Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this 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. 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, Laser brain and Sarastro1—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:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached;
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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.

Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. The only templates that are acceptable are {{xt}}, {{!xt}}, and {{tq}}; templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples; and {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions.

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.

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 {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:


Nomination procedure

Toolbox
  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
  5. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.

Supporting and opposing

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
  • For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Contents

Nominations[edit]

Roman temple of Bziza[edit]

Nominator(s): ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a Roman temple dedicated to the Semitic god Azizos. Sources pertaining to the article's subject were exhausted; the article covers all the available information about the temple, the deity, documented timeline, architecture and the function of the temple/later church. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Multiple citations in the lead – almost every sentence, in fact. The lead is supposed to summarise what's in the main text of the article; everything mentioned in the lead should be in the main text, which is where the information should be referenced. Apart from that, there seems to be substantial over-citing of simple facts, e.g. do you need three refs to support the statement about stamps? Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

My bad, I tend to overdo it. I'm a bit rusty from an extended WikiLeave. I forgot about lead requirements. Regarding the stamps, I couldn't find one page that hosts all three images. I could upload them onto an image hosting website if that's okay. Also about over-citing, I prefer to do it to keep track from which source page each statement comes from. Multiple sources provide, for example, small bits of information about architectural elements. I had to sequence them in a logical way, from the outside of the structure to the inside. This is what caused me to cite every statement so that they are traceable. If that is a huge no no please let me know.
Thank you for taking the time Brian, it's a real privilege to have you guide. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 05:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
On the issue of the stamps, or in any other case where you need multiple sources to support a single statement, you could follow WP:CITEBUNDLE, which tells you how to combine several citations into a single footnote (I often forget to do this myself, by the way). Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk[edit]

  • Nice to see this here, will review soon. Some preliminary comments first. FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Single sentence paragraphs are advised against, perhaps the ones here could be placed together with other paragraphs.
  • There are a good deal of unnecessary WP:duplinks, they can be highlighted with this script:[1]
  • Images should generally be spread around in the article body rather than being "dumped" in galleries at the end (see WP:galleries). I think you could place some in the article where relevant, and some could probably go since they are somewhat repetitive.
Beautiful tool, thank you. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 19:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Go Vacation[edit]

Nominator(s): TheAwesomeHwyh 05:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This is the third time I've nominated this article. The FAC immediately prior to this one failed mostly because of the need for a second copyedit, which the article has now gone through. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • Is there any particular reason for the citations in the infobox? I would imagine that all of the information regarding these release dates for different geographical areas and game systems should be included in the prose in the body of the article and cited there accordingly. Is there a reason why the body of the article does not address the game's release at all? I would also image the genre would be mentioned and sourced in the body of the article.
    • Working on it- so far I've added the genre to body. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I have now added a section on the release of the game. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
        • I would recommend looking at featured articles on video games to see how they handle putting information on the game's release in the body of the article. It really does not make any sense to have it be a subsection of the "Reception" section. See examples like Knuckles' Chaotix and Sabre Wulf to see how they do it. It would make more sense for this article to combine the release information into the "Development" section. Aoba47 (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (Go Vacation[b] is a party video game that was developed and released by Namco Bandai Games for the Wii games console.), I would drop "that was" and "games console".
  • I think it may be better to just revise the lead sentence to say "a 2011 party video game" and remove this part (It was first released in North America on 11 October 2011) entirely.
  • For this part (Vehicles such as trolleys and bicycles can be piloted to access resorts), I would put "the" in front of "resorts".
  • For this part (Players can also customize their avatars and their virtual villas.), I am uncertain if "virtual" is needed since I would assume that it is clear from the context. I would also change it to "customize their avatars and villas".
  • I am not really sure I understand what this sentence (Producer Kenya Kobayashi opted for the name Go Vacation to convey activity.) means.
  • This sentence (The game's Marine Resort was partly inspired by Hawaii, but it was not directly based on any real-world location.) seems slightly contradictory. The same goes for the sentence (No areas in the game were based on any real-world locations but parts of Marine Resort were inspired by Hawaii.) in the body of the article. It seems odd that it says a part of the game was based on Hawaii only to later say that none of the areas were based on any real-life locations.
  • A part of this sentence (The player first visits the Marine Resort, which contains many coves and beaches.) seems to repeat information from this earlier sentence (Players start the game in the Marine Resort and other locations are unlocked by completing a set number of minigames in the previous resorts.). It was already established that player start in Marine Resort so I do not think it needs to be repeated.
    • I have removed that part. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This part (The City Resort, which centers around extreme and leisure sports, the City Resort is the second and smallest resort) does not make sense. Maybe something was removed?
    • Not sure how that happened, fixed. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (After playing twenty minigames, players gains access to their own virtual houses, called villas,), I would spell out "twenty" as "20" since the previous numbers are represented in numerals. The same comment applies for "ninety" in this part (Furniture is gained in sets, of which there are ninety.).
  • This image caption (A split screen view of four players having a water gun fight.) should not have a period because it is not a full sentence.
  • I do not understand why the "complete sense" quote is used twice.
    • I'm not sure why it wouldn't be? It lets the reader know those two sentences are connected. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This sentence ( To decide which activities to include in the game, the developers surveyed players in America, Europe, and Japan to ask them what they wanted in the game.) seems rather clunky. I would streamline it to (The developers conducted surveys in America, Europe, and Japan to determine what activities to include in the game.).
  • In the third paragraph of the "Reception" section, I would avoid starting two sentences in a row with (In his review of the X version).
  • I would wikilink "villas" in the body of the article if it is going to be linked in the lead.
  • These two sentences (Sterling criticized the NPCs for their design, calling them "faux anime characters" and "completely charmless". Reece also criticized the NPCs, writing, "even if you hop onto an ATV and plough into someone at full speed, they'll have very little to say for themselves when they get back on their feet".) are rather repetitive as they use a similar structure by repeating "criticized the NPCs".

I have only done a quick read-through of the article, but I have noticed several areas that need improvement. The biggest issue is how the body of the article does not address the game's release at all (either the original Wii release or the Switch port). I am also uncertain about the quality of the prose, but I will provide more commentary on that once the above comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm taking a short break now, I will continue addressing these concerns either later tonight or tomorrow. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Meinhard Michael Moser[edit]

Nominator(s): Josh Milburn (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Meinhard Moser was an Austrian mycologist best known for his work cataloguing European mushrooms, especially the difficult web caps. However, he also did important work elsewhere in the world (including South America) and on the ecological role mushrooms play in forests. He seems to have been an interesting character who led an eventful life, and he was held in very high esteem in mycological communities. I hope that I've done him justice in this article. I should say that I was inspired to nominate this here by Usernameunique's fascinating articles on 20th-century academics, and I owe thanks to Sasata, who will be remembered by FAC regulars as the "mushroom man" who wrote scores of fungal FAs during his time on Wikipedia from 2008-16. Thanks in advance for any comments. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Usernameunique[edit]

Infobox

Early life, university, and military service

  • Moser became an authorised mushroom controller — What's an authorised mushroom controller?
    • This puzzled me when I first read it. I assume it's some kind of governmental role, but I simply don't know. I've changed it to Moser became an "authorised mushroom controller and instructor", and was in turn directed to attend mycological seminars around Germany and Austria. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • he was officially requested — By the government?
  • some of the issues surrounding the large genus Cortinarius — Is "issue" a technical term?
    • No. Clarified - "scientific challenges". Josh Milburn (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

England and the Federal Institute for Forestry Research

  • Two sentences beginning with "There, he" in the first paragraph
  • with the latter being sponsored by the naturalist Roger Phillips — What does it mean for the translation to be sponsored? Also, worth a red link?
    • I think it just means he paid for it. "Published", works, though - and is clearer! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "much used and appreciated field manual" ... "the most-used and most authoritative handbook on larger European fleshy fungi". — Whose words? Also, I'm not sure you need to hyphenate "most-used", but, given that you do, is there a reason why you didn't hyphenate "most authoritative"?
    • I've attributed the quotes. The hyphenation follows the original quote: "One very important feature is that each plate is keyed to the appropriate page in Meinhard Maser's treatment in Kleinen Kryptogamenflora, the most-used and most authoritative handbook on larger European fleshy fungi, and the taxonomy follows his treatment." Josh Milburn (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Are any of Moser's illustrations in the public domain, or do you think it's worth making a fair use case for one (I would probably say that such a case could be made, but we have different perspectives on the matter)?
    • I can't see any being public domain. I think a fair use claim could be made if I had a bit more about the importance of his work as an illustrator, but I think I'd rather use the space for photos of fungi anyway. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

University of Innsbruck

  • In 1970, Moser became the president of the Austrian Mycological Society — Seems a bit out of place here
    • Point taken; I've made it a little more chronological. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • serving to encourage others to engage with Cortinarius in a meaningful way. — This is pretty vague
    • Adjusted.
  • It was a study of Cortinarius, Dermocybe, and Stephanopus, the latter described for the first time, in South America. — This is confusing, particularly the final clause. Stephanopus had been described before, but never in South America? If so, it could be clarified by removing the final comma, or adding a semicolon somewhere, perhaps after Stephanopus.
    • A study of three genera in South America, one of which was described for the first time. I'm pretty sure it's grammatically sound, but if it confused you, it will confuse others, so I've rewritten the sentence. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In 1983, in recognition of his forthcoming 60th birthday, an article dedicated to Moser was published in Sydowia. The piece, compiled by Franz Schinner, C. Furrer-Ziogas, and Horak, contained a detailed biography of Moser and a full bibliography of the 116 research publications he had authored or co-authored between 1949 and 1983. — Better suited under "Recognition"?
    • I could move the special issues to the recognition section, but I quite like them where they are as (if you like) "career highlights". Josh Milburn (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Retirement and death

  • the earliest possible date — What exactly does this mean? Surely he could have retired earlier if he wanted, it just would have been disadvantageous to do so (pension, benefits, etc.)?
    • I agree, so I have removed it. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • identifying 70 previously undocumented species, including some new to science. — So there were undocumented species that were not new to science? Does that mean that they were known, but no description had been published?
    • Undocumented from the region, basically. I've clarified. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • 7th International Congress — The 7th International Congress for underwater archaeology? On a more serious note (though the organization should still be clarified), it might be worth adding the dates—11–17 August 2002—to show how he remained engaged until weeks before his death.
    • Yes, good; I've expanded to give some flavour. It seems he was involved with four separate papers... Josh Milburn (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Research

  • Much of his research covered four key areas — And then only three, really, are listed.
  • "made the first successful steps" — Fairly generic language like could just be paraphrased instead of quoted, but if you prefer to quote, then whose words?

Personal life

  • was fluent in several languages — Such as?

Recognition

  • ((E. Horak) E. Horak) — Mistake?
  • If interested, the Romanian article has a nice way of putting the 20-odd species/genera named after Moser into a chart.

Bibliography

  • The Italian article has what looks like a very comprehensive list of articles if you feel like some copy and paste is in order, but, especially with his significant output, I understand the desire to curate.

References

  • How do you feel about sfn footnotes?

Cited texts

  • Any reason why sometimes just the first initial is given, and sometimes the full first name? I added the first name for Benkert, but note that there is still a source cited with Moser's full first name.
  • Any reasons why some of these use citation templates and others do not?
  • Do Hausknecht 2003 & Horak et al. 2003 use hyphens instead of en dashes for a reason (such as the actual article titles use hyphens), or is this inadvertent?

Overall

  • Looks good, J Milburn. Nice work on this—over the course of a decade! Comments above, and I'd recommend double checking my edits. On a funny note, I first read your description above as "Meinhard Moser was an Austrian misogynist best known for his work cataloguing European mushrooms". --Usernameunique (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

SS Politician[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The SS Politician was a cargo boat that ran aground in 1941. She would have been just another statistic of a wartime shipping loss if it was not for one thing: she contained 22,000 cases (264,000 bottles) of scotch. It was the habit of Hebrideans to look at all wrecks on their shores as bounty to be rescued from the being lost, irrespective of the niceties of the maritime salvage laws. The fact that a Scotch-drinking writer by the name Compton Mackenzie lived on a neighbouring island and decided to use it as a basis for a humorous story meant that Politician was immortalised in the book and two films that go under the name Whisky Galore. There is a darker side to it all – and the book's pompous figure of Captain Waggett was, in reality a customs man named McColl, who persecuted and prosecuted anyone who had taken from the wreck. Any and all comments are most welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "the salvors was shipped back to its bonded warehouses, although this was also looted during its journey. No-one was injured or killed in the accident. Two salvage crews removed much of the cargo," You introduce the salvors after the first reference to them.
  • "While she was still being fitted out, she was hit by another ship and damaged.[8][9]" If she was still being fitted out, was she as yet a ship to justify "another"?
  • Ah, the old metaphysical question of 'at what point does the ship come into being'! ;-) She was enough of a ship to have been released down the slipway and into the river where the rest of her was being fitted out. I don't know whether that tachnically makes her a ship at that point. The two main sources refer to the vessel as a ship, although neither of them is a technical shipping publication, and may be using the term in a layman's sense. Pinging Kablammo and Lyndaship, both of whom have been hugely helpful on other ship-related points. - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Once she floats shes a boat (or ship)! Lyndaship (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks Lyndaship! - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "She traded on the US eastern seaboard until 1930" I would be surprised if this trade was licit, given the Jones Act. Or were her voyages actually international?
  • She was a general trading vessel, and there was no question that she was shipping alcohol at that time. - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "bikes" Bicycles?
  • "The salvors extracted £360,000 in Jamaican currency from number five hold and passed it to Gledhill.[m] He sealed the money in boxes and sent it to the salvage agents via the local post office on South Uist. The notes were handed over to the Bank of England.[92] Many had already entered circulation ..." it's the circulation bit that bothers me. Would these have been acceptable in ordinary commerce in Britain? Or would they have needed to be taken for exchange, say at a bank or post office? If the latter, I would not say "circulation", but possibly "commerce".
  • The sources do not clarify if they were an accepted currency (although they were pegged to the same value as the pound). I've tweaked to "Many had already been presented at banks for exchange", which is supported by the sources and less questionable. - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Have to run will complete later on today.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "and the company went into liquidation." Good one!
  • I thought so too! - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
A most interesting read, look forward to supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Cheers Wehwalt. I think I've covered all your points, although the question of whether she was a ship or not remains unanswered until advice comes in from the more knowledgeable Wikiproject Ships people. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Support All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for your time and thoughts here: as always they are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in fine shape. Some pretty minor matters:

  • the laid down date in the infobox isn't in the body and cited. When you do that, link keel laying.
  • The "notes" field in the IB has a citation that carries all the info, but I've added it into the body too, with the link. - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • link ceremonial ship launching
  • 7899→7,899
  • is the length given an o/a length, or waterline?
  • link Beam (nautical)
  • lk=in for the knots conversion
  • "at about 7:40 am" what date?
  • breached (past tense) combined with flooding (present tense) and breaking (present tense)
  • "Scotland's west coast engaged in what Hutchinson"?
  • Yes, good spot. - SchroCat (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "On 5 June they persuaded", as we are talking about McColl himself, also "to assist themhim"
  • Tweaked to "he and Gledhill", so the "them" is now correct

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  • "began to become annoyed with correspondence began between"?
  • Tweaked the gibberish - SchroCat (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • should it be "An Royal Air Force corporal" as RAF hasn't been introduced?
  • Done and linked - SchroCat (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Great story, nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks very much Peacemaker67. Two left to do, which I'll go through the technical sources and see what they say. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • And now all done. Thanks very much for your thoughts, and please let me know if there is anything else you spot. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    All good. Well done, a really interesting story well told. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    Many thanks Peacemaker - that's very good of you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all working, per the checker tool
  • Formats are consistent
  • Quality/reliability: can you say a little more about the nature of the source Important British and World Paper Money? What is this – book, pamphlet, whatever? Otherwise, sources appear to meet the required FAC criteria.
  • Many thanks Brian. The Paper Money reference is an online catalogue that has been archived, from the numismatic specialist auction house Dix Noonan Webb . I've added the link to it, which I missed before. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

  • Claim my seat here. CPA-5 (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Image review - pass[edit]

  • Relevant locations for the SS Politician.jpg needs an explicit US PD tag. (Like 1942 Jamaica £5 note.jpg.)

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Gog, now sorted. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

I missed the peer review – asleep again! – so have a few minor comments now that I should have made then (apols).

  • Early February – 12 March 1941
    • "it was dangerous for the man left behind, and it would be a waste of their time too" – singular noun with plural pronoun. (And I feel the too is perhaps a touch informal and could be omitted.)
  • 12 March – early-April 1941
    • "four men, who police charged" – some aged and pedantic persons such as I cling to the accusative whom
      • Done; and how can I ignore such a lovely pun with the "accusative" being charged, by police - SchroCat (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Early April – August 1941
    • "widescale black marketeering" – I think I'd hyphenate black-marketeering, but I may be quite wrong
      • No, you're quite right. The OED has black market for the nound, and hyphenated for the verb. - SchroCat (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    • "By the time the court cases had been heard, he had amassed" – who is "he"? At last mention we were reading of Gledhill and McColl.
  • Legacy
    • "along with other of the Ealing comedies" – might this be better as just along with other Ealing comedies or along with some other of Ealing comedies. Just a thought.

Those are my very minor quibbles. I thoroughly enjoyed this article and look forward to supporting its elevation. Tim riley talk 21:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Tim, many thanks indeed for your thoughts here - they are as appreciated as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Peter van Geersdaele[edit]

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Peter van Geersdaele was, as a colleague remembered him, "the last of the team of conservators and specialist craftsmen who responded to a challenge that had left archaeologists daunted". Spending the bulk of his career at the British Museum, he led the moulding, and subsequent fibreglass reconstruction, of the impression of the Sutton Hoo ship-burial. He later worked briefly for Parks Canada; finally retiring after a last move to the National Maritime Museum, he was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire in recognition of his services to museums.

This article is a concise and complete account of van Geersadele’s recorded contributions to archaeology and museums. It has been expanded to include a more broader take on his life with the obituaries that followed his death last year, and is the most comprehensive take on his life available. Recently reviewed by The Rambling Man, it is ready to be nominated here. Usernameunique (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all working
  • Formats: a few nitpicks:
  • Gooderham: You've repeated a typo ("Counil") from the source – I don't think you have to do that.
  • Good catch; I probably just copied and pasted originally, and didn't notice. I've added a "[sic]" in the title.
  • I think the "Family Notices" source needs a publisher. This notice originally appeared in the East Anglian Daily Times which is evidently the publisher of this website.
  • Added East Anglian Daily Times as the publisher. I'd cite directly to the newspaper (and include the link as a courtesy link), but I haven't (yet) been able to find a copy as it appeared in print.
  • The Painter source seems to be out of alphabetical sequence in the bibliography.
  • Fixed.
  • Quality/reliability: no issues, sources meet the necessary FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Brianboulton. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Charles H. Stonestreet[edit]

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 03:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a 19th-century Jesuit who led Georgetown University and the American Jesuit province at a critical time in their history. He had a rather interesting life. One tidbit is that he was called as a character witness for two of the conspirators in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. This is a second nomination, as the first did not generate sufficient comments. Ergo Sum 03:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Support from TRM[edit]

I've had the pleasure of reviewing Ergo Sum's work on a number of occasions and this is a good example of one such article which I reviewed for GA-class but which I felt fundamentally exceeded those requirements. I'm pleased to see it here at FAC and also pleased to offer my support to the nomination. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

- spotchecks not done

  • FN13: Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis is the publisher, not the website or author
    • Fixed at {{Inflation/fn}}. Although there is an ongoing debate there, which really doesn't have anything to do with this article. Ergo Sum 14:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Retrieval dates aren't useful for GBooks links
    • I think they serve a purpose, so long as they don't violate any policy. Ergo Sum 14:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Catholic Editing Company is not an author. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Ergo Sum 14:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Muhammad III of Granada[edit]

Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the third Nasrid Sultan of Granada. Unlike his predecessors Muhammad I and Muhammad II (which I also improved to FA), his rule was rather short and he was deposed in a coup. Recently passed GA, and I subsequently expanded the article to be more comprehensive. I hope I have covered all major facts and details of his life and 7-year reign now. HaEr48 (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk[edit]

  • Of course I have to read the entire series, so will review soon. At first glance, there appears to be a lot of duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:[2]
    • Thank you, removed duplinks. HaEr48 (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • More names and terms could be linked in the image captions.
    • Linked some names in image captions. HaEr48 (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "He had a sister, Fatima, born c. 1260 from the same mother." I think here it would be best to name him than just saying "he", since so many people are mentioned up to that point.
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe the paragraph in the Early life section could be split in two? Very long now.
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The Marinids are not linked at first mention, but several mentions down.
    • Done. Actually the redirect target (Marinid dynasty) is already linked even earlier. Removed the later link. HaEr48 (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Link holy war?
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • There was some discussion about the cause of his bad eyesight below, and that the reading into the night part was inaccurate. But if this is mentioned by many source, I think it could at least be mentioned in footnote b that this was historically claim, without stating it as fact. If that was what they thought was the cause at the time, it's worthy of mention for context. Will ping Haukurth to see what they think about this too.
    • @Haukurth: What do you think? It is true that many sources (including modern historians) mention it. HaEr48 (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Can we mention this as a historical claim without making it sound like we're endorsing it? Haukur (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
        • @Haukurth and FunkMonk: I mentioned it now in note [b]. Since it's rather buried (in notes), and framed as "Sources ... mentioned ...", I hope it will sound like we are endorsing it. Interestingly, one of the sources also mention his father's sight problems in addition to the night reading stuff, which I added to the note as well. HaEr48 (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Looks good to me with this context. FunkMonk (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "instead of the Sultan" Not sure, but aren't such titles only suppsoed to be capirtalised when they are followed by a name? Like president and such.
    • MOS:JOBTITLES is relevant here. It is not the clearest guideline out there, but my understanding is that it should be capitalized when referring to a specific person, as is the case here. 04:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • " and the two Christian kingdoms—without mentioning the Marinid collaboration—asked the Pope Clement V" You haven't mentioned the Marinids were also Muslim yet, though it may be obvious to many readers, the point of this sentence may be lost to some if you don't state it explicitly.
    • Stated explictly now in "background"
  • "a palace coup deposed Muhammad and executed his vizier" Organised by who?
    • I added several parties involved in the coup, but couldn't say who "organised" it. HaEr48 (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "He was replaced by his 21-years old half-brother Nasr." Was he in on the coup.
    • None of the sources mention his involvement. It seemed as if he was just installed after the fact. HaEr48 (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "a raven followed him there from the Alhambra" Alhambra has not been linked or presented until this point. You link it further down.
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "There was an attempt to restore Muhammad III during Nasr's reign" By who?
    • Done (the royal council). HaEr48 (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "and like many monarchs of Al-Andalus" Seems a bit odd that al ndalus is only mentioned way down here. I think it could even be mentioned and explained under background, all readers may not know what it is.
    • Good point. Done, and also added more background about the state of Muslim Iberia in #Background. HaEr48 (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "the elegance of this mosque, which do not survive" Does not?
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "was in turn deposed by their nephew Ismail I" I doubt that's the Ismail I you mean, the one linked is a Safavid. Seems Ismail I of Granada is the one.
    • Done. You are correct. HaEr48 (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "(destroyed by Philip II in the sixteenth century)" Link Philip? And I wonder if the church built instead has an article?
    • Done. Unfortunately neither the church or the destroyed mosque has an article. HaEr48 (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "epithet al-Makhlu'" You don't capitalise makhlu in the article body.
    • Capitalized body to make it consistent. HaEr48 (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "One of the poems that he composed is preserved in full in Ibn al-Khatib's Al-Lamha." Since you even mention this in the intro, which is supposed to cover the most important parts of the article, I wonder if the poem could be shown here?
    • I wish... Unfortunately, I don't have access to it, and it is not easy to get hold of Ibn al-Khatib's al-Lamha. HaEr48 (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Looking nice, last points to added text: " and eventually becoming Emirate of Granada" Shouldn't this have "the" in front of Emirate of Granada? FunkMonk (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    • You are right. Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Is this UK or US English? I see both "criticised" (UK) and "favor" (US). FunkMonk (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Ran the ENGVAR script again and now they're all UK. HaEr48 (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - nice work on this series, I wonder if there will be more? FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @FunkMonk: Thank you, appreciate the interest Face-smile.svg. Yes, I hope to do the other Nasrid monarchs chronologically, but now and then I might be distracted by other topics. HaEr48 (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Image review - pass[edit]

  • File:Fernando IV el Emplazado, Rey de Castilla y León.jpg needs a source. The PD claims can't be verified without one. It also needs a US PD tag.
    • Replaced with another image with a better source and license.
  • Per WP:CAPFRAG, captions should not end in a full stop unless they contain at least one full sentence.
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
All images are appropriately licenced.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Haukurth[edit]

The thing about reading well into the night is mentioned in two sections, which seems unnecessary. Also, does reading by poor light really cause vision problems? When I try to Google this, I only get pages rejecting this as a misconception. Haukur (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Haukurth: Good find - I did not know that. Probably the historians just assumed causation between these two things. The sources that debunk this seem very reliable, so I removed any implication from the article, and also it is no longer repeated in two sections. HaEr48 (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Haukur (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by RetiredDuke[edit]

Just a small comment. This biography has a picture of a palace ("Partal Palace") and claims that its construction is attributed to Muhammad III. Muhammad II's biography has a different picture of the same building, but calls it "Tower of the Ladies" and claims that Muhammad II built it. One of the articles has the wrong picture, I think. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Great point. I recently noticed it too and was in the middle of researching when you added this comment. After looking up online, right now my theory is "Tower of the Ladies" is just the tower, and Muhammad III subsequently built a palace (including gardens, etc.) in its site. For now I changed the picture in Muhammad II to just zoom in on the tower. It's still bothering me though, so I am trying to find more sources that can tell me for sure, and for that I added a request in WP:RX. I will update again when I have more information. Thank you for your feedback. HaEr48 (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Mimihitam[edit]

Outstanding work! I have a few comments:

  • "He had the reputation of being both cultured—he particularly loved poetry—and cruel." --> reputation among whom? You might have to specify it in the lede.
    • According to WP:WEASEL, it's okay to omit some attribution from lead if it's supported by the article body. HaEr48 (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • " His blindness or poor vision forced him to be absent from many duties as Sultan and rely on high officials" --> if he was blind, how could he engage in poetry? Also was he born blind or did he become blind later in his life?

Mimihitam (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  • He was not born blind—#Early life section mentioned that he initially had a habit of reading into the night. Added "Later in his life" to lead to make this clear without having to read the article body. HaEr48 (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • Maybe standardise the usage of DD/MM/YYYY and the MM/DD/YYYY.
    • @CPA-5: is there any MM/DD/YYYY in the article? I took a quick look and only found DD/MM/YYYY, let me know if I miss anything. HaEr48 (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @HaEr48: Look at this sentence in the lead On April 8, 1302 he ascended the Granadan. I also replied to your response below. Cheers.
I see it now. Thanks. The inconsistency is removed now. HaEr48 (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • underway when Muhammad III was deposed in a palace coup d'état Do not italicise coup d'état because it's an official English word in the dictionaries.
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • of his foreign policy and of his vizier Ibn al-Hakim --> "of his foreign policy and of his Vizier Ibn al-Hakim"
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • on 15 August 1257 (Wednesday 3 Shaban 655 AH) in Granada.[3][1] Re-order the refs in numerical order.
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • according to later Granadan historian and vizier Ibn al-Khatib --> "according to later Granadan historian and Vizier Ibn al-Khatib"
    • Here it isn't used as part of his name or as a substitute for the person (it's similar to "the Aragonese king James II", that you asked to lowercase below), so I'll not capitalize it. MOS:JOBTITLES is really confusing. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • and was involved in the affairs of state.[7][1] Re-order the ref.
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • to the Marinid Sultan led by his vizier Abu Sultan Aziz ibn al-Mun'im al-Dani --> "to the Marinid Sultan led by his Vizier Abu Sultan Aziz ibn al-Mun'im al-Dani"
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The Aragonese King James II sent an envoy, Bernat de Sarrià --> "The Aragonese king James II sent an envoy, Bernat de Sarrià"
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • and was succeeded by his brother Abu al-Rabi Sulayman.[26][23] Re-order the refs.
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • During Muhammad III's reign, his vizier Abu Abdallah ibn al-Hakim al-Rundi --> "During Muhammad III's reign, his Vizier Abu Abdallah ibn al-Hakim al-Rundi"
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • that excluded him from many of his duties.[29][21][30] Re-order the refs.
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • the Granadan fleet prepared for war.[37][20] Same as above.
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The vizier was seen to hold the real power of the state --> "The Vizier was seen to hold the real power of the state"
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • palaces of the Sultan and the vizier, and the vizier was personally killed Maybe remove the second "and".
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • by his political rival Atiq ibn al-Mawl.[41][35] Re-order the refs.
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Nasr is overlinked.
    • Removed duplink in a later section. HaEr48 (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • during the solemn ceremony of his ascension.[48][1] Same as above.
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • power later held by his vizier Ibn al-Hakim --> "power later held by his Vizier Ibn al-Hakim"
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • cousin-uncle Abu Said Faraj served as the governor of Málaga --> "cousin-uncle Abu Said Faraj served as the Governor of Málaga"
    • This looks like "Richard Nixon was the president of the United States" that shouldn't be capitalized according to MOS:JOBTITLES. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • was in turn deposed by their nephew Ismail I in 1314. The link of Ismail goes to the 16-century Persian King?
    • Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • A miniature drawing of an European man with a crown In the alt of the File:Ferdinand4.jpg image has a little typo.
    • What is the typo? My spellcheck doesn't show anything. HaEr48 (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • the typo is "an European" it should be only "a European". Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Aragon would gain one sixth of the kingdom and Castile --> "Aragon would gain one-sixth of the kingdom and Castile"
    • Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

2019 World Snooker Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC) and Rodney Baggins (talk)

This article is about the world snooker championship from earlier this year. The championship was the first time an amateur player qualified, and defeated the world number one in the first round! Judd Trump finally won his first world title, defeating Scot John Higgins in the final. It's a relatively long read, but covers the event's history, the individual matches, qualifying, century breaks and broadcasting. Please let me know if there is anything that needs working on.

