I won't oppose,
- Okay, per this discussion, I have been requested to provide some sources not used in the article. Here are the sources:
- Fedele, Robert (2017). "Midwife Blossoms Into AFL Star". Australian Nursing and Midwifery Journal. Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation. 24 (8). ISSN 2202-7114. Retrieved March 5, 2022 – via Informit.
- Pippos, Angela (2017). Breaking the Mould. Affirm Press. ISBN 978-1-925475-29-6 – via Google Books.
- Faganel, Armand; Rižnar, Igor; Baruca, Arne, eds. (2021). Impacts and Implications for the Sports Industry in the Post-Covid-19 Era. IGI Global. ISBN 978-1-7998-6782-1.
- Lynch, Jackie (2018). "State of the AFLW Nation". Green Left Weekly. 1171. Retrieved March 5, 2022 – via Informit.
- Sources mentioned by Steelkamp below are not repeated here. The 2nd and 3rd might help a bit, but I think the other two (especially the 1st) discusses the topic in bit detail. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, I have struck my suggestion to withdraw, but my concerns stand. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Support Comments from Sportsfan77777
I'll review this article. Noting I reviewed it for GA status. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Also noting above that Kavyansh.Singh's comments above are blatantly sexist. They make an assertion that "we should write an encyclopedia article from widely reported facts". That essentially implies that biographies should not be able to be made into FAs if the subject doesn't receive a very wide range of coverage, an issue that much more frequently affects women than men. I would recommend their review be disregarded by the coordinators. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think my comments were "blatantly sexist". I never intended to say that. We need sport biographies in FAC, for both man and woman, equally. My comment regarding that encyclopedia articles should mostly have widely reported facts meant to imply that if a particular piece of information is covered only in 1-2 sources, that too a primary one, why is it significant enough to mention then? My suggestion to withdraw is in accordance with the FA criteria; I have no issues with you disagreeing on that. But I don't think my comments should be "disregarded". It is upto @WP:FAC coordinators: to determine if my comments are in accordance with the criteria or not. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that is what I said. It is up to the coordinators to decide whether to take your review into account. I am merely suggesting that they do not. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Although higher standard for sourcing or WP:DUE arguably impacts biographies of women more than men, I do not agree that it's sexist. All reviews are taken into account to determine consensus to promote, to the extent that they are based on the FA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 08:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Please bear in mind WP:AGF. Also that a nominator should address a review, not the reviewer. As Buidhe says, all reviews and comments are taken into account when closing. Ones bearing on whether the article "is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" will be weighted heavily. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Lead
- in the AFL Women's (add "competition" so that the sentence ends on a noun)
- One of women's Australian rules football's first superstars <<<=== In-between this and the old statement of "Widely regarded as the face of women's Australian rules football", I would suggest the intermediate "Often regarded as the face of women's Australian rules football" to be more complete without potentially making too strong of a statement
- having (add "already" or "previously") captained the club in the women's exhibition games in the years prior
- seven as captain ===>>> seven times as captain
- "VFL Women's (VFLW)" ===>>> VFL Women's (VFLW) competition
- Pearce is a dual AFL Women's All-Australian, having been named as captain in the 2017 team and vice-captain in the 2018 team, and won the inaugural two Melbourne best and fairest awards. <<<=== This sentence doesn't have parallelism. I'd suggest splitting off the second part as "She won the inaugural two Melbourne best and fairest awards."
- "media performer" <<<=== I'm not sure "performer" is the correct word (unless it's an Australian English thing?) Maybe "media personality" would be better?
- Early life
- Okay.
- State
- She was named in the carnival's All-Australian team <<<=== I might suggest calling it the "National Championships' All-Australian team" instead, since I don't think it's obvious that is what carnival is referring to.
- with Pearce named among the best players in the grand final ===>>> a game in which Pearce was named among the best players. (to avoid "with" and repeating "grand final")
- Darebin would go on to win five VWFL premierships in a row, before losing to St Albans in the grand final in 2011; Pearce, who had by then become captain, was named Darebin's best player in the loss <<<=== Combined with the previous sentence, it says Pearce was among the best players in 2007 and was the team's best player in 2011. But what about the other years in the five VWFL premierships in a row? Do you have that information?
- In 2013, Darebin again went through the season undefeated, defeating Diamond Creek in the grand final, and Pearce was again named among the best players in the grand final.[21] Darebin repeated this feat in 2014, again going through the season without a loss and defeating Diamond Creek in the grand final, and Pearce was named best afield in the grand final. <<<=== Combine these two sentences to something like "In both 2013 and 2014, Darebin again went through the season undefeated. In both years, they defeated Diamond Creek in the grand final, and Pearce was again named among the best players in the grand final."
- She would also feature in Darebin's third ===>>> She also featured in Darebin's third
- "with Darebin named among the ten teams" ===>>> "and Darebin named among the ten teams" (avoid "with")
- "She would also play in Darebin's grand final win" ===>>> She also played in Darebin's grand final win
- Exhibition
- The top 50 female footballers in Australia ===>>> Fifty of the top female footballers in Australia (it's not literally the top 50)
- "Pearce was selected by Melbourne with the first selection in the draft" ===>>> "Pearce was selected by Melbourne first overall in the draft"
- with the first to be held ==>>> the first to be held
- "with Melbourne playing two games" ===>>> "in which Melbourne would play two games"
- 2017
- the Melbourne's inaugural match ===>>> Melbourne's inaugural match
- and won the inaugural Melbourne best and fairest award ===>>> . She won the inaugural Melbourne best and fairest award
- meaning that she would miss the 2019 season ===>>> which would result in her missing the 2019 season
- 2020
- with coach Mick Stinear saying ===>>> ; coach Mick Stinear stated
- She played her first AFLW match ===>>> Pearce played her first AFLW match (unclear "She" with Black in the previous sentence)
- half-back (add "in defence" to clarify)
- without a premiership being awarded due to the worsening pandemic ===>>> with no premiership awarded due to the worsening pandemic
- Pearce went on to be selected ===>>> Pearce was selected
- two goals from 13 disposals ===>>> two goals from 13 disposals,
- with Pearce saying ===>>> and Pearce herself stated
- Pearce also received five coaches' votes <<<=== Unless the coaches votes are a new thing, I would leave this out given that you never mention them before. (As in, wouldn't she have received coaches votes before?)
- Playing style
- A few pairs of citations are not in numerical order.
- her ability to threaten <<<=== specify what she is threatening
- Statistics
- Okay.
- Honours
- Okay.
- Media
- Clarify that Triple M is a radio network (or radio station?).
- Advocacy
- Okay.
- Coaching
- with Pearce to complete her AFL level three coaching accreditation ===>>> in which Pearce would complete her AFL level three coaching accreditation
- Explain what AFL level three coaching accreditation means, maybe just in a footnote.
- Legacy
- You can put back the "face of" statement, but state who calls her that (e.g. the media, I think? or maybe other players?)
- Personal
- Pearce began working as a midwife <<<=== if known, state at what age?
- she currently divides ===>>> she has since divided (avoid "currently" per MOS:RELTIME)
- Overall
- I don't share the concerns above about not using game reports because they are primary sources. This is pretty typical of most past sports FA articles. I'm not even sure I agree that game reports count as primary sources. (Relatedly, a book source would be nice, but you can't ask for one if it doesn't exist.)
- Use IABot to archive all the sources.
- In particular, I noticed this one doesn't work any more.
- There are a few instances of using ALLCAPS in parts of some references where it is not needed (e.g. "COMMENT", "THE W SHOW IS HERE").
Overall, it looks like it's in pretty good shape. The content looks very thorough and well-organized. I intend to support after the above comments are addressed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support, Sportsfan77777. I think I've covered most, if not all, of your feedback – let me know what you think/if there's anything more that you wanted to throw in there (given I've also added a little bit since you gave your review). Thanks! 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 05:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Second read-through
- "was selected by Melbourne with the first selection" <<<=== to avoid "select" twice, would "was selected by Melbourne with the first overall pick" be Australian English enough? Or "was taken by Melbourne with the first selection"? --- This issue is in the lead and the body.
- before the first exhibition game ===>>> for the first women's exhibition game
- Pearce was announced as a marquee signing for Melbourne's AFL Women's team in 2016 prior to the competition's first season. ===>>> Pearce was announced as a marquee signing for Melbourne's AFL Women's team in 2016 for the competition's first season the following year. (the year is more important to clarify)
- She also won the inaugural two Melbourne best and fairest awards <<<=== You don't need the "also" here.
- If the book source disagrees with her birthplace, add a footnote stating the alternative possibility.
- Specify "Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG)" in the first mention
- and Pearce was named among Melbourne's best players in its 46-point win. ===>>> Pearce was named among Melbourne's best players in its 46-point win. (start a new sentence)
- The five goals that she kicked in round 9 of the 2022 season was ===>>> The five goals that she kicked in round 9 of the 2022 season were
- Pearce had won the inaugural VFLW best and fairest award in 2016 ===>>> Pearce won the inaugural VFLW best and fairest award in 2016
- Source comments
- There is still unnecessary all caps ("LISTEN", "UPDATE", "DEE-MOLITION") left in the sources.
- I do think AustralianFootball.com is definitely a high-quality reliable source, per 4TheWynne's reply to Hawkeye.
- Both of the SportsTG sources are really content published by the VWFL (it says it's the official VWFL website). Whether it's republished or that's where they published it originally, I don't know. Either way, the publisher should be listed as the "VWFL", not "SportsTG".
- Similarly, the first Footy Almanac source is also published by the VWFL, and should have VWFL as the publisher.
- In the second Footy Alamanac source, the one comment (from one of the website administrators) specifies that the author of the piece is the same author (Leesa Catto, who works for the VWFL) as the first Footy Almanac source, so I would assume it is also published through the VWFL. I would recommend putting Catto as the author and VWFL as the publisher just like the first source.
- You don't need the Instagram source. (Both usages are covered by the very next source.)
- I agree with the comment below that Fox Sports should always include "(Australia)" and likewise for ABC News. You could also do the opposite and never include "(Australia)", since they are always linked anyway.
- Regarding the book sources, I would expect only the Lane book on the launch of the AFLW to potentially have more information that could be included, but probably not a whole lot given that it doesn't focus on Pearce specifically. I would expect the news sources and the official sources from the official VWFL/VFLW/AFLW websites to be more in-depth. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- I am curious as to how the book source disagrees with whether her siblings are brothers or sisters. Having no access to either source, I don't know which would be more reliable. The newspaper source is much more recent, so I don't see how they could have messed it up if the book was already published. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- The other book sources seem like mostly passing mentions. The Hayes and Sheedy sources are a bit more in depth, each with about two pages on Pearce, but these are picture books for kids. They might have a little more information, but I wouldn't favor them over most other types of sources already used.
I didn't finish either of these today. I'll probably finish both of them tomorrow. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
That's it for the comments on the prose. I didn't find much after a second read-through. I'll look through the sources again if others continue to comment them. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sportsfan77777, just finished here again. I've opted to remove "(Australia)" because they're linked, like you mentioned, and regarding the differing information in the sources, I really like Sam Lane – who I know is a big fan of Pearce – and wouldn't expect her to get this sort of information wrong, but from memory (the Weekend Australian article was freely available at the time when I used it), Courtney Walsh actually travelled around with Pearce to write her story, and it's more recent like you said, so I figured it would also be pretty reliable; to counter this, I've tweaked the wording slightly so that it doesn't contradict either source ("two brothers", "two younger half-siblings"). 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 00:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Looks good, supporting! Good work! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Support from Steelkamp
Media career: (some of this may have already been mentioned due to an edit conflict)
and in 2019, she also hosted This Is Grit, a weekly podcast series on SEN focusing on female sportspeople.
– Citation doesn't show that. Also, wouldn't "sportswomen" be more concise than "female sportspeople". Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Pearce was a rotating panel member on the Seven Network program AFL Game Day and is a boundary rider for Seven and 1116 SEN's AFL coverage
– Citation makes no reference to 1116 SEN. Citation does not show why rotating panel member is in past tense. Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)- I notice womens.afl is frequently referred to in references and other parts of the article, but [23] this shows that it should be womens.AFL. Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- This one has not been addressed yet. Steelkamp (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I honestly think you might have just picked out one of the only instances in which this happened, as I see it formatted far more frequently with the "afl" in lowercase – here are some recent examples (plenty more where these came from): [24][25][26][27][28] 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 05:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- This one has not been addressed yet. Steelkamp (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
In 2021, she co-hosted The W Show on womens.afl alongside Nat Edwards
– There is no indication that this is a website. Maybe change toIn 2021, she co-hosted The W Show on the womens.AFL website alongside Nat Edwards
Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)After Tiffany Cherry spoke out against the Nine Network in February 2018 for failing to stand up for gender equality after being replaced as host of the Nine program Women's Footy by Clint Stanaway, Pearce said that it was better to have both men and women involved in commentating and talking about the men's and women's competitions. "I enjoy seeing men working across and well-informed football commentators talking about [women's football]... why can't we see men working across the AFL Women’s competition?" She said that if there was a belief that only women should call AFLW games and only men should call AFL games, "It's almost as if we are taking a few steps back".
– The problem with this paragraph is that it takes a while to get to the point. It's not until about 2/3rds of the way through that I realise that Pearce is criticising Tiffany Cherry's stance. Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Pearce was among several high-profile AFLW players to speak out during the 2020–2022 collective bargaining agreement negotiations in 2019, with Pearce supporting the AFL Players Association (AFLPA) and its efforts to grow the competition,[152][153] saying that broader talks between the AFLPA and AFLW players would result in an agreement that would satisfy all players.
– This doesn't really put things in their full context. The Age says that "reports emerged of a split over the new collective bargaining agreement." I think the quotes can be shortened and more context to this can be added. Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Coaching career:
- I don't think that many citations are needed. Three or more adjacent citations is too much. For example, in the first group of citations, the Lions website could be removed without impacting the verifiability of the preceding sentence. Use WP:CITEBUNDLE if they absolutely must be there. Steelkamp (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Legacy:
and is highly regarded across the football industry for her professionalism, football knowledge and leadership, both on and off the field, as well as being a role model for current and future female footballers and commentators.[24]
– Citation is a wix.com website. Doesn't seem to be a high quality source. It is also a dead link, so some source archiving will need to be done. There are several other dead links throughout the article as well. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)- Still not convinced by a wix.com website. Steelkamp (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've reverted to citing the Weekend Australian article in the instance above (I remember it covering the inspiration element a fair bit, and that really should have been the source in the first place) and used a different quote from Melissa Hickey from a Fox Sports article (Hickey was clearly full of praise) in the quotes further down, so the Change Her Game article is now, for all intents and purposes, dead and buried. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Still not convinced by a wix.com website. Steelkamp (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Herald Sun journalist Jay Clark wrote that Pearce had "set the standard in training and professionalism [in women's football] for years" and that her contributions over more than a decade made her a "living legend of the women's game",
– What's to say that Jay Clark wrote that. It says up the top that Lauren Wood wrote that article. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)- This issue still remains. Also, the archive link for reference 157 is incorrect. Steelkamp (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I fixed the archive link (I remember pasting it into the text originally, so not sure how I accidentally put a different one in there) and set
|url-status=deviated
to indicate that the current version usurped the older version that I'm trying to cite; both versions at least attribute the information that I'm sourcing to Clark, but this way you can see that Clark originally wrote the article before Wood came in over the top and "took a screamer", to use the old footy vernacular. Would this suffice? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I fixed the archive link (I remember pasting it into the text originally, so not sure how I accidentally put a different one in there) and set
- This issue still remains. Also, the archive link for reference 157 is incorrect. Steelkamp (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- The format of this section is a bit awkward due to the images. I think it would be best to remove one image, and have the other one on the right rather than the left. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- This is very minor, but I think that
named Daisy in honour of Pearce
sounds and flows better thannamed Daisy to honour Pearce.
Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC) On 7 March 2017, Pearce became the first woman to be elected as a director on the board of the AFLPA, which then decided to include AFLW players as full members of the association.
– Citation says that it was existing members that voted to include AFLW players as full members. There is nothing there to say that the vote occurred after Pearce was elected. How aboutOn 7 March 2017, Pearce became the first woman to be elected as a director on the board of the AFLPA. The association had also decided that day to include AFLW players as full members.
Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Pearce had won the inaugural award in 2016 after having previously won six Helen Lambert Medals in the VWFL.
– How about you change this toPearce had won the inaugural VFLW best and fairest award in 2016 after having previously won six Helen Lambert Medals in the VWFL.
Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Personal life and philanthropy:
Pearce began working as a midwife at Box Hill Hospital upon moving to Melbourne, and lived in Eltham, in Melbourne's north-east.
– The flow of this sentence is awkward. Steelkamp (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)near Bright in country Victoria
– Seeing as Bright is mentioned earlier in the article, it is not necessary to say that it is in country Victoria. Steelkamp (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Honours and achievements:
2× AFL Women's All-Australian team: 2017 (c), 2018
– There is nothing to show what "c" stands for. Steelkamp (talk) 09:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
General:
- Best and fairest should be linked somewhere in the article, seeing as its mentioned several times. Steelkamp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Shouldn't it be The Weekend Australian, rather than Weekend Australian? Steelkamp (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- There are several book sources that may be useful. I may get around to looking at some of these books over the coming week to see if they are useful to this article in any way:
- Lane, Samantha (2018). Roar : the stories behind AFLW -- a movement bigger than sport. ISBN 9780143788744.
- Pg. 302: Pearce was born in Wandiligong, not Bright.
She was born in Wandiligong, Victoria, which has 300 residents, with the nearest major town, Bright, having a population of just over 2000.
Steelkamp (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC) - Pg. 302: Pearce has an older brother Harry (two years older) and a younger brother Billy (two years younger). Ali is actually a half brother, not sister. Pearce's parents separated in 1995. Pearce has an older half brother, Aaron, through her father. Steelkamp (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Pgs. 293-: Details on her life and career in 2016 and 2017. Steelkamp (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Pg. 302: Pearce was born in Wandiligong, not Bright.
- Hayes, Nicole; Sometimes, Alicia (2017). A footy girl's guide to the stars of 2017. ISBN 9781863959124.
- Sheedy, Kevin (2020). Kevin Sheedy's heroes of footy. ISBN 9781922400246.
- Lane, Samantha (2018). Roar : the stories behind AFLW -- a movement bigger than sport. ISBN 9780143788744.
- Steelkamp, I've mentioned the differing information regarding Pearce's birthplace in a footnote and tweaked the information about her brothers and half-siblings so that it doesn't contradict either source. I've also sourced 1995 and her half-brother, and otherwise addressed
allmost of your other feedback previously. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Graham Beards
- I have made a few edits to the article rather than list my suggestions here. The article suffers from citation overkill. For example, does Pearce's participation in the annual Big Freeze at the 'G need three citations? Similarly, "By March 2022, Pearce was considering an assistant coaching role for Geelong's AFL team;" has five citations. There are others like this. Can we use just one reliable source for uncontroversial statements? And on the subject of citations, some seem to be poor quality (there was even a Facebook one). Can we weed these out and replace them with better ones? I'm referring to the ones like worldfooty.com. As it stands, the citations are a problem. Graham Beards (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Also: These are often redundant but keep popping up in revisions of the article. I think the writer has an addiction to them. Here is a quote from Tony's essay :
- "Additive terms—"also", "in addition", "moreover" and "furthermore". Every sentence is additional to its predecessors, but most of us, including otherwise good writers, have got into the habit of sprinkling these terms through our writing, because they give us a vague feeling of adding to the cohesion of the text (the strength with which it all hangs together). However, only occasionally are these additive words required for textual cohesion; the flow is usually stronger without them." -Graham Beards (talk) 06:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Support on prose. For a sports biography, this article is refreshingly accessible to someone who know nothing about the game. Graham Beards (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Image review
Images are appropriately licensed, but suggest scaling up the image in Personal life. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Teratix
Just a drive-by comment on sourcing, might convert to a full review. Bylined pieces from AFL Media (i.e. post-2012 AFL.com.au) and womens.afl have a decent track record of independent coverage and in my view should be regarded as independent RS. Club and AFLPA websites aren't independent but are reliable enough to be used sparingly. – Teratix ₵ 07:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Source review - pass
- Quality
- Fn 5: Is Australian Football a reliable site? (consider using an AFL site like https://www.melbournefc.com.au/players/aflw/1669/daisy-pearce#playerstatistics instead)
- Fn 18: Is World Footy News reliable? Looks like a Wikinews-style site.
- Otherwise, all sources are high quality.
- Formatting
- I have replaced the work cards with publisher/newspaper/website as appropriate to generate MOS-compliant formatting
- Also News.com.au was sometimes capitalised, sometimes not; I have standardised the article on lower case, matching the other web sites
- Spot checks
- Fn 4, 8, 11, 21, 32, 80, 111, 112,
- fn 155 says it is The age, but links to an article in The Australian; I think the link should be https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/star-player-daisy-pearce-named-afl-football-woman-of-the-year-20160929-grr1ww.html
- Fn 158 Not seeing "Pearce studied a Bachelor of Nursing and Midwifery at La Trobe University, graduating in 2010" in the source
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7, thanks for the review – I think I've pretty much covered everything. Australian Football seems to be the database of choice for all AFLW players (AFL players use both AFL Tables and Australian Football, whereas AFL Tables doesn't cover AFLW), and the club websites don't include AFLW best and fairest votes (which I used the database to source a few times), so I'd argue that it is reliable and the article would benefit more from keeping it. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 05:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Sourcing concerns from Kavyansh — resolved
- Of the five instances, Fox Sports (Australia) does not have 'Australia' in Ref#135 and Ref#143. Also, Ref#135 and Ref#143 are italicized while rest three are not. Suggesting to be consistent.
- I am not confident if "Australian Football" (australianfootball.com) is a high quality source. this does not make it clear if any content matter experts are consulted. More importantly, this says "In order to view some Content, post any Content or access certain features of the Service, you must register as a member with AF" (emphasis mine), which makes me think it is more or less a WP:UGC. Am I missing anything? (References: Ref#5, Ref#54, and Ref#131)
- I am not sure how this of from 'SportsTG'. (Ref#6)
- Since we write 'Fox Sports (Australia)', shouldn't we also write 'ABC News (Australia)'. It can easily be confused with American ABC News. (References: Ref#7, Ref#37, Ref#44, and Ref#111)
- Not convinced that 'The Footy Almanac' is a high quality source. This says "We’d like to publish your work – any topic, any genre. (Check out our Write for us page). It doesn’t matter how experienced you are: if you want to have a go, have a go", which makes me think it is more or less a WP:UGC. Am I missing anything? (References: Ref#13, Ref#17)
- Ref#21: The URL says "The Page you are looking for cannot be found". Should url-status be marked as 'dead'?
- Why do we use 'Instagram' as a source. Are there no secondary sources? (Ref#78)
- Our article italicizes 'Seven News'. Should we do that same in Ref#122?
That is on a quick run. This should be noted that these concerns are raised after a source review was been "passed" on March 14 (Special:Diff/1077022142/1077025521). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Kavyansh.Singh, thanks for your feedback. As I've gone into above with Sportsfan77777's comments, I've removed "(Australia)" from each Fox Sports and ABC News source, as they're all linked. I've fixed the VFLW source and removed the Instagram source, and I've stopped short of italicising Seven News, as I've treated it as being the same as ABC News, etc. All of the other sourcing concerns were addressed in Sportsfan77777's comments. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies for the late reply. Thanks a lot for fixing most of it. I still have few standing concerns. Per your reply about "Australian Football", you talk about the usefulness of the source, which still does not make clear why it is reliable, or why it is not a WP:UGC. Same with "The Footy Almanac". Even if VWFL (assuming it to be Victorian Women's Football League) is a publisher, does it make it a WP:HQRS when the site explicitly claims "We’d like to publish your work – any topic, any genre. (Check out our Write for us page). It doesn’t matter how experienced you are: if you want to have a go, have a go". Sorry for pressing you and/or being nitpicky. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Kavyansh.Singh, sorry for taking even longer myself. Regarding Australian Football, I've cited different sources for the AFL Women's best and fairest votes, leaving just her date of birth and player statistics (both of which normally cite databases anyway, as you aren't going to find either in a news article) as citing the database; the only alternative would be to source the club website, but the individual player pages at club websites only exist when the player is active, so Australian Football would likely be the only source (if not the best available, at least) that's still live once Pearce retires (I also didn't see anyone object to the use of Australian Football when Erin Phillips was nominated... and her article is littered with citations to the database). As for The Footy Almanac, I've also replaced one of these articles (2011 VWFL GF) with a different source because I was able to find one, but I haven't been able to find another source/version for the other (2009 state team); is there anything wrong with treating it on a case-by-case basis? In this case, just one article; because we know that it was written by Leesa Catto and originally published by the VWFL, shouldn't that make that particular article reliable enough given we can't find another version? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 16:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have not objected to using any source, merely questioning the reliability. I am now satisfied with the responses, and as far as I am concerned, most of these sourcing concerns should be considered resolved. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Further comments/discussion/feedback
OK, guys – I think I've covered just about everything so far, aside from upscaling that last image and maybe a couple of other things (including getting a chance to check out those books/articles, if that was directed at me). Let me know if you guys had any more to add; I've just added this subsection in case anyone wanted to add a comment separately to their reviews, otherwise feel free to drop your thoughts via your own sections if that's easier – thanks. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 16:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Just seeing if anyone else has anything to add? Not sure of the best way to scale up the Personal life image, either. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Just checking in again – been three days now. Pinging those we haven't heard from in a little bit (Buidhe, Gog the Mild, Graham Beards, Nikkimaria and Teratix), along with Casliber, Ian Rose, Ealdgyth, Hmlarson and Figureskatingfan from related FACs if they have any comments. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 00:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
@WP:FAC coordinators: five supports/concerns resolved here, and haven't really had any opposes – is that enough/is there anything else that you guys think needs doing? Anyone else, please feel free to comment as well. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 12:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- As you are a first time FAC nominator, the article will need a source to text fidelity spot check. I have requested one at the top of the FAC talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
SS Edward L. Ryerson
- Nominator(s): GreatLakesShips (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
This article is about the Great Lakes freighter SS Edward L. Ryerson. I brought the article to GA status in March 2021. It has since been copy edited by Twofingered Typist, and has undergone a peer review. GreatLakesShips (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- Image review
- File:Edward L. Ryerson launch.jpg, File:Edward L. Ryerson in the Manitowoc River.jpg skeptical about the non-free usage rationale. How is NFCC#8 met? Does "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."? If so, the rationale does not explain. I would suggest removing both images. (t · c) buidhe 07:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: Could the picture of the launch be kept? GreatLakesShips (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- You would need to make it clear why "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." as required by NFCC. (t · c) buidhe 23:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: Removing it seems to be the only option. GreatLakesShips (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: Are the other images alright? GreatLakesShips (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: Removing it seems to be the only option. GreatLakesShips (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- You would need to make it clear why "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." as required by NFCC. (t · c) buidhe 23:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments from North8000
A sentence that is both in the lead and body says: "She is one of only two American-owned straight deck lake freighters..." relying on the internal link to say what "straight deck" means here. But as described at the linked article, "straight deck" has two very different meanings. The intended use in this article is not only merely one of the two (leaving the intended meaning in this article unclear), but the intended meaning is not what the linked article describes as the primary meaning. Could this be clarified? North8000 (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- I tweaked the straight deck article to help in this area. North8000 (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- @North8000: I've added a footnote to clarify the matter. GreatLakesShips (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Cool! North8000 (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- @North8000: I've added "Comments from North8000" to this section. Hope you don't mind. GreatLakesShips (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. North8000 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- @North8000: I've added "Comments from North8000" to this section. Hope you don't mind. GreatLakesShips (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Cool! North8000 (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- @North8000: I've added a footnote to clarify the matter. GreatLakesShips (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
The article mentioned that they spent an immense amount extra to equip it carry passengers in style. The few glimpses I had of sources seemed to make a point of discussing it carrying VIP's as guests. Do think this should be mentioned in the article? North8000 (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see why not.
- @North8000: Which source said that? I think I missed that detail. GreatLakesShips (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't make a note of it but I see if I can find it again. It was one of the sources in the article, and the link went to a site (google books?) which had a paragraph or two from about 10 different pages. That's why I called it "glimpses". North8000 (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- It was the google books glimpse of "Twilight of the Great Lakes Steamer" page 77. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- @North8000: Thank you. Done. GreatLakesShips (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- It was the google books glimpse of "Twilight of the Great Lakes Steamer" page 77. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't make a note of it but I see if I can find it again. It was one of the sources in the article, and the link went to a site (google books?) which had a paragraph or two from about 10 different pages. That's why I called it "glimpses". North8000 (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- @North8000: Which source said that? I think I missed that detail. GreatLakesShips (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Support I was going slow figuring that others would be taking more time interviewing details. But then I saw the recent notice. North8000 (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed
- Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced anywhere - eg yard number
- "Since 2009, she has been in long-term layup at the Fraser Shipyard" - text indicates that while she started there she was later moved
- Changed to "Since 2009, she has been in long-term layup in Superior, Wisconsin."
- "became well known for her elegant lines" - source?
- Changed to "Enthusiasts consider Edward L. Ryerson to be one of the most aesthetically pleasing lake freighters ever built."
- How are you ordering Sources?
- Originally alphabetically based on the author/publisher, although they were changed during the peer review.
- What makes Great Lakes Vessel History a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- I couldn't find anything official that would qualify it as a usable source. It has been removed.
- @Nikkimaria: The points have been addressed.
- @Nikkimaria: Are the rest of the sources alright? GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 06:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Still seeing details in the infobox that don't appear to be cited anywhere, eg the capacity of 27,500 tons. Also not clear on Sources ordering - it appears that items without a named author are mostly alphabetical by title, but not entirely. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: I've sorted all i could find. As for the sources, they are ordered alphabetically, regardless of whether or not an author is listed. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 16:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Still more, eg displacement. Also we've now got several work titles in Sources using
|publisher=
. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)- @Nikkimaria: I can't see anything else that isn't cited in the infobox or the body of the article. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 21:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Still more, eg displacement. Also we've now got several work titles in Sources using
- @Nikkimaria: I've sorted all i could find. As for the sources, they are ordered alphabetically, regardless of whether or not an author is listed. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 16:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Still seeing details in the infobox that don't appear to be cited anywhere, eg the capacity of 27,500 tons. Also not clear on Sources ordering - it appears that items without a named author are mostly alphabetical by title, but not entirely. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Are the rest of the sources alright? GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 06:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Nikkimaria, is this one good now? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Still seeing work titles using
|publisher=
. Otherwise yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: It's done. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 14:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Still seeing work titles using
Comments from Mike Christie
She was launched on January 21, 1960, and Frankcliffe Hall was launched before that, on December 7, 1959, so I don't understand the "Queen of the Lakes" title -- if it doesn't count till the ship is launched, then she was never the longest; if it counts from construction, then the Frankcliffe Hall would have taken over the title before December 7. What am I missing?
- My mistake. I accidentally wrote 1959 instead of 1962.
Is Joseph L. Block worth a redlink?
- I don't think so.
Why is it worth mentioning a cargo of mill scale? Is there something unusual about that?
- It is for a ship that worked in the iron ore trade.
- Have you looked through the newspapers.com articles that mention the ship? I had a quick look; there are hundreds of mentions. No doubt most are trivial, but I see you don't have any references to newspapers in the article so I thought I'd check.
- I don't have a newspapers account.
- It's free. If you go to WP:LIBRARY and click on "Get free access to research!" near the bottom it'll take you to a page where you can sign up. If you have problems you can ask questions or ask for help at WT:LIBRARY. It's a great resource. Since you don't have an account yet I'll do some searches today and see if I can find anything of interest, and post the results here, but I really recommend you sign up -- for the articles you write I think it would be very useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't have a newspapers account.
- @Mike Christie: Two months ago I got a notification which said I was eligible for an account at the Wikipedia Library. Is that significant? GreatLakesShips (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- They sent that note to everyone who was eligible, so yes, it means you would be given an account if you asked for one. There are requirements (minimum number of edits, etc.) and that notification just meant that you meet the requirements. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
That's everything I can see; the article is in good shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: All done. GreatLakesShips (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Some clippings. I've noted below if they are out of copyright, meaning that you can use the photos, if you want to.
- [29] -- mentions details of the accommodations, and mentions that the hatches admit two loading chutes and improve visibility and access during unloading. This is out of copyright.
- [30] -- more details of accommodations, info about the crew, a mishap on the first trip, and this source says the $8M was for the whole ship, not just the accommodations, which to be honest is a lot more plausible. Out of copyright.
- [31] -- 2016 look back. In copyright. Mentions the Manitowoc County Historical Society which apparently has photos of the ship, which may be available for use.
- [32] -- a similar article, from 2020. In copyright. This one has a picture from the Wisconsin Maritime Museum, which might be worth contacting.
- [33] -- mentions that the launch damaged the city dock, and that there's an elevator on board -- the first on a lake ship. Out of copyright -- the Green Bay Press-Gazette did start renewing copyright, but much later than necessary for the 1960 issues.
- [34] -- gives a couple of engineering details, e.g. about the controls for the boiler, and explains why the vertical-sided holds were important. Out of copyright.
Per this page copyright has to be renewed for publications before 1964, and this page is where you can search for those renewals.
I think that's everything useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: All done. GreatLakesShips (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- GreatLakesShips regarding the two new photos, how did you confirm there was no copyright renewal? (t · c) buidhe 00:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know if GreatLakesShips repeated the search, but I searched, using the link above to cocatalog.loc.gov. I searched for renewals 27-28 years after the publication dates using the newspaper titles as the search string. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- GreatLakesShips regarding the two new photos, how did you confirm there was no copyright renewal? (t · c) buidhe 00:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Support. The additions look good. Buidhe, since you did the image review, there are two new images you may want to look at. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Coordinator comment
ore than three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination attracts further interest over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I was sitting back figuring that that the first step was a longer process of getting details reviewed. Seeing your note I added my support. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Battle of Poitiers
- Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, here we are. 38 months after my first FAC was promoted (Battle of Neville's Cross) I am nominating my 50th. It has been quite a journey. The company has been excellent and the learning curve has been discombobulating. I offer here another, and my final, Hundred Years' War battle.[note 1] Described as the most important battle of the war, the French snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Unfurling his sacred standard to indicate that no prisoners would be taken, the French King was himself captured. This, and the resultant collapse of the French government, led to a comprehensive peace four years later on English terms: the war was over.[note 2] We know a lot about this battle, but the sources contain irritating contradictions and lacunae. I hope that I have done a passable job of leading a reader through these. No doubt you will let me know where I haven't.
This is the longest article I have worked on.[note 3] And by some way the one I have put the most time and effort into. It has been through GAN and I believe it is ready for FAC. By way of celebration and thanks for all of the putting up with my shoddy prose along the way I intend to ping every reviewer of my previous 49 nominations to have a look at this one.[note 4] Even those who had me tearing my hair out with their unreasonable readings of perfectly clear text.[note 5] So please feel free to either leave a full review, or simply decry the paucity of commas in the article. I should ping now, but it's late, and sufficient unto the day ... Gog the Mild (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
The following are the sterling group of editors who have corrected my grammar, unmuddled my thinking and contributed hundreds of hours to help get my first 49 FACs into presentable shape. They are cordially invited to comment on my 50th FAC and/or my cheek for so frivolously pinging them. Thank you one and all - the cliché is true, words cannot express my appreciation. User:Nikkimaria, User:Buidhe, User:Tim riley, User:CPA-5, User:Peacemaker67, User:Hog Farm, User:FunkMonk, User:Harrias, User:Wehwalt, User:Serial Number 54129, User:Brianboulton,[note 6] User:T8612, User:Jens Lallensack, User:JennyOz, User:SchroCat,[note 7] User:Iazyges, User:Jimfbleak, User:Girth Summit, User:Sturmvogel 66, User:Eddie891, User:Jo-Jo Eumerus, User:Dudley Miles, User:Cplakidas, User:Fiamh, User:Lingzhi2, User:Z1720, User:HaEr48, User:Casliber, User:HJ Mitchell, User:Mr rnddude, User:Truflip99, User:Zawed, User:SnowFire, User:The Rambling Man, User:Heartfox, User:AustralianRupert, User:Chidgk1, User:WereSpielChequers, User:Maury Markowitz, User:Borsoka, User:Dank, User:Shooterwalker, User:Vanamonde93, User:Dumelow, User:Hanberke, User:Mike Christie, User:Reidgreg, User:Therapyisgood, User:Urselius, User:Nick-D, User:Lee Vilenski, User:Airborne84, User:Wikibenboy94, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Grapple X, User:Indy beetle, User:No Great Shaker, User:Gerda Arendt, User:AhmadLX, User:Ceoil, User:RetiredDuke, User:Factotem, User:Hawkeye7, User:Catlemur, User:Kablammo, User:Pendright, User:ImaginesTigers, User:L293D, User:Richard Nevell, User:Cassianto, User:BasedMises, User:Praemonitus, User:SusunW, User:Norfolkbigfish, User:In actu, User:CaptainEek, User:Mardus, User:The ed17, User:Horsesizedduck, User:Truflip99, User:KJP1, User:WA8MTWAYC, User:Chetsford, User:Attar-Aram syria Gog the Mild (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- ^ If not the last ever, then certainly for several years. Exception, there is still one 100YW collaborative bio in the works which I hope will make it to FAC.
- ^ Plot spoiler: it didn't last.
- ^ 8,500 words. Sorry.
- ^ What, you didn't know the traditional reward for a job well done?
- ^ You know who you are!
- ^ With head bowed and the last post playing in the background
- ^ With a grin and something loud and offensive playing in the background.
Fix pings |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
User:Nikkimaria, User:Buidhe, User:Tim riley, User:CPA-5, User:Peacemaker67, User:Hog Farm, User:FunkMonk, User:Harrias, User:Wehwalt, User:Serial Number 54129, User:Brianboulton, User:T8612, User:Jens Lallensack, User:JennyOz, User:SchroCat, User:Iazyges, User:Jimfbleak, User:Girth Summit, User:Sturmvogel 66, User:Eddie891, User:Jo-Jo Eumerus, User:Dudley Miles, User:Cplakidas, User:Fiamh, User:Lingzhi2, User:Z1720, User:HaEr48, User:Casliber, User:HJ Mitchell, User:Mr rnddude, User:Truflip99, User:Zawed, User:SnowFire, User:The Rambling Man, User:Heartfox, User:AustralianRupert, User:Chidgk1, User:WereSpielChequers, User:Maury Markowitz, User:Borsoka, User:Dank, User:Shooterwalker, User:Vanamonde93, User:Dumelow, User:Hanberke, User:Mike Christie₤. SN54129 14:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC) |
Clomp |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
User:Nick-D, User:Lee Vilenski, User:Airborne84, User:Wikibenboy94, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Grapple X, User:Indy beetle, User:No Great Shaker, User:Gerda Arendt, User:AhmadLX, User:Ceoil, User:RetiredDuke, User:Factotem, User:Hawkeye7, User:Catlemur, User:Kablammo, User:Pendright, User:ImaginesTigers, User:L293D, User:Richard Nevell, User:Cassianto, User:BasedMises, User:Praemonitus, User:SusunW, User:Norfolkbigfish, User:In actu, User:CaptainEek, User:Mardus, User:The ed17, User:Horsesizedduck, User:Truflip99, User:KJP1, User:WA8MTWAYC, User:Chetsford, User:Attar-Aram syria, User:Reidgreg, User:Therapyisgood, User:Urselius. SN54129 14:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC) |
- Image review
- Harv errors: Sumtion 1999, p. 235. Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation. Rogers & 20014, pp. 381, 383. Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation. (t · c) buidhe 01:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies Buidhe. I must be getting sloppy. Although a newish editor helpfully citing the infobox and rewriting the casualties section to be cited to primary sources after I had done my big pre-FAC copy edit probably befuddled me. Sorted.
- The only images I have questions about are File:Beauchamp Elsing (cropped).jpg and File:Armborst 4, Nordisk familjebok.png. These 20th century depictions were published centuries after the fact and have minimal artistic merit, what is their accuracy or encyclopedic value?
- The first removed. The second is an accurate depiction which conveys how a crossbow of the time was reloaded to a reader more effectively than a hundred words could. As such I feel that it meets the prime objective of Wikipedia: it informs and educates the reader.
(t · c) buidhe 01:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks as ever Buidhe, addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Support from Truflip99
How could I possibly decline after getting called out twice (or fourice). Comments soon. --truflip99 (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I blame SN. Sorry about that. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry to hear that. No worries. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere, and any thoughts or comments will be appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
They were driven back... this was also repulsed.
-- could use parallel construction
- I could. And probably get picked up by reviewers for repetitive prose. The occasional absence of grammatical parallelism is often a deliberate choice in an attempt to stay within "prose is engaging and of a professional standard".
- Could you not wikilink it as Charles, the Dauphin --or-- Charles, the Dauphin? Confusing for those of us unfamiliar, had to do some digging to find Dauphin of France.
- Gone with your second suggestion.
Populist revolts broke out across France.
-- why?
- It's the lead. It's a summary. The full article provides a fuller picture.
- I think most people only read the lead? The sentence alone, with no links whatsoever, reads out of place and could use a tad bit more context.
- I disagree. And if someone only reads the lead then they surely expect to gain an incomplete impression of the content of the article - pretty much by definition.
- I think most people only read the lead? The sentence alone, with no links whatsoever, reads out of place and could use a tad bit more context.
- It's the lead. It's a summary. The full article provides a fuller picture.
Negotiations to end the war and ransom John dragged out and Edward launched a further campaign in 1359.
-- hard to read; move "in 1359" to the beginning? "to ransom John"? comma after out?
- I try to minimise WP:PROSELINE. I have split into two sentences to make it more digestible.
initiated a resumption
-- better to just say "resumed"?
- Done.
The French port of Calais fell to the English in August 1347 after the Crécy campaign and shortly after this the Truce of Calais was signed. This was partially the result of both countries being financially exhausted.
-- better wording? "Shortly after, the Truce of Calais was signed, partially as a result of both countries being financially exhausted."
- Good idea.
and is estimated to have killed a third of the population
-- "and killed an estimated one third.."
- I prefer the original wording.
because of lack of money
-- a lack of money
- Done.
more later. --truflip99 (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
later commonly known as the Black Prince
-- "commonly" seems unnecessary
- Why? It seems the essential element of the statement to me.
devastating a wide swathe of French territory
-- ; they devastated ... and sacked (parallelism)
- See above.
"the importance of the economic attrition aspect of the chevauchée can hardly be exaggerated."
-- MOS:QUOTE?
- I am familiar with it. Which parts do you have in mind? "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea" or "quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia" perhaps?
- Should the full stop not be outside the quotation? Asking for my own reference.
- MOS:LQUOTE "Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark."
- Should the full stop not be outside the quotation? Asking for my own reference.
- I am familiar with it. Which parts do you have in mind? "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea" or "quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia" perhaps?
important town of Verneuil
-- important in what way?
- Culturally, politically, religiously, militarily and financial ly. But it seems unnecessary and to go against a summary style of writing to belabour a reader with all of that.
- But this just leaves the reader with more questions than answers, IMO. Esp a reader who's completely unfamiliar with that town, this topic, etc.
- "important" removed.
- But this just leaves the reader with more questions than answers, IMO. Esp a reader who's completely unfamiliar with that town, this topic, etc.
- Culturally, politically, religiously, militarily and financial ly. But it seems unnecessary and to go against a summary style of writing to belabour a reader with all of that.
John pursued, but bungled several opportunities to bring the English to battle and they escaped.
-- who "they" are is ambiguous due to the structure of this sentence
- I disagree. We have John - who is plainly singular - and the English - who are plainly not - so who could "they" refer to other than the English?
- John pursued the English alone with no army alongside?
- I disagree. We have John - who is plainly singular - and the English - who are plainly not - so who could "they" refer to other than the English?
The modern historian David Green has described the progress of the Black Prince's army as "deliberately destructive, extremely brutal ... methodical and sophisticated."
-- omit has, also MOS:QUOTE?
- "has" omitted. See above re MOS:QUOTE.
and no field army to prevent the Prince's forces from disbursing widely to maximise their destructive effect on the French countryside
-- this frag doesn't really make sense to me
- Good point. That's me being too close to the military decision making process. I have unpacked a little to "If a French field army had been in the area, the Anglo-Gascon forces would have had to stay relatively close together, ready to support each other if attacked. The absence of any such French force enabled the Prince's formations to disburse widely to maximise their destructive effect on the French countryside." Is that clearer?
- Beautiful!
- Good point. That's me being too close to the military decision making process. I have unpacked a little to "If a French field army had been in the area, the Anglo-Gascon forces would have had to stay relatively close together, ready to support each other if attacked. The absence of any such French force enabled the Prince's formations to disburse widely to maximise their destructive effect on the French countryside." Is that clearer?
more later. --truflip99 (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi truflip99 and thanks for your comments so far. I have addressed them all above and am awaiting with interest the next instalment. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
The French army promptly marched south, as all available forces were concentrated against the Black Prince.
-- why not "and" instead of "as"?
- Either would work. I feel that "as" is slightly more felicitous and communicates a marginally better feel for the nuances of what was happening.
if he could do so under the right circumstances
-- such as?
- I could unpack the military thinking behind that (a couple of sources go into considerable detail) and define all of the terminology. But I am not sure that the vast majority of readers would be much the wiser. And bear in mind that the next section is pretty much devoted to this and allied issues. Might we not be overwhelming readers with the strategic details? Not to mention that if a fuller explanation is needed it should probably go in Black Prince's chevauchée of 1356.
John sent home nearly all of the infantry contingents, leaving an entirely mounted force which had the mobility and speed to match that of the Black Prince's all-mounted army, as well as reducing the French wage bill.
-- I personally would prefer this to read as: John sent home nearly all of the infantry contingents, which reduced the French wage bill but left an entirely mounted force that had the mobility and speed to match that of the Black Prince's all-mounted army.
- Done.
marched hard
-- what does this mean?
- According to Wiktionary "marched" is the simple past tense of march which means "... to make military advances"; and "hard" means "Difficult or requiring a lot of effort to do".
to have consisted of 6,000 men: 3,000 men-at-arms
-- there's a much earlier instance of this wikilink
- True. Moved.
but in similar battles they used their lances as pikes
-- wikilink lance? Unless this is also a javelin?
- Nope. Linked.
- wikilink Warsaw University of Technology?
- I feel that we are getting well into MOS:OVERLINK territory here, but done.
Done through Anglo-Gascon army section. More later. --truflip99 (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- I am away for a couple of days. I hope to get back to these on Wednesday. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
and 2,000 infantrymen
-- were*
- Gah! Done.
- there is an earlier mention of spears in the article that should be wikilinked
- Moved.
The French army was divided into four divisions or "battles".
-- does this need to be translated twice?
- Arguably not, so second mention removed.
- omit duplicate wikilink for dauphin
- Omitted.
The division's leader, Brienne, the constable of France, was killed
-- I thought his name was Walter?
- Walter was his given name. Nobles are usually referred to by the highest ranking of their titles. (Except for monarchs, who are so exalted that they transcend this to use just their regnal names.) As with Warwick or Orléans.
to let the French men-at-arms through for their final charge.[171] [177]
-- Omit the space between refs
I think that's it from me. --truflip99 (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi again truflip99. Excellent stuff. I think that I have now addressed everything, including your come backs on my initial responses. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Harrias
Some citation bits and pieces:
- "Pratt, P.L. (2010)." – Why unspaced initials? Unless the MOS has changed in the period I've been dormant, I thought it preferred spaced? Also, the link provided is a dead link for me.
- Yes, it's changed. You need to visit more often. Issues fixed.
- "Rodger, N.A.M. (2004)." – Ditto.
- Fixed.
- "Rogers, Clifford (1998)" – Seems to be missing his middle initial of J listed in the other three sources of his. Also should only be linked on this, first use to be consistent with your other linking conventions.
- Fixed.
- Citation 26 "Madden 2014, pp. 79ff." should be "p." not "pp."
- Fixed.
Infobox:
- The belligerents are listed as England and France, but the result is listed as an "Anglo-Gascon victory" – I worry that for a layperson just scanning over the infobox for a quick summary (which is the point, after all) might not be able to put these two facts together: can the fact that Anglo-Gascon is being used synonymously with England be made clearer?
- That may be stretching what is allowed/appropriate in an infobox. Good point. Changed to English victory, which is how the sources usually describe it. The intricacies of force composition will have to wait for the main article.
- Strength: It looks very odd that the French strength is listed as:
- "11,000
- 14,000–16,000" – without reading the text, it is not at all clear what this means.
- Nor to me. A drive by helpfully cited the infobox and added specific mentions to primary sources after I had done my final check but prior to nomination. I thought I had reverted everything, but clearly not. Fixed.
- Casualties and losses: the two sides are formatted differently. The English side has no bullet point, and is one block of text, the French side has a bullet point, and is presented as two points of information (albeit the second doesn't have a bullet.)
- Standardised.
That's it from me for the minute. I'll start on those eight thousand odd words later... Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Cheers Harrias and many thanks for making one of your sadly now rare forays to FAC to look at this. I am bracing myself for further incoming. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Harrias, I hope that things are going well with you. Just checking to see if you were still intending to provide further comment? Which would be most welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- I still hope to come back to it, but I've struggled to dedicate any time to it, and I have a work training trip abroad next week, so I won't have any for a little while still. Coords, please don't let this hold the nomination up, I have no glaring objections. Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Harrias, I hope that things are going well with you. Just checking to see if you were still intending to provide further comment? Which would be most welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Cheers Harrias and many thanks for making one of your sadly now rare forays to FAC to look at this. I am bracing myself for further incoming. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
SUPPORT by SusunW
I'll have to do it in bits and spurts between the visiting guest functions.