Co-nominated with: Rodney Baggins who has done a tonne of work to make sure the prose is tight. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Support from TRM[edit]

I reviewed this at WP:GAN and Lee did a lot of work for that to pass. Since then Rodney Baggins has really polished the article. I have nothing substantial to add other than my support. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Support from nigej[edit]

Article is of high quality, I have made a few minor comments below. Nigej (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting the nomination. I've made some changes to the article and tried to answer your other queries, but some things Lee will need to help me with. Thanks for all your comments. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Lead[edit]
  • "... an amateur player appeared at the main stage of the event. Debutant James Cahill ..." It was not immediately clear to me whether Cahill was that amateur or whether it someone else unnamed.
    • Would it work with a colon between the two sentences: "For the first time in the history of the world championship, an amateur player appeared at the main stage of the event: debutant James Cahill defeated world number one Ronnie O'Sullivan in the first round, before being narrowly defeated by Stephen Maguire in a second round deciding frame." Or is that still ambiguous? Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Format[edit]
  • "finishing three days before the start of the main draw." - would prefer "event" or similar, for "draw", which means something else to me.
  • "The remaining 15 seeds were allocated based on the latest world rankings, which were released after the China Open." I am left wondering whether there had been any great excitement during the China Open as to who would make it to the top 16. Not sure there was this year.
  • I believe "main draw" is the accepted term for this, as used earlier in that paragraph... "the 32-player main draw". Lee can probably answer the China Open question. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "The event" covers qualifying. I mean there obviously was some press about who might make it, but I feel that's information for the China open. There was some press about it at the start of the season, same as every season. If someone missed out by a few points, or if a match at the China open in particular was the difference, I'd mention it, but not really worthwhile otherwise. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
First round[edit]
  • "The draw for the first round of the championship was made on 18 April 2019" but the reference is dated 16 April. I think 18th is correct. Perhaps we need a different reference with the correct date on it.
→ I can look into this. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, I've looked into this and indeed the official statement from the WPBSA is dated Tuesday 16 April, 6:17 pm. @Lee Vilenski: do we know for a fact that the draw actually took place on Thursday 18th? If the qualifying rounds finished on the 16th, is it not feasible that the draw took place that same day in the evening, as soon as the qualifiers were known? Was it televised? Is the WPBSA ref. likely to be dated wrong? Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it was streamed on YouTube - [3] for the 18th. It's likely the WPBSA item was created for information about the draw, and then changed afterwards. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "(the first being John Parrott's defeat of Eddie Charlton in the first round of the 1992 championship)" - do we need brackets or just a comma before it. (also for "(breaking the previous record set in 2016 by Mark Selby and Marco Fu by more than three minutes)")
→ I normally prefer to use parenthesis when the bracketed clause is not essential for the meaning of the sentence, which would stand on its own just as well without the additional info. The clause in parenthesis is just provided to add context, or answer a query that might come up in the reader's mind (almost like a stage whisper). And sometimes, as in both of the examples here, including the "aside" as part of the main sentence just makes the sentence clause-heavy. The brackets help to break it up a bit. That's how I see it anyway. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "baulk pocket" perhaps "yellow pocket"/"green pocket" are better understood nowadays and more precise.
→ Yes, we could change this to "missed a risky pot into the yellow pocket" and then "went into the green pocket". Although 'baulk' is linked to the glossary definition so should be clear enough. What do you think Lee? Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Too close to Jargon for me. I don't think yellow/green pockets are official names for this, and a little abstract. Seems like too much information to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Second round[edit]
  • "This match included nine century breaks altogether" not sure we need "altogether"
  • "four consecutive century breaks had been compiled" perhaps " four century breaks had been compiled in consecutive frames"
 Done Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Quarter-finals[edit]
  • "bringing the score to 9–7 ahead of the final session" comma before "ahead"
  • "Trump had won six straight frames to conclude his second round match against Ding Junhui; he won another six consecutive frames at the start of this match" reads oddly, perhaps "Trump, having won six straight frames to conclude his second round match against Ding Junhui; won another six consecutive frames at the start of this match"
  • "Gilbert took the final two frames". Prefer "next two frames". Only "final" in hindsight. Similarly "with a century break of 101 in the final frame", prefer "next" to "final"
Disagree with 1st point (comma not needed) but otherwise  Done Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Final[edit]
  • "He had previously won the world championship four times (in 1998, 2007, 2009 and 2011), one short of the record held by Stephen Hendry." has me mystified.
  • I agree - this is trivia and a bit pointless. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No, Nigej has identified a glaring error, which I have quickly corrected! It must have got mangled when I was moving stuff about. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "which prevented the match from concluding early with a session to spare" not sure we need "early"
 Done Thank you for noticing the Hendry blunder. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
General[edit]
  • The use of the term "amateur", meaning someone not on the main tour, still seems very odd to me. They are not really amateurs in that they take the prize money. Perhaps this strange use of the term should be explained for old-fashioned folk like me.
  • I think the whole "amateurs don't get paid" thing is pretty much a golf thing. I don't know of any other sports that operate in this way. Sadly, sources all call him an amateur, as did the media around the event. I don't know that there are many other ways to phrase this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Betty Logan[edit]

Reviewing an article of this quality always feels a bit like nitpicking but here are my observations:

  • I think the lead should mention Murphy's whitewash of his opponent in the first round—only the second in Crucible history—and also the 11-century record in the final.
  • The term "In modern times" (Background, 1st para) is subjective and vague. Could this be changed to "In the 21st century" or "Since the game went open in 1991" or something to that effect, to qualify what we mean by modern times. The process of internationalisation began in the 1990s so it would help to be more specific.
  • Similarly, the sentence "Stephen Hendry is the most successful player in the modern era" (Background, 3rd para) similarly uses WP:JARGON. The "modern era" is generally understood to mean since the annual KO format was adopted in 1969, so could we please define the modern era and add in a date. Absolutely no-one but a snooker anorak will understand the context of the term.
  • In the "Format" section could we have a basic description of the multi-session format please. This does come in later in the article but it would be helpful if this information were also included in the format section. I would recommend a paragraph that covers the number of frames played in each round, the number of sessions and the number of frames in those sessions. Basically so someone could just read the format section and get an understanding of the general outline of the competition.
  • "Gould then won frame 11, but Williams claimed the next two frames to open up a 5-frame lead" -> five-frame lead (First round, Top half, para #1)
  • Some of the reference styles are not consistent. For example, many World Snooker citations either credit the source as "World Snooker" or "worldsnooker.com". Compare #1 & #5.
  • Same goes for Sporting Life too. Compare #24 and #29 to #66, #67 & #69. Either style is fine but they need to be consistent.
  • Ref #61 (marked as a dead link) needs to be replaced.

The article is of very high quality and there are no fundamental problems preventing its progress to FA status. We just need to address some of the jargon issues and sort out the referencing and it's good to go. Thanks a lot for your work on this Lee & Rodney. Betty Logan (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments Betty, there's some interesting stuff in there. I was overtaken by events yesterday, hence the late acknowledgement. Will try to address some of the issues today. I think you're right about the additions to the lead, as they were notable features of the tournament. I admit I never did get round to going through the references in minute detail, and there are probably a few things that need sorting out there so I'll get onto it. Ref.61 definitely needs removing and I've a feeling the info is covered in one or more of the existing citations anyway so it should all iron out. I'll get onto that later today. Look forward to hearing Lee's feedback too. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
One thing I need to ask you (this also applies to Nigej): has it occurred to you that the TOC limit is making it difficult to navigate round the article? I'm particularly concerned about lack of access to the individual subsections of the Tournament summary section, which is rather long, and I'd find it useful to be able to jump down quickly to the Quarter-finals (for example) from the TOC. I understand from Lee that the TOC was limited to level 2 after a previous discussion for the GA review but I wonder if we need to readdress it? I agree that a lengthy TOC is not great because it leaves lots of empty space top-right, but the whole point of the TOC is to help the reader quickly find what they're looking for in such a big article. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I would say the TOC is too short. One extra level would be better in my view. Nigej (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hellraiser: Judgment[edit]

Nominator(s): DarkKnight2149 02:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the 2018 horror film written and directed by Gary J. Tunnicliffe; the tenth film in the Hellraiser media franchise. This is my first FA nomination, so I apologise if I did something wrong during the nomination. I have checked the criteria, and going from that, I believe this meets FA standards. However, I do understand that those standards are quite high while nominating this. The article was previously FA mentored by Masem. DarkKnight2149 02:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

Resolved comments
  • The references in the infobox should not be necessary as all of that information should be cited in the body of the article.
Done. DarkKnight2149 02:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Please avoid using graphics as they are discouraged by the FAC instructions since they can "slow down the page load time". Aoba47 (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
My apologies. I wish I noticed this comment a little sooner. DarkKnight2149 03:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there any reason for the citation in the lead's first sentence? I have seen some editors to do it because film genre can be somewhat contentious and they use a citation to support that information, but I just wanted to make sure.
Done, Removed. It was leftover from the article's early days; originally intended to be a source for the exact ordering of the cast members in the lead before the official billing came out. DarkKnight2149 02:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I would recommend adding some form of ALT text to the infobox image as you have done for the images in the body of the article.
Done. DarkKnight2149 03:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (It is the tenth installment in the Hellraiser film series created by Clive Barker, written and directed by the series' longtime FX artist Gary J. Tunnicliffe.), I would replace the "comma" after "Barker" with an "and" instead.
Done. DarkKnight2149 03:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (Newcomer Paul T. Taylor was cast after impressing Tunnicliffe in an audition for another character, and auditioned again for Pinhead.), I would avoid repeating "audition"/"auditioned" as it is a little repetitious.
Done. Reworded. DarkKnight2149 03:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I am uncertain of the usefulness of the "Chatter" wikilink. It is a redirect that I do not find particularly helpful for someone unfamiliar with the character. I would remove it altogether because the character is already described in this article enough to help an unfamiliar reader.
Done. Used to be an article. DarkKnight2149 03:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For the same reasons as above, I do not find the "Cenobites" wikilink to be particularly useful and I would remove it.
Done, ditto. DarkKnight2149 03:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • As someone who has never seen any of these films, I cannot speak to the accuracy of the plot section so I will just be pointing out prose suggestions.
  • I have a question for this part: "who went missing near the abandoned house at 55 Ludovico Place.". The "the" in "the abandoned house" makes it sound like it is the only abandoned house in that area and is notable for that reason. If that is not true, then I would use "an abandoned house" instead.
Comment: 55 Ludovico Place refers to that house specifically. DarkKnight2149 03:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I read over the house numbers so that was my fault. Aoba47 (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I am a little confused on why "Christine Egerton" is referred to by her last name while "Sean and David Carter" are referred to by their first names. For the sake of consistency, I would refer to characters by their first names after their first mentions.
Done. Because they have the same surname. Edited for consistency, though. DarkKnight2149 03:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a few comments for this sentence (Upon arrival, Sean disarms David and summons his wife, Alison (Rheagan Wallace), outraged that she had a secret affair). I think you can just say "an affair" as affairs are normally kept secret. I am also a little confused by the "summons" phrasing. This is a more supernatural film so when I first read this, I thought she was like a ghost or something that was being summoned. Again, I have never seen this film before, so I was wondering if you could clarify how Alison's character is brought into the plot a little more for an unfamiliar reader like myself.
Done. Perhaps "summons" was too formal. Changed to "Upon arrival, Sean disarms David and reveals that he is holding his wife Alison (Rheagan Wallace) hostage, outraged that she had an affair." DarkKnight2149 03:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a question about this part (outraged that she had a secret affair. He forces the two of them to open the box at gunpoint). From my understanding, the people present in this scene are Sean, David, Alison, and Christine. Who are "the two of them" being referenced here? I am assuming it is some combination of David, Alison, and Christine, but it is not immediately clear to me.
Christine was unconscious as a result of being incapacitated. Changed to "David and Alison" instead of "Two of them". DarkKnight2149 03:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I am a little confused by this part (Pinhead tells him that they will be dealt with for opening the box). Alison and David were clearly forced to open the box by Sean and did not do it willingly. Does the film address this at all?
Comment: The Cenobites tend to kidnap anyone who opens the box. In some of the earlier films and comics, it's established that the box cannot be opened (because of its supernatural nature) unless some part of you truly desires it. However, the franchise is inconsistent on that.
After Hellraiser 1-4, continuity became iffy and the films are now mostly standalones that loosely connect to each other. Even the Cenobites have gone from being neutral sadomasochists from Hell, to evil Freddy Krueger-esque slasher villains, to demon overlords that judge sinners, and now back to being sadomasochists from Hell (with another faction of Hell introduced to retcon the "judging" stuff). DarkKnight2149 04:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
That is what I had assumed, but I just wanted clarification. Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk)
  • If "police detective" is going to be linked, then it should be moved up to the first instance in the article, which should be here: ". On Earth, three detectives – brothers Sean and David Carter (Randy Wayne) and Christine Egerton – investigate a serial killer known as the Preceptor, whose murders are based on the Ten Commandments."
Done. DarkKnight2149 04:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part, "The Auditor's typewriter paper is made of flesh and inked in blood; he often carries a music box, its song a comforting remnant of his human past", I would directly name the song rather than hiding it in the "song" wikilink. It seems too much like an Easter egg for my liking.
Done. DarkKnight2149 04:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This sentence "Gulager directed several horror films, including the Feast series and Piranha 3DD." needs a citation.
Reworded to sounded less WP:SYNy. I'll add a citation shortly. DarkKnight2149 04:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Done. DarkKnight2149 16:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I see no benefit to wikilinking "nineties" in this part: "Tunnicliffe conceived the Cleaners as in their nineties". The same comment applies to "twenties" in this part: "three nude women in their twenties".
Done. DarkKnight2149 04:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Jophiel is wikilinked more than once in the body of the article. Wikilinks should only be used once and on the first instance the word(s) appear in the body of the article. The same comment applies to "heaven".
Done. DarkKnight2149 13:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For this sentence "Decades before the development of Hellraiser: Judgment, Dimension Films obtained the rights to the Hellraiser and Children of the Corn film series", *I would add the wikilink to the article on the Hellraiser series. I do not believe it was linked before this part unless I am mistaken.
Done. DarkKnight2149 13:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not see the value of the wikilink for "the Female Cenobite".
Done. DarkKnight2149 13:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I would add a citation to this "and scenes involving the Cleaners" to clarify what reference is being used to support this information.
Comment: To clarify, it's backed by the same Bloody-Disgusting citation as the following sentence. Hence why there's no intermediate citation. DarkKnight2149 13:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • There are a few wikilinks that I feel are unnecessary because they are common knowledge. I do not see a reason why "dialogue", "bracelet", "suit", and "cast" are linked because I think a majority of readers would know these concepts. I am not saying that they need to be removed altogether, but I wanted to raise this to your attention.
Removed several of them. DarkKnight2149 15:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For this quote "I have a reliable source who just informed me that Hellraiser: Judgment has been on a shelf for a while, unfinished. But now that Harvey Weinstein is out of the picture, Hellraiser: Judgment has been taken off that shelf and is back in post-production.", remove the link to "out of the picture". You already have the sexual allegations linked in the next sentence, and linking that to "out of the picture" borders too much again on an Easter egg for my liking.
Done. DarkKnight2149 15:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part "Brad Miska of Bloody Disgusting called it "the most authentic Hellraiser since Bloodline (1996)", I would not include the year as part of the wikilink.
Done, linked in an earlier section. Removed from the Brad Miska sentence. DarkKnight2149 15:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Dread Central" is wikilinked multiple times in the article.
Done. Bloody-Disgusting and Dread Central should only be linked once now. Let me know if I missed any. DarkKnight2149 15:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not see the need for the wikilink for "Butterball Cenobite".
Done. DarkKnight2149 13:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (In May 2019 it was reported by Variety that a Hellraiser reboot is in the works at Spyglass Media Group with David S. Goyer serving as writer and producer.), there should be a comma after "In May 2019".
Done. DarkKnight2149 15:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I have another comment about that sentence. It is typically discouraged to have a single sentence paragraph so I would see if there is a way to incorporate that information into the previous paragraph.
I expanded it a bit, if that's alright. DarkKnight2149 15:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I hope this review helps somewhat. This is a rather long article so I will have to read through it a few times to do a thorough review and make sure that I catch everything. Once my above comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to look through the article again to see if there is anything else. I am not familiar with this franchise at all so apologies if I am missing anything super obvious. Good luck with the FAC. I know it can be an intimidating process at first, but hopefully, you will get a lot of helpful feedback. Have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed/fixed the concerns raised. I appreciate you taking time for this review. Please let me know if some of the changes aren't satisfactory. DarkKnight2149 16:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I would arrange the references in numeric order. I have always been told to do this in past FAC reviews, but it is not necessarily required for a FA. I just thought this point was worth raising.
What's numeric order, if you don't mind me asking? I'm only aware of citations being listed in the order they appear in the article. DarkKnight2149 20:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I have been told in the past to put the references in a numeric order; for instance, in the sentence "Occasionally, its victims are deemed more suited to the Cenobites.", the references are currently in this order, "11, 13, 2, and 5". I have been told in the past to them in a numeric order, but it was brought to my attention recently that it is not a requirement. However, I just wanted to point that out to you. Aoba47 (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The actress who plays Christine should be mentioned after the first time you mention her in the "Plot" section. Same goes for Pinhead and Jophiel.
Done. DarkKnight2149 20:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The Lament Configuration wikilink is a redirect. I would remove it as it is not particularly insightful/useful for an unfamiliar reader.
Done. DarkKnight2149 20:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth is wikilinked multiple times in the body of the article.
Done. DarkKnight2149 20:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Do you have a set structure for the "Critical response" section? It is generally encouraged that this type of section has some type of organization. I would recommend looking at this source to see what I am referring to.
Done. DarkKnight2149 20:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The "cast" wikilink should be moved up to the first time "cast" is used in the body of the article.
In this section, casting refers to the manufacturing process rather than the hiring of actors. DarkKnight2149 20:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

This should be my final set of comments. Once everything is address, I will be more than happy to support this. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any input for my current FAC. It is a complete 180 from this in terms of topic, but any feedback would helpful. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I can take a look at it when I get the chance. DarkKnight2149 20:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I support the article for promotion based on the prose. Thank you for addressing everything. Aoba47 (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from theJoebro64[edit]

I come to this as a Hellraiser neophyte, so this article looks quite interesting. I'm going to post some comments in the coming days. JOEBRO64 19:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria[edit]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:Hellraiser_Judgment_home_video_art.jpg: FUR is incomplete. Same with File:Hellraiser_Judgment_blue.jpg, File:Hellraiser_Judgment_yellow.jpg. Given the number of non-free images in the article these should be not only complete but also stronger. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Addressed. DarkKnight2149 20:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "As stated by writer/director Gary J. Tunnicliffe" - where was this stated?
In the source for the budget in the article. DarkKnight2149 19:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Er, which one? This is the only footnote for the budget number in the infobox, and several sources cited in the body text could potentially be construed as "the source for the budget in the article". This needs clarification. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Re-added to the infobox. Hopefully that's okay with Aoba47, since they asked me to remove it. DarkKnight2149 03:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • That is fine by me. Aoba47 (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Some of the details in the infobox aren't cited anywhere - eg the credit to Griffin
On the official billing for the film, per the note. Nothing in the infobox isn't cited in the article or in the film's billing. DarkKnight2149 19:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Inline comments that aren't visible to users shouldn't be used to replace proper citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. DarkKnight2149 03:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I had requested that the references should be removed from the infobox so apologies for that. I think all of the information in the infobox should be present in the article's prose and sourced there. I just wanted to clarify that. Aoba47 (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggest reducing reliance on Tunnicliffe as per WP:PSTS.
@Nikkimaria: The issue with this one is that, despite this being an installment in a major horror franchise covered by third party sources, the studio refused to market the film. The movie was greenlit as a rights retention project and was completely shelved at one point because of the infamous Weinstein situation. For the vast majority of the production, it was complete radio silence from the studio (much to the chagrin of entertainment sites and horror fans). It was put back into post-production after Dimension Films was running low on cash, and even then, it didn't get much press from the studio itself. This is why most of the scoops came from the cast and director.
I was very careful in wording the article. Any information that came from Tunnicliffe is often worded as "According to Tunnicliffe" or in a way that people know who this is coming from. Anything opinion-related or subjective is relegated to quotes. I was also very picky about not stating things as absolute fact wherever applicable. This film didn't receive the marketing that you would expect from a studio production. DarkKnight2149 00:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • You're currently not consistent in how you format references to Two Hours in the Dark
Done. DarkKnight2149 00:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Many of your refs have a date provided at the source but not included in the citation - eg. FN1, 3, 4...
Done. DarkKnight2149 16:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • FN6 should not include website in the title parameter
Done. DarkKnight2149 01:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Why is Bloody Disgusting linked in FN8 but not FN1? Should be consistent - either link first time only, every time, or never
Done. DarkKnight2149 01:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • What makes 1428 Elm a high-quality reliable source? Halloweenlove? Morbidly Beautiful? Clive Barker Cast? Joblo? Open the Trunk? Birth.Movies.Death (which you've represented as Birth.Death.Movies)? Flickering Myth?
The Halloweenlove article was written by a professional reporter who frequently works for Bloody-Disgusting. Likewise, the editor of BD John Squires (who has done work for a number of reliable sources) is a contributor as well, and the source was used specifically for a direct quote from the filmmakers. FanSided (aka 1428 Elm) is a direct interview with the actor. So is Morbidly Beautiful and Open the Trunk. Clive Barker Podcast is definitely reliable for interviews, especially audio interviews. They have done a number of video, audio, and written interviews with Clive Barker and various filmmakers related to Barker. However, I don't think the podcast is reliable for scoops or general news. JoBlo.com is a reputable news site. A section at WP:RSN on Flickering Myth has been opened in the past with no objections, and it is used as a source on quite a few Wikipedia articles. The Birth.Movies.Death review is counted by Rotten Tomatoes (which only acknowledges professional reviewers). DarkKnight2149 02:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Just because something is an interview, doesn't make it a high-quality reliable source. Still also concerned about Flickering Myth and Birth.Movies.Death - need more information on why these should be considered reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The Birth.Movies.Death review should be reliable enough for the critical response section, as per Rotten Tomatoes [4] and Variety. I went ahead and removed the Flickering Myth source, since the 2017 release date is also stated in the following Dread Central source and it's easier than waiting on a second WP:RSN that nobody is going to respond to. There probably should be a deeper discussion as to the reliability of Flickering Myth, since quite a few Wikipedia articles are using it as a source. DarkKnight2149 20:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • YouTube is a platform, not a work
YouTube is the site and platform it is posted on, hence why it is listed in the "Website" parameter. The content creator/uploader is listed in "Publisher". I don't see the problem. DarkKnight2149 01:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
That logic doesn't make sense in the context of YouTube videos. The uploader is the author - in the case that someone is being interviewed, it should be cited as an interview instead of shoehorning them into the author parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Should I list the uploader as "author" and "YouTube" as the website and publisher? Is this an improvement? I don't believe we can list the uploader under "Website" because they aren't a website. DarkKnight2149 02:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
They are authors, but as they are usernames they shouldn't be inverted as with a typical author name. Regarding placement, see the documentation for {{cite web}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Done. The video interviews are replaced with "Cite interview" template. DarkKnight2149 21:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • FN16: website doesn't match source
Done. DarkKnight2149 02:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Fn22 and 24 are to the same source but are not formatted the same
Reformatted. The title capitalisation is different because the source itself did it differently. I can update the capitalisation on one of them, if you want. DarkKnight2149 03:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • FN47 is badly formatted
Tweaked. DarkKnight2149 03:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • FN48 author formatting doesn't match other refs
Done. DarkKnight2149 03:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • FN58: work link should be piped.
Fixed. DarkKnight2149 03:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose pending cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I believe I have addressed everything. Please let me know if some of the changes aren't satisfactory or if you have further concerns. Thanks :) DarkKnight2149 16:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Frank Borman[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Frank Borman. At age 91, he is the oldest living astronaut. He commanded Apollo 8, the first Moon mission, and he and his crewmates became the first people to watch the Earth rise over the horizon. The article has recently passed a A-class review, with source and image reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "and moved to the better climate of Tucson, Arizona," surely an opinion? Ever been to Tucson in July?
    No, I've never been to Arizona. The source says that the dry climate was thought to be congenial, which is something I've encountered in other articles relating to the American West. Courtney Ryan told me the weather was nice there. (Has a look at the weather today) 33°. Looks beautiful. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    My sister lived there for a few years. I think I visited in June which was bad enough. Sorry about the tone.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    No apology required. It's below freezing here at the moment, and we have only two weeks to go before the office turns off the heat. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "He then went to Mansfield Junior High, where he tried out for the American football team." I would strike "American". The link is sufficient disambiguation.
    Redirected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Despite the fact that every one of the four forward passes he attempted was incomplete, the team went on to win the state championship." I would say "each" rather than "every one". He only threw four passes the whole season? or just in the game where he replaced the first string QB? What year in HS did this happen in?
    In his final year. I will double-check the source. I don't think the forward pass was as common back then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    The forward pass is not common in high school football in general, relative to the professional level that we are conditioned for. Kees08 (Talk) 04:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    Anything's possible in high school, basically. My high school's football team did not have a kicker one year until soccer season ended.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    Borman says: "Probably because our cheerleaders could throw better than I, we were a strictly running team—I think I tried four passes all year and didn't complete one." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "His first ride in an airplane was when he was five years old.[2]" I might say "had been" rather than "was".
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • A year when he joined the Army would be useful.
    He entered West Point on July 1, 1946, and joined the Army on June 6, 1950. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "but his skills were insufficient to qualify even at that level." I would cut "to qualify". I might even cut "even at that level".
    Cut. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "had equal seniority with those graduating the United States Naval Academy, " I would insert "from" after graduating as more common in AmEng.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "and was planning to commence a liberal arts degree at the University of Arizona." the "commence a ..." doesn't sound right in AmEng. This was presumably graduate school, so I might frame it as "and was planning to attend graduate school at the University of Arizona" or some such.
    The text just says "planning to spend the summer in Tuscon before getting a liberal arts degree from the University of Arizona". I don't know if it was a graduate degree or a second undergraduate one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems a bit odd he was assigned to West Point when the USAFA was starting up.
    Borman entered West Point in 1946, and graduated in 1950. The first USAFA class did not enter until 1955, and did not graduate until 1959, nine years after Borman. From memory you could still opt for the USAF as late as 1968. In addition to the 3,200 cadets and midshipmen who opted for the Air Force between 1949 and 1959, another 1,000 joined between 1959 and 1968. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Sure (I know a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who attended West Point in the 1970s and was allowed to opt because his father was Air Force) but you'd think the Air Force would want to send its officers to teach at the budding USAFA rather than West Point.
      I don't know what was the rationale behind the appointment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "and signed his first house-building contract," This doesn't sound AmEng. Home construction contract?
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "on the Dilbert Dunker at the US Navy school at the Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida and on Galveston Bay.[38] " I would cut "the US Navy school at". I'm not sure it adds anything.
    Dunked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Donald Slayton" Why call him Donald rather than Deke?
    Deked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Re his Apollo 1 testimony before Congress, I would use his quote to the effect that the question is whether you trust us or you don't. I can't find the exact wording offhand but I could probably search through my references if need be.
    Go for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I'll get back to you on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
      • It's "We are trying to tell you that we are confident in our management, and in our engineering and in ourselves. I think the question is really: Are you confident in us?" See here.
        Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Why single out Rumsfeld in particular? There were starting to be a number of space skeptics in Congress by then.
  • Because Borman did. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    "He had some caustic remarks to make about the space program, and its apparent lack of concern for safety." REmoved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Borman was forced to confront one of the root causes of the disaster: the natural tension between getting the job done on time and building the spacecraft as well as possible. It involved arguments with test pilot Scott Crossfield and fellow astronauts like John Young." This seems rather vague.
    You want more details of the conflicts? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I think you should include enough detail to make it clear to the reader why you're mentioning it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
      Added more detail. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • " entering a lunar orbit before returning to Earth." I would cut the "a".
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk)
  • I might say something about the risk of the Apollo 8 mission as no LM meant no lifeboat. Also about the intense training required given the mission flew only four months after Low's proposal was tentatively accepted, and was contingent on Apollo 7 being successful.
    Do you have a source? I would lift it from the Apollo 8 article, but it doesn't say it there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For which part of that?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "capable of being quickly changed from passenger to cargo aircraft. " I might say "converted" rather than "changed"
    Changed, I mean converted. I think another editor asked for the opposite. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    In the A-class review, I said Maybe converted instead of changed? I see changed as going back and forth as many times as needed, while converted is more permanent. Maybe my grasp of words is flawed. of being quickly changed from passenger, to which you replied Often between each flight. I still hold that changed seems better if its a back-and-forth thing and converted seems more permanent, but don't really care either way. Kees08 (Talk) 03:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    I'm going with "changed". Mainly because Boeing says QC stands for Quick Change. According to the Wikipedia, the change could be made in 30 minutes. By a Formula One pit crew Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "In May 1975, Borman was elected President and chief operating officer. " Is this elective or in some way appointive? I might also lower case the "president".
    Elected. Added "by the board".
  • The crisis years at Eastern were extensively covered by The New York Times back in the day, as Eastern was for many purposes a local company because of its operations at Newark. For example this and this and this. I would suggest that these would be good sources for the Eastern years beyond bios and the Sun-Sentinel article (though, of course, the SS is in the Miami area, where Eastern was actually based). I'd like to see these taken into account.
    I'll have a look at them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Speaking of which, the Sun-Sentinel article says "Eastern's profits began to slide almost as soon as deregulation began; 1979 was the last profitable year for the airline until 1985." but you say that "Profits jumped to a record $67.3 million in 1978,[105] and Eastern went through the four most profitable years in its history." and also that there was a profit in 1984.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "It was a personal defeat, but hardly a financial disaster; he received a severance payment of $900,000, and drew a consultant's fee of $150,000 a year from Texas Air until 1991.[105]" I would suggest adding "for him" after "disaster". There were many people who did not come out so well. He also seems to have been vice chair of Texas Air, according to the NYT articles I cited.
    Added "for him". (The firm I used to work for had to retrench hundreds of employees to pay for the golden parachutes of all the senior executives when it went private. Fortunately my own severance agreement was very generous, possibly because I had written it myself several years before.) The initial intention was that Borman would run Eastern for Texas Air as vice chairman, but this did not occur. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
That's about it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Can you ping me when it's ready?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • so he volunteered to join the Army, with the aim of qualifying for college Replace "with the aim of qualifying" with "intending to quality".
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Despite the fact that every one of the four Replace "Despite the fact that" with "although".
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • it could be sent all the way to the Moon, entering lunar Remove "all the way".
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • He sold the corporate jet, and, as at North American You mean "a"?
    No. Changed to "Jetstar". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • with an eight percent raise in 1977, and then a five-year Variable Earnings Program (VEP) You mean "rise"?
    No. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Let's hope that this article get promoted before his death. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

That's the plan. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Well you've my support already. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links: all links to sources are working, per the checker tool
  • Formats
  • Ref 102: The publisher is given as "West Point". This the "Report to the Secretary of the Army by the Special Commission on the United States Military Academy" – surely, the academy itself isn't the publisher of this report into itself?
    Looks that way. West Point published it on their web site, www.west-point.org. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 137: Time, unitalicised (see 89, 127, 136)
    It's part of an online series on "the most compelling — and sometimes controversial — choices for Person of the Year" rather than the magazine itself. So Time is listed as the publisher, and therefore is not italicised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Refs 154, 155: is "This American Life" the actual publisher: or is WBEZ?
    "This American Life" is listed as the publisher on the web pages, which are on www.thisamericanlife.org Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Quality/reliability
  • Ref 124, Parabolic arc: what makes this a reliable source?
    It's a pretty good site for space news. Substituted NASA's Facebook page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Otherwise, no issues – sources meet requred FA criteria

Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Maury[edit]

  • "In 1998, they bought a cattle ranch"... and? That was 20 years ago, is he still there?
    Yes, he is still living in Billings, and still owns the ranch, although he seldom visits it nowadays. A Wikipedian tracked him down. [5] Although we know that his wife is now in a nursing home, I haven't found a source for this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: Add that to the lede, that he's living in Billings. Currently, it reads like he's in Bighorn.
  • "he mentioned to his friend's father"- I am confused by this entire passage. This statement, in particular, seems like it should be in the paragraph below, it is very oddly placed as is. And I remain unclear on what the friend's father actually did in the end. What is this "third alternative appointment", I assume this is the direct placement program with WP? It seems Borman had already decided to go the Army route, yes? So am I correct that he abandoned using the GI Bill? If so, how? Wasn't he already ordered to go to the Army? And if he get the third placement, how was it that three people were ahead of him? And for most non-US readers, the relationship between the military and West Point may not be clear. I think this whole thing could use some clarification.
    Appointment to West Point is through political patronage. Each senator, congressman and the vice president gets to nominate candidates. (Nowadays five; back then it was just three.) In the late 19th century they started conducting examinations to rank candidates. For each vacancy they could name a principal candidate plus three alternatives in order of preference. Borman was incredibly lucky to get the nod from a third alternative (the Stephen Bradbury route). More typical is Buzz Aldrin, who was the principal nominee of his senator. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, how about this:

His parents did not have the money to send him to an out-of-state university, and neither the University of Arizona nor Arizona State University offered top-notch aeronautical engineering courses at that time. His football skills were insufficient to secure an athletic scholarship, so he volunteered to join the Army, intending to qualify for college tuition under the G.I. Bill.[7] Borman took {passed?} the Army physical, and was told to report to Fort MacArthur on graduation from high school.

Borman also built model airplanes out of balsa wood. He was helping a friend build model planes when he mentioned to his friend's father that he wanted to go to the United States Military Academy at West Point. His friend's father told him that he knew Richard F. Harless, the congressman who represented Arizona. {Every year,} Harless was able to present one primary candidate and up to three alternatives for an appointment to West Point. Harless had not yet listed a third alternative and {what exactly happened so he ended up on it? the friend's dad arranged it?} The end of the war had changed attitudes towards joining the military, and the three nominees ahead of him all dropped out, so Borman went to West Point.[7][4]

I am still unclear on the last point - if he had already been ordered to report to the Army, how did he get out of that? IIRC, being in West Point is not legally being in the military? Is the some sort of arrangement here, or did he have to do something to remove himself from service? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
The Army will release you to go to West Point, even if you are already serving. (Since World War I there are also some appointments are reserved for serving members of the Army, Army Reserve and National Guard (85 regulars and 85 reservists today) but unlike some European countries prior service has never been a requirement.) Borman did pass the Army physical. No doubt he was in good shape. Had he not been, he would likely have still been accepted, as standards were low in 1946, with the Army releasing large numbers from active service while providing occupation forces in Europe and Asia. Arizona had a small population then and the whole state was just one congressional district. To get into West Point, you need a nomination from your congressman or senators, so personal contacts are essential. (In Australia we call such a process "stroking your member".) Appointment strictly on merit is not the American way, but competition is still fierce, and West Point is more popular in some districts than others. Each Congressman can have a total of five cadets at West Point at any one time. Usually, they allocate their quota by appointing one candidate per year. That way, there are four or five cadets from their district at West Point at any one time - usually one in each class. When those cadets appointed by the Congressman graduate or drop out, another slot becomes available. That's why in some cases a Congressman can send more than one person to an academy in a given year. I believe that in 1946 Harless could nominate one principal with three numbered alternatives. Today, he could provide up to ten alternatives; I'm not sure what the maximum number was back then. (No Congressman has been convicted for selling appointments since 1936.)
I like the way the narrative unfolds in the article. It talks about Borman's love of flying and building aircraft. It shows how this led to his wanting to attend an out-of-state school, which was beyond his parents' means, and therefore why he thought of the Army and West Point, and how it led to his receiving a Congressional appointment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The narrative is confusing. You mention his friend's dad and west point, then talk about his family and the army. How these two topics are related and thus in one para eludes me. Then in the next para we have his friend's dad again, then the army again, then west point again. I'm sorry, but this is not FA quality prose. It also lacks the details you note above, and while I'm sure you don't find this confusing, I certainly did and I suspect most readers will. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I have tried to address your concerns by using the converssation with his friend's father as a frame, rewriting as follows:

Borman was helping a friend build model planes, when his friend's father asked him about his plans for the future. Borman told him that he wanted to study aeronautical engineering, but his parents did not have the money to send him to an out-of-state university, and neither the University of Arizona nor Arizona State University offered top-notch courses in aeronautical engineering at that time. His football skills were insufficient to secure an athletic scholarship, and he lacked the political connections to secure an appointment to the United States Military Academy at West Point. He therefore planned to join the Army, which would allow him to qualify him for free college tuition under the G.I. Bill.

His friend's father told him that he knew Richard F. Harless, the congressman who represented Arizona. Harless already had a principal nominee for West Point, but Borman's friend's father convinced Harless to list Borman as a third alternative. Borman took the West Point entrance examination, but since his chances of a West Point appointment were slim, he also took the Army physical, and passed both. But the end of the war had changed attitudes towards joining the military, and the three nominees ahead of him all dropped out. Instead of reporting to Fort MacArthur on graduation from high school, he to went to West Point.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Crap, need to reboot... Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Kees08[edit]

Copying comments from A-class review. Hope you don't mind I moved your comments too when relevant.

  • They landed Friday night, but only had to wait 45 minutes for daylight? Mission ground rules required a daylight recovery, so the crew had to wait 45 minutes for the frogmen to open the hatches.
    Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    Well then, would it not be Saturday morning? Or did the sun rise on Friday night? Kees08 (Talk) 04:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    It was Friday. The article says "The Apollo 8 spacecraft splashed down in darkness at 10:51:42 UTC (05:51:42 EST) on Friday, December 27." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    Ok we are good on this point. Kees08 (Talk) 00:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the Apollo 8 section could include more detail on how Borman militantly fought scope creep, preventing additional experiments and television broadcasts.
  • I think his POW efforts deserves more than a sentence. Whose idea was it? Where did he go? Did it help?
    Expanded to a paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    I think that is some brilliant work. Thanks for that. Kees08 (Talk) 00:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I was reading into this the other day, and it was not immediately clear: was Frank Borman heading a special commission that was investigating if his sons acted inappropriately? If so, is there any coverage on his impartialness?
    Not his sons specifically. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    I would specifically note it was a separate incident then, and perhaps make it in a separate paragraph. Easy to draw the conclusion they hired him to investigate a case involving his own sons, the way that it is worded now at least. Kees08 (Talk) 04:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Good citation for this? I recall an IP editor adding a citation to many pages for induction into the museum, but someone was able to get their hands on a copy and was having trouble validating the citation. and the International Air & Space Hall of Fame in 1990
  • What year? and DeMolay International Hall of Fame.
    No idea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    Non-RS show it was November 13, 1986, the inaugural class, in case that helps you find an RS. Not sure we should include this at all, per my Hall of Fame comment below. Kees08 (Talk)
    Can you follow up on this? Kees08 (Talk) 04:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • He was interviewed for at least this one, which would be different than just appearing in it (appearing it in would be an assumed default, if they were using footage of the mission) He appeared in the Discovery Channel documentary When We Left Earth: The NASA Missions,
    ???? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    So should be interviewed then, yeah? Kees08 (Talk) 04:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I could have sworn I posted on the talk page about this, but I guess not. I recall finding some newspaper articles on confusion w/ the name of the highway and some other small details that could possibly be included. May be nice to add detail on it I-80/I-94 in Lake County, Indiana, which runs through his birth town of Gary, Indiana, is named the Frank Borman Expressway
    Where's WP:USROADS when you need them? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    Let me see if I can find the citations at least. Kees08 (Talk) 04:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    Highway/expressway confusion, Senate introduces bill, announced during his visit, more name confusion, announced name as expressway, initial proposal. Maybe indicate around when it was proposed, when he heard about it, and about when the renaming happened? Don't have to use all the clippings obviously, was just trying to find you all the information I could. Kees08 (Talk) 01:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Found two sources indicating a planetarium named after him was going to be built in Tucson. It wasn't, so not sure if it should be included. Seems like it got coverage though. Source 1 Source 2
  • I think we usually include honorary doctorates (link).
    I don't usually; they are too hard to keep track of. Let me know if you find a list of them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    That is all I easily find. There are many references to 'holds many honorary doctorates', so perhaps some can be named while implying the list is extensive? Whatever you feel is best. Kees08 (Talk)
  • What about Susan's Alzheimer's? Seems worth including. Source.
    Already in the article. What we don't have is a source for her now being in a nursing home. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    At about 1:55 in the video I linked, it also has how long he took care of her before that. Kees08 (Talk) 00:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Where to draw the line on Hall of Fames? He was inducted into a high school hall of fame; that seems like an easy one to exclude. He was also inducted into the Arizona Aviation Hall of Fame (added) (another source, if needed), and the Indiana Aerospace Hall of Fame. Maybe the cutoff should be his home state, or a minimum of the national level? Not sure, hoping to hear your thoughts.
    If they don't have an article, the case for inclusion is weak. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Once these are all addressed I will go through the article again. Kees08 (Talk) 04:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Some NYT articles have the lock for subscription required and others don't.
  • Kenneth? Jennings, Kennth M. (Summer 1989).

Ninian Park[edit]

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Ninian Park, a football ground that was the home of Cardiff City F.C. for 99 years. It was also the home ground of the Wales national side for many years and hosted various other events during its lifespan. I believe the article provides a comprehensive history of the ground and would hope to bring it up to FA status. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Homeostasis07[edit]

After reading the entire article, I have to point out that it's one of the most immaculately written articles I've read in quite a long time. I found a single typo:

Football League and development

  • The low crowd was blamed on the relatively unknown status of the opposition and the club's tie against Portuguese side Sporting CP, reigning champions of the competition,[41] in the following round attracted over 23,000 spectators, the biggest home crowd the club had played in front of for nearly two years.[44] – I'd suggest ending the sentence at ref 41, and beginning a new one with "The following round".

I'm not a football fan, but this article is genuinely informative. It seems brilliantly researched and referenced, and there's nothing prose-wise that I could complain about (although maybe you could link allotment for the casual American reader, because I'm not sure they'd know what that is). That being said, the article clearly uses British English, and is properly identified as such, so I don't see an issue in continuing with current formatting. Single typo aside (which I'm sure will be fixed anyway), I can easily support this article for promotion to FA. I hope this receives more commentary, because it's genuinely a brilliantly written article. Well done. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, I've fixed the typo and linked allotment. Appreciate it. Kosack (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links
  • Ref 78 returns 404 error - Archived
  • Otherwise links to sources all working
  • Formats
  • Ref 53: petty, but for "Cardiff Gate..." read "Cardiff gate..." - Fixed
  • Ref 55 asks me for a subscription, which is odd because ref 53 didn't, nor does 56
  • 53 and 56 are from Gale which appears to provide the user with the ability to view the source (I've only ever accessed them while logged in so only just noticed this), although accessing the site itself is subscription based. Kosack (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 70: in common with all other WalesOnline sources the publisher, Media Wales, should be added - Added
  • Quality reliability:
  • Ref 38: what makes "Duncan Adams" a reliable source?
  • Adams is a published author on the subject of football grounds and among his publications is the Football Ground Guide. The site is his online presence. Kosack (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 80: what makes "Rugby League Project" a reliable source?
  • I'm not really sure of the credibility for this one. The information it supports is uncontroversial but I could potentially replace it if needs be. Kosack (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Otherwise, sources OK

Brianboulton (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Brianboulton: for the review. Let me know if there's anything else. Kosack (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd replace Rugby League Project, but otherwise all OK. Brianboulton (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Replaced. Kosack (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Added. Kosack (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from KJP1[edit]

Football's not my bag, but Cardiff and the Butes definitely are. It reads exceptionally well. Comments below:

Lead
  • "in the Leckwith area of Cardiff" - the link takes me to the village, but there's also this, Leckwith, Cardiff. Not sure which is best, and oddly neither mentions NP.
  • "that was used as the home of Cardiff City F.C. for 99 years" - is the "used as" necessary? - Removed
  • "It was originally constructed with a single wooden stand and three large bankings made of ash" - got a bit confused here, thinking but ash is a wood? And not sure about "bankings". Perhaps "three large banks made of cinders"?
  • I've added a link to Incinerator bottom ash which is probably a closer description. Also changed bankings to banks. Kosack (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
History - Construction and early years
  • "and Middlesbrough, held at the Harlequins Ground" - I don't know who the Harlequins were, or where their ground was? I guess they were these guys, Cardiff Grange Harlequins A.F.C., although the article says they were formed in 1935? Could we have a bit more detail?
  • The Harlequins Ground was part of Cardiff High School at the time. I've added this into the text. Kosack (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "and he approached Bute Estate, a large landholder within the city," - "the Bute Estate"? - Added
  • "Lieutenant-Colonel Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart", "Crichton-Stuart", "Lord Ninian" - he appears in all three guises in this section. The first appearance should be in full, as it is, but then I think you need to decide on Lord Ninian (as per the picture caption), or Crichton-Stuart (as per the text).
  • Dropped Crichton-Stuart for Lord Ninian. Kosack (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "The ground was surrounded by large mounds of ash and slag" - here, my confusion in the lead is clarified, but I wonder if it can be done earlier?
  • Does the added link satisfy this? Kosack (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "J. Bell Harrison" - any idea what he was; local businessman, etc.?
  • Unfortantley no, the source his name comes from has no further info. A Google search throws up one or two possibilities but nothing concrete. Kosack (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
History - Football League and development
  • "sea-washed turf" - I've no idea what this was/is, beyond the bleedin' obvious, and it appears to be its only use on Wikipedia, other than one related article. Do your sources provide any explanation?
It's not far from the obvious by the sound of it. Added a bit more explanation from a book source. Kosack (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "The Popular Bank was expanded, and a new roof installed over its rear section in 1958" (fourth para.) and "Connies & Meaden were employed again to construct a large roof over the rear section of the Popular Bank and to extend the stand the length of the pitch" (fifth para.) - Isn't the latter repeating the former?
  • Appears to be leftover from some expansion I did, removed the first mention. Kosack (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "The low crowd was blamed on the relatively unknown status of the opposition and the club's tie against Portuguese side Sporting CP, reigning champions of the competition" - this may very well be my footballing ignorance, but I don't get why the tie contributed to the low turnout. Does it mean they were playing at the same time?
  • "In the following round attracted over 23,000 spectators" - something's missing here? "they"?
  • This and the one above was caused by a sentence cut off in the wrong place. I've reworded and fixed that issue. Hopefully it makes more sense now. Kosack (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "There was no common sense [...] The Grangetown Stand had to be demolished" - I'm straying into unknown MoS territory here but, if it's not the beginning of a new sentence which I don't think it is, I'm not sure the T of The Grangetown should be capitalised. - Done
History - Downscaling, closure and demolition
  • "due to crowd trouble after the match. Jeff Cooksley, Chief Superintendent of South Wales Police, commented after the match that" - I suggest losing the second "after the match". - Done
  • "A planted square was proposed at the centre of the new housing development, in the area of Ninian Park's centre spot" - do we know if this was actually constructed?
  • I can't seem to find any confirmation unfortunately. Kosack (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Structure and facilities
  • Two points about captions in this section - What's the "Spar Family Stand" (bottom left in the montage of 4). It doesn't appear to be mentioned. Is it the Canton Stand? Secondly, the caption of the black and white image makes little sense to me. What is "led" and why, rather than calling it "a football stand", which could be anywhere, don't you say it's the "Popular Bank"?
  • I've removed the sponsored name of the stand and replaced with Canton. The other caption was a botched attempt at alt text I Made earlier today, that's fixed now. Kosack (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Other uses - Rugby
  • "However, the Blue Dragons' failed to reach the top tier" - Don't think the apostrophe's needed. - Fixed
  • "Grogan's death soon after lead to the club folding after a year playing in Bridgend" - "led"? - Fixed

That's it from me. It is in great shape, and you're responding to my comments as fast as I can write the review. Looking forward to Supporting when you've had a chance to review the rest. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@KJP1: Thanks for the review, I've addressed all of the points above. Let me know if there's anything else. Kosack (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Looking good and pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Quick comment – I'm just getting back into the swing of things after a week's vacation and doubt I'll have time for a comprehensive review, but I did take a quick peek at the article and noticed a red link to Jack Peterson late in the body. With some digging, I found an article on a Jack Petersen who appears to be the person this refers to. It appears that he was born under the name used in this article (while fighting under the name Petersen), but regardless of which name is used in the article, the red link should probably be fixed. Best of luck with the FAC, as the article looks interesting from the portion I read. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008: Thanks for that, I thought it was odd when I couldn't find a link for him. Kosack (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Cyril Bassett[edit]

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

This is the first of several biographies I hope to bring to FAC as a part of a project to get at least most of the New Zealand Victoria Cross recipients of the First World War to FA class. Cyril Basset was the first soldier of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force to be awarded the VC during the war, for his actions during the Gallipoli Campaign. This article has been through GAN and last year was the subject of a Milhist A-Class review. Thanks in advance to all those who participate in the review. Zawed (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • He served on the Home Front and by the time Link Home Front.
  • Done, in infobox and lead. I also rephrased a portion of the WWII section since I hadn't actually used the term there previously. Zawed (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Corps of New Zealand Engineers, assigned to the New Zealand Divisional Signal Company No link for the New Zealand Divisional Signal Company?
  • Done. Not sure it is notable enough for an article though. Zawed (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Initially based in Egypt, after a period of training Pipe Egypt to the Sultanate of Egypt.
  • My preference is to avoid linking countries - I developed this approach in the past in response to reviewer's feedback in GA/A-Class reviews. If another reviewer brings this up as an issue though, I will link it. Zawed (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In August 1915, a series of offensives against Turkish positions Pipe Turkish with the Ottoman Empire.
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • was captured by the brigade's Wellington Infantry Battalion No link for the unit?
  • Have added a link to the parent regiment. Zawed (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • had achieved the rank of lieutenant colonel No hyphen in the rank?
  • Hyphen added. Zawed (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • He was survived by his two daughters and his wife What's the name of his wife?
  • Mentioned previously in article, but have rephrased to name her again. Zawed (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In the infobox the years should be four-digits.
  • My understanding of the style guide is that the two digits are OK for the second half of a year range, unless it happens to span the transition between centuries. Zawed (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • a series of offensives against Turkish positions along the Gallipoli front were You mean "was"?
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Corporal Bassett, in full daylight and under a continuous and heavy fire Remove the "a".
  • This is a quote from the VC citation, it does actually have the a there. I think the phrasing is grammatically correct for the time. Zawed (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • and the second in March 1918, when he was wounded Remove the extra space.
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • By 1939 he was manager of the Auckland Town Hall branch --> "By 1939 he was the manager of the Auckland Town Hall branch".
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

CPA-5 Thanks for taking the time to review this article. I have actioned amendments in response to some of your comments although there are a few I responded to above. Zawed (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Spotchecks: I carried out a few, and they are generally OK. With ref 9, it supports "...and the second in March 1918, when he was wounded in an artillery barrage on the headquarters of the New Zealand Rifle Brigade, where he was the signals officer. The same barrage killed the brigade's commander, Brigadier-General Harry Fulton." This is cited to Austin 1924, p. 299. It's very hard to find p. 299 in the linked source – it would help if you gave a chapter ref. However, I found the page and it checks out OK.
  • Formats: no issues
  • Quality/reliability: no issues – sources meet FA quality criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Brianboulton, thanks for checking this. RE Austin, perhaps I should make the url to the specific chapter in the source? Zawed (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in fine shape. I have some comments:

  • Strictly speaking the Victoria Cross Bassett received was the highest award for gallantry that could be awarded "at the time", as there is now the Victoria Cross for New Zealand
  • Rephrased. Zawed (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "He was the first and only soldier" is tautological, if he was the only one, he clearly was the first. Suggest dropping "first and"
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest indenting Battle of the Somme under Western Front in the infobox
  • Done. Have also added the Battle of Chunuk Bair and indented in a similar manner. Zawed (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • his full name should be provided in full and cited in the body
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "his courage under fire was noted" but no award was made at that time?
  • Not according to the source. Zawed (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest moving his citation to the chronologically appropriate point in the narrative, and just retaining the recommendation when he actually did the actions that resulted in the award
  • Not sure I fully understand the comment about retaining the recommendation, but I have reordered the content a little here. I didn't delete any material as I didn't think there was much overlap of content. Zawed (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I should have been clearer. What I meant was following the chronology of recommendation and award, rather than immediately saying he was awarded it and giving the citation. At the time of the recommendation, state that Temperley recommended him for the VC, then talk about his evacuation, then when the award is announced, then provide the citation and related narrative about his being the only NZ Gallipoli VC and his investiture. This approach avoids jumping back and forth. Just a suggestion anyway, feel free to disregard it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Ah, I got you. I have rejigged the narrative now, hopefully works for you. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • link Buckingham Palace
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • any info about what he was recommended for the MC for?
  • Unfortunately no. Zawed (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "the couple would havehad two daughters"
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • was the National Military Reserve a formal thing? Is there an article for it to link to?
  • I had to drill into this, and yes, it was set up at the start of WWII for service on the home front. I have done a redlink for it. Zawed (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "He was modest of his achievements" as achievements is repetitive
  • Rephrased. Zawed (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "W[w]hen I got my medal"
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "the only New Zealand signaller"
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Royal New Zealand Corps of Signals" or intro the abbreviation when it is mentioned earlier and use that
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Royal New Zealand Returned and Services' Association and link
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • link ANZAC Day
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

That's all I have. Nice work on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, thanks for taking a look at this. I have responded with edits and comments above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
All good. I've clarified one point above, but it is nothing that would stop my support. Great job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Cyril_Bassett,_1917.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Support by Ian[edit]

Recusing from coord duties, I reviewed and supported at MilHist ACR and found precious little to complain about, so too here although I did tweak a few things. I'll take Brian's and Nikki's source and image reviews as read. The only query I have, and it doesn't affect my support, is to double-check that there's no information on, or recommendation for, the MC that he was not awarded. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

A Rugrats Kwanzaa[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone! The above article is about a 2001 Kwanzaa holiday special from the animated show Rugrats. Toddler Susie Carmichael learns about the holiday during a visit from her great-aunt. Nickelodeon aired the special as part of its focus on cultural diversity; Rugrats was one of the first mainstream television shows to feature Kwanzaa. The episode focuses more on family and what it means to be a great person rather than Kwanzaa's history or how it is practiced. It received positive reviews, although there was some criticism about how it contributed to a larger commercialization of the holiday. Cree Summer and Irma P. Hall were praised for their voice acting.