- "The only significant French possession"… I find myself asking when this was. Would it be clearer if this sentence moved to follow the first in the previous section? Maybe something like "Since the Norman Conquest of 1066, English monarchs had held titles and lands within France, the possession of which made them vassals of the kings of France. By the first quarter of the fourteenth century, the only significant…" If you do that, omit the "But" which will start the second paragraph.
- Done.
- "Bordeaux had a population" reads awkwardly to me. Perhaps "Bordeaux's population exceeded London's by 50,000 inhabitants"?
- It reads fine to me. I don't insist on it, but your suggestion reads as a circumlocution.
- "against the expected descent" tripped me up. (My mind went biology and my hubby's take was politics, i.e. ascent/descent) Had to read it several times to get that Edward was going down to France from England. Would advance or assault be a clearer word?
- No, as in Wikt:descend: "To make an attack, or incursion, as if from a vantage ground; to come suddenly and with violence." Note in particular the quote there.
- Ha! Note here the BBC using "descend" in the same sense I am.
- British things are so confusing. LOL
- Ha! Note here the BBC using "descend" in the same sense I am.
- No, as in Wikt:descend: "To make an attack, or incursion, as if from a vantage ground; to come suddenly and with violence." Note in particular the quote there.
- Link plenipotentiary
- Done. (I repeatedly miss that.)
- link Clifford Rogers to Clifford J. Rogers
- Done. (And that.)
- "French nobility went over" do you mean they changed allegiance, began supporting the English?
- Rephrased as you suggest.
- "Arras rebelled". Perhaps rephrasing is needed. Explaining this is a town would be helpful (but then a town cannot rebel or kill, so should it be "Townspeople from Arras"?, or maybe in war it is typical phrasing for a town to rebel?)
- Clarified that it is a town. Towns can indeed rebel. As can regions, countries, peoples, groups and other corporate entities.
- I would prefer towns, regions, countries, people, groups and corporate entities to peacefully negotiate. :(
- Clarified that it is a town. Towns can indeed rebel. As can regions, countries, peoples, groups and other corporate entities.
- it is either a 50-mile-wide French territory or territory more than 50 miles wide (only compound adjectives preceding nouns use hyphens)
- Oops. Fixed.
- "dismissed Talleyrand and marching hard crossed" seems grammatically odd. Dismissed and marched, crossing? or Dismissed and, marching hard, crossed?
- "If they attempted to" what? Possibily, "to engage, the French"?
- Rephrased to hopefully be clearer.
- "the Anglo-Gascons would find it almost impossible to withdraw. If they attempted to". Is that really unclear?
- Will you rephrase? (We have compound clause, not a sentence, but a dependent clause is joined with a conjunction to an independent clause, i.e. unequal clauses.) "Having to stay concentrated in the presence of the French army and several days' hard marching had reduced the opportunities to forage and food was almost exhausted."
- I have tried. See what you think.
- I made a wee edit removing "Having" and giving a subject as "The Anglo-Gascons".
- I have tried. See what you think.
I'll return (start Opposing forces) SusunW (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- In the section about the divisions/battles, you say "William, Earl of Salisbury, deputised by Robert…Maurice", but I think it is the opposite. Robert/Maurice didn't appoint/select William. William chose them. So shouldn't it be "William, who deputised Robert/Maurice"?
- You what? To deputise, as in deputise "To act as a substitute for a person in their role or office".
- AE, to deputize is to make someone a deputy. My guess is that it may be a BE/AE thing, but since one is unsure that one's reader speaks BE…I'd change it. Your call.
- You what? To deputise, as in deputise "To act as a substitute for a person in their role or office".
- Do we know which Bartholomew de Burghersh this was and can we link?
- Sorry. A primary source added by a drive by. I have removed it.
- Unlink Clifford Rogers here. Should be at first occurrence and then change to simply Rogers here.
- Done. (I think - I can't find it, so I assume already tidied up.)
- Overall, well done and congratulations. I notice throughout that there is inconsistent use of oxford commas and commas after years. As BE and AE rules are not the same, I leave these up to your discretion, noting only that they should be consistent throughout.
- I cannot find any use of serial commas. I'll go through looking for commas after dates to terminate with prejudice.
- I couldn't find any commas after dates not required by normal grammar. If you spot any, perhaps you could let me know, and/or extract them yourself?
Please feel free to ignore anything that in my comments appears irregular from the standpoint of military history. As you know, I know absolutely nothing about war, warcraft, or the like. SusunW (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- SusunW, you are wonderful. Good points every one. Responded to above. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Support from Reidgreg
Nice milestone. Mostly ce notes from me (some of these may have already been addressed):
- The infobox, under strength, has two figures for France:
11,000
and14,000–16000
. The latter is in the lead. The former appears somewhat mysterious. Is this taken fromEstimates of the French army vary widely, from 11,000, cited in letters by Bartholomew de Burghersh and Henry Peverel, to Froissart's 60,000.
? Please make it clear (in the infobox) whether these are different estimates of the strength of a single force, or the strength of multiple forces.
- Apologies. I don't know what happened there. (Possibly part of the "helpful" citing of the infobox a little while ago which I missed when reverting. Removed.
John was captured, as was one of his sons and according to different sources 2,000 to 3,000 men-at-arms.
Would it be any better with the underlined part as a parenthetic (whether in parentheses or bracketted by commas) or perhaps removed as assumed? It seems a little wordy for the lead.
- Good point. Tweaked.
As well either 3,800 or 1,500 French common infantry were killed or captured The surviving French dispersed
Full stop.
- Not done. Or, possibly, already done.
On 4 August 1356 6,000 Gascon and English fighting men headed north from Bergerac. They were accompanied by approximately 4,000 non-combatants.
How would you feel about having some separation between the numerals, such as by inserting "approximately" or "about"? If needed, the later "approximately" could be changed to avoid repetition or removed as assumed.
- "About" would, strictly, be OR; although it wouldn't over worry me. Tweaked differently
more than 50-mile -wide (80 km)
remove the leading space in the last parameter of {{convert}}. (i.e.: | -wide → |-wide ) The added space doesn't make a difference for named parameters but with unnamed parameters it is included as part of the passed variable. Similarly withapproximately 13-foot -long (4.0 m)
- sOK, I see what needs doing, but not how to do it. Any chance you could do one of them. I will then save it to my bag of tricks page and prove that I can use it - or otherwise - by changing the other.</> Now done. Thanks Hog Farm. And I understand.
to prevent the destruction being wracked in south-west France
should this be wreaked?- No. Wikt:wrack: to wreck; “to cause to suffer pain, etc”; Usage notes Frequently confused with rack (“torture; suffer pain”), though traditionally means “wreck”. Etymologically, wrack and ruin (“complete destruction”) and storm-wracked (“wrecked by a storm”) are the only terms that derive from wrack.
- Er. It is stated plainly. But changed.
and Hélie de Talleyrand-Périgord, Cardinal of Périgord arrived at the Black Prince's camp
The underlined phrase should be followed by a comma, as a parenthetic.
- Oops. Done.
Happy to do battle, but concerned that a two-day delay would leave his army with its back to the Loire in an area with few supplies the Black Prince dismissed Talleyrand
similarly I feel a comma is needed after 'supplies'; unless you'd rather remove the first comma and use something else like parentheses.
- Comma added.
on the 13th
MOS recommends against using ordinals for dates (MOS:ORDINALDATE). I would change: the 13th → 13 September, even if it's wordier. Similarly withOn the 14th
at the end of the paragraph and 17th in the following paragraph.
- True. Done.
John, aware the outnumbered the Anglo-Gascons, was also eager wipe them out in battle
You possibly meant the underlined to be they or he but I might use "his forces" or similar. Make sure there's no confusion with the later them.
- Good point. Tweaked.
but were about to serendipitously position themselves 20 miles (32 km) south of the Anglo-Gascons and directly in their path back to friendly territory
A wonderful choice of word, ordinarily, but I feel that this may be editorializing as with lucky or luckily, and that it would be serendipitous from the French POV. Perhaps "advantageously" would be more neutral and objective?
- Removed.
Contemporary accounts notethat
missing space
- Done.
campaigning with a similar sized army
I would probably hyphenate similar-sized.
- Done.
The King ordered the French sacred banner, the Oriflamme to be unfurled, which signalled
comma after Oriflamme.
- Done.
The Anglo Gascon command group conferred
hyphenate
- Gah!
only four men by some modern accounts, 400 in others
Since the two figures may be compared, you might state four as the numeral 4. (MOS:NUMNOTES)
- Done.
Some were trampled, their innards torn open
... Do you think this boxquote might be too graphic? We should be sensitive to the victims' family members who might read this.[sarcasm]
- I am going to refrain from comment in order to avoid revealing my lack of political correctness.
Surrounded by enemies John and his youngest son, Philip, surrendered.
I've avoided the urge to recommend commas for most of these, but maybe one here, lest someone momentarily think that Philip surrendered to John and his youngest son, who were enemies. Or better yet, rephrase.some fought off their pursuers,[note 11] most escaped
while most escaped.
- Added.
- If you're pretty sure this will be the final/finished version of the article, you could put in some non-breaking spaces between the day and month in dates and in names like John II to avoid awkward line-wraps.
- nbs's now scattered generously throughout.
I wouldn't be upset if you declined any of this. Very nice work! – Reidgreg (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Reidgreg, good to hear from you again. I have, I think, addressed all of you comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Reidgreg, I think that everything is addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Reidgreg, I was wondering if you felt able to support or oppose the nomination yet? Or is there more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Reidgreg, I think that everything is addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Reidgreg, good to hear from you again. I have, I think, addressed all of you comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Support from HF
I reviewed this at GAN, and thought it was FA-quality at that time. Hog Farm Talk 20:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Hawkeye7
Spelling errors: "over-whelmimgly", "strategem",
- Gah! Corrected.
Source review - pass
- All sources are high quality books and journals.
- Some of the journals have ISSNs (eg Magier, Rogers), and others not. ISSNs are not required on the English-language Wikipedia, but they are on some of the others, so I normally add them to help the translators.
- Done. (I think.)
- Kaeuper and Kennedy's ISBN is formatted differently to the others. It should be 978-0-8122-3348-3.
- Fixed.
- Some of the multiple author works have ampersands (eg. Kaeuper and Kennedy, Livingstone and Witzel, but others do not. Adopt a consistent style.
- Good spot. Standardised.
- Where you have multiple works by the same author, you currently have them in random order. Suggest chronological order.
- I thought they were, but I see that one of Rogers' is misplaced. Fixed.
- Add page numbers to fn 21 for consistency
- D'oh! Done.
- Spot checks: 24, 36, 68, 138, 155 - okay
- Fn 36: "the importance of the economic attrition of the chevauchée can hardly be exaggerated." Word missing. It should read: "the importance of the economic attrition aspect of the chevauchée can hardly be exaggerated."
- That's my wonky copying across. Thank you. Amended. (I had also made the same error in Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355!)
- My preference would be for notes 2 and 3 to be merged into the text, so the notes contain only historiographic information.
- I have worked the first into "Opposing forces", which is my preferences. I had a request in another FAC for the term to be fully explained at first mention - ie in the lead. Hence the footnote. I think that no. 2 needs to stay as a footnote. (And I am not sure that I see a difference in principle between it and eg footnotes 3, 10, 11 or 12. (Now 2, 9, 10 and 11.))
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Hawkeye7, it is good of you to do this. I have addressed all of your actionable comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Support for prose, from Shooterwalker
Combed through this to look for any major issues with clarity or flow. I had a few nitpicks, but they seemed to be more style than real issues. Happy to support as is. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Query for the coordinators
@WP:FAC coordinators: with four supports (five if Hawkeye7's is a general support as well as a source review pass), source and image review passes and all of Truflip99's comments to date addressed, and with the nomination now three weeks in, could I have permission to launch another? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
One sentence
Section: 1356 The sentence, In three weeks the expedition had seized a large amount of loot, including many horses, damage had been done to the French economy and prestige, new alliances had been cemented and there had been few casualties. didn't quite work for me. I felt that military gains ie the loot, horses, lack of casuaties and gaining new alliances belong together while the soft power gains of damaging the French economy and prestige were separate.
My version would be: In three weeks the expedition had, with few casualties, seized a large amount of loot (including many horses), cemented new alliances and had damaged the French economy and prestige. Just a thought.Bill Reid | (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Billreid, I like it. Done, except I have dropped the parentheses. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Support - very enjoyable read. Bill Reid | (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments from JennyOz
Hi Gog, Popping in before the other dozens of pingees. This is mammoth. A big read and a 50th! Well done you! I have but a few nitpicks and a couple of questions. (I started this before edits by Billreid so some tweaks may have been done?) For my comments on conversions pls view my templates in edit mode.
- lede
- the eldest son and heir of the English King - pipe Edward III?
- I prefer not to. It is not all that clear to a reader that this is Edward III. I feel that linking the second mention is, in this case, more helpful to a reader.
- Background
- Although Gascony was the cause of the war - control of Gascony?
- Actually, no. I have already said "the only significant French possession still held by the English in France was Gascony in the south west. But Gascony was disproportionately important: duty levied by the English Crown on wine from Bordeaux, the capital of Gascony, was more than all other English customs duties combined and by far the largest source of state income. Bordeaux had a population of more than 50,000, greater than London's, and Bordeaux was possibly richer ... Philip's Great Council in Paris agreed that the lands held by Edward III in France should be taken back into Philip's hands on the grounds that Edward III was in breach of his obligations as a vassal. This marked the start of the Hundred Years' War". Is this not sufficient explanation of Gascony's role?
- John II of France attempted - no need for "of France"
- Done.
- In 1355 Edward III's eldest - here be no nbs
- set out on 5 October - missed nbs
- Gascony on 2 December - missed nbs
- All added.
- 1356
- from them on 24 April 1356 - missed nbs
- Done.
- The modern historian Jonathan Sumption describes the French national administration as "fall[ing] apart in jealous acrimony and recrimination". pp=102, 111, 115 - looks like one quote across 3 diff pages, divide them?
- Done.
- On 5 April 1356 John - missed nbs
- Done.
- King John moved to Rouen with - wlink Rouen
- Done.
- Prelude
- separated into three divisions - I think it would be helpful here to mention who headed each of the three divisions?
- more than 50 miles (80 km) wide, yet - use convert ie "more than 50 miles (80 km) wide, yet"
- Why. There is no change from a reader's point of view and there is no requirement to use the template.
- brutal ... methodical - fix ellipsis
- In what way?
- The populace of most towns fled - populaces
- Done.
- formations to disburse widely - disperse
- Done.
- Map showing the routes... - alt=a map showing the route of the BlackPrince's divisision during - add space BlackPrince's, typo division
- Dah!
- free passage to the Cotentin - wlink
- Done.
- John was marching on Tours - wlink
- Done.
- still hoped to cross the Loire River - Loire hasn't been linked since lede?
- Linked.
- with either Edward's or Lancaster's armies - who is Edward here, use Black Prince?
- Edward III. Clarified.
- The French royal army from Breteuil had moved to Chartres - wlink
- Two hundred Scottish picked men-at-arms - what does "picked" mean? Is it simply 'selected' ie hand-picked or some military term (just for my info)
- an over-whelmingly strong force - one word, remove hyphen
- Done.
- army of the Count of Poitiers - who is this, John, Duke of Berry?
- Indeed. Clarified and link moved to the first mention.
- France were still underway and shipping - under way two words
- Apparently not: wikt:underway.
- Movement to contact
- in an area with few supplies - needs a comma after supplies
- Added.
- at La Haye on 13 September - fix piped link
- Fixed.
- Opposing forces
- when campaigning with a similar-sized army - "sized" is a verb here so use adverb "similarly" (eg a widely held belief, or, as below, "so similarly ignored Talleyrand") so should be "with a similarly sized army" with no hyphen?
- Done.
- attendants of minor land owners - one word landowners
- Done.
French army
- and approximately 13-foot -long (4.0 m); - long is not an adjective here (would be if it said 13 foot-long lances) so no hyphen needed. Just basic 13 feet (4.0 m) long
- Done.
- plate armour sown to them - spelling sewn, onto?
- Bleh! Fixed.
- and possibly chain mail hauberks.- needs hyphen ie chain-mail hauberks (though actually, is chain-mail hauberk a tautology?)
- Done. (No. A hauberk could, for example, be made of scale or plate.)
- of about 220 yards (200 m) - why not simply of about 220 yards (200 m)?
- Cus the source says 200 m and I am using imperial units. Not that I much care.
- and his 19-year-old son and heir (the dauphin) - cap D per all other mentions?
- No. This is just referring to him having the general status of being the dauphin, not using it to describe a specific individual.
- Behind this was a division led jointly by John's uncle and his 19-year-old son and heir - ambiguous? "John's uncle and his 19-year-old son" could read as the uncle's son. Would changing it to "led jointly by John's 19-year-old son and heir (the dauphin) and John's uncle" be OK?
- Good thinking. Done.
- Battle
- Prince's personal standard - pipe wlink Military colours, standards and guidons (no problem if you think standard is commonly enough known)
- Given the level of MOS:OVERLINK we already have, adding this makes sense. Done.
- laager - is the wiktionary link better than Laager#Variations which mentions "English 'leaguer' ("military camp")"?
- Ho hum. Changed.
- were able to reach the gap in the fence with - is "fence" intentional or hedge?
- Good spot. I think that I was trying to paraphrase and went overboard. Changed.
- the longbowmen turned against them - insert English or Anglo-Gascons
- Why? It has already been specified that longbowmen are either English or Welsh, and who else would be firing at the French?
- who had accompanied the Cardinal during - decap?
- Why?
- As some contemporary sources summarise this phase of the fighting with "the first French division was defeated by the arrows of the English" - "some"? does more than one source use that quote?
- Amazingly, yes. Rogers, page 379 note 161, gives six different sources using this identical phrase.
- The Black Prince was infuriated by the participation of Talleyrand's relatives and companions - why? did he think Talleyrand therefore was not impartial in negotiations?
- Er, yes. Wouldn't you?
- that a relative of the Cardinal - decap?
- Why?
- and when told that a relative of the Cardinal had been captured he ordered him beheaded - the cardinal or the relative?
- The one who had been captured and whom it was within his power to behead. I could specify, but it seems redundant to me.
- Second attack
- Peter Hoskins states that most - move his introduction to here from Casualties
- Done.
Third attack
- John had ordered Orléans to escort his four sons to safety - use "John's" instead of "his" to avoid ambiguity
- I am not sure there is any ambiguity. If there is, is there not a way to avoid it without clumsily using "John" twice in seven words?
- Three of John's four sons, including the Dauphin, did leave the field at this point - didn't the Dauphin leave in second attack?
- Depends on how you demarcate the attacks. But I say "The Dauphin was accompanied by two of his brothers, Louis and John, and the trio's advisors and bodyguards were perturbed by the intensity of the fighting in their vicinity and forced them to withdraw from the front line to a safer position." Which is not the same as leaving the field. Although the extent to which in reality the first, at the end of the second attack, merged into them actually leaving the field, at the failure of Orléans to launch the third attack, is unclear.
- Fourth attack
- joined by many surviving crossbowmen from the first attack. - this is said just above?
- Could you help me out? I just can't find any prior mention of this.
- the mile-wide gap (1,600 m) - use conversion "across the 1-mile-wide (1.6 km) gap"?
- Er, ok. Done. (Why? I find it more difficult to read that way.)
- towards the by now exhausted - hyphen by-now? Not sure, maybe just remove by
- By needs to be there. Google books has zero cases of this being hyphenated.
- prayed - overlink?
- Well I certainly think so, delinked.
- through for their final charge.[171] [177] - remove space between refs
- Oops.
- started others copied them - followed?
- Guessing that you are suggesting replacing "copied" with "followed" (yes?), they didn't actually follow them. They did the same thing, which is slightly different and which "copied" seems to communicate well.
- Champ d’Alexandre - straighten curly apostrophe
- Straightened. (I wonder who did thay?)
- were eager to take them prisoner – in order that they could be ransomed – rather than - "in order" frowned on? maybe 'eager to take them prisoner for ransoming, rather than...'
- Why is "in order" frowned on? And by who? It seems to precisely describe the situation here.
- Mopping up
- Frenchmen who had fled soon after the Captal de Buch's force arrived generally reached their horses and were able to escape. - this is repeat of "Most of the first to run were able to reach their horses and escape" but is intentional?
- It is, it seemed worth recapping for clarity, but I could rephrase if you think I am over-egging it.
- advantageous to capture in order to hold for ransom. - remove "in order"
- Why. If pushed hard I will replace it. The phrase would read poorly as "advantageous to capture to hold for ransom" IMO.
- Among the slain were the French King's uncle; the grand constable of France; the other marshal; the Bishop of Châlons - add names? eg "the other marshal" is Clermont?
- I prefer not to. Not least because one only names in full at first mention. The marshal other than the "one of the two marshals of France" mentioned two sentences earlier.
- Aftermath
- overladen as they were with loot, booty and prisoners - what is difference loot and booty?
- Not what I thought it was. Switched to "plunder".
- Peace
- between John and Edward led - That's Edward III (not Prince)?
- Clarified. Although it looks clumsy to my eye that one monarch has a regnal number and the other not.
- causing the Treaty to lapse - lowercase t
- Done.
- In October 1359 Edward led another campaign in northern France - Edward III or Black Prince?
- Clarified.
- In October 1359 Edward led another campaign - wlink Reims?
- Done.
- Consistencies etc
- advisor x 5 - er per Tim (in prev fac)?
- Oops. As I keep telling Tim, I read too much American fiction. And the EngvarB tool doesn't pick this one up.
- some headings have spaces at equals signs, others not
- True. And so?
- some alts start with a cap, others not (eg "alt=A map of..." v "alt=a map of...")
- As the alt text is for voice readers I assume this makes no functional difference.
- Refs etc
- ref 51 Rogers 2014, pp. 342, 244. - second page is 344?
- D'oh! Corrected.
- ref 181 Rogers 2014, pp. 282–383. - first page is 382?
- Yes.
- ref 202 Rogers 2014, p. 348. - not 384 is it?
- No.
- author-link=Richard W. Kaeuper - author-link1
- Done.
- Rogers, Clifford J. (2004) - cite news should be journal?
- Yes. Done. Well spotted.
- Harari, Yuval - move link to first entry?
- Done.
That'll do. Sorry for length! Thoroughly enjoyed reading this. JennyOz (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Jenny, you are wonderful. I don't know how to thank you. It is a bit of a monster, isn't it. I shall try not to do it again. Not your fault that your comments were long, but mine for leaving in so many silly errors for you to find. Everything now addressed, a couple with queries and a couple with disagreements. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Borsoka
But Gascony...
Do we begin a sentence with "but"?Bordeaux had a population of more than 50,000, greater than London's, and Bordeaux was possibly richer.
Do we need to know it in the article's context?...Philip's Great Council in Paris...
Great Council or Royal Council? Do we need to know that it happened in Paris?In 1345 and 1346 Henry, Earl of Lancaster, led a series of successful campaigns in Aquitaine and the Anglo-Gascons were able to push the focus of the fighting away from the heart of Gascony.
I assume that Henry fought for the Gascons, perhaps launching campaigns from Gascony to other parts of the former Duchy of Aquitaine. Why Anglo-Gascons instead of Gascons?...the death rate was over 40% in Southern England
Is this a fact or also an estimation? Do we need to know it?This catastrophe, which lasted until 1350, temporarily halted the fighting.
The statement contradicts the following sentence about naval battles, etc.However, the French king, now John II (r. 1350–1364), decided not to ratify it...
Why? I understand this is a key event in the background history of the battle.It was clear...
Is this encyclopedic?...his council...
Is the wikilink useful? Borsoka (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)The next day he was formally acknowledged as the king's lieutenant in Gascony, with plenipotentiary powers.
Acknowledged or installed? If acknowledged, by whom?The Anglo-Gascon force marched from Bordeaux in English-held Gascony 300 miles (480 km) to Narbonne and back to Gascony...
We were already informed that Bordeaux was held by the English in Gascony, and Gascony is already linked. Where is Narbonne located?The English component resumed the offensive after Christmas...
Perhaps "the offensive from Gascony"?...one of the largest landholders in France...
Perhaps "in Normandy"? (To better understand the following sentence about the Norman nobles who were not arrested.)...Edward diverted an expedition...
I assume he is the king, not the Black Prince. Borsoka (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Sometime around 20 August he offered the garrison of Breteuil free passage to the Cotentin, a huge bribe and permission to take their valuables and goods, in order to persuade them to vacate the town. The French army promptly marched south, as all available forces were concentrated against the Black Prince.
Did the garrison accept the offer? Do we need to know that he offered free passage to the Cotentin?- Who is the Count of Poitiers?
- Introduce the Dauphin in section "Movement to contact" instead of section "French army", and also name him. Borsoka (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Crossbowmen usually fought from behind pavises – very large shields with their own bearers, behind each of which three crossbowmen could shelter. A trained crossbowman could shoot his weapon approximately twice a minute and had a shorter effective range than a longbowman of about 220 yards (200 m).
Do these statements describe only French crossbowmen?- Link William Douglas. Borsoka (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
...as was one of Talleyrand's nephews and Robert of Durazzo...
Durazzo was Talleyrand's nephew killed in the battle....James Audley...
Perhaps Audley? (He was introduces in a previous section.)- Link John, Duke of Berry when mentioning the Dauphin's brother, John.
- Link Oriflamme. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Name Charles de la Cerda as the constable of France killed by Charles the Bad.
- Consider consolidating note 6 with the main text.
- Consider consolidating note 11 with the main text or deleting it.
Congratulations for your 50th FAC. It is an excellent article and its subject is worthy for celebration. Please find my comments above. Most of them present minor issues. Borsoka (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
St Mark's Basilica
- Nominator(s): Venicescapes (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
For the art historian and Byzantinist Otto Demus, St Mark's Basilica is "the key to the understanding of all of Venice, of its history, and of its art"; for John Ruskin it’s a "confusion of delight"; for Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, it’s "a giant crab" ("einen kolossalen Taschenkrebs"). Regardless of the differing opinions, St Mark's Basilica is undeniably unique, the single-most important monument in one of the world's most visited and admired cities. As a topic on Wikipedia, the basilica is of High importance for three WikiProjects and a level-5 vital article in Art.
Thank you to No Great Shaker for the GA review and the encouragement to go further.Venicescapes (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
buidhe
- Oppose and recommend withdrawal. There are a lot of good qualities in this nomination, but it will require considerable work to get it to FA status. At 80 kB (13008 words) with 50 (!) notes, the article length is clearly excessive and will require substantial cutting (by 1/3 to 1/2 the current prose length), probably by splitting the article into subtopics and using WP:Summary style. Why are citations being used in the lead, they aren't necessary? (t · c) buidhe 18:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking a look at the article; I'm glad you see some good qualities. St Mark's is a complex building with a complex and extensive history, and I have tried to cover all of the pertinent topics in a succinct manner. None of the individual sections appears to be excessively long. With regard to the overall length, please consider that Cleopatra (indicated by Wikipedia as a model for a Featured Article) has 210,999 bytes, 13,470 words, and 87 notes. All of these parameters exceed those of St Mark's Basilica. As mentioned on the Article Size page: "Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage". As to the lead, some citations could be eliminated since the information is covered in the article. However, there is information included to give an immediate sense of the building's importance, which is consistent with MOS: "... not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles." I have provided references for the quotations and examples.Venicescapes (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Just because you are able to find one FA that is overly long and detailed does not mean that it should be accepted at FAC, (and no, it is not "indicated by Wikipedia as a model for a Featured Article"—there is no official hierarchy of featured articles). There are many counterexamples such as Armenian genocide, a recent promotion that is covered in just over 7,000 words or Huey Long which was split and trimmed to an appropriate length in order to get through FAC.
- You are correct that the 'article quality grading scheme' lists Cleopatra as an "example" of a FA, rather than a "model". My mistake. However, I tend to interpret the two terms as synonymous. I'm sure that examples and counterexamples of long or short articles can easily be found, which seems to validate the MOS statement: "Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage". I believe the needs of the article and the reader are of primary importance since FA should be "a definitive source for encyclopedic information". Again, in the case of St Mark's, there is a considerable amount of ground to cover to make sense of it all. I have nevertheless limited the scope. For example, in the longest section on the decorative programme I certainly did not cover every mosaic and every inscription, but only those needed to explain the overall meaning. Perhaps in the spirit of constructive criticism, you could let me know what you specifically see as superfluous.Venicescapes (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'd say that the article goes into too much detail everywhere and could use trimming across the board, but one place to start would be the notes. Generally, content should be either important enough to include in the body, or not important enough to include in the article at all. (t · c) buidhe 09:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Am I understanding correctly that you are opposed to explanatory notes?Venicescapes (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Notes that are strictly for clarification are the only case of notes I accept as a reasonable use, but in this case they go way overboard. (t · c) buidhe 11:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Again, if I understand correctly you do not 'accept' that explanatory notes "are used to add explanations, comments or other additional information relating to the main content but would make the text too long or awkward to read." as per explanatory notes. Is this correct?Venicescapes (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- If it's just being used to add additional information, it belongs in sub-articles, not the main article. WP:Summary style is not being used here and that's concerning because it's required by the FA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 00:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Summary style is not a unique criterion to FA but is a guideline for all Wiki articles. The converse is also true; all other guidelines are applicable to FA. In this case, the use of explanatory notes does not change based on the quality scale. By definition, they exist to provide additional and/or clarificatory information. This is Wiki policy. None of the notes in the article is substantial enough in its own right to justify a separate article. Some readers will be interested and can read them; others will not and can read just the article. There are already numerous internet articles on the basilica with information, largely cursory, that is more-or-less accurate. Creating yet another is senseless. As a self-proclaimed encyclopedia, Wikipedia should and can be more.Venicescapes (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- If it's just being used to add additional information, it belongs in sub-articles, not the main article. WP:Summary style is not being used here and that's concerning because it's required by the FA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 00:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Again, if I understand correctly you do not 'accept' that explanatory notes "are used to add explanations, comments or other additional information relating to the main content but would make the text too long or awkward to read." as per explanatory notes. Is this correct?Venicescapes (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Notes that are strictly for clarification are the only case of notes I accept as a reasonable use, but in this case they go way overboard. (t · c) buidhe 11:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Am I understanding correctly that you are opposed to explanatory notes?Venicescapes (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'd say that the article goes into too much detail everywhere and could use trimming across the board, but one place to start would be the notes. Generally, content should be either important enough to include in the body, or not important enough to include in the article at all. (t · c) buidhe 09:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- You are correct that the 'article quality grading scheme' lists Cleopatra as an "example" of a FA, rather than a "model". My mistake. However, I tend to interpret the two terms as synonymous. I'm sure that examples and counterexamples of long or short articles can easily be found, which seems to validate the MOS statement: "Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage". I believe the needs of the article and the reader are of primary importance since FA should be "a definitive source for encyclopedic information". Again, in the case of St Mark's, there is a considerable amount of ground to cover to make sense of it all. I have nevertheless limited the scope. For example, in the longest section on the decorative programme I certainly did not cover every mosaic and every inscription, but only those needed to explain the overall meaning. Perhaps in the spirit of constructive criticism, you could let me know what you specifically see as superfluous.Venicescapes (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- All facts in the lead should also be in the body, making all citations redundant (barring a few exceptions that don't seem to be relevant). If there is info in the lead that is not in the body, that is a more serious issue.
- I have removed the citations for information that is also covered in the body. As mentioned, I provided a quotation and examples in the lead which are meant to convey the relevance of the basilica. These are not repeated in the body and are consequently cited in the lead. Please let me know how you interpret the MOS: "... not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles." Also, please let me know what information doesn’t seem to be relevant.Venicescapes (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- What about refs 2-7? Is the information under these refs not covered in the body? If so, that would need to be fixed. There are also parts of the body that do not comply with FA criteria's inline citation requirements. (t · c) buidhe 09:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I added the four citations you requested in the body. For refs 2–7, they are for quotations and examples in the lead. You write "that would need to be fixed". In what sense? Again, how are you intrepeting the MOS: "... not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles."? Please let me know which parts of the body do not comply with "FA criteria's inline citation requirements". Are you referring to the four requests for citations for which you placed a template?Venicescapes (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- What specific facts in the lead are not in the body, and why aren't they included there? (t · c) buidhe 11:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- The facts are those that have the citations and are meant to give an idea of the centrality of the church in the life of the city. To include them in the body would require an additional and extensive section on historical events that took place in the church over centuries and on civic ceremonies.Venicescapes (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Can you give a straight answer to the question, specifically quoting the exact things in the lead that aren't in the body? (t · c) buidhe 00:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- In the lead, the information that is not repeated in the body is specifically: (1) As the state sanctuary, it was the site of official religious and civic ceremonies, including … the consignment to the capitano generale da mar of the banner of Saint Mark, symbol of the supreme authority to defend the republic on the sea in wartime. Here, peace treaties and alliances were also solemnized and victories celebrated. The church additionally served as the meeting hall of the Concio until the popular assembly's dissolution in 1423. (These are examples to give a sense of the importance of the building, which is consistent with Wiki guidelines.) (2) The interior of the domes, the vaults, and the upper walls were slowly covered with roughly 8,500 square metres (91,000 sq ft) of gold-ground mosaics …. (Again, this is to give a sense of the extent of the mosaics. The mosaic section in the article covers the mosaics purely from an artistic perspective.) (3) For its singular importance, St Mark's Basilica was defined by the art historian and Byzantinist Otto Demus as "the key to the understanding of all of Venice, of its history, and of its art." (The quotation by Demus is again to give a sense of the importance of the building. Again, this is consistent with Wiki guidelines.)Venicescapes (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Can you give a straight answer to the question, specifically quoting the exact things in the lead that aren't in the body? (t · c) buidhe 00:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- The facts are those that have the citations and are meant to give an idea of the centrality of the church in the life of the city. To include them in the body would require an additional and extensive section on historical events that took place in the church over centuries and on civic ceremonies.Venicescapes (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- What specific facts in the lead are not in the body, and why aren't they included there? (t · c) buidhe 11:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I added the four citations you requested in the body. For refs 2–7, they are for quotations and examples in the lead. You write "that would need to be fixed". In what sense? Again, how are you intrepeting the MOS: "... not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles."? Please let me know which parts of the body do not comply with "FA criteria's inline citation requirements". Are you referring to the four requests for citations for which you placed a template?Venicescapes (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- What about refs 2-7? Is the information under these refs not covered in the body? If so, that would need to be fixed. There are also parts of the body that do not comply with FA criteria's inline citation requirements. (t · c) buidhe 09:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I have removed the citations for information that is also covered in the body. As mentioned, I provided a quotation and examples in the lead which are meant to convey the relevance of the basilica. These are not repeated in the body and are consequently cited in the lead. Please let me know how you interpret the MOS: "... not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles." Also, please let me know what information doesn’t seem to be relevant.Venicescapes (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Another serious issue I just noticed is that the article cites several sources from the 19th century. How can these be considered "high-quality reliable sources" per the FA criteria especially since as you indicate this is an important topic on which many recent sources are available? (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- I assume that you are referring to the various essays from The Basilica of S. Mark in Venice: illustrated from the points of view of art and history. My understanding from your user page is that you, too, are an historian. So I’m sure you appreciate that historical research is a process as new interpretations, discoveries, and conclusions come along. Some topics, however, remain dormant for decades in the absence of new archival or archaeological discoveries. The Basilica of S. Mark in Venice: illustrated from the points of view of art and history remains of fundamental importance for the documentary research.
- You will have noted that I reverted your edit to the page which deleted the map of Saint Mark's Square. As I explained in the edit summary, the map is needed to show readers the physical relationship between the church and the other buildings. The map is used on multiple Wiki pages in seven different languages precisely for the buildings in the square and not for the square itself.Venicescapes (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm unconvinced that this 19th century source is a high-quality RS according to the FA criteria, if any of its claims are sufficiently important to include, these claims would be repeated in more recent sources. (t · c) buidhe 11:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I reviewed the criteria again, but did not see anything of pertinence. Perhaps I missed it. Can you please let me know under which FA criteria this would not be considered a reliable source?Venicescapes (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- The featured article criteria requires "high-quality reliable sources", it's up to the nominator to show that all sources cited meet this requirement. (t · c) buidhe 00:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- In the second period of Austrian rule (1814–1866), the documents coming from the various offices, councils, and magistracies of the former Venetian Republic were consolidated. This piqued interest, favoured research, and led to the publication of several important works that remain fundamental for consultation. The Basilica of S. Mark in Venice: illustrated from the points of view of art and history is one of these works. Some essays in the book deal with architecture and art and have been superseded by more recent scholarship. The essays consulted for this article concern the organizations and functions of offices within the Venetian government. That information has not changed since the nineteenth century, since the Republic no longer exists. Generally speaking, publications in the past, in many instances financed by the government or academies, were more scholarly as opposed to more recent works that are often conditioned by commercial and marketability considerations. Hence the Lorenzetti guidebook (used in this article), despite its age, provides far more information since it was conceived for a tourist that at the time likely had a liberal-arts education and sojourned for longer periods in the city. Modern guidebooks, conceived for the mass-tourist market, tend to have more glossy pictures and little information. With all due respect, to any historian or research scholar, your claim that information not included in recent publications is not “sufficiently important” is patently absurd.Venicescapes (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- The featured article criteria requires "high-quality reliable sources", it's up to the nominator to show that all sources cited meet this requirement. (t · c) buidhe 00:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- I reviewed the criteria again, but did not see anything of pertinence. Perhaps I missed it. Can you please let me know under which FA criteria this would not be considered a reliable source?Venicescapes (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm unconvinced that this 19th century source is a high-quality RS according to the FA criteria, if any of its claims are sufficiently important to include, these claims would be repeated in more recent sources. (t · c) buidhe 11:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Just because you are able to find one FA that is overly long and detailed does not mean that it should be accepted at FAC, (and no, it is not "indicated by Wikipedia as a model for a Featured Article"—there is no official hierarchy of featured articles). There are many counterexamples such as Armenian genocide, a recent promotion that is covered in just over 7,000 words or Huey Long which was split and trimmed to an appropriate length in order to get through FAC.
- Thank you for taking a look at the article; I'm glad you see some good qualities. St Mark's is a complex building with a complex and extensive history, and I have tried to cover all of the pertinent topics in a succinct manner. None of the individual sections appears to be excessively long. With regard to the overall length, please consider that Cleopatra (indicated by Wikipedia as a model for a Featured Article) has 210,999 bytes, 13,470 words, and 87 notes. All of these parameters exceed those of St Mark's Basilica. As mentioned on the Article Size page: "Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage". As to the lead, some citations could be eliminated since the information is covered in the article. However, there is information included to give an immediate sense of the building's importance, which is consistent with MOS: "... not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles." I have provided references for the quotations and examples.Venicescapes (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Leaning support Having reviewed the nominator's previous FA (on the building opposite) I can see on a quick look this is another excellently researched piece. As before, some paragraphs are too long and should be split. It is certainly long, but I don't see how it can easily be broken up - the architecture, history and mosaics are the building's main attractions, & should not be shunted away. The length is currently 173,802 bytes; there are currently 153 FAs longer than that, leading up to the longest, Taylor Swift, which is over twice as long! The 153 include such mega-topics as 2007 USC Trojans football team, The Thing (1982 film), 2003–04 Arsenal F.C. season and El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie! Most of the sourcing is very high quality and admirably recent; on a subject like this there is often nothing wrong with the odd older source. I agree with User:Venicescapes's comments re this above. There is absolutely no backing in policy for User:Buidhe's objection to refs in the lead; this is purely a personal taste. Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I will try to take a more detailed look at the entire article later, but the first thing that caught my attention: why does this use Template:Infobox and lots of HTML instead of Template:Infobox church? Also, I don't believe that length per se is a problem. This article doesn't seem unreasonably long (especially considering a huge portion of the article is footnotes, citations, and references), but it could use some streamlining and judicious trimming. Ergo Sum 23:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your willingness to read through the article and for any suggestions as to how it could be streamlined with judicious trimming. Admittedly, my technical skills with infoboxes are limited; a more experienced user might be able to obtain the same effect, beginning with the Church infobox. Basically, I needed to logically organize the information and clearly distinguish the two periods of the basilica’s history, grouping together all of the information about the church’s status as a cathedral and a ducal chapel. The Church infobox places the status information (cathedral) in one section and the episcopal-see information (patriarchate of Venice) in another, interrupted by the architectural information. Also, the Church infobox uses a terminology (archdiocese) that is not completely accurate for the patriarchate. Before the section on status, I placed all of the information that is shared between the basilica as the present cathedral and as the historical chapel of the doge (location, consecration, relics, etc.) All of the architectural information is organized after, using the second image as a clear divider. This also immediately shows the reader both the exterior and the interior, both of which are mentioned in the lead. It is the same solution used for the Biblioteca Marciana where the information about the library as an institution is clearly separated from the architectural information. For overall appearance, I utilized the same colour-scheme that the Church infobox uses for Roman-Catholic churches. Again, a more technically skilled user might be able to achieve the same result beginning with the Church infobox. But I think the key information about the basilica, as is organized, is comprehensible at a glance.Venicescapes (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ergo Sum, Greetings from Venice. I hope you are well. I was wondering if you had any further guidance, corrections, or suggestions.Venicescapes (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I thought, before my GA withdrawal, that this was, on the whole, an excellent article. I do remember thinking, however, that some sections/notes were apt to get a bit too detailed or technical; that some phrasing was awkward; and that the background section especially needed some work. It is a long article, yes, (if approved, I believe it would be the largest FA architecture article by a full 5000 readable words, over Millennium Park) but apart from some parts of the background, I don't believe any sections can reasonably be spun off into a new article. Some trimming is definitely needed, but I certainly believe it's a fair FA candidate. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank your for your input. I'm glad you're feeling better. I've done some limited streamlining. If you can let me know which areas appeared too technical or awkward, I can reword those specifically.Venicescapes (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Comments Support by Ceoil
Placeholder. Ceoil (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Have read it all in last 4 days, and to say wow; the breath and depth is deeply admirable. Two things to start off:
- I don't have a problem with the length, although it did seem that the background veered off topic a few times, and frankly at times was wondering what page I was reading and how it would resolve. Against that, the architecture sections are a joy, and it took four days to read because I keep following links and veering outwards.
- Thank you for your time and edits. I'm glad you enjoyed the architecture sections. On the background, let me know how it might be further condensed or its relevance made clearer to the reader. Demus uses 13 pages for the Aquileian background, and in some form it needs to be covered since (1) many of the mosaics in the chancel and choir chapels illustrate the transfer of apostolic authority from Aquileia, through Grado, to Venice (2) it explains why Mark and 'his' church become so central to Venice's self identity.Venicescapes (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Have no problem with 19th c sources being used for things like description and basic matters of fact. I can identify with the nominators statement above that some areas remain understudied, and that he is citing back to the source rather than summary overviews etc that quote that source. Otherwise it would be "in 2002 X noted how Y in 1893 noted how". I do this all the time; when a more recent scholar cites an earlier scholar but doesn't develop the observation or theme, I dig out the earlier work, because attribution and respect.
I look forward to supporting this article. Ceoil (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Re the first point re length, I suspect it will be shortened not by spinning out sections, but by reducing words. eg why do we have even at claiming historical precedence over the Patriarchate of Alexandria in Egypt, believed to have been nfounded by Mark.[9]
[para break and then]
No historical evidence exists to support the claim. for example. Ceoil (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- I did some more streamlining.Venicescapes (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm starting to soften re summary style, given that the article is already 11856 words, and can we say that (reflecting my own interests) that the "Chancel and choir chapels" and especially the mosaics sections are fully complete and cannot be further developed, work that might be hampered if the length issue is at back of mind. I can speak and vouch for one objector (Gog) as usually fair "and" detail orientated, but in this case a fear might be the impossibility of reviewing an extremely long tract. Have only been involved in generating one comparable FAC (Early Netherlandish painting, 12775 words) but was blessed by reviewers I had already built relationships with that were willing to spend days and weeks trawling through. Luckily we weren't asked to spin out there (and the article anyways wasnt suited to that approach), but the last time I saw a satisfactory resolution on this issue was Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inner German border/archive1. Still thinking, but posting son the review doesn't go stale. Ceoil (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Also to say, I'm deeply frustrated/conflicted on this nom...haven't we always being saying the weakness of the process is tat it favours micro topics, and now we have a vital article and are scratching our heads? What got me at the objects so far is that they seemed from a quick scroll up and down and didn't offer suggestions as to what sections were over extended. Having read the page a few times now, I certainly don't see padding, but I do see sections (mentioned above) that deserve stand alone articles, that could (happy days) be further expanded in the future. Ceoil (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm starting to soften re summary style, given that the article is already 11856 words, and can we say that (reflecting my own interests) that the "Chancel and choir chapels" and especially the mosaics sections are fully complete and cannot be further developed, work that might be hampered if the length issue is at back of mind. I can speak and vouch for one objector (Gog) as usually fair "and" detail orientated, but in this case a fear might be the impossibility of reviewing an extremely long tract. Have only been involved in generating one comparable FAC (Early Netherlandish painting, 12775 words) but was blessed by reviewers I had already built relationships with that were willing to spend days and weeks trawling through. Luckily we weren't asked to spin out there (and the article anyways wasnt suited to that approach), but the last time I saw a satisfactory resolution on this issue was Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inner German border/archive1. Still thinking, but posting son the review doesn't go stale. Ceoil (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I did some more streamlining.Venicescapes (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Under ordinary circumstances, and being familiar with Venicescapes 's ability and form I would be a support already. Holding off for now as do see room for some sections having separate articles...and thus more leg room for expansion. To say again, this indecision is more our ie FACs (and include myself here as I've been around a long time) problem rather than Venicescapes, and really hope he perceivers and does not get discouraged as this is very much first rate content of which the project should be proud. Ceoil (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Laying my cards on the table, the above was an attempt at bridging, which did not work, which I have mixed feelings about. Venice is going for article integritry vs two co-ords, and have left a note here. Never the less, no reader is forced to read all of this consistently high quality article; As a reader I mostly mostly hop from here to there depending on how I landed via a blue link or goole search query. Have read this page several times and beyond a few light ce's here and there, its obviously FAC quality and then some - its breath of research, prose, setting in historical context and on and on are bars we should be holding up for future nominations, not quick failing by c0-ords within 7 minutes of the nom (hows that for a cabal approach for you). If this is failed on length, then it totally reinforces the reason why fac cookie cutter micro-topics are what FAC is institutionally geared towards, apart from over detailed mil hist recounting of medieval battles. Ceoil (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- So anyway, Support on 1.a to 1.f, 2.a to 2.c, 3, 4. Ceoil (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Just to reinforce a further disappointment at the way this was handled, the 2nd sentance rational in the oppose by Gog - "you have to be kidding me", if ever indicates total lack of perspective, circling of wagons, no mention of the achievement in getting the article to such a state; trimming needed or not, and gives the impression of a closed shop, with an direct insult to boot. Not good for editor rention, or front facing why more should engage with the fac process, and basically violates AGF (for old hands, imagine if you were new to this and told by Raul or Sandy "you have to be kidding me"). Ceoil (talk)
- So anyway, Support on 1.a to 1.f, 2.a to 2.c, 3, 4. Ceoil (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Laying my cards on the table, the above was an attempt at bridging, which did not work, which I have mixed feelings about. Venice is going for article integritry vs two co-ords, and have left a note here. Never the less, no reader is forced to read all of this consistently high quality article; As a reader I mostly mostly hop from here to there depending on how I landed via a blue link or goole search query. Have read this page several times and beyond a few light ce's here and there, its obviously FAC quality and then some - its breath of research, prose, setting in historical context and on and on are bars we should be holding up for future nominations, not quick failing by c0-ords within 7 minutes of the nom (hows that for a cabal approach for you). If this is failed on length, then it totally reinforces the reason why fac cookie cutter micro-topics are what FAC is institutionally geared towards, apart from over detailed mil hist recounting of medieval battles. Ceoil (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Comments by AirshipJungleman29
- Background section needs work. I would suggest that the Aquileia section be spun off into a different article — although reference to the dispute can and must be made in the article, it should not be as exhaustive as it is here. If you are determined on keeping it, I would suggest a heavier focus on Venice's role and situation in the dispute; to a casual reader this is not immediately clear.
- There is already a dedicated article section for St Mark's relics - the story of the translatio does not need to be narrated in this article. A summary will do. Would probably suggest, in addition, that most of the section contents be moved there, leaving only a summary here.
- Note 24 ("
Michael Jacoff's proposed interpretation...
") is too technical. - Notes 30/31 (on order of apostles and nations) are unneccessary and uncited - a deadly combination.
More later. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC).