I cannot believe it has been almost 18 years since this episode first aired. Time really does go by far too quickly. This project was inspired by SuperFlash101, who worked on "A Rugrats Passover", "A Rugrats Chanukah", and Judaism in Rugrats. Although they have not been active since 2012, I hope they know how much their work is still appreciated on here. Apologies for all of the articles that I put through the FAC process. I would greatly appreciate any feedback. I hope everyone has a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: No need to apologise for your industry, which is admirable, both in nominations and reviews. But could you spare a little energy, with these reviews, to including a sources check? For those of us (oldies) who are unfamiliar with this subject area, these reviews are problematic; with your expert knowledge you are better able to judge the quality of these sources than we are. For general help in putting a FAC source review together, consult Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC. Have a go at one – every little helps. Brianboulton (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the message. I would be more than happy to do a source review. I was always a little hesitant about doing one because I found it somewhat daunting. The linked essay is very helpful, and I will be referring back to it when I start a source review in the near future. I will look through the FAC list later today, and do a source review on a topic that I feel qualified to do. I am greatly appreciative of all the help I receive from editors during these FAC reviews so I do want to give back as much as I can. Aoba47 (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Just one issue. Are the redlinks necessary? Otherwise, great article. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the support. For one of my previous FACs, a reviewer suggested that I add an optional request to add a red link a specific NAACP Awards ceremony mentioned in the article as it is notable enough for an article. I put in the red link for that article, and I believe the same logic applies here. I can remove the red link if necessary though. Aoba47 (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed, although you might also be able to justify a non-free screenshot from the episode. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you. I am always uncertain about using non-free media, but I will think about it further. A screenshot of Aunt T looking at the scrap book with the children or one of the Carmichael family together could be useful for the "Critical Reception" section since the episode did receive praise for how Kwanzaa was introduced through a focus on family so that is something I will consider. Aoba47 (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment Place-holder comment to remind me to come back and do a full review later: in the lead I would change "it examines Kwanzaa from the perspective of toddler Susie Carmichael during a visit from her great-aunt T. Susie, her friends....." to simply "it examines Kwanzaa from the perspective of toddler Susie Carmichael during a visit from her great-aunt. Susie, her friends....." I had to read this twice because at first glance it seemed like the great-aunt was called "T. Susie" (a la T. Graham Brown or something)......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the suggestion and looking at this article. I have revised it accordingly. Throughout the episode, the great-aunt character is reference as "Aunt T.". I am uncertain if that is the family's nickname for her or if it is derived from the word "auntie"; since Rugrats is a show about toddlers/babies, it frequently mispronounced words as part of their dialogue. It could also be a combination of both. I have seen some sources use "Great Aunt T.", but a majority of the sources (and Nickelodeon) use "Aunt T." so I followed that. I just wanted to explain it since the "Aunt T." appears frequently throughout the article. Aoba47 (talk) 11:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Further comments

  • "and family learn about the holiday fromc." - think something's gone a bit awry here.......
  • That's strange. I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Irma P. Hall, who guest-stars as Aunt T.," - is the present tense correct here? Everything else in the "production" section is in the past tense.
  • Revised to past tense. Aoba47 (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • ""A Rugrats Kwanzaa" has been included on other Rugrats home media releases" - other than what?
  • I have removed "other". The rest of the paragraph mentions all of the releases that included the episode. Aoba47 (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "The network included two clips from the episode to NickSplat's YouTube accoun" => "included to" doesn't sound like natural/correct phrasing to me.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Think that's all I've got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the help. I cannot believe I missed that glaring error in the lead. Hope you are having a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Bilorv[edit]

Sourcing was perfect on the seven or so spotchecks I did. All the claims were verified, and furthermore it looks like all the relevant info from each source has been used, contributing to comprehensiveness. As always, you've done a very thorough job of finding and including sources, so it meets the well-researched criterion. No neutrality, stability or length issues and the lead and citation style are great. It's not far from FA standard, but I do see some areas for improvement.

  • Images: I'm not an expert on our NFCC so I'll leave it to someone else to say whether, as suggested above, a suitable screenshot of the episode might be acceptable. But I do think it would nice to get at least one more image in the body of the article. Might File:Kwanzaa Candles-Kinara.svg or another free image relating to the episode's depiction of Kwanzaa fit somewhere? (Note that the candles relate to the "seven principles" quote from Holmes.)
  • I can see how a second image would be beneficial; however, I am uncertain about the one suggested. Rugrats introduces Kwanzaa in the context of family. Some aspects of Kwanzaa like the kinara are shown, but they do not get the same attention as Susie or the scrapbook memories. This is discussed by both Los Angeles Times and the Daily Herald. Both explicitly mention how the show is not a "Kwanzaa primer" or "a camouflaged lecture on African American heritage followed by a message about the need for tolerance and respect". I would be concerned hat the kinara image implies the episode deals more with Kwanzaa's specific practices and customs than it really does. The episode is first and foremost about family and legacy. I may be overthinking it, but that is my concern about it. Aoba47 (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Hmm, this does make sense. I guess more users' opinions on this would be helpful. — Bilorv (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Resolved comments
  • Critical reception: the prose needs a bit of work. It's not clear what the structure of the reviews is. The first two paragraphs have very similar topic sentences and the order of reviews seems a little bit arbitrary. This seems like a pretty tricky one, where almost all the critical coverage just focuses on one aspect of the episode, but perhaps another round of copyediting would help. I think less reliance on quoting is also needed, and the Holmes quotes in particular should be cut down or paraphrased. Also, the A.V. Club quote strikes me as unnecessary and redundant to previous sentences; perhaps it would be improved as: According to Den of Geek! and Blavity, the series had become known and well-received for celebrating a diverse set of holidays; this was something praised by The A.V. Club's Pilot Viruet.
  • I originally wanted the first paragraph to discuss how Rugrats represented Kwanzaa and then move into how it fit alongside its other holiday programming. I agree it does not work so I have made significant revisions in an attempt to build a more cohesive narrative that does not rely so heavily on quotes. I have a tendency to over-quote, and I need to be better about that in the future. Let me know if further work is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It looks excellent now. Much clearer and flows a lot better. Thanks for the work in overhauling this section! — Bilorv (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Bits and bobs:

  • In the plot, who is "the family"? It's unclear when first mentioned. Later, it seems to include an unknown number of siblings and a mother—I think it's easiest to list them all upfront.
  • I have attempted to revise this, but let me know if further work is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Susie's mother, Lucy, performed "This Little Light of Mine" ... – It took me a minute to work out whether this was another memory or something happening in the present. Adding to the start of the sentence "On another occasion" would solve this.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • she often did the same for her non-black friends – Grammatically, what she would be doing is "introducing Kwanzaa to a large audience [for her non-black friends]", but what is actually meant is "introducing Kwanzaa to her non-black friends".
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In the infobox, isn't the next episode that aired "Pre-School Daze" rather than "All Growed Up"?
  • Revised. One source accidentally put "All Growed Up" as the next episode and they were mistaken. Aoba47 (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Can you mention somewhere in "Broadcast history and release" that the episode was a special that aired between the seventh and eighth seasons? At least, if I'm understanding things correctly and if that's verifiably true. I think it'd fit either in the first sentence or two, or as part of the Viacom/iTunes release information.
  • I could not find any sources that specifically say it is a special between these two seasons. I can only find sources that say it is a television special, but it does not go beyond that point. Aoba47 (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In that case, the lead's "A Rugrats Kwanzaa" is the 14th episode of the seventh season of the American animated television series Rugrats ... should probably be changed to "A Rugrats Kwanzaa" is a special episode of the American animated television series Rugrats ... or similar. — Bilorv (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Completely optional, but it might be nice to use {{external media}} with the two YouTube clips.
  • Good idea. I completely forgot about that so thank you for the suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Nitpicks:

  • "and later reaired at different events" – This doesn't really provide any information. Just removing it would be fine.
  • Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "great-aunt T" should be "great-aunt T." for consistency.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Another one popped up but I fixed it in this edit. — Bilorv (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "subject of some praise" – just "subject of praise" is good.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For runtime, just mention the minutes and not the seconds. Also, in the infobox no hyphen is needed because it is only hyphenated when used as an adjective (as in "the 23-minute episode").
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Bilorv (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  • @Bilorv: Thank you for the comments! I have tried my best to address everything but if I missed anything or if anything needs further improvement, then please let me know. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Apologies for all the edits. I believe everything has settled down now. Aoba47 (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick response! Just one more point about the lead left. — Bilorv (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bilorv: Thank you for the review. You have helped to improve the article quite a lot so I greatly appreciate your help. I have addressed your suggestion for the lead, and if there is anything else to improve, please let me know. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all the work you've done! Support on criteria #1, #2 and #4 (spotchecks done) and neutral on criterion #3 (screenshot in the infobox / image in the body needs more discussion). — Bilorv (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you again, and I will definitely think about adding another image further. The kinara image that you suggested might be correct, but it would be nice to get some further feedback on that. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Operation Catechism[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Operation Catechism was the last in the long-running series of air attacks on the German battleship Tirpitz during World War II. Crippled by damage from earlier attacks, the battleship had been downgraded to a floating battery and stationed in a vulnerable anchorage. She survived the Operation Obviate attack on 29 October 1944 due to luck, but little chance of survival when the pair of elite heavy bomber squadrons which had been tormenting her struck again on 12 November. Two hits from massive bombs and several near misses left Tirpitz a wreck and killed most of her crew.

This article marks the end of the series I've been working on since 2013 covering the British air attacks on Tirpitz during 1944, and is now the only of these articles which is not an FA. It passed a GA nomination in August, as well as a Military History Wikiproject A-class review which concluded a week ago. I've since further expanded the article, drawing on additional sources, and copy edited it. I'm hopeful that the FA criteria are met. Thank you in advance for your time and for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in great shape. I have a few comments:

  • suggest locating Fættenfjord on the locator map (if it is in scope)
    • It's in central Norway, so is outside the map's boundaries. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • can anything be said in terms of a description of the Johnnie Walker mines?
    • I'd rather not in this article, as they weren't used. They're described in the Operation Paravane article which seems to have been the only time they were ever used. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Because Tipritz
    • Tweaked Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "20 No. 9 Squadron and 19 No. 617 Squadron" is a bit odd, maybe using twenty and nineteen would be better?
  • same with "No. 617 Squadron contributed 18, and No. 9 Squadron 13"
    • Both done. I'd changed the first one from words to numbers as part of the pre-FAC copy editing, and wasn't sure it was a great idea. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "Tromsø area, eachboth of the squadrons"
  • could you add a sentence fragment explaining where "Bruno" turret was located on the ship?
  • "resulting in the volume of fire directed at the Lancasters to dropping away" or "resulting in a significant reduction in the volume of fire directed at the Lancasters"
    • Thanks, I've been less than happy with that sentence - I've gone with the second suggestion here. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "The crews of the No. 463 Squadron film aircraft" and "and the crews of several other Lancasters"
    • I was trying to do too much this this sentence - I've split it into two. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "and only one was could be found"
  • comma after "rescue efforts ended"
  • this is a comment only, but it is weird that No.9's less accurate bombing wasn't at least in part put down to the smoke from the fires created by the No. 617 bombs
    • Yes, agree. Sweetman notes though that the inquiry found that the squadron's bombardiers had the battleship clearly in their sights when they set their bomb sights so this was no excuse - presumably the smoke occurred during the subsequent run to the bomb release point, where it shouldn't have made any difference to accuracy. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • During Operation Source on 22 September 1943, she was severely damaged Remove the 1943. Believe the readers already know that we're still in the year 1943.
  • Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz, the commander of the German Navy Link German Navy or pipe it to the back then navy.
  • The times here are in BST (British Sumer Time) but from 1941 until 1947 Britain had BDST (British Double Summer Time) shouldn't we change them?
    • The British Summer Time article notes that the UK moved to BST from autumn until Spring during the war. The sources also most frequently use BST, presumably as it aligned with the local time (Sweetman cheerfully uses a crazy mix of times though, which was tiresome to unpick!) Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The retired United States Navy Rear Admiral William H. Langenberg judged that Britons used an hyphen between ranks before and in the WWII.
    • As this is an American rank, I'd prefer to use the spelling used in the source. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • which still uses them to cover excavations on roads in the Oslo region I do not think we should link Oslo here.
    • De-linked Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • British leadership acted correctly on the basis of the information Remove "on the basis of" and replace it with "based on".
    • Simplified to "the British leadership acted correctly on the information available to them" Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your review. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Hey Nick. Long-time no see? I hope you are all right? Anyway, I just added an extra comment. I believe this one would be the last comment I got for you. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks again for your comments Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Maury[edit]

  • I have split a para in the lede.
  • "attack was possible.[49] At around 9:15 am " - para break here? it's somewhat long
  • "next two days. In the days after" - para break
  • "correspondent Ed Murrow.[44] The success" - and here. Actually, it would seem the second part of this should be moved under the item above it, the press tour seems to be something that should be its own para
    • I don't agree - the para covers the celebration of the raid by the Allied leadership and public Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • OT - "conspicuous bravery" - hrm. Given the almost complete lack of defense I'm not sure how conspicuous that bravery was!
    • I don't fancy the idea of flying a large slow bomber straight and level towards a heavily armed hostile battleship on three occasions! The medal recognised his 98(!) bomber missions, as well as the three raids against Tirpitz. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "several personnel assigned to observer posts, anti-aircraft guns and ships" - the ships... that seems odd. Is that the AA ships? Can we be any more specific here?
    • The sources don't provide further details unfortunately. They focus on the fighter squadron leader, but barely mention the other men who were court martialed. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "by two Tallboys.[96] A team from " - para break.
    • This para covers the two post-war investigations, which is a single topic. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Operation Catechism.[107] In 1950 the" - and here.
    • Disagree - this would result in a single sentence para, which is not FA-level prose. The para also covers a single topic (the rivalry, which expressed itself through stealing the bulkhead) Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "possibly due to the latter squadron's bombardiers inputting an inaccurate wind speed into their bombsights." - it is perhaps worth a brief note here that wind speed it was the only input to the Mk. XIV that needed to be done manually. The rest were measured automatically through the aircraft instruments. In contrast, SABS required no external inputs and measured the aircraft's actual movement over the ground directly, meaning wind speed -and everything else- was accounted for directly. SABS was thus roughly twice as accurate as Mk. XIV, and this is almost certainly the reason their very first bomb hit her. 617 put up some *astonishing* results with SABS, on the order of modern GPS-guided ordinance.
    • The inquiry seems to have not judged that this was an excuse (e.g., that No. 9 Squadron should have been much more accurate than it was), so I'd rather not go into this detail. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

That's it! I'll have another read-over in a few days to see if I missed anything. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your review and edits. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • For UK locations, be consistent in whether you list county/country
    • Standardised on country Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Hinsley et al: Worldcat gives author as just Hinsley? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    • This is another example of the Worldcat details being wrong. See, for instance, this journal review of the book. Thanks a lot for your checks. Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Western yellow robin[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a cute little bird from southern Australia. I have scoured sources and reckon it's as comprehensive as it can be for the lay reader. Have a look and let me know what to fix. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soon. First, I see some duplinks. FunkMonk (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I know the images are a bit samey, but maybe this could be added anyway somewhere[6], since it is much higher res than the one in the taxobox from a somewhat similar angle? FunkMonk (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I put in taxobox as it is pointing to centre of page Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "erected by Swainson" Spell out and link name.
added and linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "The earliest records of the species" From when?
changed to "Gould reported" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "in the first collection of local fauna" Date?
1830s - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Seems odd now that only one person is presented with nationality and occupation.
an oversight...fixing.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Eastern yellow robin (Eopsaltria australis) is linked and given scientific name twice.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Bird taxonomist Richard Schodde did not" Date?
1999 - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Two analyses of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA" Dates?
2009 and 2011 - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "revealed that the divergence between" Any estimate as to when it happened?
neither paper suggests date ranges Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "rosinae" Meaning?
found and added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "families Eupetidae (Rail-babbler), Chaetopidae (Rockjumper) and Picathartidae (Rockfowl)" Why are all the common names capitalised?
accident - tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "The earliest recorded name is b"am-boore—reported by John Gilbert" When?
1839, but this fact has drifted and I can fix later. ~ cygnis insignis 17:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
is 1840 - added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
[7]
  • I wonder what the thoughts behind describing subspecies differences and differences in range under taxonomy, I'd imagine readers looking for such info under description and distribution sections? In fact, some of the info from taxonomy seems to be duplicated under description.
have moved to description now and removed reduplication. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I guess again coloration should be colouration?
Coloration is correct, as we have previously discussed. ~ cygnis insignis 17:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "In Western Australia, it is found south and west of an imaginary line between Kalbarri and Norseman" What does this line divide, the subspecies? Or between these named areas? "Imaginary" makes this a bit confusing...
This last point seems to have been overlooked? FunkMonk (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Casliber? I can support once this is addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
the species as a whole. Changed to name from "it". I thought it was unambiguous given its place in the paragraph....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I think the problem is that one would expect info on where the different subspecies can be found under distribution rather than under taxonomy. Anything that could be done about this? FunkMonk (talk) 09:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok @FunkMonk:, I did this. Is it worth adding a note that Mathews controversially named a large number of taxa later not found to be distinct (he was a splitter supreme), but this one is? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
For someone interested in that kind of stuff, I'd say yes. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I added a footnote. Probably best to add to lots of Australian bird articles Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "in dryer" Drier? English isn't my first language, but seems "dryer" refers strictly to the machine...
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "and are 18-22 mm long by 15-16 mm wide" Convert?
oppose ~ cygnis insignis 17:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I removed it already this FAC due to suggestion below - the range is so narrow in inches to be meaningless Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "in the Australasian robin family Petroicidae" Only stated in intro.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Not a big deal, but the intro seems to have a different order than the article body, since you give info on its naming last instead of first.
I was in two minds, but after rejigging I am happier with the new order Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Aa77zz[edit]

Initial comments

  • Who was John Gould? (English ornithologist and bird artist)
seemed a bit effusive to add a that...but added some Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggest you spell out the protonym.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Possibly mention that the genus Eopsaltria had been erected by Swainson 6 years earlier for what is now the eastern yellow robin
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Gould had called it "grey-breasted robin" in 1848," I suggest you cite Gould here - he includes a beautiful plate: Gould, John (1848). The Birds of Australia. Volume 3. London: self. Plate [12] and text.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (I'm not suggesting that you change the year, but Gould's work was issued in 36 parts: Eopsaltria griseogularis was in Part 12 issued in 1843 - the work was completed in 1848. see here)  
  • Spell out RAOU (and wlink?)
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Gould actually wrote B"am-boore for the local name (presumably " indicates stress) ie without an "n" and not bamborn (see link above)
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • " weight of 20 g (0.7 oz)." - around 20 g?
not sure about this as is in same sentence as wingspan and length. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "The underparts are yellow and sharply delineated from the breast." sharply delineated - this isn't apparent in the photos.
"sharply" is what HANZAB says. I changed to "clearly" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • How do the tarsi differ?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "They do not resemble any other species in its range." - plural then singular
singularised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Note that I don't have easy access to HANZAB - I would need to visit a library. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I have a library next to one of my work places...and I've taken photos of all the pages.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Lead: "The position of the western yellow robin and its Australian relatives" etc - not mentioned in body of article. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
updated and added to body of text Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "In tall Jarrah-Marri forest" - these species aren't wlinked until the breeding section.
solved by linking to the ecological unit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "The maximum age recorded from banding" - this appears misplaced - perhaps better in Breeding.
moved Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "by 15–16 mm (5⁄8–5⁄8 in) wide" - imperial measurements aren't helpful here (I prefer the decimal system)
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "The eggs are more elongated than those of the eastern yellow robin." Surprising - is there a more recent reference for this?
there is no other allusion to this anywhere in HANZAB. Shall I remove it..? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
No opinion - I know little about oology. Note that the ref was muddled - correct link but wrong date and author - now as ref 16. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Do the helpers feed the young?
yes and added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • How long do the young stay in the nest before they fledge?
yes and added Annoyingly not mentioned in HANZAB. HANZAB does say social behaviour not well known Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Are helpers the offspring of the parents from a previous brood?
HANZAB doesn't specifically say in this species entry but I have linked "helper" at first instance to Cooperative breeding which pretty much says yes for all species Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

- Aa77zz (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Reference 2: "Gould, Elizabeth; Gould, John (1838). A synopsis of the birds of Australia" - The wiki page on Gould explains that his wife Elizabeth prepared the plates. Elizabeth is not listed as an author on the title page of the volume.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Reference 4: "Gould, J.; Gilbert, J. (1863). Handbook to The birds of Australia. v.1." - The title page only lists Gould as an author. Gilbert is mentioned in the preface but he died in 1845. The year on the title page is 1865. Worldcat doesn't list an earlier edition.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I've switch year to 1865. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

- Aa77zz (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Support - all looks good now. Note that I've tweaked some of the refs. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

image review

  • What is the difference between lime and green?
I use it for "yellow-green" but have changed to the more objective "light green" and "dark green" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D[edit]

This article is in great shape. I have only two comments:

  • "Although it is rated as least concern on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)'s Red List of Threatened Species, it has declined in parts of its range." - can you say over which time period?
Annoyingly the source does not specify. I would assume that it coincides with land clearance that has been going on since the early 19th century, however it is not specified in the source at all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "The earliest recorded name is b"am-boore" - is it possible to note the names used in any other Aboriginal languages? Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
the only other candidate is Barngarla, which was the language of the Eyre Peninsula. However it is extinct and being resurrected. Vocabulary is meagre at best and no robins listed... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Support Thanks for those responses Cas. My comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN4 should use pp not p
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Is FN4 or FN8 the correct formatting of that publisher?
latter and aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether initials are spaced
spaced now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether books include locations and/or retrieval dates
aligned - yes and no (The Jobling ref is actually a webcite). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in how you format self-published works
aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • FN29: what kind of source is this? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
it appears to be part of a book but cannot confirm that. So using cite web format as it is from a reliable and authoritative website 05:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


Older nominations[edit]

Lyon-class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC) and Parsecboy (talk)

The Lyon-class battleships were the 1915 tranche of a French naval expansion program begun in 1912. Their design had not been finalized before the beginning of the First World War in August 1914 and their consequent cancellation. Parsecboy and I have recently overhauled this article in preparation and it passed a MilHist A-class review earlier this month. As usual, we'd like for reviewers to check for any stray bits of BritEng, unlinked or unexplained jargon and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "Design work on the vessels to follow the Normandies began in 1912; the design staff submitted several proposals for the new battleships, with displacements ranged from 27,000 metric tons (26,574 long tons) to 29,000 t (28,542 long tons).[3] " likely "ranged" should be "ranging".
  • Good catch.
  • " In addition, the design staff determined the 38 cm gun would take too long to design, so the proposals that incorporated these weapons were cancelled and one of the two 34 cm proposals was selected." possibly "cancelled" should be "rejected" and I would change the end of the sentence "one of the two 34 cm proposals was selected." to "officials chose between the two 34 cm proposals" so as to lead into the next sentence better.
  • That is a better wording.
  • You are not consistent in whether you capitalise Normandie in "Normandie-class".
  • You sure? Searching for normandie showed all of them capitalized.
Oops, meant "italicise".
  • Is there any later or contextual information, such as similar ships built later, or did the designs influence later ships?
  • War experience had proven that their design was thoroughly obsolete and they had no influence on the subsequent Dunkerque class of the 1930s.
That's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for catching these and your helpful suggestion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

  • which was planned for the French Navy in 1913 Link French Navy.
  • Starting in 1910, the French Navy began a dreadnought battleship Unlink French Navy here.
  • and one of the two 34 cm proposals was selected You mean were?
  • No, "was" is correct ("one of ... was...") Brianboulton (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

You mean that we caught all the excess naughts, etc.? Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Formats
  • Check publication date of Gardner. WorldCat does not list a 1984 edition (WorldCat is not infallible in these matters)
  • Crap, it's correct. That's going to be an error perpetuated all over our articles.
  • O'Brien 2001: WorldCat gives publisher location for this ibsn as Southgate
  • The book shows London and Portland, Oregon.
  • Quality/reliability: no issues, sources appear to meet the requisite FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Not sure that I should really thank you for catching the problem with Gardner considering the amount of work that it's going to cause to find them all, but I will anyway.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about that! Brianboulton (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yet another article on a class of German battleships (though we're nearing the end!), these were interesting vessels that adopted the "hail of fire" principle that a few navies experimented with during the brief period between the introduction of quick-firing guns and the adaptation of said technology to large-caliber guns - as readers with a keen sense of foreshadowing will deduce, these ships rapidly became second-class vessels once foreign battleships with larger guns that could fire just as fast began to enter service (which was compounded when the first dreadnought battleships began to be built, less than a decade after these ships were completed). Like the other outdated battleships of the German fleet, they saw limited activity during World War I, and were quickly deactivated in 1915. The article passed a MILHIST A-class review this past July, and I think it's at or close to FA standards. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

I reviewed this at Milhist ACR, so have only a few things to quibble about here:

  • in the lead, suggest "The Kaiser Friedrich III-class consisted of five pre-dreadnought battleships of the German Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy); all ships of the class were named for German emperors."
    • Done
  • in the lead, why "SMS Kaiser Wilhelm II" but not SMS for the rest? Or none?
    • Forgot to pipe it ;)
  • "The Kaiser Friedrich III class saw"
    • Done
  • in the lead, suggest "for rapidity of fire over weight of shell"→"for higher volumes of fire over weight of shell"
    • Works for me
  • in the lead, suggest "Thereafter they were" rather than "They thereafter were" to put the adverb ahead of the pronoun
    • Done
  • "which werewas finally approved in March 1894"
    • Fixed
  • "allowed a significant savings"
    • Good catch
  • "like those on the British Majestic-class battleship"
    • Done
  • "have necessitated a halving of the main battery"
    • Good idea
  • suggest adding o/a to the infobox
    • Done
  • should "fore mast" be "foremast"? There is another example of this
    • Yup
  • "excellent sea-keeping vessels"?
    • Reworded
  • there is a bit of repetition regarding the boilers of Kaiser Friedrich III
    • Trimmed the second time that's mentioned
  • "four Marine and six cylindrical boilers" fire-tube? This recurs.
    • Clarified these

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  • instead of PS in the body, perhaps use "metric horsepower", as PS isn't a well known initialisation
    • De-abbreviated them
  • were the 8.8 cm guns for torpedo boats defence?
    • Indeed

That's the lot I could find. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Peacemaker. Parsecboy (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • of five pre-dreadnought battleships of the German Pipe German to the German Empire.
    • Done
  • Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy); all ships of the class were named for German emperors.. Double dot here.
    • Fixed
  • for higher volumes of fire over weight of shell Merge "over weight".
    • "Over" in this context means "instead"
  • by the Japanese cruisers' victory over a heavier-armed Chinese fleet at the Pipe both Japanese and Chinese to the Empire of Japan and the Qing dynasty.
    • Done
  • and four 240 kW 74 V generators in the other three ships Volts is here an adjective? Why isn't it full written like the sentence before?
    • Fixed

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
@CPA-5: - anything left to address? Parsecboy (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry I was a little bit busy with the drive. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • Put an asterisk in the template for Koop & Schmolke
    • You mean an ampersand?
      • <wakes up, looks around hastily>Yeah, one 'a 'dem--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Spot checks on ISBNs showed no problems
  • Add author links for Ropp and Friedman (optional)
    • Done
  • Citations and references are formatted consistently and correctly.
  • Sources used are from reputable authors and publishers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Jill Valentine[edit]

Nominator(s): Homeostasis07 (talk) and Aoba47 (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a character from the Resident Evil game and film series. After the previous FAC was closed, I was advised by a coordinator to work with an "experienced" FA writer before renominating. During that time, I've collaborated with @Aoba47: – who has written 24 FAs – to improve the article, and I genuinely believe it meets the FA criteria. I also initiated a discussion at a high-profile talk page, in which every previous contributor was pinged, with limited response. I believe this article satisfies the FA criteria, and would appreciate as much feedback as possible. Regards, Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 00:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from Toa Nidhiki05[edit]

Going to give this a look per a request on my talk page from Homeostasis07; I'm a gamer but not very familiar with the Resident Evil series, so hopefully I can give this a good look. Toa Nidhiki05 01:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

All issues are resolved now - this looks really good! Happy to offer a support here. Toa Nidhiki05 01:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Resolved issues
Grammar check
Lede
  • I would change the mention of appearing in the film series to be in the past-tense, as the series has seemingly concluded. This could be modified if she appears in a reboot, but for now the series is done. Toa Nidhiki05 03:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Concept and design
  • Not sure a dash is needed in "story-line". Toa Nidhiki05 02:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Replaced with "storyline". A majority of the sources I have checked use "storyline" as one word without the dash. Aoba47 (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Would change "was redesigned" to "has been redesigned" since the series is ongoing.
  • Revised. That makes sense to me so thank you for the catch. Aoba47 (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Appearances
  • Remove the comma before "and that its undead occupants are scientists who had been developing the T-virus mutagen".
  • Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • What are the continuity reasons preventing the characters from Resident Evil 2 from appearing?
  • According to the Resident Evil 3: Nemesis article, the game takes place a day before Resident Evil 2. I think that is what being referenced, but I will leave this up to Homeostasis07. Aoba47 (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove the comma before "capable of infecting the aquatic ecosystem"
  • Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove the comma after "but before her career in law enforcement".
  • I think the comma is needed here. I admit that I am pretty bad with commas though. Aoba47 (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I've tried to compromise by using a semicolon. Both points are related to one another, so I figured this was correct usage. Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 22:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • You might could include a mention that the character did not return for the final Resident Evil film, when she was evidently killed offscreen. Bloody Disgusting said this was a major plothole.
  • That is a good point. I remember in a past FAC, a reviewer did not believe Bloody Disgusting is a good source for a FA. According to this interview with Milla Jovovich, Sienna Guillory was not invited back because "there are a lot of characters in the Resident Evil franchise and it’s difficult to have everybody involved". I do not believe the source is considered appropriate for an FA, but it is an interview so that context may make it appropriate. I will look up more information on it, and Homeostasis07 probably knows more than me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Makes sense. The main thing is that since the series is over and she didn’t appear in the last film, it might be worth noting that she didn’t and/or why. It’s not a major issue but it just is something that might worth noting for completion. Toa Nidhiki05 18:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for pointing it out, and I agree that it is worth further discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Both Aoba and I have expanded this sentence using your source, as well as some others Aoba found. Although Bloody Disgusting was removed during a previous FA nomination, I never especially believed its exclusion was merited. It's a pretty huge website in terms of horror movies/hard rock music, and has had exclusive interviews with some pretty big names since then. Plus, this particular author has also written for The Austin Chronicle and Consequence of Sound, so I believe his article would be easily defensible from even the most stringent of source reviewer. In any case, there's now another 2 sources to fall back on. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 22:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Wording is excellent. This definitely rounds out that section imo. Toa Nidhiki05 03:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Reception and legacy
  • I might remove "has" from "has consistently received negative reviews", since the film series has evidently been completed.
  • Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
References

*First off, props on going ahead and archiving everything. I failed to do this in some of my early GAs and FAs and some sources are lost now; this should prevent that.

  • Citation 1 says the YouTube channel is Capcom Unity, but it is actually called Capcom USA. The note of it being the official YouTube channel can also be removed.
  • Citation 12 should be to GamesRadar+; currently it pipes to that page from the former names, GamesRadar.
  • Citation 44 should link to Resident Evil 5 since all sources are being consistently linked.
  • Citation 48 should probably be changed to Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine; it currently redirects there via Official US PlayStation Magazine.
  • Citation 51 should link Capcom.
  • Citation 57 should link Eurogamer.
  • Citation 62 should link Resident Evil: Retribution.
  • Citation 63 should include a website or publisher field.
  • Citations 66-68 should link IGN.
  • Citation 92 should link The Escapist.
  • Citation 103 should link Rotten Tomatoes
  • Citation 106 should link Resident Evil: Apocalypse
  • Three references (18, 68, 73) link to Kotaku but only one includes G/O Media. Either all of them should include this or it should be removed from 73. Toa Nidhiki05 03:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Toa Nidhiki05: Thank you for the comments. I believe that I have addressed everything. Let me know if I missed anything. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from HD/Derek Support on prose[edit]

  • Not a fan of video games so I hope my review would be as objective as possible. Comments arriving within a few days, (talk) 05:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Made several read-throughs and I'm happy to give this nomination a support based on prose. It's comprehensive and not filled with trivial information. The article is really a product of hard work and resilience! As for other issues like sources and media, I'm not equipped with proper tools to do such tasks, so I'll leave it to other reviewers to spotcheck. A quick suggestion (which wouldn't impact my support whatsoever): there's a harv error for the source cited in "Further readings". Consider fixing it? (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Update: fixed the harv error by myself. To see harv-related errors, you should install some special documentation... I forgot what it's called, will try to find it here's the detailed guide to install the script: User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. Best of luck with the article, (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback, and for fixing the harv error. I've installed the script, so this shouldn't happen again. ;) Thanks again for your time in reviewing the article. Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 23:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Darkwarriorblake[edit]

  • I'm not a fan of having the Japanese/Hepburn translsations in the opening of an English article. I feel like this " ジル・バレンタイン" doesn't help anyone and it should probably be handed like it as on Japanese made games like Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater. That said I won't not support it because of that, but I think it is something worth considering.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "She was introduced as one of two player characters in the original Resident Evil (1996), making her the first playable female character in the survival horror genre." seems like it's saying something more complex than it needs to be. Maybe something like "Introduced as one of two playable characters in the original Resident Evil (1996), Valentine is the first female player character in the survival horror genre."
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I've read the entire article and I would say it is generally thorough. I was gonna bring up the Jill Sandwich meme but I can see you covered that as well. The only thing I would consider missing is any concept around her RE3 appearance. It seems to skip Nemesis almost completely there for the RE:Make and then on to RE:5. I see mentions of her casual clothing elsewhere but it seems like it'd belong in the concept part. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I will leave this part up to Homeostasis07 as he is more familiar with the games than myself. Thank you for pointing this out. Aoba47 (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It was actually a previous collaborator who suggested I remove those descriptions from the prose. I tried to compromise by placing them in other sections of the article where I considered them relevant, but obviously it wasn't a good idea in the first place—you're the 3rd person to bring this up as an issue [here and elsewhere]. I've happily re-incorporated those descriptions of her RE3 appearance to their rightful place, in 'Concept and design'. Thanks for your time in reviewing the article. It's definitely been a big help. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 23:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll support this. I don't know if it has had an image review but the last image seems to be two copyrighted images together, and with the infobox image it may be too much, but the Fair Use rationales seem OK to me. I'm not an expert though. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you, and that is understandable. I will leave the image usage up to Homeostasis07, but I also understand the importance of keeping non-free media usage to a minimal. Aoba47 (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd love to be able to replace this image with a decent Creative Commons one, but the only pictures of Valentine in this particular outfit to be found on either CC or Flickr just... aren't very good. I actually don't hate that last one, but would there be a way of cutting out the Chris cosplayer without having to upload a new version? But I still don't think it's particularly representative of Jill Valentine, and a pretty solid case could easily be made for contextual significance with the current image(s)—a whole paragraph is dedicated to the reception of its various guises, and the image has an explanatory FUR, so its use should be fine. Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 23:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah there is a lot of commentary on it so it should hopefully be fine. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kosack[edit]

Lead

  • "she is first playable female character in the survival horror genre" > she was the first playable female character...
  • Added. Aoba47 (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Concept and design

  • "expertise in weapons and explosives handling and lock picking", is weapons and explosives handling meant to be one phrase? If not, drop the and for a comma.
  • The sentence is saying that she has expertise in both weapon handling (pistols, shotguns, rifles, etc.), and also the handling of larger explosive ammunition/firearms (grenades, rocket launchers, etc.)—if that makes sense. I've rephrased to hopefully make this clearer. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Her outfit in the game is a police uniform consisting of a beret, shoulder pads, tactical pants and combat boots", no t-shirt?
  • The source doesn't mention the T-shirt, but it's clearly implied by the corresponding imagery, so I've added. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd start the third paragraph with Valentine's instead of her.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Voice-over and live-action actors

  • "original game's live-action cutscenes and did the voice work were", wordings a little clunky here. What about "recorded the woice work"?
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

In the Resident Evil series

  • "Every game in the series took place in the fictional American city", I think maybe "is set" rather than took place may work better.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "retreated into searching for colleagues", retreated would suggest they were forced back into the mansion. "entered into..." perhaps?
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

A couple of minor prose suggestions based on a quick run through. Kosack (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries. I'm not an expert on video game articles, but this seems like a good candidate for FA for me based on content and prose. Happy to support. Kosack (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by E.3[edit]

Disclaimer: this is my first FA review and I am not a gamer, but I know the series and character. Overall there is a very engaging writing style to a non gamer. Just some prose suggestions

  • "She is described as being intelligent, brave and loyal, and as having expertise in weapons and explosives handling and lock picking." I would divide this sentence. Do you need to state who describes her as intelligent brave and loyal?
  • I will leave this point up to Homeostasis07 as he is more familiar with the games than myself. I think this sentence is referring to how the game describes her or presents her, but I could be mistaken. Aoba47 (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "although the project leader positioned it on her chest to maximize her sex appeal" is this necessary, I don't see what it adds to the article.
  • I would say that it is necessary because it explains how her character design changed for the game. It adds to the reader's understanding of how the character was developed and presented for that game. Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Making the article as asexual as possible (considering Victoria's comments below) may be a good thing, so I've removed until she responds. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes thats my main concern with this review, but it appears to be being addressed :) --[E.3][chat2][me] 02:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "to show more of her body" -> would change to "to highlight her body contours" --[E.3][chat2][me] 02:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the suggestion. I will leave that up to Homeostasis07. Aoba47 (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "visually appealing" how about tough, strong and and aesthetically attractive means the character potentially appeals to a broad demographic audience?
  • I have replaced the "visually appealing" part with a quote from the source to be more precise. I know "tough" and "strong" have their own distinct nuances, but I would be uncertain about using them both in the same sentence as it is a little repetitive. Aoba47 (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for this, @Aoba47: I don't think "tough, strong and aesthetically attractive" requires quote marks, so I've paraphrased. Hopefully you're both happy with the change. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise it reads pretty well and the previous issues seem to have been addressed. --[E.3][chat2][me] 00:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks you for your comments, @E.3: I believe I've resolved them all. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
My concerns around sexualisation have been satisfactorily addressed, however as this is my first FA review, and I am male, I offer tentative support based on the final decision of @Victoriaearle:'s review. --[E.3][chat2][me] 14:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. For the record – and for any new reviewers watching – the article went through a massive 2-month-long peer review way back in November 2017, where the sexism issue was discussed and dealt with comprehensively (both the article's original nominator and the reviewers who initially complained about said sexism formed a clear consensus on how to proceed). I've tried my best to follow that consensus since then. I guess that's up to others to review at this point. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Victoriaearle[edit]

A couple of points:

  • Per the FAC instructions, have the primary contributors been notified/consulted re this FAC?
  • They were all pinged to this discussion at VG Talk on August 9, where I stated my intention to renominate and asked if there were any issues that needed resolving before doing so. The conversation was automatically archived on August 25, and I gave a few days grace period for anyone to contact me. I've had to link the conversation the way I have because it somehow vanishes from the archives after this edit. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Both of the sources linked to (The World of Scary Video Games: A Study in Videoludic Horror and The Playful Undead and Video Games: Critical Analyses of Zombies and Gameplay) are actually used in the article already. Although the latter is a reprint of a source which was removed by consensus during the last peer review, I think I've found an acceptable way of reintroducing that particular one. All of the most useful sources listed at Google Scholar feature on the article. The others either don't contain anything particularly enlightening, or were also removed by consensus during the PR stage. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The issue of gender in video games was raised in previous FACs & the PR and Mikami's vision re designing characters has been previously discussed: it seems to me important, to satisfy criteria 1.b (thorough) & c (neutral & without bias), that his visions be teased out. He was adamant that Jill not be sexualized or objectified, that the characters are first and foremost human. The Guardian article tells us about Mikami:

"His characters, for example, are always strong but also vulnerable. They’re not gung-ho meatheads, packing enough heat to take down a whole army of the dead, they are confused, afraid – and usually very low on ammo."

and in his own words he explains,

"'I’m interested in vulnerable characters, in normal human beings,” says Mikami. “The horror experience is most scary when the player really isn’t sure whether their character is going to live or die – death and survival need to be on a constant see-saw. If there’s a situation where you’re not 100% sure that you can avoid or defeat the enemies, if you feel maybe there’s a chance you’ll make it – that’s where horror lies.'"

and,

"Aside from gothic architecture, lumbering monsters, sparse resources and jump shock, Mikami’s games have always been known for something else: strong female characters. The likes of Jill Valentine and Claire Redfield fought alongside their male counterparts in the Resident Evil games, dressed in similar combat fatigues, rarely succumbing to the usual overtly sexualised stereotypes."

continuing,

"It’s something Mikami is clearly passionate about. 'I don’t know if I’ve put more emphasis on women characters, but when I do introduce them, it is never as objects,” he says. “In some games, they will be peripheral characters with ridiculous breast physics. I avoid that sort of obvious eroticism. I also don’t like female characters who are submissive to male characters, or to the situation they’re in. I won’t portray women in that way. I write women characters who discover their independence as the game progresses, or who already know they are independent but have that tested against a series of challenges.'"[8]

    • This concept needs to be teased out from the beginning. As written the article tells us about Jill's various outfits and hair color, in other words, objectifying her, yet the essays in the newly released books put those aspects in context, which needs to be added.
  • Regarding the quotes, the general point of the first is presented in the article using a more verbose source; the second quote features in the article verbatim; the final two quotes are paraphrased and have been expanded using academic sources in the second paragraph of 'Reception and legacy', which I feel is where they belong. I don't see anything in either of the listed sources above which alter the context of anything currently presented in the article. Please feel free to correct if I've missed something blindingly obvious (which has happened before). Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Finally, there are lingering prose issues throughout. Examples only - "is identified", "describes her personality as consisting of intelligence, bravery and loyalty", "is set, are set, is set", "Valentine returned", "she attempts", "She is also included", "the character also appears", lots of jarring tense shifts from past to present and use of past perfect, i.e "have depicted", "have resulted", "have claimed".
  • Aoba47 has fixed several of these. I'll have a run-through the entire article momentarily to make everything past tense and remove some excessive verbing. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The structure is still off, i.e the "Reception" section is extremely stuffed and for some reason Mikami's premise isn't even mentioned until that point ("Shinji Mikami, expressed his opposition to the sexual objectification of women in video games") when it should occur at the beginning.
  • Mikami's "premise" is in its current position because of feedback given to me from several past contributors. If you feel strongly that it would work better near the beginning, I'd have no objection doing that. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • OK. Between you mentioning this and some of the comments made by E.3 above, I've decided it's best to move this to as early a section as possible prose-wise (the latter half of the first paragraph of 'Concept and design'). Let's just hope the people who objected to it appearing there in the first place don't object to it in the meantime. =( Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a full review, but they are issues that need attention. Victoria (tk) 02:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate it. Hopefully you'll understand my reasoning for contending some of the points, and that I'll be able to resolve everything else soon. Cheers, Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Re sourcing: it's really best to lean as much as possible on high quality secondary sources, which do exist. Perron is noted in the references but only used a single time to cite a sentence that includes three other citations. Similarly, the Sara Grimes piece, a good secondary source, is only used a single time to cite a sentence with multiple references. If a point isn't contentious there's no reason to provide more than a single citation and best practice to lean as much as possible on high quality secondary sources, even if that requires swapping out or eliminating some of the lower quality primary or industry sources.

A quick glance at Sara Grimes piece reveals that Jill's name is mentioned at least 39 times; Paul Martin's piece has 30+ mentions. So those can be mined extensively, and should be. MacCallum's piece appears only to be used twice with direct quotes (don't forget to provide the ref directly at the end of the quotation), but here are a few important samples/snippets from her work:

Jill Valentine, Claire Redfield, and Ada Wong of the Resident Evil series are resilient characters with independent story arcs within the series

This goes to characteristics & the fact they have their own story arcs and aren't supporting characters

Their physical appearance-most usually dressed in combat attire-means that they initially avoid critiques of pandering to the male gaze, a visual trope which dominates female representation in gaming.

This is already used in the article, but I'm not sure Mikami's quotation should be stacked immediately after. One of them should be paraphrased; probably MacCallum. But the male gaze goes to a different concept than Mikami's

Notably, returned to the more cliched representations of women as fetishised objects or cyphers for their male companions is met with reduced interest (for example, the popularity of the Resident Evil series waned when Jill Valentine was presented as a mind-controlled BDSM assassin...

This goes to the fact that in the later iterations, moving away from Mikami's influence, Jill's redesign realigns her with the more stereotypical game heroine, and goes to the fact that the mind-control device (the location of its placement is irrelevant) does just that: it controls her, and the character becomes something other than the original design concept.

There's lots and re “male gaze” w/ citations to other sources; those sources might be worth trying to find and looking at.

Every character in the original game returns to the franchise at some point, but Jill undergoes a signifant series of changes. More developed graphic capabilities allowed developers to repeatedly alter Jill’s appearance and clothing, and her reappearance as a mind-controlled villain in Resident Evil 5 race-switched the character from a mixed race Japanese-French woman, to a blonde with extremely pale skin .... This deliberate whitewashing of the character was received poorly by fans as was her new costume-a skin tight purple battle suit.

This explains the reasons for the redesigns, but again explains that she's "whitened". Though this seems like it would fit in the reception section, anything to do with design should be removed from that section, though this passage covers both the reasons for the redesign and the subsequent reception.

In short, Jill’s physical alterations has been symptomatic of an industry that traditionally skews towards pleasing a young, male, heterosexual player, but has increasingly realized that sexual stereotypes of desire do not sit well with a more nuanced audience

In Resident Evil 3 the player is only allowed the role of Jill Valentine, an unusual choice in a male dominated era, and possibly following the popularity of Lara Croft as a female protagonist, however this was one the episodes that received poor reviews

A number of secondary sources compare Jill (i.e Mikami's Jill) to Lara Croft. It might worth trying to run those down (I think I noted that in some of the g-scholar snippets)

Also the New York Times has articles available on the various releases and some are interesting in that they explain the premise of the first game, (not being able to shoot unless standing still; the danger of running out of ammunition (hence having extra ammunition is an advantage)). My suggestion is to look for, use and swap out as many sources as possible; i.e the section re the battle suit and lighter is discussed extensively in the secondary sources, whereas the Kotaku piece is promotional (it's selling an action figure). Don't rush the effort and ping me when ready to me revisit. Oh, one last thing, the consensus version (yes, it was almost there) is this one. It might be worth comparing to the current version. Victoria (tk) 00:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the insights, Victoria. I believe I have a fairly solid sense of where you want the article to go, and I have taken extensive notes from the Grimes and Perron sources (and a few others). I've been busy in real life (as well as finishing up some other reviews), so have only been able to make a partial attempt at it so far. I will hopefully have a few hours free tomorrow, so you should see some progress soon. Just thought I'd update everyone, and let you know I've not been ignoring you. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks, appreciated. I'm not here every day, so no enormous rush. Best to take the time to get it right. Victoria (tk) 00:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks again, @Victoriaearle: I've tried my best to rephrase the article, with the general theme of your review running throughout. I think I've done a good job, but would appreciate your feedback at this point. The only thing I've not been able to incorporate so far has been moving all (i.e., all but one) of the design descriptions from 'Reception and legacy' to 'Concept and design'→I can't find a way of introducing the film series to that section (which is very much secondary to the game series). So I've left the commentary of her appearance in Resident Evil: Apocalypse where it is for now. Hope you don't mind. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)─────────────────────────

I'm thinking about it. In the meantime, some comments re a few edits that I made and reverted.

  • Here I eliminated some low-level links, tightened the prose, left an inline comment (I thought I'd read she was the first playable female protagonist, not only in the horror genre, but I could be misremembering), the reader needs an explanation of her universe, i.e formerly of Delta Force begs the question of what she's doing now?
  • Valentine is the first playable female character in the survival horror genre. It is still notable benchmark. Some reports claim Samus Aran, who first appears in a 1986 game, is the first playable female protagonist, but I cannot say with absolute certain on that regard. I am certain though that Valentine is not the first ever as I can think of a few other examples prior to the first Resident Evil game. I believe later games retconned Valentine's past in the Delta Force, but I cannot say with absolute certainty. I have seen some fans speculate that her Delta Force membership does not makes given her age and the year in which the first game is set, but that is pure speculation. I will leave the rest of the comments up to Homeostasis07 as he is more of an expert on the matter than myself. Aoba47 (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The first point is in parentheses, not a big deal and not worth quibbling over; the second point goes to the prose and flow: the reader is told she was formerly a member of Delta Force, but what is her job at the opening of Resident Evil? Presumably that information is useful, no? Victoria (tk) 22:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I clarified the part about the first playable female protagonist in case you were interested to know more about it. I do not disagree with your point about the Delta Force. Apologies if my response read that way. I was trying to respond with my understanding of the character and the franchise's treatment of her past Delta Force experience. I have a limited knowledge of the franchise's plot, but I believe Valentine is a member of a special forces division called the Special Tactics and Rescue Service at the start of the first game. @Homeostasis07: would know for certain though. I agree that this information is useful and should be addressed in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Nah, I was short with you; was in the kitchen, multitasking & always a bad time of day to edit. I'd do something along the lines of "Formerly a member of Delta Force, where she excelled in bomb disposal, at the start of Resident Evil she is a member of Special Tactics and Rescue Service". I believe the article mentions the other positions she holds in the subsequent games. Victoria (tk) 23:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the suggestion. I have incorporated it into the article. Aoba47 (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you both for your work on the article. I liked your edits, so have tried my best to incorporate as many of your points to (at least) the first paragraph of 'Concept and design'. I'll hopefully be able to address everything else tomorrow (fair warning: I'm taking the day off work to have some dental work done—I should be OK afterwards, but if I make some strange edits, you'll know why). As far as Jill being the "first playable female protagonist" goes, I don't believe that's accurate. As Aoba said, there's Samus from Metroid (1986, who is also discussed in the Grimes source), but also Karen/Karla from Alien Storm (1991) and (perhaps) the original, Ms. Pac-Man (1982, if you want to count an amorphous yellow blob with a bow on top as female). And as far as I'm aware, Jill's backstory has never been retconned. She's 22 in the original game, which would be more than enough time for her to complete the 6 months of training it takes to join Delta Force in real life. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Here I bundled together the Mikami material for better flow, to set up the creation and multiple re-creations issues, and tightened the prose.
  • Here I kept together the issues re the original design vs. the subsequent re-designs & critical commentary. I added an inline re the quote from Kotaku, (there are better secondary sources & it seems a bit long).
  • Here I repositioned that paragraph again for flow, and the repositioned it again. Then I reverted it all for you and Aoba47 to put your heads together and discuss.
  • Some other general comments re issues still to be resolved in that section: per the criteria it's really best to swap out lower level sources for secondary, i.e Capcom, Guinness, Kotaku, etc. can all be replaced. I realize they are RS, but not necessarily the best available. Try cutting down who says what to avoid clunky prose; and try to tighten the prose. There are still tense issues, but I'm thinking about those. Victoria (tk) 21:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from DAP[edit]

There aren't many comments to add that haven't already been addressed. My only concerns with this article are the instances where A) an inline citation disrupts the flow and readability and B) a sentence lacks clarity because the source information has not been properly paraphrased/integrated.

  • "'In 2014, Shinji Mikami expressed his opposition to the sexual objectification of women in video games. In addition to not eroticizing female characters, he said he refused to portray women who were submissive to men and wrote female characters "who discover their independence as the game progresses, or who already know they are independent but have that tested against a series of challenges'", per B. This does a poor job of illustrating the connection between Valentine's persona and Mikami's vision of his female characters. Since it is pertinent information, however, you could say something like "Mikami's vision of Valentine reflected his desire to portray female characters that either sought independence, or have their already-found independence challenged in the story".
  • Revised. I have used your suggestion as I agree that it works better, but please let me know if further work is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "she discovered the property was a façade for a biological warfare laboratory operated by the Umbrella Corporation and that its undead occupants are scientists who had been developing the T-virus mutagen", clunky. These are separate clauses, "she discovered the property was a façade for a biological warfare laboratory operated by the Umbrella Corporation, where".
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Mikami explained that Resident Evil 2 protagonist Claire Redfield was due to feature as the lead in the concurrently-produced Resident Evil – Code: Veronica (2000)", per A. Also repetitive since Mikami's name is already mentioned in the prior sentence.
  • I believe Mikami's name is used here because the previous sentence mentions both Mikami and the director for Nemesis, and the name is repeated to avoid any confusion or misinterpretation with the director. However, I can still make the adjustment if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

That's all. Great work otherwise, and apologies for the late review! DAP 💅 01:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the suggestion, and there is no need to apologize. It is always important to get as many perspectives as possible on an article to get it in the best possible shape. I believe that I addressed your points, but please let me know if further revisions are necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review, @DAP388: I believe Aoba47 has rectified all of your comments, but please let us know if there's anything else you'd like to see done. Cheers. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, everything looks good. Happy to provide my support. DAP 💅 03:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Nestor Lakoba[edit]

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

A national hero in Abkhazia, a region that most of the international community considers part of Georgia, Nestor Lakoba was an early Bolshevik who due to his friendship with Stalin effectively ruled the region as his own fief for a decade (they called it "Lakobistan" due to his control). As Stalin started the Great Purge of the 1930s, his opinion of Lakoba diminished, and so a rival for Stalin's favour, Beria, had Lakoba poisoned. This recently passed GA, and I hope to see it move through here as well. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Formats: no issues
  • Quality/reliability: the sources appear to be comprehensive and scholarly, and to meet the requisite FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Minor prose comment: I haven't checked the prose, but while carrying out my sources review I noticed the phrase "As Lakoba was incredibly popular in Abkhazia...". I'd advise the replacement of "incredibly" with something a little less hyperbolic, and more encyclopaedic. Just a suggestion. Good luck with the article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking over the sources. I also made the change suggested, tying it back to his relationship with Stalin, which is more factual and easier to demonstrate. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
Fixed
  • Suggest adding alt text
Added
  • File:Georgian_soviet_republic1922.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map?
Added a source for it.
  • File:Lenin_stalin_gorky-02_(cropped)_(b).jpg: when/where was this first published?
It is cropped on this image. This is cited as being from a 2014 book by Stephen Kotin (Stalin Vol. I), which cites it from one of the Russian archives, and created by Lenin's sister Maria, who died in 1937. I can see if it was published earlier. I doubt the tag saying it was published in the US prior to 1924, but would the other tag (author dead 80+ years) still be appropriate?
Yes, but you'd still need a tag for US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Understood. Is there any appropriate ones that would fit it? Kaiser matias (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Have you found any earlier publication? If not, {{PD-US-unpublished}} might work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Nestor_Lacoba.JPG: what is the copyright status of the original work? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
As noted it was published in Pravda in 1931, a party/state-owned newspaper. I'll have to confirm, but I don't think an author has ever been credited for it. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator comments[edit]

I've added this to the Urgents list but it will need to be archived within the next few days if it doesn't not attract more attention. --Laser brain (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I've been slightly tied up recently myself, but was thinking this may happen. I'll try and see if I can find some reviewers over the weekend, but if not then all good. It is what it is. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Resolution Guyot[edit]

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is about one of the three well-studied seamounts in the Mid-Pacific Mountains (the other two are Allison Guyot and Horizon Guyot), all of which were formerly volcanic islands before they first became carbonate platforms - similar to present-day atolls - and later sank below the sea surface for reasons not yet known after a brief period of emergence. There has been a fair amount of research with drill cores which allowed scientists to reconstruct how it may have appeared a hundred million years ago (and from Wikipedia's perspective, to allow some illustration of the long-gone landscapes based on present-day environments with similar traits). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Imma ping participants - minus coordinators - in the past four FACses on guyots I've done in case they have time and interest to comment on this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I am probably not qualified to do a review, but I just wanted to let you know that this has not been added to the nominations list. Aoba47 (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Oy. It seems like someone already fixed that mistake; thanks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
That would be the one like SchroCat, who to is to be plied upon with glory and all hale unto him! ——SerialNumber54129 08:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Quite bloody right. I should get a 10% pay rise for that! - SchroCat (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Ceoil[edit]

Interesting as usual. Will take a few days to leave comments here, but reading slowly through. Ceoil (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

SC[edit]