- I deleted the notes. The background section is going to take some thought, and any further suggestions are most welcome. As Otto Demus wrote: "the story of San Marco begins with these relics." The various stories (translatio, praedestinatio, and inventio) are subjects of mosaics explained further along and also show up again in the liturgy section. So I'm not sure how we can not explain them or expect readers to go to another page to find out. Again, suggestions are welcome. I'll try to trim the Aquileia section further.Venicescapes (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting not explaining the translatio, praedestinatio and inventio (TPI, for short), I'm simply suggesting we follow WP:SS with regard to it; that is, the whole smuggling shenanigans, which are, let's be honest, not immediately relevant to St Mark's Basilica, should be moved to Mark the Evangelist#Relics of Saint Mark, as a starting point. Their contents can be easily summarised in one or two sentences — the priest and monk, the pork subterfuge, the shipwreck salvation aren't needed here at all, since they are never really referred back to — and we can move on. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- Relics moved into new article (St Mark's relics) along with Mark the Evangelist#Relics of Saint Mark to avoid overweighting on the Mark the Evangelist page. I need to o back and do some clean-up.Venicescapes (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting not explaining the translatio, praedestinatio and inventio (TPI, for short), I'm simply suggesting we follow WP:SS with regard to it; that is, the whole smuggling shenanigans, which are, let's be honest, not immediately relevant to St Mark's Basilica, should be moved to Mark the Evangelist#Relics of Saint Mark, as a starting point. Their contents can be easily summarised in one or two sentences — the priest and monk, the pork subterfuge, the shipwreck salvation aren't needed here at all, since they are never really referred back to — and we can move on. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- I deleted the notes. The background section is going to take some thought, and any further suggestions are most welcome. As Otto Demus wrote: "the story of San Marco begins with these relics." The various stories (translatio, praedestinatio, and inventio) are subjects of mosaics explained further along and also show up again in the liturgy section. So I'm not sure how we can not explain them or expect readers to go to another page to find out. Again, suggestions are welcome. I'll try to trim the Aquileia section further.Venicescapes (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- The assessment section is awkward throughout:
- Long German/Italian quotations not needed in main text.
- I can move these into notes if you prefer
- Deleted
- I can move these into notes if you prefer
"magnificent grottesque"
— grottesque isn't a word, and I'm not sure what you're going for.
- One too many 'T's: grotesque
"Harsher is Mark Twain who, albeit fascinated by the basilica, sees it as "nobly" and "augustly ugly". Judging St Mark's to uniformly lack beauty, he considers it to be perfect"
- I am confused.
- He means perfect, but not in a positive sense. Rather perfect in the sense that it's all ugly with no beautiful intrusions.
- I added "perfect in the sense of perfectly ugly".Venicescapes (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
In describing the basilica, Francesco Sansovino mentions primarily individual artefacts.
Who? Why? Explain. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- There really is no explanation. Francesco Sansovino in his guide (1581) talks about the importance of individual artefacts but doesn't really describe the building per se.Venicescapes (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- Deleted
- AirshipJungleman29, I've made some more corrections/deletions. Please let me know if they help.Venicescapes (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
@Venicescapes:, coming back to this article, I find myself overwhelmed by the notes, which I do feel are too inclined to verbosity and minutiae. Yes, explanatory notes "are used to add explanations, comments or other additional information relating to the main content but would make the text too long or awkward to read", but quite a few notes are too long or awkward to read in and of themselves; take note two, for example, which I think we can agree is less an explanatory note and more an expository paragraph (could be incorporated into main text, or other articles, but probably shouldn't remain as a note). My feelings are thus (and yes, this will be confusing):
- Note 1 - fine, does its job without being awkward. 2 - discussed above. 3 - could easily be incorporated into main text (it wouldn't make the previous sentence too long or awkward) or cut. 4 - unneccessary. 5 - awkward, too technical. 6 - you've just given the exact same reference as provided in the note; you don't need to repeat what Demus says at the page you've already cited. 7 - fine. 8 - see note 3. 9, 10 & 11 - see note 6. 12 - bit verbose, content reasonable. 13 - fine. 14 - unnecessary, given that nearly all the citations on the subject in the article already link to that book (which we could have a translated title of, now that I think about it).
- 15 - I'll be honest, it's late and my eyes glazed over looking at that paragraph, so, probably fine I guess? 16 - fine. 17 - probably unneccessary in this article. 18 - fine. 19 - see 2. 20 - unneccessary, a simple citation would do. 21 - see 3. 22 & 23 - see note 6. 24 - see 5. 25 - see 3. 26 - am I confused or is this just referring to note 2? 27 - see 4. 28, 29 & 30 - see 6. 31 - see 4. 32 - see 5 & 6 (the latter with reference to citation 191). 33 - see 6. 34 - see 20.
- 35 & 36 - fine. 37 - see 3 & 4. 38 - fine. 39 - see 3. 40 - see 2. 41 - see 3, 4, and 6. 42 and 43 - see 2 (on another note, this section incorporates rather a lot on "the many historical events that took place in the church and the various civic events", as you put to Tim riley — shouldn't be too hard to list the consignment of the capitano generale among them, surely?). 44 overlaps with 47 and 48; is also very technical, and could be shortened significantly and incorporated into main text. 45 & 46 - see 2 & 4.
- Just my thoughts on what I feel is probably the main failing point of an excellent article. Hope you can make sense of my confused word-vomit — I've probably misinterpreted or oversimplified many many things.. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
image review
- Why is there an external link in a caption? Suggest moving to a footnote or a {{external media}}
- I didn't know about this option. Thank you. I wanted to give readers unfamiliar with the polychoral style the opportunity to hear it so that they can understand better what is being discussed.Venicescapes (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- The current layout presents some sandwiching between images
- I saw two areas with sandwiching and corrected them (at least on my screen). In the first case, I moved the floorplan to what, in reality, is a more appropriate section. To avoid creating a new problem with sandwiching there, I placed it in a table between paragraphs, integrating with some graphics.
- "The territory of Venetia circa 600 AD (Aquileia, Grado, and Venice (Rivoalto) are shown as underlined)" - underlining is not visible at that size
- reworded
- I'd also suggest scaling up this map. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Done. I can also redo the image to mark Aquileia, Grado, and Venice more prominently if this would help further.Venicescapes (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- As per request of Gerda (below), I increased the size of the names of Aquileia, Grado, and Venice.
- Done. I can also redo the image to mark Aquileia, Grado, and Venice more prominently if this would help further.Venicescapes (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'd also suggest scaling up this map. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Don't use fixed px size
- I may have to trouble you for some further guidance. I have 'upright' on all of the images that use the thumb parameter. Px size was used for the Infobox, Multiple image boxes, Wiki table, Gallery, and Wide image. But these don't seem to accept anything else. I tried 'upright', without success.
- I've just tested
|upright=
for the infobox and table images and it seems to work fine. On my screen if you remove the fixed size in the gallery nothing changes - what happens on your screen? As for the image templates, that is a known restriction on the use of these templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)- Here's what happens.
- Gallery: I can remove the px parameter, but the images become tiny, almost postage-stamp size. I tried to add
|upright=
(followed by various numbers) both to the gallery and/or to the individual images. But they remain tiny.- I still can't get the gallery to work with anything other than pixels.Venicescapes (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hm. I can't replicate the behaviour you're describing. Do you have default image size set tiny for some reason? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- I checked the preferences. They're set for 220px (thumbnail size), 800x600px (image size limit on file description pages). Could you indicate an article that has the coding for the packed gallery as it should be without px? I can take a look to see what happens on my screen and copy as appropriate.Venicescapes (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hm. I can't replicate the behaviour you're describing. Do you have default image size set tiny for some reason? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- I still can't get the gallery to work with anything other than pixels.Venicescapes (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wide image: When I remove the px parameter, the image becomes very large, about 8 cm in height on my screen. If I add
|upright=
(followed by various numbers) to the Wide image code and/or the image itself, it remains very large.- I changed to the panorama template. It still asked for px, only in height instead of width.Venicescapes (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Table: I can remove the px parameter from the table, and it just gets wider. No problem. But if I also remove the px parameter from the images (or substitute it with
|upright=
(+ some number), the images become huge (I have to scroll both vertically and horizontally to see it).- I redid the table with a combination of
|frameless=
and|upright=
for the images and width in em for the table. On my screen it looks identical to the previous table with pixels. Could you please confirm that it looks right?Venicescapes (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)- Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- I redid the table with a combination of
- Infobox: I can remove the px parameter from the two images, but they become huge (I have to scroll both vertically and horizontally to see it). The same is true if I substitute the px parameter with
|upright=
.- I used a combination of
|frameless=
and|upright=
for the images in the infobox. On my screen it looks right. The info box is still the same width as the map of Saint Mark's Square below. Could you please confirm that it looks right?Venicescapes (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)- Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for checking and for helping me through this.Venicescapes (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- I just looked at the Great Fire of London which underwent FAR. Instead of the wide image template, it uses the panorama template. Is this a better solution? Venicescapes (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- That can work. MOS:IMGSIZE allows for fixed px size when there is a very good reason, but in some of these cases we do have other options - for example using
|upright=
in combination with|frameless=
. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- That can work. MOS:IMGSIZE allows for fixed px size when there is a very good reason, but in some of these cases we do have other options - for example using
- I used a combination of
- Gallery: I can remove the px parameter, but the images become tiny, almost postage-stamp size. I tried to add
- Here's what happens.
- I've just tested
- I may have to trouble you for some further guidance. I have 'upright' on all of the images that use the thumb parameter. Px size was used for the Infobox, Multiple image boxes, Wiki table, Gallery, and Wide image. But these don't seem to accept anything else. I tried 'upright', without success.
- Suggest adding alt text, where it is absent
- Added
- Some of the details in captions warrant citation - for example dating
- Done
- File:Maritime_Venetia_c_600_AD.jpg: what's the source of the data presented in this map? Ditto File:Pianta_san_marco.jpg
- I have the sourcing for the map and the floorplan. How/where would you like that added? To the image or as a footnote?
- I added the information to the image files
- That's fine for the moment, but be aware there is a current discussion which may change practice on this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I added the information to the image files
- I have the sourcing for the map and the floorplan. How/where would you like that added? To the image or as a footnote?
- File:San_Marko_(reconstruction).JPG needs a US tag and author date of death
- tag added. I'll need to research the author's date of death
- Antonio Pellanda died 13 November 1890
- I added the information to the image file
- When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Published as early as 1888 in Cattaneo, Raffaele, L'architettura in Italia dal secolo VI al Mille circa (Venezia: Ongania, 1888). I added the information to the image file as a note. There may be a slightly earlier version.
- When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I added the information to the image file
- Antonio Pellanda died 13 November 1890
- tag added. I'll need to research the author's date of death
- 'Spoils from the Fourth Crusade' - is there sourcing supporting that that's the provenance of the tetrachs?
- sourced
- File:Thomas_Stuart_Smith-Interior_of_San_Marco.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Canaletto-sketch-the-choir-singing-in-st-mark's-basilica.jpg
- I wrote to the museum to ask if they have any record. I'll also continue to look.
- I was not able to find information on the first publication, and neither museum responded. So I deleted the images.Venicescapes (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- I wrote to the museum to ask if they have any record. I'll also continue to look.
- File:Portal_of_Santo_Stefano_(Venice).jpg needs tagging for the original work. Ditto File:Venezia_Chiesa_di_Santo_Stefano_Innen_Langhaus_Süd_2.jpg, File:Madonna_dell'Orto_Portail.jpg, File:Santa_Maria_dei_Miracoli_facciata_sud_Venezia_notte.jpg, File:Arc_Foscari,_pati_del_Palau_Ducal_de_Venècia.JPG, File:Scuola_Grande_di_San_Marco_Ospedale_di_Venezia_facciata.jpg.
- tags added
- I added the tags, specifying in the edit summary that the PD tags concerned the original work and that the addition of the tags was per FAC review. However, the photographer deleted them. See, for example.
- I contacted the photographer and am awaiting a reply.
- The photographer did not reply and apparently will not accept PD tags on his photos. So I deleted the imageVenicescapes (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- I contacted the photographer and am awaiting a reply.
- I added the tags, specifying in the edit summary that the PD tags concerned the original work and that the addition of the tags was per FAC review. However, the photographer deleted them. See, for example.
- tags added
Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the thorough image review. Some items will require a few days of research.Venicescapes (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments and support from Gerda
Thank you for a piece of love, - I'll read slowly, having many other things on my mind, and skipping the lead until last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your time and input. I hope that you enjoy reading the rest, and I look forward to your further observations/suggestions/corrections.Venicescapes (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Name
I wonder why the name of this place is St Mark's B., the English way, while in the rest of the world, it would be St. Mark's B., with a dot. I know it simply as San Marco, btw.
- The article already had the English abbreviation. To change it would also require changing the spelling throughout the article (Oxford English) plus, for consistency, the other pages: St Mark's Clocktower and St Mark's Campanile. As I understand it, a contracted form of a word that ends with the same letter as the full form should not have the dot. So Saint = St, Doctor = Dr, BUT Professor = Prof..
- I understand, and for the same reasons we have St Matthew Passion, and everytime I see it it looks wrong ;) - because iit's a German piece, and the German abbr. would be "St.". But I'm too lazy to initiate a change, and when someone else did it found no consensus. - This is an Italian building, not an English one. --GA
Infobox
- I miss an Italian name, and would place Basilica di San Marco at the very top, followed by the English short name - a derived name - the following line.
- I miss many links, beginning with Venice.
- I added the Venice link. Are there others specifically?
- Yes, because for many, the infobox is where they will look first. Roman Catholic (why Roman, btw, when our article is Catholic Church?) - Mark the Evangelist - Mark, Peter, John, Matthew, Luke, Bartholomew, Isidore of Chios - minor basilica - Patriarchate of Venice - Doge of Venice - Byzantine, Romanesque, Gothic --GA
- I personally see 'Catholic Church' as ambiguous. Both the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed refer to the 'Catholic Church' in the sense of universal church and are recited by many different Christian denominations. 'Roman Catholic' is clearly the specific church with the pope as its head. For the rest, I suppose it depends on how one sees an Infobox. My personal opinion is that an infobox should give all of the pertinent information at a glance and shouldn't function as a navigation bar to leave the article. But I bow to whatever is the prevailing vision.Venicescapes (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- (you didn't repeat the bullet) - You are right that Catholic Church would be ambiguous, but not Catholic Church. Same for some other links missing. Which Peter? I never heard of Isidore of Chios, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I can put in the links, but bear in mind that this is going to make infobox almost solid blue.
- (please repeat the bullet when replying to a bullet) Are the relics - besides Mark's - really crucial enough to be mentioned (while artists and composers are not)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Point taken. What if we simply delete the relics or say Mark the Evangelist and others? Did I get the repeat bullet right this time?Venicescapes (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- (please repeat the bullet when replying to a bullet) Are the relics - besides Mark's - really crucial enough to be mentioned (while artists and composers are not)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I can put in the links, but bear in mind that this is going to make infobox almost solid blue.
- (you didn't repeat the bullet) - You are right that Catholic Church would be ambiguous, but not Catholic Church. Same for some other links missing. Which Peter? I never heard of Isidore of Chios, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I personally see 'Catholic Church' as ambiguous. Both the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed refer to the 'Catholic Church' in the sense of universal church and are recited by many different Christian denominations. 'Roman Catholic' is clearly the specific church with the pope as its head. For the rest, I suppose it depends on how one sees an Infobox. My personal opinion is that an infobox should give all of the pertinent information at a glance and shouldn't function as a navigation bar to leave the article. But I bow to whatever is the prevailing vision.Venicescapes (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, because for many, the infobox is where they will look first. Roman Catholic (why Roman, btw, when our article is Catholic Church?) - Mark the Evangelist - Mark, Peter, John, Matthew, Luke, Bartholomew, Isidore of Chios - minor basilica - Patriarchate of Venice - Doge of Venice - Byzantine, Romanesque, Gothic --GA
- I added the Venice link. Are there others specifically?
TOC
- "St Mark's relics" - I see that it is the name of our article but think that this article would profit from consistently distinguishing the evangelist from the building. I'd say "Mark the Evangelist" vs. "St. Mark's", but "Saint Mark" vs. "St Mark's" would also work.
- They're venerated as the relics of 'Saint Mark'. Whether they are the remains of 'Mark, the Evangelist' is another matter. So I moved the page from St Mark's relics to Saint Mark's relics to avoid nitpickers. Good suggestion.
- Why are the Mosaics not under Interior?
- As is, the interior is under the broader heading of "Architecture". So the mosaics are treated separately.
- Why three numbers for the references, instead of one with two subsections?
- Excellent idea! I grouped them together. I'll do the same on the other pages for the buildings around the square for consistency.
Aquileia
- I confess that it tired me a bit, and that the map is too small for me to help. How about merging most of it to the "Schism" article, and leave only a summary, as for the relics?
- I increased the size of the map. If needed, I could also redo the image and write Aquileia, Grado, and Venice more prominently. Let me know.
- yes, please --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Redid the map and enlarged the names of Aquileia, Grado, and Rialto (Venice).Venicescapes (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- yes, please --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Others have made similar observations. So I'm clearly going to have to explain this better. The Aquileia/Grado conflict explains why Saint Mark is adopted as patron and why his church becomes so political. Its the reason why many of the mosaics in the chancel illustrate the transfer of metropolitan authority from Aquileia, through Grado, to Venice. Demus spends 13 pages at the beginning of his book on the subject. While I don't think that I can cut it down any further without losing coherency, perhaps I could add an introductory paragraph for 'Background', letting the reader know upfront why this is being discussed. Would this help?
- The Schism of the Three Chapters concerns several churches in northern Italy (not just Aquileia) and is largely a prelude. It is the theological dispute that leads to the creation of two bishops (Aquileia and Grado). But that aspect is resolved at the Synod of Aquileia in 698–700, after which it becomes a purely political question of jurisdiction. Only this second aspect is the background for the relics and St Mark's Basilica.
- Think about it, - I remember this wish to trim the article, and see a way here. Like we made Messiah structure when Messiah got too long. - How many readers of this article do you expect to care about the fine details presented here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I shall have to give this some more thought. On the Messiah page, the Background section seems to have the same function of setting the stage. I don't think you could break that off from the rest of the article.Venicescapes (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would probably have had more music, and referred to the composer's bio more, but I was only a helper at the time, invited by masters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I added a few sentences at the beginning of the section to explain why it is so important to understanding the importance of St Mark's for Venetian self-identity. Does this help?Venicescapes (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would probably have had more music, and referred to the composer's bio more, but I was only a helper at the time, invited by masters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I shall have to give this some more thought. On the Messiah page, the Background section seems to have the same function of setting the stage. I don't think you could break that off from the rest of the article.Venicescapes (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Think about it, - I remember this wish to trim the article, and see a way here. Like we made Messiah structure when Messiah got too long. - How many readers of this article do you expect to care about the fine details presented here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I increased the size of the map. If needed, I could also redo the image and write Aquileia, Grado, and Venice more prominently. Let me know.
Read up to title Architecture, with no problems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Please keep a bullet when replying to a bulleted list, per the essay on top of User talk:Drmies. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Western façade
- I try to avoid images right below a header, especially if that header is short.
- I noticed that you moved the interior photo right (I believe for the same reason). What about if we slid the heading to the side? If possible, I'd like to use the photos on the left to prevent the stacking up on the right, but also to help signal major shifts in topic.
- In former times, we even had guideline to prohibit a pic directly under the header. It makes sense to me: it's irritating for the reader to have to move right in the next line. In 'my" articles, I have left images only when a person looks right, and then only if enough space abelow to now displace the next header. Displays on different devices differ. This is not a point I'll not support over but perhaps think about it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I moved the image of the western facade around, but nothing worked. Moving it down, it sandwiched with others. Moving it to the right, it stacked up and pushed others further down. For the interior image, I tried moving the heading to the side.
- In former times, we even had guideline to prohibit a pic directly under the header. It makes sense to me: it's irritating for the reader to have to move right in the next line. In 'my" articles, I have left images only when a person looks right, and then only if enough space abelow to now displace the next header. Displays on different devices differ. This is not a point I'll not support over but perhaps think about it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I noticed that you moved the interior photo right (I believe for the same reason). What about if we slid the heading to the side? If possible, I'd like to use the photos on the left to prevent the stacking up on the right, but also to help signal major shifts in topic.
- "Gentile Bellini's Procession in Piazza San Marco" - I'm used from Classical to not link a creator when the work has an article, to avoid too much blue.
- fixed
- why Virgin (capital) but evangelists (lc)?
- this will create a problem with apostles as well. Looking at MOS:Titles of people, I think that if it's plural it should be lower case, unless Four Evangelists (group) and Twelve Apostles (group). Single Evangelist and Apostle (in substitution of name) should probably be capitalized.
- You are right about apostles as well, but I was too tired to mention that. I read the guideline different: if these specific four, then Evangelists (not any evangelists), and if these specific 12, then Apostles (not any apostles), such as Reformation vs. reformation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I capitalized all Apostles and Evangelists
- You are right about apostles as well, but I was too tired to mention that. I read the guideline different: if these specific four, then Evangelists (not any evangelists), and if these specific 12, then Apostles (not any apostles), such as Reformation vs. reformation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- this will create a problem with apostles as well. Looking at MOS:Titles of people, I think that if it's plural it should be lower case, unless Four Evangelists (group) and Twelve Apostles (group). Single Evangelist and Apostle (in substitution of name) should probably be capitalized.
Entry hall
- "his gospel" - why lc when his specific Gospel?
- Fixed
Narthex
- "The story of Joseph, also a type of Christ" - how that?
- The explanation I'm familiar with is that Joseph is sold into bondage. Yet through that bondage he becomes the savior (from famine in Canaan) of his people. Similarly, Christ is sold into bondage and saves humanity.
- Not enough that you are familiar with something ;) - if it's needed (which I doubt) please supply a link or a footnote. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I thought you were asking because you were curious. Sorry. It's in the reference, but you're right in that I can simply delete it.
- Not enough that you are familiar with something ;) - if it's needed (which I doubt) please supply a link or a footnote. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- The explanation I'm familiar with is that Joseph is sold into bondage. Yet through that bondage he becomes the savior (from famine in Canaan) of his people. Similarly, Christ is sold into bondage and saves humanity.
Decorative programme
- Why is Last Judgment linked in the last para?
- Removed
Chancel ...
- "Saint Pope Clement I" - I thought it's Saint or Pope.
- Italian usage would be with both since Clement is his name as pope. I did a search for 'Saint Pope John Paul II' and found both 'Saint John Paul II' and 'Saint Pope John Paul II'. However, I noticed that the Catholic sites generally use 'Saint Pope Paul II' as, for example, here and here. The Vatican also retains Pope in the Latin title as saint, here.
- What matters is what Wikipedia says, not Italian, not the Vatican: Pope Clement I. I recently wrote about St. Sylvester, - I don't think a church would be named St. Pope Sylvester. Keep simple, if in doubt? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I stripped him of his earthly title.
- What matters is what Wikipedia says, not Italian, not the Vatican: Pope Clement I. I recently wrote about St. Sylvester, - I don't think a church would be named St. Pope Sylvester. Keep simple, if in doubt? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Italian usage would be with both since Clement is his name as pope. I did a search for 'Saint Pope John Paul II' and found both 'Saint John Paul II' and 'Saint Pope John Paul II'. However, I noticed that the Catholic sites generally use 'Saint Pope Paul II' as, for example, here and here. The Vatican also retains Pope in the Latin title as saint, here.
Read until the title Mosaics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm pleased with all replies, and the indenting now ;) - You decide wether to keep more relics (but then linked please), and the analogy Joseph-Jesus (but then with explanation) - Only open point from above open is that I'd really like to see an Italian name on top of the image in the ibox. I prefer first line, but second line is better than nothing. I'll see if I get to reading further today: rehearsal! Until then, I want to write an article in English, and one in German, women of course ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I added the native name to the Infobox and deleted the relics (simpler, plus they're mentioned in the text). I'll reword the part on Joseph.Venicescapes (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- any other than "Saint" which - in this article - means the saint, not the place --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I read the article now.
Music
- "the procurators of Saint Mark" - not sure that is about the Saint. Will turn to the lead hopefully tomorrow. --
- The title is variously translated. In English sources, of Saint Mark (or of St Mark) tends to prevail, but the more accurate title, given the full original Latin, would probably be of St Mark's. What would you prefer?Venicescapes (talk) 10:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Lead The lead is mostly fine, but I think should cover more aspects, such as importance of the relics, history of building and music (Monteverdi and the Gabrielis are recognised names).
- I have the relics. Yes, I do have to do something about music.
- episcopal in 1807 - can we have a bit more about before, such as the Doge there already? that late year comes as a complete surprise ;)
- I have 'what it is' in the first paragraph and 'what it was' in the second.
- Concio - yes there's a link but how about adding "assembly"?
- It's a little further along.
- limited Islamic? - "some" or something else? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- 'some' (unnumberable) created a problem with influences (numberable). So, I simply deleted 'limited'.
- All fine by me now, support. A treasure of an article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Gerda, thank you for taking the time to read through the article and for judging it on its merits. I’m grateful to you for your suggestions and corrections and, ultimately, for your support. Best wishes.Venicescapes (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- All fine by me now, support. A treasure of an article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- 'some' (unnumberable) created a problem with influences (numberable). So, I simply deleted 'limited'.
Comments by No Great Shaker
- Tentative support. As the recent GA reviewer, I'd be happy to answer any questions about that aspect although I realise FA is a much more searching process than GA. Please note, though, that I'm very busy offsite at present.
- I agree entirely with the comments by Johnbod and I'll be interested to read the whole of Gerda's comments when she has had chance to finish.
- I sincerely hope the opposition to 19th century sources is rejected because it simply doesn't follow that a modern source necessarily has more to say than the older one, or can somehow improve upon the information it presents. That seems to be a case of WP:RECENTISM, in my opinion.
- AirshipJungleman29, I'm glad to read that you are well again and hope you are making a full recovery. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Oppose from Gog the Mild
- 15,000+ words. You have to be kidding. Oppose on WP:CANYOUREADTHIS and WP:SUMMARY. A clear candidate for WP:SPLITTING. It would seem to me appropriate to have a separate article for each [most?] of the separate buildings at about the level of detail given here, and for this article to be a much shorter and punchier summary of these "child articles". Currently fails the FAC criterion "without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style" horribly. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- The article is actually about a single building. So please let me know what gives the impression that it concerns "separate buildings" so that I can at least make the necessary clarification.Venicescapes (talk) 08:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- I see the prose as 12,349 words, roughly 18% less than 15000+. What does the 15000+ refer to?Venicescapes (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- The oppose seems blanket, rigid, with no suggestions, and thus not actionable. I can't understand why anybody in 2022 couldn't imagine that any fabled reader is looking to read the article from top to bottom, rather than be lead here via a search query and will then digest as much of the coverage of that area as they can, and then blue link out. Ceoil (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- The oppose is eminently actionable. Read WP:SPLITTING and act accordingly. I am sure the coordinators are capable of deciding whether so splitting is possible and therefore actionable.
- There were 12,349 words of "readable prose" as defined in WP:LENGTH (12,026) as of now). There are a further 3,003 words of footnotes. This does not include captions.
- If it is not felt that the article could sensibly be split by building/structure/component/facade/whatever (and apologies if I confused and/or continue to confuse with my poor nomenclature) then both history and architecture could be spun off as separate articles. Or it could conceivably be split some other way, as the nominator or a consensus of interested editors preferred. I am not persuaded that this is one of those very rare exceptions which could not be split.
- Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Of course one could split off the history or architecture of one of the most famous churches in the world for just these things, but it would be madness to do so, and I'm sure the nominator has far too much sense to do it. If the article cannot pass in a high-quality and well-balanced state, which inevitably means a long article, it would be better just to withdraw it, & just leave FAC to the pop-songs and other microtopics. Johnbod (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not true at all that a "high-quality and well balanced" article requires excessive length; that is what summary style is for. It is possible to write concise overviews of broad topics and get these to FA status. (t · c) buidhe 22:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- We all want "high-quality and well-balanced" articles, especially FACs, and, Johnbod, I find it offensive that you suggest that I don't. What we are doing here is discussing just what that means, in the context of the FAC criteria - which ("It follows the style guidelines") includes the MoS and criterion 4. It would be helpful if everyone took a deep breath and WP:AGF. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- I certainly agree that it is necessary to assume good faith. On my part, I have continued to streamline the article, eliminating roughly 1000 words (circa 8 %) since it was first nominated. I also believe that it is necessary to carefully consider the needs of the subject and particularly of the reader and to put those needs in the forefront. In this case, the average reader is most likely someone who is actually in Saint Mark's Square and wants to understand the building. Some will have probably chosen to consult Wikipedia, rather than a guidebook, simply for convenience and cost. But others (I hope the majority) look to Wikipedia for encyclopedic information that isn’t included in the standard guidebook.
- What constitutes 'too long' or 'overly detailed' is of course subjective, varying on the basis of the individual's personal likes and interests. Notably, the actual reviewers (coordinators aside) have all remarked that the length is not necessarily a problem and, more importantly, that the various aspects of the building cannot be "spun off" or "shunted away". I should note that both the relics and the treasury have already been broken off and that some aspects that could stand on their own, such as preservation, were not even included so as to not excessively lengthen the article.
- With regard to breaking apart the article further, I advise caution. If St Mark's had been designed and built as we see it, it might be possible (although in my opinion still not advisable) to separate history and architecture. But St Mark's is the result of an evolution: knowing that there are remnants of earlier constructions and that the structure has been radically altered over time (its history) is necessary to understanding how it looks (its architecture). The two cannot be disentwined. The background section, already concise, is also necessary to understanding why St Mark's was built in the first place and why it was so central to Venice's national identity. I also doubt that the section could stand on its own.
- Simply put, St Mark's is complex, and many aspects need to be covered. If each section of the article is considered singularly, none is excessively long or overly detailed.
- Summary style has been repeatedly invoked in this conversation. But this too is subjective. I agree that topics that can be reasonably developed into articles can be summarized. Yet FA, as defined in the quality scale, remains: "thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information." I do not interpret summary style as reducing the article to a mere directory to other pages or a "concise overview". It should not be necessary for a reader to go to other pages to get basic information (again subjective), but only to delve deeper into certain aspects, such as the mosaics. In considering what summary style means, the fifth pillar comes to mind: "policies and guidelines are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions".
- St Mark's is a level-5 vital article in Art, meaning that it should eventually reach FA, and as a world-renowned monument, it would certainly be included as a subject in a printed encyclopedia. It would be a sad commentary on the Wiki community if it were not able to come together to produce a high-quality article that meets the needs of all its readers.Venicescapes (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- We all want "high-quality and well-balanced" articles, especially FACs, and, Johnbod, I find it offensive that you suggest that I don't. What we are doing here is discussing just what that means, in the context of the FAC criteria - which ("It follows the style guidelines") includes the MoS and criterion 4. It would be helpful if everyone took a deep breath and WP:AGF. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not true at all that a "high-quality and well balanced" article requires excessive length; that is what summary style is for. It is possible to write concise overviews of broad topics and get these to FA status. (t · c) buidhe 22:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Of course one could split off the history or architecture of one of the most famous churches in the world for just these things, but it would be madness to do so, and I'm sure the nominator has far too much sense to do it. If the article cannot pass in a high-quality and well-balanced state, which inevitably means a long article, it would be better just to withdraw it, & just leave FAC to the pop-songs and other microtopics. Johnbod (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- The closing coordinator (@WP:FAC coordinators: ) and/or the nominator may, or may not, find some of the points I make in this edit helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment from Tim riley
There's bags of good stuff in this article, but I think the lead needs a good deal of work to get it up to an acceptable standard. The MoS guide to leads lays down that they must summarise the main text, and that there shouldn't be anything in a lead that isn't in the body of the article. Here we have mentions in the lead of, inter alia, the capitano generale da mar, the solemnising of peace treaties and alliances and celebration of victories, the dissolution of the Concio in 1423, 8,500 square metres of gold-ground mosaics, and a quotation about "the key to the understanding of all of Venice" none of which are covered in the main text as far as I can see, though perhaps I have missed some or all of them in this enormously long text. Tim riley talk 11:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Greetings, I'm glad that you found the article's content interesting. It is a fascinating building with a long and rich history. Thank you for taking the time to read through it. For the information in the lead that is not included in the body, the MOS/Lead Section-relative emphasis section specifies "... not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles." The quotation and the examples you mention were included simply to give a sense of the importance of the building and its central role in Venetian history. To include them in the body would require adding a whole new section to the article where it would be necessary to cover the many historical events that took place in the church and the various civic events, such as the consignment of the banner of Saint Mark. The Concio is mentioned, albeit briefly, in the section on the Orseolo Church. Please let me know if there are other aspects that could be further improved.Venicescapes (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- From the lead of MOS:LEAD "As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- I did not consider the reference to the capitano generale da mar to be 'significant information' but rather an example of the church's central role. At any rate, it's gone.Venicescapes (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Gone are also the quotation by Demus and the brief reference to peace treaties and alliances, in case they, too, are considered 'significant information'.Venicescapes (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- I did not consider the reference to the capitano generale da mar to be 'significant information' but rather an example of the church's central role. At any rate, it's gone.Venicescapes (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- From the lead of MOS:LEAD "As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments
- Although the article is, in general, well-written and very comprehensive, I tend to agree with Gog that it's just too long and could be split, perhaps with detailed articles on its history and architecture, and the main article on the church containing that information in a more summary style.
- Some specific prose comments:
- "to alternatively convene" perhaps "to convene instead"
- "Within two years, the church was repaired and at the sole expense of the Orseolo family, indications that the actual damage was relatively limited." The prose could perhaps be improved.
- "Thessalonica" perhaps spell and link Thessaloniki
- Is it "revetments" or "revetmets"? You use both
Red panda
- Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) and BhagyaMani (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
In time for the release of the new Disney/Pixar film Turning Red. This article was at GA for some years and the user who brought it there appears to be inactive. We've re-written and revise it, got a peer review, a copyedit and source cleanup. The time has come for FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Image review—pass
- Sources are cited for the panda distribution on File:RedPanda distribution.png, but not the source of the underlying topographic map. Is it freely licensed?
- BhagyaMani? LittleJerry (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, the underlying topo map is freely licensed. – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- BhagyaMani Where does the topo map come from, or did you draw it? Even if it's a free license, it might require attribution or not be compatible with CC-By-SA-4.0, so it's essential to list the sources you used in the image description. (t · c) buidhe 08:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I changed the map using the basemap by Wikimedia. BhagyaMani (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- BhagyaMani Where does the topo map come from, or did you draw it? Even if it's a free license, it might require attribution or not be compatible with CC-By-SA-4.0, so it's essential to list the sources you used in the image description. (t · c) buidhe 08:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, the underlying topo map is freely licensed. – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- BhagyaMani? LittleJerry (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Sdkb
Resolved comments from {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC) |
---|
As background, I have no particular expertise in biology or animal articles on Wikipedia, so I'll be reviewing this from a lay perspective. Looking forward to it! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Lead
Overall impressions so far are good! The lead photo is fantastically cute Sdkb any more? LittleJerry (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Etymology
Taxonomy
Characteristics
Distribution and habitat
Linked both. LittleJerry (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Behaviour and ecology
Threats
Conservation
Cultural significance
External links
Sdkb, I think we fixed everything. LittleJerry (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
|
- No further concerns. Although I lack enough expertise with the subject to make a formal support, all of my concerns above have been sufficiently addressed. Thanks for bearing with me through this—I know that there were some tricky things that came up, but I think the article is measurably stronger for having worked through them. Once other editors have gotten a chance to offer their comments and do things like a source check, I look forward to seeing this get its gold star! Thanks both LittleJerry and BhagyaMani for your hard work! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sdkb, you don't need expertise to make a give a final conclusion. You've given a detailed review that lasted weeks and we are getting closer to a month since this was nominated. I think you should give a formal conclusion. LittleJerry (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sdkb, would you mind putting your comments in a Resolved comments template? They're taking up a large amount of space and necessitate a lot of scrolling to reach the bottom. AryKun (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments from AryKun
Resolved comments from AryKun (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC) |
---|
* Link described in the Taxonomy section.
|
- Haven't checked references. AryKun (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support. AryKun (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Source review from Ealdgyth
What makes https://wfo-about.rbge.info a high quality reliable source?
- Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Can we use this by Triplett & Clark (2010) as source instead? – BhagyaMani (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- You can just add it. But don't link to ResearchGate. LittleJerry (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
"Cuvier, G. (1829). "Le Panda éclatant". Le règne animal distribué d'après son organisation. Vol. Tome 1. Chez Déterville, Paris. p. 138." needs to note its in French.
- Done. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
"Flynn, J. J.; Finarelli, J. A.; Zehr, S.; Hsu, J. & Nedbal, M. A. (2005). "Molecular phylogeny of the Carnivora (Mammalia): Assessing the impact of increased sampling on resolving enigmatic relationships". Systematic Biology. 54 (2): 317–337." - this page gives a doi - should list to be consistent with other entries.
- If doi access is free, a url is not needed. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- The DOI should be listed, that's what is being asked for. As of right now, there is no doi. But most other journal articles list it, so to be consistent, you should list it. Refs for FAs should be consistently formatted across the type of ref. (And I've never seen a "if doi access is free an url is not needed") Ealdgyth (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- DOI added/ LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- The DOI should be listed, that's what is being asked for. As of right now, there is no doi. But most other journal articles list it, so to be consistent, you should list it. Refs for FAs should be consistently formatted across the type of ref. (And I've never seen a "if doi access is free an url is not needed") Ealdgyth (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Double check that all the journals without doi's are lacking them in the actual publication. Since you are linking to research gate rather than to the journal websites, I shouldn't have to be expected to double check those...Note that WP:RSP on it's entry for ResearchGate (where it is deemed to be "self-published") it states "ResearchGate is a social network that hosts a repository of user-generated publications, including preprints. ResearchGate does not perform fact checking or peer reviewing, and is considered a self-published source. Verify whether a paper on ResearchGate is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access link to the paper (which may be hosted on ResearchGate)." We should link to the offical journal publication in the title of the article (using the url parameter) and then put in
- These journals do not use doi: Current Science, Small Carnivore Conservation, The Himalayan Naturalist, Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, Journal of the Bhutan Ecological Society and Zoological Studies. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- I replaced the links to researchgate. LittleJerry (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations - this site's comparison to our article is not useful because - the top of the actual outside site says "This is the interpretation of the species as published in English Wikipedia - Species Pages". The other things flagged appear to be short statements that would be very difficult to phrase in other ways.
- Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Another thing about ResearchGate links is that in almost all cases, the published versions of papers that are not open access are the copyright of the journal and the author does not have the right to publish them separately. Since free access versions available online are technically copyright violations, they must not be linked per WP:COPYLINK. (I almost never link preprint repositories for this reason...) (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- I replaced the links to researchgate link with links to pdfs from the publishers' websites. LittleJerry (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Ealdgyth, how is this one looking now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I struck everything and noted in this edit that we're good.... Ealdgyth (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Ealdgyth, how is this one looking now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I replaced the links to researchgate link with links to pdfs from the publishers' websites. LittleJerry (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Another thing about ResearchGate links is that in almost all cases, the published versions of papers that are not open access are the copyright of the journal and the author does not have the right to publish them separately. Since free access versions available online are technically copyright violations, they must not be linked per WP:COPYLINK. (I almost never link preprint repositories for this reason...) (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments from SilverTiger
Placeholder section for when I get to read through this article later today. SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- In Fossil Record, first paragraph "Other early or basal aliruds include..." (bolding mine) Is that supposed to be ailurids?
- Corrected. – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Similar problem in the first sentence of the second paragraph, same section. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Corrected. – BhagyaMani (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Could the etymology of the Chinese species/subspecies' name styani be included in the etymology section?
- This is already explained in the *Taxonomy* section that it was named after Frederick William Styan. – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Beyond those nitpicks, though, I honestly have nothing.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- These weren't really nitpicks : at least 6 people oversaw these typos. Thanks for reading this with the eyes of a hawk !! – BhagyaMani (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
SilverTiger12, all done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- In that case, Support. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Funk
- I'll have a look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- It seems unclear to me from the etymology section what you're saying in regard to the giant panda. Was the name of the red panda applied to the giant panda later, or was it originally used for both? The giant panda article gives a clearer explanation, perhaps it could also be made clearer here.
- Revised. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- "The red panda was classified and described in 1825" Described and named would be the more logical wording here?
- Revised. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Link Thomas Hardwicke in image caption.
- This page is already linked in the text. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Image captions are separate from the article body, so should have the same links at first occurrences. Same with the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Image captions are separate from the article body, so should have the same links at first occurrences. Same with the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- "In 1847, Brian Houghton Hodgson described a red panda from the Himalayas, for which he proposed the name Ailurus ochraceus." You mention this but never follow it up; you should also state if it is considered invalid now, and if it's a synonym, or remove the mention.
- Not addressed? FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- What does styani mean? Since the subspecies are covered here, such info about them should also be.
- Revised. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Still don't see the meaning of the word. It is ok if you can't find it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Revised again. Why is the meaning of the family name Styan important? BhagyaMani (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Still don't see the meaning of the word. It is ok if you can't find it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- "Reconstructed skull and head of Simocyon" Captions should establish why the image is relevant to this article.
- Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- "The researchers suggested that the two subspecies should be treated as distinct species." Seems it would be helpful to state which subspecies are shown in image captions, where possible.
- They aren't labelled and and it will be OR for us to do it. LittleJerry (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- "and placed the species in its own family Ailuridae." But that taxon was named in 1843, so surely it was suspected before? Seems some history is missing here, and I'm sure the giant panda was already proposed to be a bear before the 1980s, and that there were just competing theories until then. Not the article makes it seem as if it wasn't realised until then, when it was only finally confirmed.
- The book does not mention Ailuridae being named by Gray in 1843, but that in the early 20th century "Only Pocock separated it into a family of its own, Ailuridae...". LittleJerry (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Then something surely must have been overlooked, if Gray is the proper author of that taxon? FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- BhagyaMani? Can you find Gray's original paper? LittleJerry (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Must be this one https://archive.org/details/listofspecimenso00brit_0/page/42/mode/2up?view=theater, where he used 'Ailurina'. But he didn't repeat this term nor described the family on page 75, see
- BhagyaMani? Can you find Gray's original paper? LittleJerry (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Then something surely must have been overlooked, if Gray is the proper author of that taxon? FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- The book does not mention Ailuridae being named by Gray in 1843, but that in the early 20th century "Only Pocock separated it into a family of its own, Ailuridae...". LittleJerry (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
https://archive.org/details/listofspecimenso00brit_0/page/208/mode/2up?view=theater, where he lists 'The Wah'. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- "The following cladogram is based on the molecular phylogeny of six genes,[18] with the musteloids updated following a multigene analysis.[19]" This cladogram is WP:original synthesis, as it combines the findings of two different studies. Would be better to just use one. The issue was discussed here earlier:[36] I will try to get a discussion up about this issue at WP:TOL so we can figure out if we need written guidelines for this.
- Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Also, you should give the date for the cladogram you end up using, because the only one you mention is one from 1995, which the reader would assume is the one you show otherwise.
- Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
FunkMonk, done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- There is a mix of ise/ize throughout which should be made consistent. There may also be UK/US inconsistencies, but I'll check for that as I read along.
- Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- "The puma-sized Simocyon was likely a tree-climber and shares a "false thumb"—an extended wrist bone—with the modern species" Jarring with the present "shares" when the sentences starts in past tense.
- Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Magerictis should be linked, even if it doesn't have an article, since it warrants an article.
- Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- "uncomplex crown" Simple crown?
- Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- "he face is mostly white and has red marks that stretch from the eyes to the corners of the mouth." Seems most of the head and upper face is red, though, which is not mentioned?
The article already mentions that the Chinese red panda has more red on its face. LittleJerry (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)- Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Should you give the scientific name of bamboo at first mention as you do with all other plants?
- Fixed. Tried to use common names as much as possible. LittleJerry (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- " Its bushy tail has alternating rings of red and buff" Looks like the tip of the tail is black, but this is not mentioned?
- Added. LittleJerry (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- "whereas the giant panda prefers gentle slopes with taller bamboo but lower densities of stems, logs and stumps. Such niche separation lessens competition between the two bamboo-eating species" This is the only indication that the range of the two pandas overlap, could this be stated more clearly earlier, maybe already the first time the two are discussed together?
- Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
1838 Jesuit slave sale
- Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 05:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
This article has been a long time in the making and is long overdue. It is about a fascinating historical event that has become the subject of much inquiry in recent years. I believe the article is now at featured quality and suitable for submission. Ergo Sum 05:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Image review
- The switcher does not appear to be tab-accessible - suggest moving this into the body as a more standard multi-image
- What do you mean by tab-accessible? Ergo Sum 01:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- I was referring to [39] but I think I was mistaken on this point - although I still think it makes sense to present this in a multi-image inline, it's less pressing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- I tried to think of the best way to present the images, but I since the images really don't do much as thumbnails (you can't really read the text without clicking on and enlarging the images), I think having all the images presented at once might not be terribly useful for a reader. Ergo Sum 02:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Why then is it useful in the present form? All that changes is you need more clicks and the rest of the content gets pushed down. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's the same logic of having an image of the first page of the Constitution of the United States in its infobox. It gives readers a visual idea of what kind of document represents the ideas discussed in the article, e.g. on parchment, handwritten, its formality, etc. And, if readers are so inclined, they can flip through the whole document, especially to the signature pages and list of slaves, which are of interest. Ergo Sum 12:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Why then is it useful in the present form? All that changes is you need more clicks and the rest of the content gets pushed down. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- I tried to think of the best way to present the images, but I since the images really don't do much as thumbnails (you can't really read the text without clicking on and enlarging the images), I think having all the images presented at once might not be terribly useful for a reader. Ergo Sum 02:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- I was referring to [39] but I think I was mistaken on this point - although I still think it makes sense to present this in a multi-image inline, it's less pressing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- What do you mean by tab-accessible? Ergo Sum 01:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Looks pretty bad on my screen too[40], and it appears the long row of pages is pushing other images down, so that the two photos of building are now in the reference section, with references superimposed over them. I would also suggest a better solution would be some sort of gallery or multiple image template. FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Having just the first page, as in the constitution article, would also work. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've done a bit of reorganizing. What do you think now? Ergo Sum 02:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Definitely better. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've done a bit of reorganizing. What do you think now? Ergo Sum 02:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Having just the first page, as in the constitution article, would also work. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Looks pretty bad on my screen too[40], and it appears the long row of pages is pushing other images down, so that the two photos of building are now in the reference section, with references superimposed over them. I would also suggest a better solution would be some sort of gallery or multiple image template. FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Don't use fixed px size
- For some reason, it seems I can't use an upright scaling factor. It has no effect on the image's size. Ergo Sum 01:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- It does so long as your default is set to something other than that. Perhaps that is an issue with the switcher template? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think I found a solution. Added
|frameless
, which allows an upright scaling factor to be added and have effect, but it seems it's not really necessary anyway. Ergo Sum 02:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think I found a solution. Added
- It does so long as your default is set to something other than that. Perhaps that is an issue with the switcher template? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- For some reason, it seems I can't use an upright scaling factor. It has no effect on the image's size. Ergo Sum 01:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- When and where were the articles of agreement first published?
- Corrected the license. Ergo Sum 01:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- File:Mulledy_Hall_1898.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Corrected the license. Ergo Sum 01:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- For both this and the above, what checks were made to determine these were unpublished? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Did a reverse Google Image search, checked the image links in Internet Archive, and checked the major books about Georgetown University history. Ergo Sum 02:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- For both this and the above, what checks were made to determine these were unpublished? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Corrected the license. Ergo Sum 01:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Comments by ChrisTheDude
- Making a start on this now but probably won't make it all the way through as I only have 15 minutes of my lunch break left :-)
- "Roothaan removed Mulledy as provincial" - feels like there's a word missing there, unless his title was simply "provincial".....?