Name
  • "During that Leg": the capital isn't needed without the full name
    Hmm, the concept is known as a "Leg", not as a "leg". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, but as it's not being used as s formal title, it should be lower case. - SchroCat (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Local setting
  • "there is an about 200 metres" this reads rather lumpily like this. Perhaps rephrase as "at one site there is a terrace about 200 metres (660 ft) wide, surmounted by a 25 metres (82 ft) high cliff" or similar
    Reworded this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "sediments,[17] underwater cameras": needs more than a comma: a semi colon would work well
    Swapped. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "probably originate from" originates, as the "sediment" is singular
    Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "and which surround a lagoon or tidal flat." This sentence needs a tweak – I've read it a few times and I'm still a bit mystified!
    The source says The internal areas were either a semiprotected lagoon or a shallow peritidal flat. - "peritidal" is covered under "tidal flat" on Wikipedia. I dunno what to write here... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
    Perhaps split into two sentences, or a quote? Don't necessarily change at my behest, but if someone else mentions it, maybe it should be looked at closer? - SchroCat (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
History

Done to the start of the Volcanic phase: more to come. - SchroCat (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

  • "Between the Hauterivian (ca. 132.9 – ca. 129.4 million years ago[19]) and Albian (ca. 113 – 100.5 million years ago[19])" perhaps add "periods" at the end?
    @SchroCat:In the parenthese? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
    I think "... 100.5 million years ago[19]) periods..." would be best. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    @SchroCat:A little unsure about this one. "Albian" and similar terms are full nouns, not adjectives; is a clarification necessary for laypeople? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    I feel it is (from a position of complete ignorance!) leave it as it is for now, but it may be worth revisiting if others think it should be altered. Sound OK? - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    That seems like a good approach. I am OK with it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • If you go with the above, there are a few other places in later paragraphs where you could follow suit
  • "Well developed[101]" All the ref is doing is supporting the two words, nothing else; best move it to the end of the paragraph
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • FN47 should be pp., not p.
    It's not a page range, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter: if it covers more than on page it should be pp. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • FNs 65 and 78 don't need the retrieval date (the doi means you're using a specific text)
    Done (but with 76). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

- SchroCat (talk) 07:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. There are a couple of points I’m unsure of, but that shouldn’t hold up a support here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Suwarrow_Anchorage_Island.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:North_Pacific_location_map.svg: from which specific map was this cropped? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria:Mended the dead link. Based on the upload summary it seems like the map is based off File:World location map Wraparound.svg (which indeed appears to match the shorelines) which in turn looks like it is derived from File:World location map (equirectangular 191).svg. I don't think that SVG maps are usually "cropped" from anything however and they'd qualify as derivative work only under particular circumstances. I've asked the uploader of the other map to be sure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria:Got a reply to the effect of (translated) No, I've measured the land myself, but a friend of mine is an astronaut on the ISS he did check that again;-) My sources are stated. Is there something unclear? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soon. At first glance, it seems pyrite is duplinked, and the article could probably benefit from some active wikiproject talk page tags. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
    Tagged, but I can't find any duplink. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Pyrite is linked twice within the Composition section. You can highlight duplinks with this script:[9] FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Remedied this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
It means egg in Spanish, but why it would be called that is of course the issue. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I assume this is supposed to be US English, but you have UK metres/kilometres (instead of meters) throughout. The conversion templates probably need the US spelling parameter.
    I don't know English enough to write in one style only, but it is supposed to be in BrEng - I don't see how WP:TIES could apply when it's so tangential to the US. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Should be fine then. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The link to "organic" should probably be moved up there then. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "has indicates ages" Indicated? Or remove has?
    Removed "has". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Since "mass failures" is a red link, it is difficult to figure out what it means here.
    Replaced with a synonym. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "resembling these of the Bahama Banks" Those?
    Replaced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • " JOIDES Resolution[3] during Leg 143 of the Ocean Drilling Program" State nationality of this program?
    Added a bit in the note. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "The Cretaceous Apulian Carbonate Platform in Italy, the Urgonian Formation in France have been compared" Missing an "and" instead of comma here?
    Replaced with "and". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Life on Resolution Guyot included algae" I guess these are all fossils? Could be stated clearly then.
    Added a sentence later. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "included algae including" included/including looks clumsy, how about "such as" at the second time?
    Reformatted this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It is abit difficult to figure out how the images in the gallery correlate to the subject of the article, I think the captions could be more informative and state if for example what is shown is thought to have existed where the guyot is now or such. Perhaps the gallery could also have a title stating what the the overall message/theme of the included images is.
    @FunkMonk:Added a caption; basically, these images should show how the platform might have looked like in the past. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Looks good, should "resemble these of the former environments" be "those of"? FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "in present-day French Polynesia before plate tectonics shifted it to its present-day location" The double present-day could maybe be varied?
    @FunkMonk:Done and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - looks fine to me now, with the caveat that I'm by no means an expert on these things. FunkMonk (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Old Spanish Trail half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is about... yet another coin, probably the highlight in the saga of L.W. Hoffecker, whose efforts to get control of a commemorative coin in 1930 had sparked a presidential veto. Here he is successful, and even designed the coin, about which there are certainly mixed reviews.Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Nice one Wehwalt, just a quickie, but would those seeking one coin of each commemorative design kind of translate as "collectors"? Unless I'm reading it wrong, they would appear to be much the same people surely :) Nice article! take care! ——SerialNumber54129 16:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Most collectors aren't after one of each because that would be expensive. I think I own only two of the early commemoratives. Maybe three.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
H'mmm. Put it another way then, what makes one of those ultra-rich types who can afford to buy them all, not a collector? ——SerialNumber54129 12:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Those seeking one coin of each commemorative design are collectors, but have more expendable income and can afford to collect multiple commemoratives. - ZLEA T\C 13:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Anyhow, I've added the word "collectors" after "those".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Should "those" be removed? - ZLEA T\C 21:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't have to, but it can be. It doesn't change the meaning.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • Spot checks not done;
  • Searches for potential additional sources showed nothing missing;
  • Sources are all reliable and of the standard I would expect at FA;
  • Formatting: all good, except:
FNs 10 and 11 appear to point to the same reference
FN33, which has 310–11 when all the others are in the format 310–111.

That's all there is to look at. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Got these.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Prose review
Lead
  • "President Hoover in 1930 vetoed the Gadsden Purchase half dollar bill." Reads slightly bumpily. "In 1930 President Hoover vetoed the Gadsden Purchase half dollar bill" or President Hoover vetoed the Gadsden Purchase half dollar bill in 1930" seem smoother to me, but it's your call.
Done.
  • "pages of The Numismatist (a coin collecting journal)": would "pages of a coin collecting journal The Numismatist" be a smoother read?
I think it's better as is.
Background
  • I think the map can be scaled up a bit – it's a bit too small at the moment
Done.
  • Hoover's 1930 veto: any reason for it? (Even as a footnote?)
Explained.
  • "coin issue he would control in 1935": slightly pedantic, but would he lose control from 1936 onwards?
Seems to have been done.
Preparation
Both the above does.
Design
  • "... it.[20] but there are": is that meant to be a full top after "it", or a capital B?
Done.

That's it from me; I hope these help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. Sorry about being so slow.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on prose, and pass on sources. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Comments from Moise[edit]

Hi Wehwalt, I hope you're well. I'm working my way through the article (second read-through) and will add comments below as I notice stuff:

  • Legislation: "The bill passed without recorded objection, after which Cochran got the Hudson, New York Sesquicentennial half dollar passed." This implies (I think) that the Hudson, New York Sesquicentennial half dollar was the second of the two coin bills discussed at the House, and that the Old Spanish Trail coin bill was the first. But it's a bit jarring because in the sentences leading up to this, I don't think there's any indication that the previous discussion had mainly been about the Old Spanish Trail coin? Moisejp (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Minor comment) "In the Senate, the bill was referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency." If you wanted to, you could clarify that this is talking about the Old Spanish Trail bill, as the Hudson, New York Sesquicentennial bill is the last one mentioned before this (though "bill" is not specifically stated for the Hudson coin in this most recent mention). But if you think it's way obvious, and would rather not, this one's no deal-breaker for me.
  • The lead says that Hoffecker "fixed on the travels of Spanish officer Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca" in choosing the coin to push for; "fixed on" is satisfying enough (even if no specific reason is given why he did so—likely such an explicit reason does not exist in the sources) to suggest that whether rationally or irrationally, he probably had his reasons. But in the main text, there's no "strong phrase" like "fixed on" to glue together the ideas, and I feel the reader is left more unsatisfied about wondering what prompted Hoffecker to choose this particular historical event. I'm saying maybe if you added a strong phrase like "fixed on" to the main text, it would be enough connect the ideas for this part. Moisejp (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry that this review has been going slowly. I'll try to get back to it in the next few days. Thanks for your patience. Moisejp (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Continuing my review:

  • "Hoffecker related that he had sought to hire one of two or three sculptors in the East, but each would take too long and wanted liberty to make changes. Senn was unemployed, and, by Hoffecker's account, he stood over the sculptor, who worked in Hoffecker's garage." I'm afraid I got a little confused in this part. It mentions wanting to, but not, hiring one of the sculptors in the east. Then it says Senn stood over the sculptor—which sculptor? (I don't think it's Lee Lawrie, mentioned earlier?) I also wasn't sure if "stood over" is supposed to have a literal or perhaps figurative meaning, and what the relevance of Senn being unemployed is. Apologies, I'm not trying to be difficult, but sincerely got confused in these couple of sentences. Moisejp (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Cochran brought two commemorative coin bills, including the one for the Old Spanish Trail piece, to the House floor on April 3 as emergency measures, explaining to members dubious that the striking of half dollars could be urgent that they were needed for celebrations scheduled for that summer, and that the bills had been delayed due to the committee chairman's illness." This sentence seems unnecessarily long and complicated. Would you consider possibly breaking it up and simplifying it (especially the middle part)?

I think that's all my comments. I enjoyed reading the article. Moisejp (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad. Sorry to be slow. On Hoffecker standing over Senn, I'm basically quoting Hoffecker. Aside from that, I think everything is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Apologies from me too that this review has been going slowly. I hope to look at your changes this weekend if I can. Moisejp (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Roy Inwood[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Roy Inwood is the latest in my project to get all South Australian Victoria Cross recipients to FA. Inwood, a WWI recipient, won his VC during the Battle of Menin Road in September 1917, for eliminating a couple of German machine gun posts. He went on to serve during WWII as a military police warrant officer running detention barracks on the home front. Unlike the many Australian VCs held by the Australian War Memorial, Inwood's is displayed in the Adelaide Town Hall. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

  • Spot checks not done;
  • Searches for potential additional sources showed nothing missing;
  • Sources are all reliable and of the standard I would expect at FA;
  • Formatting:
    Be consistent with your locations in the publications: Bean, C.E.W. (1942). Has Sydney: Angus & Robertson; Bean, C.E.W. (1941) has Sydney, New South Wales: Angus & Robertson.
    Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
    Genealogy SA redirects to https://www.genealogysa.org.au/resources/online-database-search, which shows no information. It may be best to quote the reference work from which the information was taken (I've done that at the Jane Grigson article – currently at FAC, BTW – which has ""Heather M J McIntire", England & Wales, Civil Registration Marriage Index, General Register Office, 23, p. 1489, 1976, retrieved 30 June 2019 – via Ancestry (subscription required)" at FN 14.
    Problem is, I don't know which hard copy Births Register it is drawn from, have added |url-access=subscription to the cite web template. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

That's it, just those two. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • Sailing via Fremantle and Colombo Add Ceylon after Colombo and pipe it with British Ceylon.
  • the ship arrived at Alexandria, Egypt Pipe Egypt to Khedivate of Egypt.
    I think the Khedivate became defunct in November 1914, so have gone with Sultanate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • where they entered camp at Mena in the shadow Link Mena if possible.
  • The following month he was evacuated sick to Egypt Pipe Egypt to the Sultanate of Egypt.
  • in a support role when the Germans counter-attacked Pipe Germans to the Empire of Germany.
  • Inwood married Evelyn Owens in 1927 No née?
    Not in sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I reckon we should split the "Post-war life" section because it includes WWII which was also an important war?
  • elimination of a German machine gun post Machine gun needs an hyphen.
  • Inwood located a German machine gun post Same as above.
  • volunteered for a special all night patrol All night needs an hyphen.
  • front of our line, and there – by his coolness Merge there and by.
  • and this was apparently a happy marriage Remove "apparently".

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes sorry, ehm, I was distracted with the drive and other nominations. I have a deadline before the 3th Quarterly reviewing awards (want to reach at least 100 reviews before October) I also want to work on the drive as much as I can. Of course, I will have time for you guys. I also almost broke your record (84 reviews) of the last Quarterly reviewing awards. :p Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias[edit]

Honestly not really a lot to say:

  • Considering the length of the World War I section, it may be worth considering subdividing it somewhat. For example, Egypt and Gallipoli, the Western Front prior to the Battle of Menin Road, and then Menin Road and VC citation is what I could quickly see as being relevant dividers.
    Done, broken up by campaign and then by year
  • "While in camp in October, Inwood was charged with absence without leave and reduced in rank to private." Is there any explanation for him being charged like this?
    No, but plenty of diggers went AWOL when in rest areas, so it isn't all that uncommon, neither is the penalty, as NCOs are generally expected to stick to the rules. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Also want want to say the lead image is great, exactly what you'd expect from an Australian VC recipient. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
    Totally agree, Kaiser matias. This is one of my favourites, the crossed arms and slouch hat at the rakish angle make him look like a real character. Thanks for taking a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Awesome, a great article and has my support. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

USS Oberrender[edit]

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

My first United States Navy ship article expansion is on a small World War II destroyer escort that was fairly lucky until it was hit by a kamikaze at Okinawa. The first on a destroyer escort to pass a GA review, the article recently also passed a Milhist A-class review. Kges1901 (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR, so have little to add:

  • suggest lk=on for the power in the infobox to link kW
  • Done
  • where were the TTs located?
  • Added
  • any information about how many DCs she could carry?
  • Friedman does not state, though he writes that an early DE design study (though not for the Butler class) equates 4 throwers and 2 racks with a total of 75 DCs.
  • suggest using Netherlands New Guinea instead of New Guinea re Hollandia
  • Done
  • is there a link for Abercrombie?
  • Done

That is all I can find. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Supporting, nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Done

Source review[edit]

  • Spot checks not done;
  • Searches for potential additional sources showed nothing missing;
  • The sources used are all reliable and of the standard I would expect at FA;
  • Can you check the location for Bauer? WorldCat and OpenLibrary both show New York – both have been known to be wrong though.
  • That's because Greenwood Press had three locations: Westport, NY, and London at the time, but Greenwood Press was headquartered in Westport, looking at the title page and verso
  • Formatting:
No need to link Westport, Connecticut
  • Done
Be consistent in locations, viz:
Anapolis should be Annapolis, MD
  • Done
Ditto for Boston, MA
  • Done
Jefferson, North Carolina should be Jefferson, NC
  • Done
As the US sources have "City, State" as the location, Stern should be Barnsley, South Yorkshire
  • Done
Naval History & Heritage Command should be Naval History and Heritage Command
  • Done
ISBNs should be formatted consistently. The 13-digit version is best (there is a converter here), and they should either all contain dashes or none at all.
  • Done.

Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  • All good on sources: pass on the SR. – SchroCat (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • named for Lieutenant Commander Thomas Olin Oberrender, Jr. Is there a link for Mr Oberrender?
  • He would not meet notability guidelines if an article was created, so no link.
  • either in the forward fire room or the 20 mm mount Merge "fire room".
  • Done
  • In the infobox "10 × single 20 mm (0.79 in) AA guns" The Oerlikons are cannon, not guns.
  • two twin 40 mm Bofors anti-aircraft (AA) guns Same as above.
  • In English gun and cannon can be used as synonyms
  • superfiring over the 5-inch guns No metric units?
  • Added conversions
  • it was to secure before the invasion of Okinawa Link Okinawa.
  • Done

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Lingzhi[edit]

  • Per WP:PRIMARY, A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. I have only used Spencer in this context of establishing the basic facts of what the ship was doing. Spencer is verifiable because many of the cited war diaries are posted on NARA and the remaining are on Fold3, which many users have access to. There are other FAs on military units that use war diaries or equivalents to fill in information not provided in secondary sources, such as No. 36 Squadron RAAF which uses the squadron Operations Record Book (the equivalent of a war diary). Kges1901 (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • OK sounds good. Cheers ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I did consider this as part of the source review, and came to the same conclusion. My bad on not mentioning it in the review. – SchroCat (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Done
  • Don't capitalize battle stars
  • Done
  • was thus forced to remain there during November Say that she required repairs after the explosion
  • Rephrased to mention being repaired instead
  • But that goes to a category
  • True, but it at least explains that they were small-tube boilers.
  • which created 12,000 shaft horsepower awkward
  • Rephrased
  • link superstructure, superfiring, hunter-killer
  • Done
  • Done
  • No, you've changed it to read four twin Bofors. It needs to read "two twin-gun mounts" for the Bofors
  • Attempt 2 - four in two twin mounts. Does that make sense?
  • AFAIK the Oerlikons were manually aimed, unlike the Bofors.
  • True
  • Do you have an order date?
  • Not from an RS - there is one on shipbuildinghistory.com
  • who captained the ship commanded; not fond of captain as a verb
  • Done
  • Smoke testing?
  • My error
  • Change depermed to degaussing as a more recognizable term
  • Done
  • For repairs to correct deficiencies found during shakedown, Oberrender was ordered to the Boston Navy Yard Oberrender was ordered to the Boston Navy Yard to correct deficiencies found during shakedown
  • its destination her destination
  • Done
  • "Alongside" reads very oddly to me. Change to "together with" or somesuch
  • Done
  • Battle of Leyte Gulf, however, being delete however and rephrase appropriately
  • Done
  • after refueling in San Pedro Bay, Leyte, steaming to Manus with it awkward
  • Rephrased
  • being towed to the Lombrum Point Ship Repair Dock for repairs, where she remained for the rest of the month awkward. Perhaps "and had to be towed... that lasted the rest of the month"
  • Done
  • The destroyer escort depth charged and fired her Hedgehog at a suspected submarine contact on 3 January, without result. Again without result, she put up anti-aircraft fire against a Mitsubishi A6M Zero attacking a convoy of transports Awfully detailed. If you decide to keep it, change "put up AA fire against" to "engaged"
  • Eliminated the sub depth charging as that looks like another fish contact but kept the AA fire because this was one of the few times in her career that she fired AA guns in combat
  • putting up anti-aircraft fire that chased off a Zero and a D3A Val dive bomber "Driving off... with her AA fire"
  • Done
  • latter took bomb damage passive voice
  • Done
  • the direction of long-range 5-inch anti-aircraft fire rephrase--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Rephrased
  • Fix the Bofors issue and we'll be done here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

SC[edit]

Leyte and Mount Hood
  • "She missed the Battle of Leyte Gulf ... Oberrender returned". As it's a new para, you should start with Oberrender to clarify, and use "she" on the second mention
  • Done
  • Were there any fatalities or injuries on Oberrender because of the Hood's explosion? If not, that should be clarified too.
  • Done
Okinawa
  • "eight men were killed and 53 wounded": per the MoS, this should either be both words or both numbers
  • Done
  • ".[29][2]": reverse the refs to keep them in order (and check the others are also in order)
  • Done

That's it from me; I hope these help. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support on prose. Nice article. - SchroCat (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Baby Driver[edit]

Nominator(s): DAP (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Edgar Wright's 2017 action film Baby Driver, starring Ansel Elgort as a young (hence the title), musically driven getaway driver seeking freedom from heisting with his lover Debora (a diner waitress played by Lily James). It is a landmark film in Wright's catalog for its artistic direction and box office success, by far his biggest hit to date. It is a relatively new good article, and after a copyedit and several more months of revisions, I believe this article satisfies the FA criteria. Looking forward to any constructive feedback. DAP 💅 22:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I think ALT text would be helpful for the infobox image.
    • Added. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Are the references in the infobox necessary? I would imagine that this information should be present and sourced in the body of the article. I have not personally seen references used in a film's infobox like this; I am not saying it is incorrect, but I just thought it was something worth discussion.
    • Not per se. Admittedly I left the references intact for no particular reason. I can remove them if necessary. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I do not have an issue with it, but I just wanted to raise it to your attention. I would personally remove it, but you could also wait for other editors' comments as they may disagree with me. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The phrase "getaway driver" is wikilinked twice in the body of the article. "Atlanta" is also wikilinked multiple times in the body of the article.
    • Revised. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • You currently wikilink "Edgar Wright" in this sentence "Baby Driver is a longtime passion project Edgar Wright had been developing since 1995", although Wright is mentioned in a previous sentence in the "Cast" section. Here is the sentence with Wright's first appearance: "Wright and the producers at Working Title Films began contemplating the lead role well before they obtained funding for Baby Driver.". The wikilink should be moved up to the first instance and Wright's full name should be used for the first time he is mentioned in the body of the article.
    • Revised. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a hidden note that Eiza González is credited without the diacritic, but the diacritic (I am assuming it is the one over the a in González) is used in the body of the article.
    • Revised for consistency. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Working Title Films" is wikilinked twice in the article.
    • Revised. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I believe the phrase "time frame" should be two words in this sentence (With the limited timeframe, the filmmakers rehearsed for only an hour before they began filming in early morning.).
    • Revised. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a question about this part (Another principal topic of discussion among critics has been Baby Driver's treatment of race). The article says race was a "principal" point discussed by critics, but there is only one source cited so the claim seems unsupported. Even though there are two critics (David Hollingshead and Jane Hu), they are tied to one article. In fact, one of the lines in the source is "and am actually surprised that no one has discussed race much vis-a-vis the film", which suggests that the film's treatment of race was rather overlooked by a majority of critics. The issue of race is an important thing to keep in the article, but I do not believe it was as prominently featured in critical commentary as the sentence in question makes it sound.
    • Revised. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a question about the final paragraph of the "Critical response" subsection. I have frequently seen the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores used as an opening paragraph for this type of section; I am assuming it is done this way as these sites introduce a general overview on how a film was critically received before breaking the criticism down further. Why have this part as a final paragraph? I am not saying it is wrong, but I was just curious about it.
    • This was a compromise I settled with to avoid an editing despite with another user, to deemphasize the metadata while maintaining standard practice. Truth be told, I think metadata is redundant, and the summary of reviews in verbal form makes for a much more engaging reading experience. Again, I'll be happy to remove that if necessary. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Understandable, and thank you for the explanation. I can understand the use of the Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic data as a way of understanding a film's reception at a glance; however, there are issues with both sites and I can understand not wanting to use either. I personally think that both should be kept in the article, but I do not have an issue with it being in the final paragraph. I think it is a fair compromise. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not believe this sentence, "Known in the music industry for his work with Sia, Arcade Fire, and other artists, Baby Driver is Heffington's first foray into film", is grammatically correct. The beginning, dependent phrase (Known in the music industry for his work with Sia, Arcade Fire, and other artists) should be referring to the noun of the next, independent phrase. I do not think Baby Driver is "Known in the music industry for his work with Sia, Arcade Fire, and other artists". Rather, I think you mean "Heffington" instead so the sentence would have to be adjusted accordingly.
    • Revised DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Awesome work with the article. I remember hearing a rather large buzz about this film when it was first released so it is cool to read more about it. I have personally not seen it, because it is just personally not in my preferred genre/wheelhouse of films, but I learned a lot from reading this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the feedback! I believe I have addressed your concerns (thus far). Let me know what you think. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Everything looks good to me. I support this for promotion. Have a great rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging reviewers from my last FAC: Brandt Luke Zorn, Gertanis, Wehwalt, Jo-Jo Eumerus, would you guys mind taking a took if or when you have the time? DAP 💅 01:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Japanese battleship Yashima[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Continuing my series on ill-fated battleships, Yashima was one of the first battleships in Japanese service and had to be ordered from Britain. She participated in the initial battles of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905, but struck a mine and sank a few months later, after trying to go to the assistance of another battleship that also sank. The Japanese were able to keep the news of her loss from leaking to the Russians who had no idea that the odds against them had dramatically decreased. The article passed a MilHist A-class review a couple of months ago and I believe is in good shape. As usual I'd like reviewers to look for any remnants of AmEnglish, as well as any unfelicitous prose and unexplained or unlinked jargon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Article text says the ship was launched 28 December, infobox says 28 February
    • Fixed.
  • Check alphabetization of References
  • Be consistent in whether you include dates in short cites that don't require them for disambiguation - you have it for Heald but not the others
  • Why include UK for Gravesend but not Alnwick? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I hadn't even noticed that somebody else had added Heald to the article. Thanks for venturing a little outside your usual realm.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • Splitting his fire proved to be a poor decision as the Japanese Add "to" after "as".
    • That doesn't make sense to me.
  • Makarov being one of the 677 killed Remove "being" with "is".
    • I think you mean "was", fixed.
  • Yashima (八島 Yashima) was Shouldn't we add a Kanji and a Rōmaji in the template?
    • Be nice, but since I don't read Japanese, I rely on others to do that sort of thing for me.
  • the command of Rear Admiral Nashiba Tokioki Shouldn't Rear Admiral has an hyphen?
    • Indeed.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

    • Thanks. Need one point clarified by you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • You're welcome, mate. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Sup Sturmvogel; alt text for images? Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 17:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Can't add any to the infobox image, but added for the others.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

I found little to quibble about at Milhist ACR, and only have two points:

  • suggest "Nashiba put to sea with his flagship Hatsuse, two other battleships, Shikishima and Yashima,"
  • suggest "for the rest of the war the surviving crewmen were assigned to four auxiliary gunboats that were tasked to guard Port Arthur"

That's it, a fine job on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, PM, nice to hear.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kges1901[edit]

  • File:Yashima (ship, 1897) - Plan - Cassier's 1898-02.png could be used in the design section, while several other images in the commons cat might enhance the service section
  • As Japan lacked the industrial capacity to build such warships --> As Japan lacked the industrial capacity to construct such warships to avoid repetition of build/built
    • I've used this language extensively and you're the first person, including myself, to catch that over-reliance on build/built?
  • Don't ship article design sections usually link back to the class article with the main article hatnote?
    • Never seen the point of that given that the class article is linked in the lede, the infobox and the navbox footer.
  • Yashima, an --> Yashima, named after an
    • No, "named after an old name for Japan" doesn't work, which is why I had to have the reader make the slight stretch that the ship was named for the country.
  • The phrasing used in the article for Fuso works best IMO.
  • No Russians observed Yashima sink, so the Japanese were able to conceal her loss for more than a year --> The Japanese were able to conceal her loss for more than a year as no Russians observed her sink Kges1901 (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

One last comment: I've reworded the description of the Battle of Port Arthur based on the description of the 9 February 1904 engagement on the Battle of Port Arthur article. See if the changes are in accord with your sources. Kges1901 (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Main issue is that the armored cruisers of Kamimura's 2nd Division also attacked, although the 1st Division led the attack. Which means the wording needs to be tweaked accordingly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Reworded again. Changed to Support Kges1901 (talk) 10:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator comments[edit]

Image review? --Laser brain (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

  • File:Colorized Yashima.jpg: Does "colorized" imply that the image was originally in black and white and someone else then coloured it?
  • File:Yashima NH 58968.jpg: A little bothered by the lack of source information on the origin page. Are we sure the license is correct?
All images seem to be in good sections. Only two have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Calais[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

An everyday story of 14th-century folk. Knightly honour and dishonour; bribery and treason; cunning schemes and an incognito king; captivity and ransoms; truces and treachery; revenge and torture. They didn't have Wikipedia in the 14th century, so they had to make their own entertainment.