- Provincial is a common shorthand for provincial superior that the Jesuits use. I've added the full name of the position for clarity. Ergo Sum 01:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- I would merge the last two paragraphs of the lead as they are both very short
- Done. Ergo Sum 01:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- That's all I got as far as the end of the "background" section. More later.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- More comments
- "It provided that 51 slaves would be sent to Alexandria, Virginia, immediately, where they were then shipped to Louisiana" => "It provided that 51 slaves would be sent to Alexandria, Virginia, immediately, where they would then be shipped to Louisiana"
- Done. Ergo Sum 01:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- "Johnson allowed these slaves to remain in Maryland because he intended return" => "Johnson allowed these slaves to remain in Maryland because he intended to return"
- Fixed. Ergo Sum 01:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- "Soon after the sale, Rooathaan decided that Mulledy should removed" => "Soon after the sale, Rooathaan decided that Mulledy should be removed"
- Fixed. Ergo Sum 01:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- "published an article that brought the history of the Jesuits' and university's relationship with slavery came to national attention" => "published an article that brought the history of the Jesuits' and university's relationship with slavery to national attention"
- Fixed. Ergo Sum 01:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- "On April 18, 2017, the DeGioia" => "On April 18, 2017, DeGioia"
- Fixed. Ergo Sum 01:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- "apologized on behalf of their respective institutions institutions" - duplicated word
- Fixed. Ergo Sum 01:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- That's what I got. An interesting read! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review, ChrisTheDude. Glad you found it interesting. Ergo Sum 01:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie
I would give Mulledy's full name in the lead, and link his article from there.- Done. Ergo Sum 16:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
"on the Lord Baltimore, Cecil Calvert's, voyage" and "from the Lord Baltimore in 1636": can we make this just "on Lord Baltimore's voyage" and "from Lord Baltimore in 1636"? I don't think we need the "the", and his name is available via the link if a reader is interested.- Done. Ergo Sum 02:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
"Due to these extensive landholdings, the Catholic superiors at the Propaganda Fide in Rome had come to view the American Jesuits negatively for living opulently like manorial lords." Two -ly words near each other is unharmonious, but another issue is that the reader takes this at face value, but finds out in the next sentence that it is a mistaken view. And I think we could lose "like manorial lords" or "opulently"; they mean more or less the same thing. Can we use a verb like "assumed" or find another way to warn the reader what's coming?- I've tweaked the sentence slightly to make it flow better. I'd be hesitant to rephrase because I think it might just become wordier at the cost of clarity. I also think opulence and manorial lords are both necessary because they communicate different things; simply saying like a manorial lord could mean a variety of things and saying only opulently does not communicate exactly the way they were viewed. I'm not really sure a preview is necessary since the contradiction occurs in the very next sentence, which begins with a transition. Ergo Sum 02:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
"as a canonical visitor in 1820": I think most readers won't realize that this "visitor" is there to find and correct abuses; a couple of words of clarification would be good.- Added a brief word of explanation. Ergo Sum 02:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
"The condition of slaves on the plantations varied over time, as did the condition of the Jesuits living with them. While Kenney found the slaves facing arbitrary discipline, a meager diet, pastoral neglect, and engaging in vice, by the 1830s, their physical and religious conditions had improved considerably." Does the first sentence give us any information not in the second sentence? And instead of "While" for the second sentence the date would help the reader, since we are comparing decades. How about tweaking the sentence order here to mention Kenney's visit at the end, instead of in the middle? That naturally gives us the 1820 date for comparison with the 1830s.- On second look, I think it makes sense to split this into two sentences. 02:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
"The Maryland Jesuits, having been elevated from a mission to the status of province in 1833": "province" clearly has some specific meaning in the Society of Jesus; is there a suitable link?- Linked. Ergo Sum 02:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
"Not all of the 272 slaves intended to be sold to Louisiana met that fate. In total, only 206 are known to have been transported to Louisiana, while 91 remained in Maryland." Reading the rest of the paragraph I see how the arithmetic works, but can we make it clearer on first reading that 91 + 206 is not intended to equal 272? Perhaps delay giving the number 91 until after the explanation. I see there's a footnote, but something inline would be better.- Added a bit of explanation to the sentence. Ergo Sum 02:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
"There was outcry from numerous Maryland Jesuits": this sounds wrong to my ear. I assume you're avoiding "an outcry" because it's multiple Jesuits? I think that would be better, but if you don't like that I think another word or a rephrase is needed. Also, the second clause as structured ought to be referring to the subject of the first clause, but here that's "outcry". How about "Numerous Maryland Jesuits considered the sale to be immoral and were outraged, and many of them wrote..."? Or ""Numerous Maryland Jesuits were outraged by the sale, which they considered to be immoral, and many of them wrote..."?- Went with your phrasing. Ergo Sum 02:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
"However, the remaining $90,000 did go to funding Jesuit formation": how can this be squared with the statement in the next paragraph that the Jesuits never received the full balance of the sale money?- That was sloppy math on my part. I've changed it to just the remainder, since it is unclear/unknown how much was actually received. Ergo Sum 02:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Johnson's sale of his slaves in 1844 is mentioned twice, once in the financial outcome section and once in the subsequent fate section. I think if you combine these sections under a title such as "Outcome" you could reorganize this a little and avoid the duplication.- I think it's worth keeping them separate, since they deal with quite different subjects: one is finances and the other is the "human factor." It's really only a minimal duplication, as it stands. Ergo Sum 02:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- OK. I tweaked the phrasing so the reader is aware we're referring to something that has already been referred to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's worth keeping them separate, since they deal with quite different subjects: one is finances and the other is the "human factor." It's really only a minimal duplication, as it stands. Ergo Sum 02:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
"While the 1838 slave sale gave rise to scandal at the time, the event largely faded out of the public awareness over time." Can we avoid "...at the time...over time"?- Rephrased. Ergo Sum 02:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review, Mike Christie. Sorry for the delay. Ergo Sum 02:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Support. My issues have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Source review
Coming up. JBchrch talk 04:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- The correct hyperlink for ref 44 has changed, it's now https://gu272.americanancestors.org/historical-timeline. JBchrch talk 14:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Updated. Ergo Sum 22:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have the same problem for ref 29, but maybe it's me: is it possible that the hyperlink has changed? JBchrch talk 14:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm, it does seem that that website has moved around some of its pages, changing their addresses. The old page redirects to the homepage and this other page, which appears to be a cached version of the old page, doesn't seem to be working at the moment. It might start working in the future, but since I can't find another location of the old page right now, I'm going to set the archive link as the active one. Ergo Sum 22:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- The 1838 slave sale returned to the public's awareness in the mid-2010s, due to new attention paid to two buildings on Georgetown University's campus named after Thomas Mulledy and William McSherry. Is this sourced?
- Not really. I meant it as a general sentence to introduce the rest of the section, which would otherwise seem a bit disjointed. I suppose I could trim it a bit to minimize any perception of OR. What do you think? Ergo Sum 22:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I see. To me, the paragraph seems legible if we just drop the whole thing altogether, but I don't want to encroach on your style too much. So yes, if you could trim it a little bit, that would be great. For instance, if we just keep The 1838 slave sale returned to the public's awareness in the mid-2010s, that is IMO sufficient. JBchrch talk 23:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think that works. Trimmed it. Ergo Sum 00:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I see. To me, the paragraph seems legible if we just drop the whole thing altogether, but I don't want to encroach on your style too much. So yes, if you could trim it a little bit, that would be great. For instance, if we just keep The 1838 slave sale returned to the public's awareness in the mid-2010s, that is IMO sufficient. JBchrch talk 23:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not really. I meant it as a general sentence to introduce the rest of the section, which would otherwise seem a bit disjointed. I suppose I could trim it a bit to minimize any perception of OR. What do you think? Ergo Sum 22:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Aren't there any chapters from Facing Georgetown's History: A Reader on Slavery, Memory, and Reconciliation that would be worth citing in the article? JBchrch talk 14:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- I only have access to the preview through Google Books. But, from the table of contents, it seems that everything that is encyclopedic (i.e. not a primary source or purely opinion) has already been cited. There isn't anything that strikes me as lacking. Ergo Sum 22:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Spot checks
- 2 OK
- 5a OK
- 8a OK
- 18b OK
- 24f Does the source say that it was contrary to Roothan’s orders? 90k out of the 115k were still allocated to training.
- I've modified the citation to include p. 46, which explains that Roothaan said all the money had to go to Jesuit training. Ergo Sum 02:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, I had seen that part, but does it say that all the money had to go to training and that the actions were contrary to Roothan's order? I have not read Cooran's primary source but perhaps it was acceptable under his orders ("that the money be invested for the support of Jesuits in training") that 20% of it go to repay some debts? JBchrch talk 03:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- The source does not explicitly say that his order said all of the money should go to training. It just simply says that the money should go to training, which in my mind implies all. Ergo Sum 13:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it would change the sentence much. Even removing that, the sentence would still indicate that the money was spent against Roothaan's order. Ergo Sum 01:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't really see an issue with how it is phrased now. I think it accurately reflects the text. The text (pp. 46-47) says that Roothaan said the money had to go to Jesuit training and that part of it didn't go to that, so I think it's not a stretch to say that that was contrary to his order. Ergo Sum 02:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm reading that Roothaan said that the proceeds needed to go to training, and the money was then allocated at 80% to training and at 20% to repay some debts. The concept that the actions were in contradiction to Roothaan's instruction is not evident from the sourcing. I don't intend to fail this source review for this point, so I'll let you decide what you want to do. JBchrch talk 02:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, I've rephrased that sentence to adhere as closely as possible to the source. Ergo Sum 17:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't really see an issue with how it is phrased now. I think it accurately reflects the text. The text (pp. 46-47) says that Roothaan said the money had to go to Jesuit training and that part of it didn't go to that, so I think it's not a stretch to say that that was contrary to his order. Ergo Sum 02:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- 26 OK. I’m reading "the sale got the Jesuits out of an unprofitable business and raised much-needed capital for their operations". Is this covered somewhere in the article?
- The unprofitable business was the plantations and, by extension, slavery itself. The floundering finances of the plantations are discussed in the Background section. Ergo Sum 02:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- 27d OK
- 31 OK
- 47 OK
- 48 OK
- 51c OK
- 67 OK
- 70 OK
JBchrch talk 02:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/for-georgetown-jesuits-and-slavery-descendants-bid-for-racial-healing-sours-over-reparations-11648232089. Interesting article from today. Maybe there's something useful in there. JBchrch talk 15:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've added a few points to the article from this WSJ article. Ergo Sum 17:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
HF - support
Seeing as this needs another review, I'll take a look at this. Hog Farm Talk 01:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- "The Ark and The Dove on Lord Baltimore's, voyage to settle Maryland in 1634" - I don't believe the comma belongs there
- Quite right. Ergo Sum 14:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think it should be directly glossed somewhere the Society of Jesus = Jesuit as it's not a necessarily obvious connection (I don't think I learned this until college)
- Added a brief explanation at the outset of the first section. Ergo Sum 14:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Since they owned land in both MD and PA, wouldn't it be significant to mention that slavery was allowed in MD but not in PA by the 1800s?
- Maybe it's just me, but it strikes me as just a bit too far outside the scope of the article's narrative, since PA is really only mentioned in passing. Ergo Sum 14:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- "three-week voyage aboard the Katherine Jackson" - is the type of ship known? Presumably a steamer?
- Everything I can find just refers to it as the "Ship Katherine Jackson." Ergo Sum 14:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- So in August 1839, McSherry is still in a position to get Mulledy to resign, but he's described as being in a dying state back in 1837?
- Yes, the William McSherry article explains how even though he was dying, he was given substantial responsibilities, over his protests. Ergo Sum 14:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- " This coincided with a protest by a group of students the day before" - for or against the name change?
- Clarified. Ergo Sum 14:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- "This admissions preference has been described by historian Craig Steven Wilder as the most significant measure taken by a university to account for its historical relationship with slavery" - not sure this is the best way to summarize the source. We've got "go beyond any initiatives enacted by a university in the past 10 years" but our article doesn't time-limit it, and "“It goes farther than just about any institution,” he said. “I think it’s to Georgetown’s credit. It’s taking steps that a lot of universities have been reluctant to take.”" but our article seems to be phrased a bit stronger than the second one as well
- Perhaps a simple "recently" will do. How does it read now? Ergo Sum 14:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Should the Facing Georgetown's History source in the further reading be used?
- I discussed this above. The book is a compilation of other works. Those that are relevant and encyclopedic have already been cited directly. Ergo Sum 14:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I think that's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 03:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Neutral Milk Hotel
- Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
This article is about Neutral Milk Hotel, an important and influential indie rock band from the late 90s. One thing I should note is that regarding Adam Clair's book, I only own the E-book version which uses Reflowable text, so I can't include specific page numbers. However, I'll be happy to provide the necessary quotes during the FAC process if needed for spotchecking. Famous Hobo (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Please fix the following harv error: "McGonigal 1998; McGonigal 2008 Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation." (t · c) buidhe 09:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: Fixed Famous Hobo (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Comments Support by Wetrorave
This is one of those bands that I always tell myself I have to listen to but end up forgetting about hehe. Comments coming soon. Sorry if it seems as if I've read the article in reverse btw. Wetrorave (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
These are my comments. The article's overall prose is pretty good, and you could easily get it to FA. Wetrorave (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
|
- Support. A well-written article overall (and a good band overall, just finished listening to ITAOTS and it's... interesting). Wetrorave (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Drive-by re. ebooks
This has come up before. The reason page numbers are required is for reasons of policy rather than internal FAC processes (e.g. spot checks, although of course, they're interrelated), so the current situation—linking to chapters rather than pages—could be unsatisfactory. @WP:FAC coordinators: the relevant discussions are at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive80#When are page numbers needed.... The suggested path forward seems to be to use the |loc=
parameter; this will allow either a hyperlink to a page (if available), or a searchable term for the reader to ctrl+f within the document. (I think it was Ealdgyth's suggestion, but as usual with WT:FAC, bugger all consensus was come to!) SN54129 19:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- The relevant FAC criterion is "claims are verifiable". Personally I would not feel that linking to chapters meets this. There are probably several ways of satisfactorily addressing it, and IMO providing a searchable term per Ealdgyth's suggestion is one of them. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- It depends how long the chapters are whether that is an acceptable solution. I mean, some books have chapters that are like 100 pages long. So if the chapter is pretty short, like 10 pages, that is an acceptable solution although providing a quote might be even better for WP:V. Of you could list the lowest-level subheading that the information is under, since many books have sub-chapter organization. (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129, Gog the Mild, and Buidhe: Sorry to ping all three of you, just wasn't sure who to exactly respond to. So I like the idea of including a searchable term. Take for example reference 28. Chapter 11 of Clair's book mentions April 28, 1997 as the start date of the national tour, and then spends the next five paragraphs talking about the growing pains of the members playing in a band. The reference with the search term would look like
{{sfn|Clair|2022|loc=Chapter 11 (Search phrase "April 28, 1997")}}
. Would this be acceptable? Famous Hobo (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)- While I can't pre-judge any individual cite, in general terms that seems entirely satisfactory to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think that's an excellent idea; perhaps use the first sentence of the relevant paragraph? (Or a chunk of it if it's as long as one of mine!) Also, try and avoid using particularly common forms of words, as they might appear multiple times. I really do think this needs codification though, @WP:FAC coordinators: , as it's a situation that's only going to increase in frequency, and we should have an across-the-board to approach rather than on discrete FACs. SN54129 18:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure codification would be the right way to address this problem. The FAC criteria are not that specific when it comes to the exact citation style because we recognize there are multiple correct ways to do citations. (t · c) buidhe 01:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- This is about WP:V, not cosmetics such as citation style. SN54129 12:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure codification would be the right way to address this problem. The FAC criteria are not that specific when it comes to the exact citation style because we recognize there are multiple correct ways to do citations. (t · c) buidhe 01:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129, Gog the Mild, and Buidhe: Sorry to ping all three of you, just wasn't sure who to exactly respond to. So I like the idea of including a searchable term. Take for example reference 28. Chapter 11 of Clair's book mentions April 28, 1997 as the start date of the national tour, and then spends the next five paragraphs talking about the growing pains of the members playing in a band. The reference with the search term would look like
- By the way, @WP:FAC coordinators: , could one of you advise Wetrorave not to bold both of his "supports" (once in the section heading, and once in his review)? The nominations reviewer script reads that as two opposes rather one, due to the bolding, and as such misleads on the main FAC page. Cheers, SN54129 20:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie
I think the dates should be given in the first or second sentence -- even if it's as vague as "late 1980s" and "2015, most recently" or something like that -- we need some sort of framing.
- Added a sentence to the lede
Our article on the Casio digital horn says that noone but Neutral Milk Hotel calls it a zanzithophone. I don't know if that's true, but unless we've some evidence that the term is in use I think we shouldn't use the word (even linked) as if it were something some general readers might understand. Perhaps call it a Casio digital horn, with a footnote giving the band's name for it. I see you have it the other way round in the body, but I think in the lead we have to be clearer. In the body you could call it by either name with a parenthesis giving the other.
- Changed zanzithophone to Digital Horn, as that appears to be the proper title of the instrument (including the capitalization). Slightly altered the footnote pertaining to the instrument
"the band's newfound stardom through the Internet": "stardom" seems too strong a word, judging by what I read in the article on In the Aeroplane Over the Sea.
- Reworded
Suggest linking "Synthetic Flying Machine" to the Olivia Tremor Control, and then unlinking it in the explanatory footnote.
- Done
"overcame his apprehensions of the music industry": I don't think this works, because "apprehension" can mean "understanding", and with "of" that's the more natural way to parse this. Perhaps "apprehensiveness about the music industry"?
- Reworded
I seem to recall there's a MoS rule about this, but shouldn't it be "The Apples in Stereo" inline, if you're going to link the "the"? Or else "the Apples in Stereo"? But it appears the band name does include the "The".
- So admittedly I'm also confused about this. According to MOS:THEBAND, the word "the" should not be capitalized, and should only be linked if the word consistently appears on releases (which it does)
"how he felt he was being led down a different life than he was supposed to live": I had to read this a couple of times to make sense of it. I think it means something like "how he felt circumstances/chance/something was leading him down a path in which he wasn't living the life he felt he should be living"; that's clumsily phrased but I think that's what's meant. If so I think it needs rephrasing.
- Reworded and added a quote to clear up some confusion
"to improve upon the lo-fi sound of On Avery Island": is "improve" the right word? No doubt the fidelity was better for the second album, but the lo-fi sound of the first album wasn't a mistake, so I think this is a misleading word choice. I see a couple of sentences further down that "lo-fi" is still being used to describe In the Aeroplane Over the Sea, too, which makes it more confusing to say "improve".
- Reworded
"who would often ask some audience members if they could spend the night at their house": was this as a sort of performance art or were they really looking for somewhere to crash?
- No they just needed somewhere to crash. They were kinda broke. Being an indie rock musicians in the late 90s wasn't a particularly profitable career choice
- Can we make this clearer to the reader? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Reworded, although I think it looks a bit clumsy. What do you think?
- I tried a rephrase. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Reworded, although I think it looks a bit clumsy. What do you think?
- Can we make this clearer to the reader? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- No they just needed somewhere to crash. They were kinda broke. Being an indie rock musicians in the late 90s wasn't a particularly profitable career choice
"while others perpetuated hoaxes around what might have happened": vague, and do you mean "perpetrated"? Perpetuate implies that the hoax already existed. Either way a bit more specificity would be good.
- Added more details according to the source
"The large response helped": I don't know what "The large response" refers to. The previous sentence talks about fan anger and hoaxes. Do you mean something like "The speculation and online discussions raised the profile of the band, to the point that Neutral Milk Hotel and, in particular, In the Aeroplane Over the Sea gained..."?
- Reworded
"became incredibly passionate": "incredibly" is a bit non-encyclopedic, though if you can find a quote that says something like this that would work.
- Reworded
"Neutral Milk Hotel was known for its experimental sound": surely "is known"?
- Whoops, got too caught up with making sure to refer to the band in the past tense that I let that one slip through
"As the song progressed, more instruments could be introduced": I think "would be" or "were" rather than "could be", unless I'm missing some nuance here.
- Reworded the sentence. I wanted to make sure not to specify that every NMH song builds up with more instruments, but a good chunk of them do
"Neutral Milk Hotel's early music": I don't know what "early music" refers to -- there are only two albums, only separated by two years. Or is the distinction between those two albums as the early music, and Ferris Wheel on Fire and the live sets of 2013-2015? The quote from Mark Richardson implies we're talking about pre-album material, but that doesn't seem to be generally available, so I'm not clear what's being discussed.
- So early music in this case refers to recordings made prior to the first album. Not all of these recordings are availble, but the demo album Hype City Soundtrack and the 1994 song "Everything Is" is available. I changed "early music" to "early recordings"
- Now we have "Neutral Milk Hotel's early recordings was considered rough, and featured a considerable amount of distortion": how about "Neutral Milk Hotel's early recordings, prior to On Avery Island, featured a considerable amount of distortion and are considered rough". It needs to be "were", not "was", and reversing the order gives the description before the opinion which makes more sense; and I think "prior to On Avery Island" or something similar would clarify what "early" means. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Reworded
- Now we have "Neutral Milk Hotel's early recordings was considered rough, and featured a considerable amount of distortion": how about "Neutral Milk Hotel's early recordings, prior to On Avery Island, featured a considerable amount of distortion and are considered rough". It needs to be "were", not "was", and reversing the order gives the description before the opinion which makes more sense; and I think "prior to On Avery Island" or something similar would clarify what "early" means. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- So early music in this case refers to recordings made prior to the first album. Not all of these recordings are availble, but the demo album Hype City Soundtrack and the 1994 song "Everything Is" is available. I changed "early music" to "early recordings"
Why isn't Ferris Wheel on Fire included in the discography? I see from the discography article that it's just an EP, but you describe it as a boxed set?
- So Ferris Wheel on Fire is an EP of unreleased songs that was bundled with the boxset, which is mentioned in the Reunion section. Per WP:WPMAG, articles about musicians and bands should generally only include studio albums in the discography section, which is why Ferris Wheel on Fire isn't included
You're inconsistent with the tense you use to describe critics' opinions: "Kim Cooper cites" but "DeRogatis described", for example. I think present tense would be the best choice.
- Pretty sure I changed every instance of past tense to present tense in regards to critics' opinions
"have labeled In the Aeroplane Over the Sea as a concept album": I'd make it either "have labeled In the Aeroplane Over the Sea a concept album" or "have described In the Aeroplane Over the Sea as a concept album".
- Reworded
Any chance of more recent sales numbers than 2013 for In the Aeroplane Over the Sea? Understandable if nothing is available.
- Yeah, sadly 2013 seems to be the most recent update
"publishing emphatic reports on his life": I don't know what "emphatic" is intended to mean here. Strongly-worded? Forceful? Neither seems likely.
- Changed to detailed
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: Oh god, it's been a while. Real life problems and all that jazz. But I finally took care of the issues you brought up, or at the very least answered them. Famous Hobo (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- No worries, I understand about real life. I've struck a few that I could check quickly; will look at the others this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- A couple of points outstanding above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: Responded to the remaining points. Famous Hobo (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- A couple of points outstanding above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- No worries, I understand about real life. I've struck a few that I could check quickly; will look at the others this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: Oh god, it's been a while. Real life problems and all that jazz. But I finally took care of the issues you brought up, or at the very least answered them. Famous Hobo (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Support from 100cellsman
The only thing I suggest is unlinking "the" in the blue link for the Apples In Stereo. Otherwise I support this nomination. Nice work! 웃OO 08:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Media review
- File:NeutralMilkHotel-InTheAeroplaneOverTheSea.ogg: part of the FUR refers to a different band/article - possibly it was copied from another work? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Yeah, that's on me. I got lazy and copied part of the FUR from a Radiohead article. Fixed now. Famous Hobo (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Typhoon Mujigae
Rapidly strengthening tropical cyclones heading straight into populated areas seem to have been a recurring theme of the past decade. This one's from 2015 and had its name retired after hitting coastal South China, even managing to spawn tornadoes in Guangdong. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Image review
I'm having trouble verifying the source of some of the images. The first two satellite photographs in the article link to sources that don't display the image. The third one File:Mujigae 2015-10-05 0600Z.jpg has a dead link and the fourth one File:Mujigae 2015-10-03 0300Z.jpg links to a generic page. I think it's highly likely that these are NASA images but it should be able to verify with the source links.
Other comments
- The lead looks disproportionately long compared to the length of the article. I would try trimming some detail, making sure it covers only the main points per MOS:LEAD.
- The article cites sina.com, marked unreliable by Headbomb's script. It also cites The Economic Times (I think this is related to Times of India)? What make these high quality reliable sources according to the FA criteria?
Note, this is not a full source review. (t · c) buidhe 06:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- The first image has data only going back to 2017 for some reason, not sure if Meow knows where an archive is? The link for the second image, File:Mujigae 2015-10-02 0525Z.jpg, works for me, it's just very zoomed out. AFAICT the source for File:2015-10-03 0300Z.jpg is likely a snapshot taken from approximately this, though I can swap it to File:Mujigae 2015-10-03 0305Z.jpg instead which has a working link that goes directly to the image. For File:Mujigae 2015-10-05 0600Z.jpg, the link should probably be pointing to https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/ but I can't locate the full pass, need Nino Marakot to help me out here. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- For sourcing, Sina republishes content from various news agencies/newspapers, which is why it's marked as unreliable since the source's reliability is equivalent to that of the original source. I'll go modify the citations in a bit to show where said news originated from, to be more transparent. The bit cited to The Economic Times isn't crucial and I've gone ahead and removed it. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ditto with the gov.cn refs – they republish stuff from Xinhua or other ministries and I've used those where I can't track down the original links. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Buidhe, any come back on the above. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ditto with the gov.cn refs – they republish stuff from Xinhua or other ministries and I've used those where I can't track down the original links. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie
Reading through and not finding much to complain about. I've copyedited a bit; please revert anything you disagree with.
"Mujigae came ashore during a week-long holiday (known as a "Golden Week") in lieu of China's National Day,": what does "in lieu of" mean here? Normally it means "in the place of", but that would make no sense here."less than 100 were recorded over the past 50 years": we need a date for this observation; perhaps "as of 2016, less than 100 had been recorded...".- Reworded this quite a bit since I somehow?? did not see "average annual" twice?? which now makes a lot more sense given EF3+ tornadoes are much rarer than 1 in 5. The paper that this statistic is attributed to was dated to 2015 (can't find it online, unfortunately). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
"By the evening of October 3, 39,103 people in Wenchang had been resettled in 57 shelters": can you rephrase to avoid "...3, 39, 103..."?"Final repairs to the power supply—mostly in Guangdong, where Zhanjiang suffered the most from power outages—were expected to complete in a week.": if nearly seven years later we don't have a source saying when power outages were resolved, I think we should drop this -- saying what the prediction was at that time isn't much help to the reader.
Overall this seems solid enough. It's hard to make lists of statistics engaging, and I don't expect sparkling prose for those paragraphs; I think this just about gets over the line. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Support from Hurricane Noah
- I would believe this to be relevant:
- Name formatting in sources should be consistent
- @Hurricane Noah: added the tidbit, and removed commas from the Chinese names. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Dudley
- "earlier in its existence it impacted the Philippines as a developing tropical cyclone, and later on it brought heavy rain to parts of Mainland Southeast Asia." I doubt whether you need this as it is covered below and the main impact was in China. It is also ambiguous whether "later on" means later than China or the Philippines. I found the frequent jumping around in the lead confusing and would prefer a chronological treatment.
- You give details of effects in the Philippines - including strangely someone killed by a snake bite - but you should also give total dead.
- I included a total in the lead – I can add another in the body if that's what you're looking for; the absolute minimum is 4 but that's ignoring the "partial and unofficial" report which has another 3 dead (though whether that includes 1 of the other 4 is impossible to tell). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- "warnings for storm surge and large waves that same day" surges?
- "where winds gusted up to Force 12 on the Beaufort scale". What speed?
- "from Force 11 to 14 on the extended Beaufort scale" Ditto.
- The article seems to me unbalanced. The vast bulk of the effects were in China, where $3.7 billion losses occurred in Guangdon out of a total of $4.3 billion, yet the section on Guangdon is only slightly longer than the ones on other areas, where you report very minor effects such as slight injuries and minor transport delays. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'll get to this next weekend - been taking a bit of a break recently due to IRL stuff. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Make that next weekend, life is coming at me fast and I am woefully unprepared. It may take me some time to look for more RSes that give specific details on Guangdong impacts but I should be done by the end of the month, at worst first week of April. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'll get to this next weekend - been taking a bit of a break recently due to IRL stuff. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Hurricanehink
- Be sure to link Guangdong in its first usage in the lead.
- "Brief power outages were reported and ports and schools were closed." - I'm not a fan of the passive voice, and all of this in the same sentence implies that the schools and ports were closed because of the power outages. If the power outages were brief and not that significant, then I don't think that's needed for the lead.
- "223 injured" - be sure to use non-breaking spaces for all units that aren't converted.
- The met history might be able to be expanded using journals such as this, this, and this
- Several incidents of flash flooding were reported, with 50 barangays inundated with up to 3 ft (0.91 m) of water - I'd specify what a "barangay" is. Also, make sure metric units go first, both here and throughout the article.
- "while another from Bongabon municipality was killed by a snake bite" - what does this have to do with Mujigae? I could see if it was a snake on a plane full of evacuating people.
- Honestly no idea – the news sources say it was related to Mujigae, so I've listed it as such. Couple of scenarios I can think of are that the snake was rattled by the cold, wet weather and bit the unfortunate person, or bad weather or landslides prevented the person from seeking timely medical assistance at a hospital. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- "making Mujigae the strongest typhoon to make landfall in China in the month of October since 1949." - correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the "since 1949" bit is just when accurate records start, and not when there was a stronger October typhoon.
- That seems likely but I'm loath to remove it without a source – China has other records that go back as far as 1893, though I suppose only 1949 and later are "reliable" in the sense that CMA has reanalysed those seasons. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- I notice you using m/s in the China section, but nowhere else in the article. Most TC articles don't use m/s, because it's not widely used by the public, and instead we just use km/h and mph. If you want to keep the m/s, then the entire article should have that as well.
- "tripped an electrical substation" - is tripped the right term? I'm not sure
- I just got rid of that – I can't remember which source I found that in, there's some chance it was in a source for elsewhere and I remembered wrongly or I mistranslated something. If I find it in one of the sources further below I'll add it back in where appropriate. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- " The strongest winds were recorded in Bobai County, where winds gusted up to Force 12 on the Beaufort scale" - how strong?
- "Ahead of the storm, train services between the island and the mainland were suspended from October 2 to 5" - there's no train service connecting Hainan to the mainland, but there are ferries. Double-check this.
- There actually are train services between Hainan and the mainland, albeit the train cars are carried across the Qiongzhou Strait by ferries. (Personally I thought they used undersea tunnels – this is far more interesting.) ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Good stuff! I knew China was planning on building a tunnel or a bridge, but I didn't think train ferry was an option! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- There actually are train services between Hainan and the mainland, albeit the train cars are carried across the Qiongzhou Strait by ferries. (Personally I thought they used undersea tunnels – this is far more interesting.) ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- "Typhoon Signal No. 3 was raised from the evening of October 3 till morning on October 5" - "till" doesn't seem appropriate
- "The combination of Mujigae and a cold front brought up to 100 mm (3.9 in) of rain to mountainous regions in the provinces of Quảng Ninh, Lạng Sơn, and Cao Bằng." - this should be specified it's Vietnam
- No impacts in Cambodia or Laos?
- As far as I can find it was typical heavy rain. Their Typhoon Committee member reports don't pay any special attention to Mujigae, and local news is limited to pre-event forecasts of heavy rain – no mention of landslides, flash floods, crop damage, or anything like that. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
In all, it's a pretty good article! The coverage in China was thorough and well-written, which is important since that's where impacts were greatest. I don't think any of the comments should be too difficult to address. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Source review
Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.
- The damage figure in the infobox doesn't match the text
- The US$4.3 billion total does...? China alone has US$4.3 billion while the Philippines has only US$1.03 million, and I don't want to simply sum them to get US$4.301 billion for fear of false precision. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- But what you have presented currently as the figure is known to be not correct, since it represents only China. Why not address this as was done with fatalities? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- The US$4.3 billion total does...? China alone has US$4.3 billion while the Philippines has only US$1.03 million, and I don't want to simply sum them to get US$4.301 billion for fear of false precision. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- "disturbed weather that formed just east of the Philippines on September 29" - text says Sept 30
- "fallen trees, landslides, and collapsing buildings accounted for most of the fatalities" - source?
- Some of the claims in See also warrant citing
- There appear to be a number of scholarly works on this topic not currently cited, eg [41][42][43]. How was it decided what sources to include?
- FN1: the link provided returns "no data available"
- In what cases are you include publication location?
- IIRC I only include location when using {{cite conference}} to show where said conference was held. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Why spell out BBC and not CNN?
- FN38 is missing agency
- FNs 39 and 40 have different website formatting. Ditto FNs 41 and 46, check throughout
- Fixed 39 and 40. For 41 and 46, the difference arises because 41 is an article from Xinhua republished by gov.cn (original article can't be found on xinhuanet.com anymore), while 46 is published directly on xinhuanet.com. Do I change |work=Xinhua to |agency=Xinhua here or something? ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would suggest treating Xinhua as a work throughout. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed 39 and 40. For 41 and 46, the difference arises because 41 is an article from Xinhua republished by gov.cn (original article can't be found on xinhuanet.com anymore), while 46 is published directly on xinhuanet.com. Do I change |work=Xinhua to |agency=Xinhua here or something? ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- How have you verified that the state-run agency reports are accurate? See WP:RSP. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- KN2731 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Leonardo DiCaprio
I had intended to bring this article to a quality level back in 2015 or so when it was in really a bad shape. I could achieve this four years later. I thought to give it a go at FAC as well where it received five full supports and no oppose. However, I withdrew the nomination as it was taking too long to conclude (and because a review towards the end showed some MoS and prose issues). After almost two years of inactivity, I have recently returned to editing and thought to give it another try. Whether or not this fantastic actor's article gets the shiny star, I hope you learn some things about him and watch some of his films in the process. FrB.TG (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Comments Support from Realmaxxver
Resolved comments
|
---|
Been a while since I've reviewed an article here at FAC. Adding comments soon. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
1991–1996: Early work and breakthrough
1997–2001: Titanic and worldwide recognition
2002–2009: Venture into film production
Hi Realmaxxver, would it possible for you to speed up your review a little if you have time? It has been almost a month now since you started your review, and I would like things to go a little faster, if possible. Thank you for your review so far. FrB.TG (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
2010–2013: Films with high-profile directors
|
FrB.TG I am done with the review now. Support. Realmaxxver (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Support by Aoba47
Resolved comments
|
---|
I am leaving this as a placeholder. Please ping me if I do not post anything in a week. To be fully transparent, I did participate in the first FAC and support that nomination. Since the article is on the longer side (which is understandable given DiCaprio's career), I want to make sure I have the time to read everything thoroughly. Since DiCaprio is still very active, I'd encourage you to be mindful of the length in the future (though I believe this is a standard note for any FACs/FAs about living individuals with active careers). Apologies for not being able to post a review today. Aoba47 (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I hope these comments are helpful. I will look through the article again once everything has been addressed. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
|
@Aoba47: Just chiming in as this FAC review features a few things I was involved in some way or another. Anyway, around the time he was dating a Danish woman named Nina Agdal, which I initially added, we kind of implicitly decided to stop updating his personal life section because it was becoming so-called gossip-y down there. I removed many of his significant relationships and only kept 3. This was before anyone really cared per se that the women he publicly dates are "25" or younger. Personally, I truly think it should only be briefly mentioned and further detail can be made into a "Personal relationships of Leonardo DiCaprio" article. Calling him a misogynist by the media for consensual relationships or even having a type teters on the wrong side of BLP to me. Especially when those sources aren't so reliable or high quality. Trillfendi (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the message and ping. I can understand and agree that the misogynist criticism is rather extreme, but I do think it is odd for a man in his 40s to be consistently dating women in their early 20s (particularly given the power dynamic and parasocial aspects) but that is just my personal opinion. I only asked about it in my review as it was something that I thought about while reading the article. I agree that the sources for these claims are not the best, and I would be okay with losing them if other editors disagree with their inclusion. I would highly doubt that DiCaprio's personal life is notable enough for a separate article, when compared to others like Lindsay Lohan.
- I have not worked on a lot of BLPs so I am not knowledgeable or experienced enough to really say what relationships are notable enough for inclusion. I would just hope that there is a clear cut reason and rationale for why certain relationships are covered over others (i.e. the significance in his life, the coverage in reliable and third-party sources, etc.). Apologies for the long response. My main point is I will defer to more experienced editors/reviewers and this should not change my support of this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Support from Pseud 14
Resolved comments
|
---|
Placeholder. Going to review soon. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
First pass, have reviewed down to the end of upcoming projects. Hope these comments are helpful. Will review the remainder. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC) |
- Satisfied with the replies. Relatively minor point in the "Philanthropy" section is how three consecutive sentences start with month/year, beginning with "In 2010, In April 2013, and In 2016", could use some minor tweaks so it doesn't come across as listing dates/events. Otherwise, I'm happy to support this article. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Drive-by from CPA
- There are MOS:SANDWICH issues in both the 2010–2013: Films with high-profile directors and the Environmental activism sections. Please remove these issues. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Panini!
Resolved comments
|
---|
I hate to leave you with a measly lead glance-over, but yyyyyyyyyikes am I low on time! I'll be back in the future, sometime this following week, hopefully. 18:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Alright, I'm back. I have the free time right now to finish but I'm working on other things in the background so the review will be a little slow, but I'll be posting after reviewing each section so you can work in between pauses.
Despite zero sleep last night and two cups of weak coffee, I'm going to plow through the rest of this review. Sorry for the large gaps in between comments, I've been having a rough week...
Aaaaand see you tomorrow. I know I said I'd finish but something came up just now and I must skeddadle. Tomorrow, I promise! Panini!🥪 15:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Okay, nine hours of sleep and an additional 3 hour nap and I'm ready to rumble.
That should be it from me! This has probably been my favorite FAC to review; even though it's a very long article it kept my attention and made the timeline fun to follow along with due to how you've organized information. I've apologized a lot already, but once again, I apologize for taking a week to finish this! Please let me know when you have fulfilled all these queries/suggestions; anything you disagree with please say so, because normally I'll drop it. I don't make it an absolute requirement that all of my ideas need to be satisfied to gain my support, and as long as you have a reason to justify against one of them I won't argue back. Panini!🥪 17:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
|
JBchrch driving by
You cite Sandler & Studlar 1999 but Sandler and Studlar are only the editors of the book. Rather, the relevant chapter and its author should be cited. JBchrch talk 04:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- They are ones listed in the place where you normally mention the author(s) so I think they really are the authors and not just the editors. In any case, I do not see any mention of someone else; I would think authors would be listed before editors. FrB.TG (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Have you looked at p. 6-7 of the archive file? Also, it's standard practice for the editors to be listed on the front cover (which says "edited by"). JBchrch talk 14:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Taking a closer look: you are citing the chapter written by Melanie Nash and Marti Lahti. JBchrch talk 14:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- As I was not the one having added this source, I do not have access to the book to be able to see the chapter's name (not in the archive file either). Replaced with other sources. FrB.TG (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- That's fine. It was the page linked from the book's title. Just so you know, if you create an account at archive.org, you can read and "borrow" digital books like this one. JBchrch talk 15:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- However, it's unfortunate that you replaced Rutgers University Press with news sources. It would be preferable if you accessed the book from the URL and did the proper formatting. JBchrch talk 15:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- That's fine. It was the page linked from the book's title. Just so you know, if you create an account at archive.org, you can read and "borrow" digital books like this one. JBchrch talk 15:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- As I was not the one having added this source, I do not have access to the book to be able to see the chapter's name (not in the archive file either). Replaced with other sources. FrB.TG (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Taking a closer look: you are citing the chapter written by Melanie Nash and Marti Lahti. JBchrch talk 14:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Have you looked at p. 6-7 of the archive file? Also, it's standard practice for the editors to be listed on the front cover (which says "edited by"). JBchrch talk 14:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Harrias, hi you did the source review on its first nomination. Since not a lot of major things have changed (except for some updates) in terms of sources, would you be able to also do it this time around? I understand if you don’t have the time or inclination. Have a good day. FrB.TG (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Source review
Resolved comments
|
---|
I'll take a crack at this. I see Harrias, pinged above re the source review hasn't edited for a few days; Harrias, if you want to chip in, please do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC) First a couple of things I can spot with scripts.
Other points, added as I find them.
Link validation done through FN180 (this version); will continue probably tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC) More:
That's it for the link checking. I'll take a look at reliability next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
There are a few sources that aren't the most reliable -- Hello and E! for example -- but they seem fine for what they're used for.
That's everything I can spot. There are some cases where links have not been archived, but though it's recommended it's not a requirement. I can't see any formatting errors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC) |
Source review passes; all the above fixes have been verified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, do you have some time to conduct an image review again considering you also did it the last time? FrB.TG (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Image review
- Don't duplicate captions in alt text; if there's nothing different to say, the alt can be simply 'refer to caption'. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@WP:FAC coordinators: Two questions. May I nominate another article? What's the status update on this nom? FrB.TG (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- 1. Yes.
- 2. Waiting for further comments from Amakuru as mentioned below, and, possibly, your response to them.
- Gog the Mild (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Drive-by review by Amakuru
- "His father is of Italian and German descent; DiCaprio is conversant in Italian and German" - not keen on the semicolon in the middle of this sentence, a simple "and" would be better. Also not sure if the sources support the assertion exactly. The Italian one simply says that he spoke to the Pope in Italian, which doesn't prove he's "conversant" in it... (perhaps the Daily Mirror source says more, but I can't access that); and the German one says he learned and practised German with his grandmother, but again not really giving his level. Business Insider is also a source whose reliability is often questioned.
- I agree on the Italian bit but a fan keeps insisting on its re-addition. I've removed it until we find a better source that explicitly confirms that he speaks the language. As for German, the Douglas Wight biography explicitly denies this: "Leonardo never really got to grips with the German language" (p. 22) but somehow I missed it in my early research. Business Insider is reliable according to WP:RSP when reporting on culture.
- "In an interview in Russia" - when was this?
- "DiCaprio was named Leonardo because his mother, then pregnant with him, first felt him kick" - feel like this could do with tightening. The "then" seems to refer to a point in time we haven't mentioned yet. Maybe something like "his parents chose the name Leonardo because his pregnant mother felt his first kick while she was looking at..."
- Also not sure note (a) about the paintings should be there. It looks like original research or WP:SYNTH, unless there is a source which says this in connection with DiCaprio specifically.
- The two sentences beginning "his parents separated..." and "For a while though" seem a bit stilted to me... The second almost seems to contradict the first, and leaves the reader wondering when this "while" was that he lived with his father. "to not deprive DiCaprio of his father's presence" and "For a while though" could also be improved for encyclopedic tone IMHO.
- Looking into his biography, it says they lived next door to each other though the newspaper source insists he lived with his father. I trust the biography more as when they lived in the same neighborhood, he lived with his mother. After that, he moved to other LA districts with his mother. So there is no time in between where he lived with George.
- "moved around to multiple Los Angeles neighborhoods" - could be just "lived in multiple..."
- "He went to the Los Angeles Center for Enriched Studies" - maybe "He studied at..."?
- "moving onto" - informal tone
- "asked his mother to take him to auditions instead to improve their financial situation" - which kind of auditions, did his mother actually agree to take him to them, and how does this relate to school? Would it be that if he got an acting role he'd drop out of school? Or instead go to acting school?
- Revised. The source does not say whether his mother agreed to it, but considering the next sentence says he dropped out after his third year in high school, I would think he got what he wanted.
- "as he was fond of" - informal tone
- Sourcing points
- If "Refinery29" is a website, should its name be in italics? (I know the article title isn't in italics, but this may be an error)
- Per below.
- This is probably a style I don't know about, but what does "(2003) [2000]" mean?
- In the parameters, 2003 refers to the year the book was published whereas 2000 means the origin year. However, it's a moot point considering the source has been removed.
- Young Artist Award has an article, so could link
- It is already linked in ref. 30. I do it only on the first instance to avoid overlinking.
- Roger Ebert's name is mentioned twice
- That's because he's the author and the publisher.
- Also curious about "Rotten Tomatoes" not being italicized. Maybe websites aren't routinely, but the
website=
parameter at {{cite web}} would imply they should be.
- I usually go with how the Wikipedia article does it. As per MoS, we should italicize newspapers, magazines etc. so unless that is changed in the website parameter, I'll use publisher instead.
That's all for now, from just looking at the first paragraph... I will have a closer look later hopefully, but (and sorry to have to say this) I am a little concerned that overall the prose is not polished enough to satisfy criterion 1a (which I still think of as "brilliant, refreshing prose" even if the label has changed!) I see SandyGeorgia raised prose as an issue at the last FAC in 2019 so not sure if major copyediting has been done since then? If not, I think this might benefit from a thorough comb through and perhaps a peer review to get it up to the requisite standard. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I was mostly inactive in the next two years but I do remember the article going through at least some copy-edit. I asked SandyGeorgia for feedback a few months ago but she did not respond. Thank you for your review. Do let me know if your current comments have been properly addressed and if you find more (major) issues after you look more closely. FrB.TG (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- So sorry, I have not been able to keep up, and can't promise to look in here-- depends on progress on other articles. Amakuru, you have me giggling for the second time this year over your use of "brilliant, refreshing prose"; I will explain on your talk :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- @FrB.TG: thanks for your response here. Given that you seem amenable to discussion on this point, do you mind if I do some copyediting on the article to attempt to improve on some of the prose? I've made a start just now. Obviously feel free to dispute anything I've amended, and we can discuss. This may be more fruitful than my going through raising issues here line by line. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t mind at all. I would be most grateful for any kind of help. Thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- @FrB.TG and Amakuru: How is this going? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: urggh, forgot about it again! You might have to withdraw your note of appreciation at this rate... I'll try to have another look over the weekend — Amakuru (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- @FrB.TG and Amakuru: How is this going? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t mind at all. I would be most grateful for any kind of help. Thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Back for some more points
Sorry for the long delay. I'm finding it very hard to fit much editing time in at present, so you'll have to bear with me if I'm absent again. Just for the record I would probably oppose promotion as things stand unfortunately, just because I think the prose needs work - it is fixable though. Obviously given my potential inability to commit to combing the whole article, and the support !votes above, it's up to the coords what to do if I end up absent for a long time again!
- "At the beginning of his career, DiCaprio had difficulty finding an agent" - why was this?
- No idea. The source does not provide any info beyond this.
- Can we name who the agent was that he eventually found, and how long did he remain with him?
- No source for it, unfortunately.
- "introducing him to underground art and art in general" - a bit unclear to me how this is relevant to his screen career, and why being into art might help with that
- My guess would be because he probably wanted to pass on his knowledge to him and hoped that he'd apply some of it to acting after all acting is art. But it's just that, a guess, and I have no source to provide a reason for why he did what he did.
- "Motivated by his father and the need to financially support his mother, he began acting regularly on television by the early 1990s" - this doesn't seem to fit with the narrative two sentences earlier, in which he did 100 auditions without success. Presumably something else must have changed to enable him to land a role, other than just the "motivation" of his father and the need to support his mother... I think a bit more detail around what was going on here, why he didn't get the 100 roles and what changed, would be useful.
- I have some details on it and will add it later today.
- "who was later convicted of transporting child pornography and sexually abusing a minor" - not sure that this detail is particularly relevant to DiCaprio?
- I'll remove it.
- "Around this time, he was a celebrity contestant..." - slightly surprised by this... was he already a celebrity based on his appearance in Parenthood?
- "In 1991, DiCaprio played an un-credited role in one episode of Roseanne" - I think this would belong better in the previous paragraph, even if that means a section break halfway through 1991. It just looks kind of odd sitting as a standalone sentence and would be more natural for this section to start with his big screen debut.
- "a role he described as" - was this his description at the time, or later?
- "taken in by the Seaver family" - is the name of the family needed?
Cheers for now — Amakuru (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. While all of your concerns are perfectly valid, some of these are due to lack of information from sources so there is nothing I can do about them. Your return will be appreciated but no pressure on you. FrB.TG (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Kavyansh
Placeholder; comments soon Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- "That October, DiCaprio joined Mark Ruffalo in North Dakota in support of the Standing Rock tribe's opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline" — The source ([54]) does not mention "North Dakota". What they mention is "Standing Rock", which our article calls " border between North and South Dakota".
- Removed the location altogether since I saw one source say it's in ND and the loc is in the title anyway.
- "In April 2017, he protested against President Trump's inaction on climate change by attending the People's Climate March." — At first instances, we should be mentioning full name of Donald Trump. Rest, source verifies the content. OK
- "While reviews for the film were mixed, critics were unanimous in their praise for DiCaprio's and Lawrence's performances;" — The source ([55]) states "Most applaud the great work the cast led by Jennifer Lawrence and Leonardo DiCaprio deliver across all scenes." I don't think "most" applauding should be considered same as unanimous.
- While that statement is true, these kinds of sources are very hard to find so it's normally taken in good faith that the claim is okay since the editor usually checks the prominent sources. It's best to stick to what the source says though.
- "He is drawn to roles based on real-life people and stories told in specific periods." — (#1) The URL in the reference is to /3 page, which does not verify the content. this link does. (#2) As to verify the part, the source does not say that he is "drawn to roles based on real-life people". The best I could find in the source is "You frequently star in films based on real people and events in history, such as ... Why?", which is not DiCaprio's statement, but a question. His frequently being in films based on real people should not be assumed to that he is "drawn" to those roles. Is there something I am missing?
- I'm sure I could find something if I dug deep that says he loves playing these roles but I have adjusted it as per the source for now.
- "DiCaprio endorsed Hillary Clinton for the 2016 presidential election." — Well, this one is bit too nitpicky, but, the source says " “Please vote this Tuesday,” he said. “Vote for people who believe in the science of climate change.” ". We are indirectly assuming that 'people who believe in the science of climate change' = 'Hillary Clinton'. As the things stand, WP:V is failed for this part, but I'm confident better sources available which explicitly make that endorsement claim.
- Replaced with this one. It says, "Here are some of the other filmmakers who have publicly bashed Trump, endorsed Clinton, or both." and then goes on to list DiCaprio.
- "DiCaprio's first producing task was as an executive producer in The Assassination of Richard Nixon, starring Sean Penn as Samuel Byck" — I cannot find "first producing task" in the source.
- "Revolutionary Road grossed $76 million against its budget of $35 million" — Per the source ([56]), "Worldwide Box Office: $79,604,820", "Production Budget: $45,000,000 (worldwide box office is 1.8 times production budget)" ??
- Ah, I must've intended to cite this one since the it says $35 million and ~$76 million ($75.9 million).
- "After narrating the 2019 global warming documentary Ice on Fire," — The source ([57]) "In the trailer, the actor narrates: '[...]'". This just establishes the fact that DiCaprio narrated the trailer (to be more precise, maybe just a part of it). I an not saying the statement is wrong, but WP:V is not established.
- Replaced.
- "It broke the record for the most views (153 million hours) in a single week in Netflix history." — The source ([58]) states that it was "152,290,000 hours", much less than 153 million hours.
- Ah, apologies for this one. I think I saw this as 152.92 million instead of 152.29 million and I probably rounded
Just to mention, I randomly selected these sentences, scrolling up and down the article. Not entirely convinced by the spot-checks, so this one needs further spot-checks to ensure that sources exactly verify what article conveys. Thansk! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Alright, thank you. I apologize for these. Most of them are true statements but I probably should've found better sources for these. FrB.TG (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- ^ J. J. Alexander, 'Tavistock in the Fifteenth Century', Report & Transactions of the Devonshire Association 69(1937), 252.