This passed GA ten months ago, and ACR last month. Since then, Serial Number 54129 generously supplied me with a new source, and I have worked on and expanded the article. All views and opinions as to how it fails to meet the featured article criteria are welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Eddie891[edit]

  • Had Charny written the books on chivalry before the battle? It seems that he wrote his Book of Chivalry after the battle. OUP tells us that Questions concerning the joust, tournaments and war were written to be answered by members of the Order of the Star (France), which, according to our article was founded in 1351, meaning he couldn't have written the book before the battle occurred in 1350. His third book that can be substantiated (here), is Livre Charny with similar suspected origins regarding the Order of the Star,(here). If it turns out he hadn't, it would be inaccurate to say he "was the author of several books on chivalry" because he hadn't written them yet.
Let me dig out my sources and get back to you on that Eddie. A good, insightful question BTW, I like those.
Hi Eddie891. That link to the OUP volume doesn't work for me. Google snippets gives "All three were probably written [for the Company of the Star]". That actually leaves a lot of scope re date. Richard Kaeuper, in his introduction to Elspeth Kennedy's 1996 translation of Book of Chivalry, goes into some detail on p. 22 here. The Whetham volume you refer to states "the Livre Charny is likely to have been written after his voyage to the Levant"; a natural reading of this would be that it was written before the Calais escapade. Harari states that Charny was in "London, were he stayed a prisoner until the summer of 1351, working on his Livre de chevalerie".
So he could have written all three for the Order, although it is far from certain that he did; but if he did, they could have been published as early as 1344. Harari nicely hedges on this with "Charny himself left to posterity three works on chivalry, meant to instruct young knights how they ought to behave and fight." All of that said, I have tweaked the wording to be non-committal on just when he wrote and/or published his works. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see a hat on the top with regards to the various sieges
Why? The siege of 1346-47 is a piece of three years before background; I don't see the relevance. I can offhand think of three potential hats I would consider more relevant, and I wouldn't actually want to include any of them either.
I did that in edit mode, and as about to publish I saw your link. I note that this encounter is given as a "siege". Say what? It was, quite literally, all over before breakfast. A "siege"!? What say I remove it from that list?
  • standardize use between Geoffrey and Geoffroi de Charny
You had me struggling there, until I thought to check the infobox. Done.
  • Perhaps link John II in the [note 2]
Good point. Done. Also added his regnal term.
  • I'm curious whether the title fits the article, given that you have written so much about the aftermath (Charny's revenge). While it does serve two wrap the article up quite nicely, does it really fall under the scope of the "battle of calais", which in the infobox is listed as having been a one day event.
I tend to avoid discussions about titles. They are frequently fractious, and, frankly I am not that bothered. I also understand them not to be covered by the FA criteria :-) . That said I did change it from "Siege of ... " when I started work on it. It has been renamed again since, without benefit of consultation or a move request. If you can think of a more suitable title, feel free to simply rename. Or throw it at the talk page and see what people think.
Done.
  • "Philip VI, with French finances and morale at a low ebb after Crécy, failed to relieve the town, and the starving defenders surrendered on 3 August 1347" perhaps rephrase as "With French... after Crécy, Philip VI failed to relieve the town..." This is because, for me, the subject (Philip) gets lost as the one who failed to relieve the town with such a big section in between the two.
Good spot. Done.
Very tactful. Added.
  • "Negotiations began on 4 September and by the 28th a truce had been agreed.[7] The treaty strongly favoured the English, and confirmed them in possession of all of their territorial conquests.[7] The Truce of Calais was agreed to run for nine months to 7 July 1348, but was extended repeatedly over the years until it was formally set aside in 1355.[" I'd like to see this rephrased as "Negotiations began on 4 September and by the 28th the Truce of Calais was agreed to. The treaty strongly favoured the English, and confirmed them in possession of all of their territorial conquests. The truce was agreed to run for nine months to 7 July 1348, but was extended repeatedly over the years until it was formally set aside in 1355." Unless of course, I have my facts wrong.
I got a bit carried away and made more tweaks than you suggest. See what you think.
Good
  • Perhaps link Billet for those of us less linguistically inclined.
Done. Good catch. I get too close and start assuming understanding.
  • "like a true knight" sounds a bit pov to me, almost like a quote rather than just content.
Ha. In other FACs I have been told, firmly, to put short quotes in Wikipedia's voice rather than faff around with 2 or 3 words. Made more encyclopedic.
  • Is the "King's Council" the same as the 'Great Council' linked above? If so, I'd pick one of the terms and stick with it.
No. The "Great Council" is the Conseil du Roi of the French monarch and is linked to it; the "King's Council" is, very broadly, the English equivalent, the Curia regis, to which it is linked. The common translations of the two terms are, for whatever reasons, different - see the Wikilinks.
  • "Amerigo had previously served the French, and Charny had him approached to betray Calais in exchange for a bribe" I'd like a timeframe (date) if possible.
The several modern RSs all rely on the Chronique de Quatre Premiers Valois which, sadly, does not mention the dates of the French service. I could have a shrewd guess, but it would be OR. I have tracked down a RS mention of when he took up his position in Calais and added the date to the article.
  • "contemporary chroniclers" -- does this refer to only French, or English chroniclers too? If it's only French, mention that.
Both. Now so specified.
  • Standardize between "north east" and "north-east". I only see one usage of north-east ("including most of the nobility of north-east France").
Believe it or not, my understanding is that the current usage is correct, or at least acceptable. I use two words, no hyphen, for normal use; but when using more than one word adjectively they should be hyphenated, as summarised here.
  • "They would be opposed by the 1,200-strong garrison of Calais" maybe "They were opposed by the 1,200-strong garrison of Calais" because they were opposed for the whole time period, but I never really understood the rule between would and were
I am not sure that I can explain the rule of grammar, but "were" would (see) be incorrect. At the time they were gathered, and before they did any confronting, such confronting would be in the future, hence "would". At the point of gathering they weren't opposed by anyone.
  • "would be close to their maximum" perhaps link "Winter solstice"
Ooh. I like that. Done.
Really? Done.
  • "his son for the first instalment of his bribe " He TRADED his son for a bribe? I understand this is true, but just as a point of personal interest, why would someone do that?
[OR alert] Because Charny insisted on it as a guarantee of good behaviour; which was a common practice. And because if he didn't ensure that Charny was fooled, Amerigo was going to personally meet an unpleasant fate at Edward's hands - one reason why I give the full details earlier. Plus Edward had his brother as hostage. Amerigo was out of choices. (I am waiting for the first offer to turn this story into a blockbuster Hollywood movie.)
I thought that I had. Apologies.
  • "adventurers" perhaps a different word would be apt, given that I presume it is in the sense of Soldier of Fortune rather then someone looking for an adventure.
Yes, I am probably reading too many sources that talk in 14th century terms. Struggling for a better word or expression. "Chancers" springs to mind. I have gone with the technically correct expression which I was trying to avoid - routiers. More than happy to replace if someone can think of a better word or expression.
@Eddie891: Many thanks for taking a look at this, and for your insightful comments. Your points above all addressed. Your next serving eagerly awaited. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi again Eddie891. Your points above all addressed. Some with comments as to why I am not going with your suggestion. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Suggest just going with "mercenary", perhaps; after all, our article calls 'em that three words in. Incidentally, talking of Charny's adventures, you link to our HDQ article, but that's with reference to the Fench doing it. Ironically, the article makes no mention of it existing in France at all. I know it was occasionally used (when they suffered ennui with les joues des wheel breaking :) but atm it's rather an eggy link. ——SerialNumber54129 18:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
They weren't mercenaries. They were freelance English soldiers, known at the time as routiers. (I decline to take responsibility for the faulty Wikipedia article. The Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years' War manages an extended discussion without mentioning "mercenaries". Its article on routiers is temporarily hosted here.) I'm switching to "free-lancing English soldiers". (Check the origin of "freelance" and what "lance" meant in the 14th century.)
HDQ. Fair point, especially as the French economy version was only DQ, so the link is doubly misleading. Delinked. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Claim my seat here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • from Calais: 1,500 men-at-arms, including most Link men-at-arms here and unlink the second mentioned.

That's it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Thanks. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks great, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Sup GtM. Just passing through, but for the non-specialists out here, how about clarifying what a Mark (currency) is? Maybe, stick it in a footnote? Couldn't resist it :p but, on a serious note, it's probably worth a mention... ——SerialNumber54129 17:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: Ha, touché. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • I would suggest a ref for note 2
You may. Seemed to me not to be required under the WP:WHYCITE criteria, but done.
  • (Not a source comment) I'm not a big fan of the phrase "newly acquired English mistress". I get that it's possibly the language used in the source, and is language that would be used facetiously in common conversation, but it verges on objectification. Can you rephrase?
The source says "living a joyful life with". This was the 14th century: objectification! I would want to be cautious of giving a reader the impression that men of the period imputed volition to women. But a sensible point; I have deleted "newly acquired". That do?
Yes, this is fine.
  • The level of detail in source locations varies somewhat; you use sub-national regions in some places and not others.
Yes. Where it seems reasonable to assume that even a learned reader would recognise the bare town/city under location – as they might with London, New York, Oxford, Philadelphia – then I leave it unadorned. Adding UK, N.Y., Oxon etc seems pointless. I add the next geographical level up so as to give a hint as to which Woodbridge or Ware is meant when it could reasonably need disambiguating. It is a not uncommon practice. (In a recent FAC I was picked up by a frequent source reviewer for inadvertently missing a "Suffolk", and again for equally inadvertently inserting "UK" instead of "Suffolk", as the next level.)
Alright, I won't argue; it seems a bit odd to me, is all. I've made some minor changes, I trust that you're okay with them.
  • Unless you're using an edited volume/encyclopedia, you don't need page-ranges in the sources section; I'm looking at the Harari source; check for others
I realise that I don't need them; are you saying that I shouldn't have them? If so, then obviously I will remove them, but I am always loath to remove information which may be useful, even if not required by policy.
Well, it's a matter of consistency, right? It's rare that we use an entire book; it's always ranges; so providing the range for only one looks odd. It's a minor point, though.
  • Google scholar has A Knight's Own Book of Chivalry as being edited by "De Charny, Geoffroi", where you have "Charny, Geoffroi de". Which is correct?
Harari's index has "Charny, Geoffroi de" (p. 206). His bibliography has "Geoffroy de Charny", but under "Ch" in alphabetical order (p. 198. Sumption's bibliography has "Charny, Geoffroy de" (p. 643). Talking to a university lecturer in French Language (personal acquaintance) I was told that either "De Charny, Geoffroi" or "Charny, Geoffroi de" is acceptable, so long as one is consistent; and always to list it under "C". (She didn't like Harari's second usage, and his inconsistency even less.) So my preference is to leave it as is.
  • "(published 15 September 2005)" in Prestwich 2005 seems extraneous; also, if it's an edited volume, the title of the specific chapter and it's page range would be useful.
Quite right, Apologies, I have no idea how that crept in.
It's not.
I inherited the reference and clearly didn't review it. (I dislike it when other editors lazily leave that to me as a reviewer - sorry.) I have removed the over detailed date (I had already added 2005, but not checked to see that it wasn't over-riding the prior, over detailed one), removed the incorrect suggestion that it was edited by Roberts, who died two years before it was published, and matched the use of hyphens in the ISBN to the other books cited.
  • A jstor link, an OCLC, and a DOI in a single ref is overkill, surely? I'd omit the OCLC
Removed.
  • I'm very confused by Rogers 2004; is it a journal, or an edited volume? If the former, why mention the editors? If it's the latter, then the chapter title should be in quotes (right)?
It's an edited volume, called a journal. Corrected. I cut and pasted the source from my standard references page, where it is correct, so it must be an over-enthusiastic bot. I shall watch for it.
  • Not a requirement, but I'd suggest standardizing the format you use in the edit-window.
Er, what's an "edit-window"?
The screen that we edit in, as opposed to the one we read (unless you're using visual editor). It's a triviality, I've taken care of it.
  • ISBN hyphenation isn't very consistent
It is now. At ACR source review eight weeks ago I got "One ISBN has more than one hyphen in it.", which I corrected. So I am baffled as to where the additional hyphens have come from.
  • So, I spotchecked footnote six. Perhaps I'm missing some subtleties here, but isn't he essentially saying that Calais was smaller than a few other captured towns during the first 30 years? Specifically, Rennes? Perhaps the other source addresses this?
I don't have access to Rogers at the moment. Sumption flat out says "In particular no large town (except Calais) was successfully besieged" (p. 392 as I cite - let me know if you would like me to email you a copy of the page), so I don't need Rogers. Purely from memory, I think that an earlier version of the article digressed a bit on the general difficulty of capturing towns by siege, which Sumption goes on about with Rennes as a specific example; I guess that I added Rogers to support this, then didn't remove it when the sentence was slimmed down.
  • I'm similarly struggling to find "The truce did not stop the ongoing naval clashes between the two countries, nor the small-scale fighting in Gascony and Brittany." I even searched the document for single words, and came up with nothing...
No, no; it won't be in there. I hate it when I screw up my referencing, much less when it gets as far FAC!! It looks as if I blindly copied it over from the last two sentences of Truce of Calais, which I greatly expanded. There Rogers p. 102 does support the last sentence, which it appends, but not the penultimate one, which is, it seems, uncited. I wrote it, and won't have made it up, so give me a chance to wade through 20 or 30 texts to come up with support. (I am now kicking myself for my sloppiness.) I will get back to you.
Update. Happily this was in the first place I looked - , under "Calais, Truce of (1347)" (p. 74). Relevant paragraph:

However, neither truce nor plague ended the fighting in the southwest, where local garrison commanders attacked each other and recently discharged English troops, now turned to brigandage, seized French strongholds (see ROUTIERS). Angered by these losses, the French repudiated the truce in August 1349, and the war in Gascony resumed its course. On 13 June 1350, the two governments renewed the truce until August 1351. But when Philip died on 22 August 1350, the new French king, JOHN II, repudiated his father’s agreement, and war resumed in the southwest, with the Battle of SAINTES occurring in April 1351. At sea, the truce was never effective, and the English engaged a Castilian fleet at the Battle of WINCHELSEA in late August 1350. In Brittany, the fighting also continued, neither Crown being able to effectively control its clients in the BRETON CIVIL WAR.

Yes, this looks fine now.
  • I've seen your work before, and it's excellent, so I'm going to put this down to either ignorance on my part, or some sort of snafu while copying over sources from other articles; but in any case, I think these need to be resolved, and a couple more spotchecks after that when I have more time.
Well, obviously. I will be checking every single source myself regardless. This is hideously embarrassing. You are coming across as quite sympathetic, which is more than I am being to myself.
Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde (Talk) 00:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Ha! As I typed your name I realised that you write the excellent LeGuin articles. (I assessed a GAN of yours 15 months ago.) No wonder you are not impressed by the above. Your points above addressed. Not, on the whole, very satisfactorily. Many thanks for picking this up, and even more thanks for preventing evidence of my ineptitude being passed off as "exemplify[ing] Wikipedia's very best work". I shall ping you when I have checked all 58 cites. (Unless there is more slop, in which case I may have to take the honorable course.) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: OK. I have checked the citations to sources which I have ready access to, and discovered another case where I seem to have gone doolally. Now, I hope, in the shape it should have been before I nominated it. Do let me know if you would like anything emailing to assist in your spot checks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Just a note to say I've seen this, and I'll try to get around to it later today. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. No rush. Take your time. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129 has just generously sent me yet another source - Wheatham. Largely it covers the same ground, but adds a couple of snippets of information which I think usefully add to the article; so I have included them. Just a heads up that there is now an additional source and a couple of additional cites. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Checked footnote 24; no problems; source says 3d per day, which AFAIK (the British currency system is impossible) is a pound in 80 days, so approximately 3 months.
The British currency system has since been rationalised. I am guessing then that you don't live in a part of the world where weight is measured in multiples of 16 and 14? ;-)
I live...all over. Unfortunately, I do often have to deal with multiples of 14 when doing my shopping. Vanamonde (Talk)
  • Checked footnote 1, the part I can access bears out the essence of the sentence
  • Checked footnote 40; the content checks out; I assume "lord de la waae" in the source is the same as "Lord de la Warr" in the text because of some strange spelling convention?
It's actually a typo in the source! This was discussed at ACR.
Okay, not a concern.
  • Re: footnote 63; there is an episode in Froissart that corresponds to the text, but unless I'm misreading something, occurs on page 200, not 194-195.
Groan. Yes. (Everything else abour Aymery is on 194-5, but not that snippet.)
  • Checked 17b. Author makes a similar point to the text, but talks only of greed, not of willingness to be a traitor; is it in the other source?
"17b"? I don't think that you mean cite 17; from context it will be either 18 or 20[?] Cite 20 has "Reasoning that he was a foreign mercenary who served only for money and whose loyalty was not buttressed either by long-term ties of vassalage or by the burgeoning ties of nationalism, Charny assumed that he could be bought with a large enough sum of money." Does this address your concern?
More or less; but how about simply saying "as a mercenary" rather than "as a commoner"? In reading the two passages, that descriptor seems more relevant to me...Also, the footnote numbering appears to have shifted, but FWIW I'm referring to the numbers as they were here.
OK. I see where you are coming from. In which case I am adding Kaeuper (2013) p. 8; here and changing "a commoner" to a man of low status. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, that looks alright.
  • Unless I'm missing something, 32a should point to page 10 rather than 11; or is it different in the online edition?
I started to explain why it should be page 11, then realised that I was misreading. You are correct. Thank you. Changed to page 10.
  • 32c looks fine
  • 32d and 32e cover parts of the content in question; is the rest in the other sources?
Yes. If you send me an email, I'll photograph the two pages of Sumption and send them to you to check.
Sure.
  • Re: footnote 35; it's essentially fine, but my reading of that page is that the legalistic defence had little to do with whether the charges were accurate; I don't see him saying "because there was a detailed defence, the charges had merit". Am I wrong? It's a subtle point, not one that I'd fail something over.
Now 36b? I am relying on "Had Charny violated ... reputation as a knight", which seems to me to support "The detailed defences of Charny's actions later published suggest that the charges had merit by the standards of the time"
Hmmm...substantively okay I think.
  • I think you should add a page number for ref 16.
Well yes. *scratches head* Done.
  • Thanks for your kind words about my work. I do recall the review; Old Music and the Slave Women, wasn't it? In that topic, and elsewhere, I've been in a similar position as you are here, wherein I'm copying material, particularly background material, between articles, modifying it, and then having to double check to see if the refs still work. So I know the mistakes are easy to make. I am a stickler for verifiability, though, so I'll come back to check the other online refs tomorrow. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Thanks for the effort you are putting into this. PS the source of the over detailed date in Prestwich over-riding mine, and of at least one of the inconsistent ISBNs, was this edit by Aforst1, which I overlooked. @Aforst1:, as I have mentioned before, if you see a way to improve an article which is at FAC it is best to discuss it first on the review page, ie this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Resuming, striking previous resolved comments (and non-concerns, for visual clarity). Working from this revision now. So, looking at 28 and 34; both seem to be saying "most" of the French fled, while you have it as "half"; a minor discrepancy, but one worth fixing.
Drat. Sumption states "less than half" remained on the first line of page 62, but I end the cite at page 61. Harari says "half" and I ended up not citing him. Article tweaked to reflect the consensus of the sources.
  • It's quite likely there's an explanation for this, but both the de Charny volumes seem to suggest that the throwing-stone-at-bridge episode was invented?
Burne states it as a fact. I suppose it depends on which parts of the various chroniclers accounts the modern sources shoes to believe. I do flag up in a footnote that there are contradictory accounts. Rather than give due weight to the various RSs, which is going to unnecessarily interrupt things for a reader, I have fudged it. I now follow Sumption, who is not contradicted by either of the other sources I cite, nor by either of the other two detailed modern accounts that I am aware of.
  • Looking again at the paragraph beginning "With a cry of", there's a few details I'm not seeing...K&K's "a sharp fight ensued" is perhaps good enough for "held off the initial English attack", but not quite for "even pushed it back". That the Black Prince was specifically leading his household knights is also probably elsewhere in the source.
I suspect that much of this is due to me lazily grouping the cites towards the end of the paragraph. (I was picked up for this in my previous FAC. It was a bit of an experiment and it clearly isn't working.) So I have now cited almost sentence by sentence, and included all five sources. I have also removed anything which is directly contradicted, or openly doubted, by any of the other sources. This is, to an extent, levelling down, but it leaves, I think, a coherent and reasonably complete account.
  • In the latter half; neither the bits about darkness, nor about the Calais garrison itself, can I find in the source. Am I missing something?
Burne, p 184, "in the dead of night"; but removed as above as being contradicted by other sources. Harari, p. 120, ebook; I have sent a photo of the relevant bit on the screen, which I think is readable.
@Vanamonde93: Done, I think. It's getting late, so I will check properly in the morning. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Resuming; striking previous as resolved or no longer relevant. Paragraph two of "Battle" now looks fine to me. In paragraph three; I'm not seeing "along with a greater but unrecorded number of lesser-ranked Frenchmen" in Sumption 62
  • I happen to have access to the two King sources. I'm not seeing the specific reference to Calais, as in, material supporting "Casualties among the socially inferior French infantry were not recorded"; only to the general phenomenon...
  • The rest of the paragraph checks out; AGF on 40 and 46, which I'm not able to see (your picture of Harari's page is readable but only covers half the page)
  • The content sourced to 48, I personally am seeing on age 107, not 106; also, not seeing a mention of liege lords taking a share...

I'm going to be honest with you, Gog the Mild; I'm very close to opposing at this point. I'm not, yet, because I think it's still something you can fix. I've come across a variety of verifiability issues over the years; people misusing sources to push a POV; people without the competence to see that the content they are writing is different from what the source says; and people so keen to get a shiny star that they're cutting corners. I think the issue here is different, and it's simply that you've gotten too close to the material; you're missing things because they're obvious to you, but not to me. I say this because it's not the crucial details that are unsupported, but the minor ones. What I would recommend at this point is stepping away from the article for a day or two, and then coming at it with fresh eyes. If you want me to return to perform further checks, I'm happy to do so. Also, as an aside, unrelated to verifiability as such; I see that in a few places you've reduced the level of detail to what is common to multiple sources. While this is not a bad approach, I wonder if you could use more in-text attribution to provide some more interesting detail that perhaps not all historians agree on. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Dank[edit]

  • You might look for ways to shorten the first sentence.
Done. (I usually get the opposite complaint.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
If someone else wants it longer, that's fine. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Btw, I'm short on sleep, so this might not be my best effort. I seem to be doing okay. But maybe I'm misjudging it, because I'm short on sleep.
Hi Dank. You're repeating yourself. Is that because you're short on sleep?
I ruined the joke by using the wrong punctuation. Proof once again that punctuation is important, and that everyone needs a copyeditor. - Dank (push to talk) 00:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Re this, it seems to me that if something has to be taken out - I am not persuaded that it has, but still - then it should be the thing which had not yet happened. The thing which had happened and all participants were aware of (well cited in the main article I think, but I can bring more. Bear in mind that Charny had been the standard bearer of France's sacred banner for several tears before 1350.) is surely what influence behaviour and therefore is the one to remain in the lead? (If, indeed, one has to go.)
Also, the lead is now arguably wrong. There is not a solid scholarly consensus on when each of the three books was written; shared in (what was later seen as) incomplete form; or "formally" published. However, what I would consider the most reliable source on this flat out states that one of the three was fully written and formally published several years before the events in this article.
Which, of course, is not to argue that there is not scope to tweak the wording around these issues. Would you like me to have a go at tightening things up around them, in both the lead and the main article, and see what you (and Eddie891) think? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not that important compared to other parts of a FAC review. My thinking was (and this is only true in general ... it may not apply here, as you point out): if there's some reason to condense (in this case, the introductory phrase felt too long to me), and if you've got a choice of two things to keep, and one of them was something that actually happened, and the other was what some people thought, it often works better (for various reasons) to keep the thing that actually happened (if it also successfully conveys the general point, for a perceptive reader) and lose the opinion. (As you can see, I'm rather hypocritical about long sentences. Do as I say, not as I do.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to think on't this one, rather than shoot from the hip.
  • "in 1340 Edward III had to": Consider "in 1340 Edward III had had to", or similar. (But I get that "had had" sounds awkward to some.)
Corrected. (Really? I don't see why.) Nice spot.
  • Not taking a position on "approximately £3,700,000 in 2019 terms". I haven't been keeping up, and sometimes Wikipedians make strange decisions, but I'm doubtful, based on reactions of economists to statements like these in previous years. - Dank (push to talk) 00:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "north-east": sometimes you hyphenate these directions, sometimes not. - Dank (push to talk) 03:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. See comment above when Eddie points out the same thing. I may equally well refer to both "an off-site location" and "the location is off site" in one article. It may appear inconsistent ("off site" and "off-site"), but whoever has ever argued that the English language is consistent?
  • "his further fate": His, or his son's? If his son's, I'd probably start the sentence with "The further fate of his hostaged son, who ...".
Tweaked, along the lines you suggest.
Thanks Dank. Your comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks ... check my last two edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Maury[edit]

I am finding the prose of this article a bit difficult to read, but perhaps I can help with that. I will do a more thorough read at some point, but for now:

  • "Edward III landed with an army in northern Normandy in July 1346. His army" - two "army"ies close together. Why not just "He" for the second instance, or "He took his forces on a..."?
Good point. Done.
  • "a devastating chevauchée, a large-scale raid, through Normandy, including the capture and sack of Caen, and to the gates of Paris." - I see what you are trying to say, but it is confusing to read. Perhaps split it, "He... Normandy. This included... Paris".
Shortened.
  • "On 26 August the French army of Philip VI was defeated with heavy loss at the Battle of Crécy." - in the previous sentence he was outside the gates of Paris, how did me magically end up in northern France? IIRC from the Crécy article, he was on his way to Calais when this battle took place? If so, it would seem the mention of this battle would be better positioned in the description of why he headed to Calais, perhaps as the sentence before "Edward's army laid siege to the port"
Well, he was on his way to Crotoy to rendezvous with his fleet, which didn't show, and maybe move on to Flanders to join a Flemish army there, but it had given up. He turned to fight at Crecy anyway. There is debate as to whether he had an eye on Calais prior to Crecy, and if so, to what extent. I have inserted a linking phrase and reworded. See what you think.
  • "in 1340 Edward III had had to fight a French fleet" - remove one of the "had"s. Note the comment below, I think this statement should be moved down a bit.
Removing one of the hads would make it grammatically incorrect. IMO and according to Dank, see above. Possibly the pair of you could come to a consensus over this?
  • "defended by land. Edward's army" - para break here.
Done.
  • "it being all but impossible to land a significant force other than at a friendly port" - this is where the 1340 landing should be mentioned. However, it is a problem that this "all but impossible" had just been done by the very army we are discussing! I don't doubt the accuracy of the statement, but I think the more recent landing has temporal precedence in this case, and not mentioning it seems misleading. Perhaps end the sentence at port and then "One of the few examples of an unopposed landing had launched the current chevauchée, previously, in 1340..."
I see what you mean. Tweaked accordingly. Is that better?
  • " In 1347, when the French army" - another confusing sentence. Perhaps "In 1347, the French army had approached Calais in an attempt to relieve it, but found the English so strongly entrenched that to attack them was hopeless. Charny was one of the four senior knights sent by Philip VI to formally challenge Edward III in an attempt to bring his army out and fight in the open field."
Done.
  • "and Charny had him approached to betray Calais" - "had him approached"... perhaps another way to say this?
I have changed "Charny had him approached to betray Calais" to 'Charny arranged for him to be approached with a view to betraying Calais'. Does that address your concern?
  • "vouchsafe " - guarantee?
Done.
  • "Charny had meanwhile gathered" - "By that point, Charny had gathered..."
Done.
  • "Calais: 1,500 men-at-arms" - "Calais. The force consisted of 1,500..."
Done, with a slght tweak.
  • "Charny needed his large force in order to prevent being repulsed from the town once inside it by the strong garrison" - "Charny needed a large force to prevent being repulsed by the strong garrison once he entered the town."
Done.
  • "strong garrison, but he could not ...town." make this two sentences, the first as above and then "The gate controlled by Amerigo was too narrow t be used by such a large force, having been built only to provide easy access to the harbour by ship's crews."
Done.
  • "members could armour and arm themselves and assemble" - the later would seem to imply the former, so just "could assemble"? No strong opinion here.
I would much prefer to keep "armour and arm themselves"; if hard pressed I could lose "and assemble".
  • "themselves and assemble.[32] The leader of the group " - para break
Done.
  • "Charny's force fled.[39][40] He hastily organised the balance into" - "...Charny's force fled. Charny hastily organized his remaining troops for a defensive fight."
Done.
  • "When the Black Prince attacked, the French, who, even allowing for their deserters, still outnumbered the English, broke." - "Charney's force, even allowing for deserters, still outnumbered the English, but broke when the Black Prince's force attacked." And I'm not sure the "even allowing" is needed as that seems obvious from the context?
Done, and the deserters bit removed.
  • "Charny, with a serious head wound, Eustace " - which one had the head wound?
Good spot. Repunctuated to make clear.
  • "rather than fight.[53] The detailed" - para break
Done. (Although that leaves a single sentence paragraph.)
  • "account of the debacle his enterprise had ended in, and" - "account of the debacle, and" - it's not Ribeaumont's debacle, as the current wording suggests.
Fair. "his" replaced with 'the'.
  • "and should hear of Edward III's comments to Charny" - "and to pass on Edward III's comments about Charny's actions."
Done.
  • "Charny; Ribeaumont later" - break not semi, they are largely unrelated - "Charny. Ribeaumont later"
True. Done.
  • " Charny had to wait eighteen months, until his ransom was paid in full, for his release" - "Charney remained in captivity for eighteen months before his ransom was paid in full."
That gives a different nuance. Why would you like that change?
  • "sensible".[58] Amerigo" - para break.
Done.
  • "It had been agreed that he would instead hand over Guînes, which was his personal possession, a not unusual method of settling ransoms. " - confusing double negative and missing adjective. "hand over the [town|city|keep] of Guînes..." and do you mean "a common way of settling..."? And instead of "it had been agreed", perhaps "Instead of a ransom, Raoul agreed to hand..." and then remove the "not unusual" bit entirely?
Reworded, largely along the lines you suggest, to hopefully be less tortuous.
  • "ring around Calais. Conversely, English possession" - this does not appear to be a converse at this point! in any case, removing "conversely" would seem to be no loss.
Done.
  • "strategic position. Aware of this" - para break. And aware of what? Is it not something more along the lines of "Angered by the change in strategic balance that Guines would have provided the English, the newly crowned..."
I'm not happy about stating that John was angry about something that didn't happen. I have gone with 'Angered by the attempt to weaken the blockade of Calais, the newly crowned French king ... ' Suits?
  • In early January 1352 a band of freelancing English soldiers seized Guînes by a midnight escalade" - so Guînes was not handed over before Raoul was killed? If so, who took possession? The king?
The sources don't say. At an OR guess the property of a "traitor" reverted to the crown. Although given the fuss it caused, John may well have promptly passed it on to Raoul's heir. And no, John had Raoul executed while he was still on parole and arranging his "ransom".
  • "He ordered the English occupants to hand it back. The English" - para break. And it is not stated: there's a week between this order and the meeting of parliament, why was it not handed over already?
Done.
The sources don't say. The freebooters who had seized it weren't under anybody's orders or acting on command. (I can just imagine them saying "Pardon"; "Is he sure"; and "You've got the wrong seal on that scroll mate". Assuming that Edward hadn't told his messenger to take the scenic route while he sweet talked parliament. All blatant OR.)
  • "defences of Calais by the construction " - "with" instead of "by"?
Done.
  • "destroying their siege works. Shortly after," definitely a para break here.
Done.

That's it for now! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Maury. Thanks for going through this and for your thorough analysis of the prose. Your points above all addressed. A couple with queries.
I am aware that I will need too revisit the citing in the light of the moved sentence and the split paragraphs, but as you said that there was more to come, I thought that I would wait until you were happy before setting to on that.
Gog the Mild (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Lead[edit]

Well I'm not sure there is much more to come after all, it reads much more smoothly now, IMHO. The ones left above, that's fine I won't push on any of them. So that leaves only one bit, the lede... try this on for size, I'm just moving things around a bit. It's four paras instead of three, but more closely gather related items together and, IMHO, clarifies a few of the minor points...

The Battle of Calais took place in the early morning of 1 January 1350, during the Hundred Years' War. English troops in the occupied French city of Calais ambushed and defeated an unsuspecting French force which was attempting to take the city by stealth.

Despite a truce between France and England, the French commander Geoffrey de Charny planned to take the city by subterfuge. He bribed Amerigo of Pavia, an officer of the city garrison, to open a gate for them. Amerigo accepted the bribe and then told the English of Charny's plans. The English king, Edward III, personally led his household knights and the Calais garrison in a surprise counter-attack. The French were routed by this smaller force, with significant losses and all of their leaders captured.

Later that day, Edward III dined with the highest-ranking captives, treating them with royal courtesy except for Charny, whom he taunted for having abandoned his chivalric principles by both fighting during a truce and attempting to purchase his way into Calais rather than fight. The accusations struck deep, and were frequently repeated in subsequent English propaganda, as Charny would later write several authoritative books on chivalry.

Two years later, having been ransomed from English captivity, Charny was placed in charge of a French army on the Calais front. He used it to storm a small fortification commanded by Amerigo, who was taken captive to Saint-Omer and publicly tortured to death.

@Maury Markowitz: You do like itty bitty paragraphs don't you ;-) . Before I respond, could you confirm that we are ignoring MOS:LEADLENGTH where this article falls towards the lower end of "two or three paragraphs"? (17,500 or 21,000 characters depending whether spaces are counted or not.) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Maury. Trying to stay along the lines you outline above, what do you think of the following. I have stayed within MOS:LEADLENGTH, but if you prefer to IAR it that would be easy.

The Battle of Calais took place in the early morning of 1 January 1350, during the Hundred Years' War. English troops in the occupied French city of Calais ambushed and defeated an unsuspecting French force which was attempting to take the city.

Despite a truce being in effect, the French commander Geoffrey de Charny planned to take the city by subterfuge. He bribed Amerigo of Pavia, an officer of the city garrison, to open a gate for them. The English king, Edward III, became aware of the plot and personally led his household knights and the Calais garrison in a surprise counter-attack. The French were routed by this smaller force, with significant losses and all of their leaders captured.

Later that day, Edward III dined with the highest-ranking captives, treating them with royal courtesy except for Charny, whom he taunted for having abandoned his chivalric principles by both fighting during a truce and attempting to purchase his way into Calais rather than fight. The accusations struck deep, and were frequently repeated in subsequent English propaganda, as Charny was to write several authoritative books on chivalry. Two years later, having been ransomed from English captivity, Charny was placed in charge of a French army on the Calais front. He used it to storm a small fortification commanded by Amerigo, who was taken captive to Saint-Omer and publicly tortured to death.

What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
It reads fine, but I still think we need to have the "two years later" separated. I mean, the very first words say exactly why! But I think we should gather comments from others on this one. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz: I have gone with four paragraphs as you suggest; breaking before "Two years later". Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The lead is rather small for 4 paragraphs. It might be a good idea to merge the first two paragraphs, the first being too small. We would then be left with one paragraph describing the battle and its overall developments, another describing the immediate aftermath and the propaganda effect of the victory, and a smaller third giving a curiosity related to the events of the battle. Aforst1 (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: Personally I like that, if only because it sneaks within MOS:LEADLENGTH. What do you think?
Note that Aforst1 has reinstated part of the original lead - here - with the edit summary "Brought back the assertion that Charny was a paragon of chivalry, which is more related to the king's taunts than the later fact of his books on chivalry". Perhaps the pair of you could reach consensus over whether it stays?
Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the positive reply. Note that this addition is a matter apart from the no. of paragraphs. I re-added that segment b/c it contextualizes neatly the event of Edward's taunts and Charny's consequently tainted honor. The fact of his books on chivalry, being a later fact, does this less well.Aforst1 (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Ugh. Well if everyone wants the merge, do this:

The Battle of Calais took place in the early morning of 1 January 1350, during the Hundred Years' War. Despite a truce being in effect, the French commander Geoffrey de Charny planned to take the English-occupied cite of Calais by subterfuge. He bribed Amerigo of Pavia, an officer of the city garrison, to open a gate for them. The English king, Edward III, became aware of the plot and personally led his household knights and the Calais garrison in a surprise counter-attack. The French were routed by this smaller force, with significant losses and all of their leaders captured.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

John FitzWalter, 2nd Baron FitzWalter[edit]

Nominator(s): ——SerialNumber54129 15:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Forget the Rettendon murders, John FitZWalter was the original Essex Boy. Yes, the usual extortion, murders, jury nobbling and...er...sieges?! He makes the Krays look like over-enthusiastic tobacconists, although FitzWalter was admittedly lucky that his King, Edward III, lacked the later energetic and imaginative approach of Essex Police, at least for some time. But on a more serious note, yes, it's another in the series (well, the second) of Robin Hood types from the early fourteenth century, and, you know, forget "stealing from the rich to give to the poor", like most gangsters, they're not very nice people.

All suggestions and comments for improving FitzWalter on Wikipedia as he was unimprovable in life, gratefully welcome. ——SerialNumber54129 15:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Fitzwalter_manors_in_Essex.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for looking in, Nikkimaria; I've added a reference to commons, does it need one here you think? ——SerialNumber54129 16:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Nope, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Support from John M Wolfson[edit]

  • I'd put another paragraph in the lead on his legacy/impact on assessments of Edward III.
  • What was his cause of death, if known?
  • £sd letters are not italicized, if I am not mistaken.

That's all for now, I'll try to think of some more later. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 23:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much for looking in, John M Wolfson, it's much appreciated. I've added a line regarding the historiography to the lead; I'm not usually too keen on one-line paragraphs, but perhaps this works? Unfortunately, there's no information on the cause of death, except that it was natural. I imagine that once he stopped terrorising the place he fell into obscurity. And I deitalicised the LSD :)
    If you do think of any other improvements, please do point them out! Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 09:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • No problem at all! I'm also not usually a fan of short paragraphs in the lead, but here I think it's warranted as FitzWalter's legacy. And I do not see any issues at this time, so I support the promotion of the article. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Support from Mr rnddude[edit]

Indictment
However, Furber points out ... - However? The note doesn't contradict the statement that Fitzwalter had to pay out "at least" that amount.
Done.
this he paid this off incrementally - You can keep either this, but not both. I.e. "this he paid off ..." or "he paid this off ..."
First choice.
... comments Hanawalt ... - Introduce at first mention.
Introduced...
... the King summoned FitzWalter ... - Titles are usually only capitalized when appended to an individual's name, but left uncapitalized when used generically. You capitalize king a lot.
Indeed I do. And I guarantee someone's gonna come along (on the assumption there are anymore reviews , that is!) and moan. They do that, ye know. They come out at night to moan.
In November FitzWalter was transferred ... - "In November, ..." I think.
Done.
The forced the role of ... - I think the first "the" was meant to be a "this".
Yup.
... impermanent ... - Google says this is a word. I shall be stealing it as superior to "temporary".
Abjuring "temporary"?! Careful ;)
... focused ... - Is BrEng "s" or "ss"? I thought focussed was BrEng and focused AmEng.
Deffo.
Siege of Colchester
... in 1350 Bradenham himself besieged Colchester for three months in autumn 1350 - Well yes, I rather suspect that "autumn 1350" was "in 1350", rather than some other obscure year.
Uuugh. Don.
... and Partington suggests ... - Who dat? (You introduce him in the next section, rather than at first mention)
Swapped.
, however, - like me, you use however a bit. Howe'er, it's unnecessary here: Neither inquest, however, appears to have ....
Dead right I do, thanks for the reminder. I've cut out all except one.
... disputed pasture rights in Lexden. and the area was ... - I think that period was meant to be a comma.
Done.
Aportion of Lexden Park ... - "Aportion" or "A portion"?
Criminal career
... summarily beheaded Byndethese by the roadside - Any clue as to why they did this? Retribution for some perceived slight, or just for shits and giggles?
Excellent point. Still no actual reason as to this bloke specifically, but it was quite a common occurrence, and I've added a footnote to put it in context. Without SYNTHing, I think we can assume that he was just one of many who strayed...interesting stuff though.
... the said distress until the £30 were fully paid - Really? This is where you decide that the £ symbol deserves a link?
Today's Deliberate Mistake :)
All I have time for at the moment. There were other, more minor, infractions, shall we say. You have a distinct style of writing: a bit complex, so following the punctuation correctly is vital – lest FitzWalter, says the historian Mark Ormrod, had been "publicly discredited" be misread as FitzWalter says the historian Mark Ormrod had been "publicly discredited" as I did at first –, but its enjoyable to read. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Royal service and war in France
... he periodically returned to fight in France for over the course of his career - What's the for, for?
For gone :)
... the young men FitzWalter's class and generation - young men of?
Of course, thanks.
FitzWalter was summoned and 43 other Essex knights were summoned ... - summoned twice. Perhaps "Fitzwalter was summoned, alongside 43 other Essex knights, ..." or "Fitzwalter, and 43 other Essex knights, were summoned ..."
Nicked!
Robert had reserved his rights to certain other city properties, however. This reservation was successfully challenged by the city authorities, however, and both Robert and John made repeated attempts to assert their claim - Mmm... two "however"'s, two sentences apart. There's a third later in the same paragraph. A bit repetitive.
Dealt with the massacre of the howevers above.
Lede
... have also been viewed ... has also been noted ... - Last sentence of the lede. It reads weird to me.
Re-written completely, hopefully reads better now?

I've read the rest of the article. This ends my comments for the time being. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for your time and opinions, Mr rnddude, much appreciated as ever. See what you thikn to my changes, went with you on everything I think; good gears re. the abjurors, that's a bloody good addition. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 17:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I've just come around back to this article, having remembered it last night before I went to bed. I'm prepared at this point to support. I did notice one other thing, briefly. In footnote 2 you write that The FitzWalter family held 13 manors in Essex. The image under Early Life lists 14 manors, the one not mentioned in the footnote being Chigwell. Significant? Mr rnddude (talk) 07:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild[edit]

I have done some copy editing which you will want to check.

  • "who had arrived in England at the conquest" Maybe tweak this? 'who had arrived in England at the time of the Norman Conquest of England'?
  • "The FitzWalters held estates all over Essex" "all over" isn't very encyclopedic. Rephrase? ('scattered across'?)
  • "FitzWalter also made a good marriage" Why "also"?
  • "the family estates were concentrated around the lordship of Dunmow. They also held estates as distant as Henham" Given that according to the map Henham is the closest estate to Dunmow, "as distant" reads oddly.
  • "had transferred as fine land" "fine land"?
  • " In response, King Edward claimed the French throne and invaded France, thus beginning the Hundred Years' War" No, he didn't claim the French throne until 1340, three years after the start of the war , for reasons which I won't bore you with, and during his third 'invasion'. I suggest chopping this bit.
  • "have been under royal protection during the campaign" And "royal protection" would be?
  • "influential local men such as they" :-) "such as they" → 'like these' or similar.
  • "wrote Harris, who became the most feared man in Essex" Rephrase - obviously (I assume) Harris is not feared down Essex way, but he may be grateful if this were clarified.
  • "transfer lands worth £40 to FitzWalter, for which FitzWalter was to pay Walter an annual rent of £22" If those figures are correct, what's the problem? Possibly clarify 'worth £40 a year'?
  • "amerce"; link to amercement.
  • "anyone who opposed his doing so" Do you mean 'anyone who refused to do so'?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  • "was killed in Mile End during another attack on Lexden Park" "Mile End"? The London one? IMO you could simply lose it, → 'was killed during another attack on Lexden Park'.
  • "reinforced the siege with wood from the broken doors and roof beams of houses" This brings no mental image to my mind. Did they 'barricade the access roads with ... '?
  • "for failing to appear in answer to accusations of felony" Perhaps 'for failing to appear to answer accusations of felony'?

That's all I have. Very impressive. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

  • No Infobox?
  • long-established family in the north-Essex area Link Essex.
  • of the county, Woodham to the southeast American southeast.
  • Chigwell to the southwest American southwest.
  • According to the Elizabethan antiquarian John Stow, the last time the latter Sea of blue here.
  • manpower which the king was determined to exploit The King.
  • FitzWalter built up a reputation as a good soldier American built up.
  • Another, known only as Roger, was the parson of Osemondiston.[40][39][note 8] Re-order the refs in numerical order.
  • which in 1334 had been valued for tax purposes at over £1300 --> "which in 1334 had been valued for tax purposes at over £1,300"
  • bound to pay Edward the "colossal"[3] amount of (at least) £847 2s 4d Maybe link the "d".

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hurricane Sergio (2018)[edit]

Nominator(s): NoahTalk 18:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I have spent a lot of time working on correcting the accuracy of and expanding Sergio's article. Although the impact was mainly minimal, I feel this article is now complete and satisfies the FA criteria. NoahTalk 18:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Image Review[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Support from Oof-off[edit]

Support - This article is comprehensive and covers all of the aspects of Sergio's life in a good amount of detail. In particular, the impact is extensively covered, and I can vouch that much time was put into making the impact as comprehensive as possible. The meteorological history is accurate and the sources are well-picked. The vast majority of the problems that were present before in the article, many of which have been pointed out here by other Wikipedia users, have been fixed already. I did fix one mistake which were related to improper use of "it's"/"its". Otherwise, the grammar and spelling is sound. I believe this article is worthy of feature article status. --Oof-off (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

SC[edit]

Lead
  • It's a long first paragraph and contains ten uses of "Sergio" in twelve sentences: any chance some synonyms could be used, or even just an "it" or two?
  • Ditto para two – four "Sergio"s in six sentences. The same goes for the rest of the article, although to a lesser degree: there are a further sixteen in the body text, which could be trimmed here and there, particularly in the history section
Removed several mentions throughout the lead and MH. NoahTalk 14:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
History
  • "about 18 hours as system underwent": the system?
Fixed. NoahTalk 14:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

That's it. Very minor, but the heavy use of the name needs to be addressed first. – SchroCat (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - all good now. - SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Note
I don't speak Spanish, so this refers to the English language sources only
  • The sources seem reliable for the subject covered.
  • Further searches showed no additional obvious sources that have been missed off.
  • Spot checks on six sources verify the content claimed.
  • The same spot checks showed no plagiarism or close paraphrasing.
  • There are some very minor formatting issues that need sorting:
    • FN 13: "The Weather Channel. The Weather Channel." No need for the repetition – ditto on FN 28 "The Watchers. The Watchers"
    • FNs 14, 15, 24 and 25: El Universal, Diario de Yucatán El Imparcial and El Sol de Mexico are newspaper titles and so should be italicised. – check there are no others on this too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@SchroCat: That should be it. NoahTalk 14:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Pass the SR. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Support from Hurricanehink[edit]

With the caveat that I reviewed this article for A-class review, I believe this article passes all of the FA criteria, so I support the candidacy. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from KN2731[edit]

  • "Sergio was indeed a tropical storm, but unlike..." - no need to restate that Sergio was a TS, I think you can just start the sentence with "Unlike other tropical cyclones..."
Done. NoahTalk 21:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "The storm had developed a well-defined eye" - missing "At this point," or similar
Fixed. NoahTalk 21:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "After bottoming out as a low-end Category 3" - Category 3 is not a noun, add "hurricane"
Fixed. NoahTalk 21:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "It unexpectedly acquired some annular characteristics on October 7, with the eye having doubled in size overnight" - large eye != annular, you may want to mention that rainbands dissipated too
Done. NoahTalk 21:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "southern and eastern facing shores" --> "south- and east-facing shores"
    • Actually after looking more closely at the source only the easterly swells were caused by Sergio, so mentioning the advisory for the south-facing shores was issued "As a result" of Sergio is misleading. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. NoahTalk 21:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "The Arizona State Fair was closed due to flooding, the first time in 'recent memory'." - I feel the comma interrupts the flow here, maybe something like "Flooding forced the closure of [etc.] for the first time..." or "...was closed for the first time in 'recent memory' due to flooding" would be better
Changed. NoahTalk 11:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "70 mph (115 km/h) wind gusts" - 60 knots converts to 69 mph (111 km/h)
Removed rounding. NoahTalk 11:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

That should be it. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@KN2731: Should be everything. NoahTalk 11:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
All changes addressed, moving to support. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

23rd (Northumbrian) Division[edit]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the British 23rd (Northumbrian) Division, which was raised during the Second World War. This was a second-line formation that was sent to France, during 1940, to provide unskilled labour for rear-area duties and it was promised that they would not to see combat. Once the Germans broke through the Ardennes and crossed the Meuse, the unprepared division was thrown onto the frontline and subsequently mauled. Evacuated at Dunkirk, it returned to the UK where it was broken up as part of a restructuring of the British Army. The article has been edited by the GOCE, and passed its GA and A-Class reviews.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR, and have little to add:

  • after introducing it as the British Army, stick with that capitalisation throughout
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • instead of linking the countries in the lead, suggest linking Battle of Belgium and Battle of the Netherlands, as you've done in the body
    Links tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "With no other reserves available"
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "conducted delaying actions and rearguards"→"conducted delaying and rearguard actions" and link rearguard
    switched up and link added
  • "to increase the part-time Territorial Army"
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "created as a second line unit"→"created as a second line formation"
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "34,500 militiamen" does this mean that these men were already serving in the TA? Or should it just say "34,500 men"?
    These were the first men to be conscripted, civilians brought into the regular army for a period of six months per the Military Training Act 1939. The intention was for them to go into the reserve and civilian life after their six months, but war broke out and they were turned over to the expanding TA. The term militiamen being used to describe those conscripted and to distinguish them from regulars.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
    I would just drop militiamen, it is adding an undefined term, doesn't help in understanding/is potentially confusing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    Term droppedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • link Second World War at first mention in the body
    link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "the 6th and 7th Battalions, Green Howards; and the"
    missing word addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
    I wasn't clear enough, I meant add "and" after the semi-colon. And drop the "the" you added in front of 7th. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "to reinforce the regular army units"→"to reinforce the regular army formations"
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "being so transferred at a time" seems odd, why would they be transferred at the same time, when they were to be transferred when ready?
    Per Gibbs, the plan was to deploy TA divisions (as whole formations, and not being broken up) as they completed their training and were assigned equipment along the following timeline assuming no issues arose:
    The regular army deployed within 6 weeks; 10 TA divisions sent in three waves in the 4th, 5th, and 6th months of the war; the remaining 16 TA divisions sent in two waves in the 9th and 12th month.
    Any suggestions on ironing out the sentences on this?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
    I think the way it is currently worded is potentially confusing, suggest just tell us how many TA divisions were supposed to be transferred in twelve months. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    I have tweaked the article per your comment, does this work?
    Perfect. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "and the Army had estimated"→"and the army had estimated"
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "thereby alleviating the strain on the logistical units" this doesn't follow, adding more men to the BEF would put more strain on the loggies, perhaps the strain on the existing engineers and pioneers?
    I have tweaked the sentence along the point you have made, which is what the sources are stating.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
    This worries me a bit, I can't see how adding more men would reduce strain on the various logistical corps, it would increase the strain if they didn't bring their own logistical units. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    Ill re-hit the books tomorrow, and try to iron this one out.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry about the delays, and quite right: the sources are only talking about the strain on the pool of pioneers and workers, not the logistical side of things. I have edited the sentence.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "General Sir John Gort"
    Added full name and titleEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "under the watch of the Luftwaffe"→" under the constant threat from the Luftwaffe"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Erm. Shouldn't that be either 'under the constant threat of the Luftwaffe' or 'under a constant threat from the Luftwaffe'?
Much better... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Just a few follow-up comments to address. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
All good now, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

Placeholder. Give me a ping once you have actioned PM's comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I assessed this at ACR. Quite a bit has been done to the article since then. All of which has improved it. All I have is the trivia below.

  • "To boost morale, provide additional labour and guards for the rear echelon of the BEF and score political points with the French Government and military" Suggest a comma after BEF to avoid possible confusion over using "and" twice.
    addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "the only defensible position to stop the German attempt" Suggest 'the only defensible position at which to stop the German attempt'.
    addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "creating new units based around an initial cadre of just 25 officers and men" Could we replace "units" with either 'battalions' or brigades' as appropriate? I am assuming that one of them is.
    I have tweaked the entire sentence, and addressed your specific concern.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "The process varied widely in the TA divisions" Optional: "in" → 'between'. Or 'among' or some other word of your choice.
    addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "this was an overly optimistic review of the intent" I am not sure about "intent"; would 'situation', or similar, not be better?
    I am going to await feedback from Nikki before relooking at this one.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "it required all divisional transport" Possibly 'it required all of the divisional transport'?
    addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Sources: I did a little spotchecking as I went, and it was fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
A splendid article. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • Spotchecks not done
  • Battistelli ISBN seems to correspond to a different edition
    Should be addressed nowEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Collier has the origyear and year reversed
    addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • How does the Jones source meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
    Briefly, for the moment, it is a completed doctoral thesis, which can be used. It has not been used as a primary source, it largely been used for the author's analysis in a largely neglected area.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    Is there any indication this analysis has entered mainstream academic discourse? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    From what I can tell, at present no secondary source is quoting Jones. His commentary on the state of the territorial training level is on par with other sources, just more specific to the topic at hand; i.e. French (2001) talks about this in more general terms, and Smalley (2015) talks about this with specific regards to the 12th Division. Numerous sources discuss the BEF manpower shortage in regards to engineers and pioneers etc. Jones - so far - appears to be the only one who outright states the arrival of the three divisions did little to rectify the situation. His is an analysis of a primary source, which I cannot locate other sources discussing or quoting. The issue is one that most other sources glance over.
    With that said, your thoughts? Removal of extensive quoting, or removal of all material from this source?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, "contains analysis not found elsewhere" is not a synonym for "reliable source". I'd suggest minimizing the extent to which this source is relied upon. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
    I have commented out the quote from Jones, and left a note that it can be reinserted at a latter date once it meets WP:RS. I have also made a few edits to reduce the reliance on the source. Do you believe further efforts need to be made at present?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria: Hey, just following up on this, do you feel like more material needs to be removed or will this pass mustard? :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The one thing still an issue for me is the Drewienkiewicz quote cited to this source - is it attributed to an original source in Jones? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
    That seems a fair point. I have attempted, without success, to get access to Drewienkiewicz's actual work. The page referenced is a mixture of Jones' argument, partial Drewienkiewicz quotes, and paraphrasing. I have removed it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't include rank for Joslen
    I have updated the template, so should no show with no rankEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Takle is missing location.Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    Location addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • after the re-emergence of Germany as a European power and its Pipe Germany to Nazi Germany.
    linkedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • would remain in the United Kingdom to complete training Unlink UK because of common term.
    link removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • before being deployed to France within twelve months Same as above with France.
    link removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Boys anti tank rifles, and a few two-inch mortars No metric units and anti tank needs an hyphen.
    amendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • best French armies and their strategic reserve moved forward to assist the Belgian and Dutch armies Unlink current countries.
    links removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • French reserves prompted Général Alphonse Joseph Georges Italicise "Général" here.
    amendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • was sent to Haeghe-Muelen, 8 miles (13 km) southeast of Dunkirk American southeast.
    switched upEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • little preparation for war was seen as a hindrance You mean were?
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • First line territorial formations would create a second First line needs any hyphen.
    I understand the logic for them. Joslen does not use them when detailing the first and second lines. I have, however, gone and added them in.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I see a lot of second lines without hyphens shouldn't they have hyphens?
    dittoEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • free up first line formations for training Again first line needs an hyphen.
    dittoEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • and a two-brigade motor-division's war-establishment We do not need an hyphen between motor-division.
    removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • heavy flanking machine gun fire Machine gun needs an hyphen.
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • the battalion were unable to stop two German tanks You mean was?
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • with cannon and machine gun fire Merge gun fire.
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, I have made the changes you have suggested. I have also left a comment above, about the first and second line changes.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks great. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notes[edit]

Image review? --Laser brain (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  • The original links no longer work, yes. They both, however, have archive links.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
All images seem well placed and ALT text seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: and @Laser brain:: Just trying to stay on top of this. The original website links are long dead. Each commons page though, has archive links to the original source. Are these suitable, or should the maps be removed from the article? Other than that, are there any other issues that need to be addressed? Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
That the links are archived isn't really a problem, but the fact that the links point directly to the file is. One can't verify a license that way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah! Makes perfect sense now, I have commented out as I am not familiar enough with how the way back machine works to get additional information on the maps in order to support the license.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, with that said. I did some playing around and was able to access the following parts of the archive website. At this point, it would be a case of advise from you guys on how to proceed:
Atlas main page
European list of maps
Atlas source page (If I am not mistaken, the sources are all from the "West Point" series.)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

1944 Cuba–Florida hurricane[edit]

Nominator(s): TheAustinMan(TalkEdits) 15:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Between 1944 and 1950, Cuba and Florida would experience an onslaught of 12 hurricane landfalls atop several tropical storms, characterizing one of the region's most active periods on record. The 1944 Cuba–Florida hurricane marked the start of this destructive sequence and dealt a heavy blow on its twelve-day trek from the western Caribbean to Greenland. Unfortunately, records on the storm's impacts in Cuba remain incomplete due to a lack of rural accounts, and the death toll in current literature retains the rough initial estimates of 300. Its large wind field crippled Florida's citrus industry—blankets of orange beneath barren canopies were a common sight across the storm-torn state. My first FAC in six years, I believe this article represents the most comprehensive account of the hurricane available. Sincerest thanks for your reviews and suggested improvements. TheAustinMan(TalkEdits) 15:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Support from Hurricanehink[edit]

  • 18 people were killed in the state; half from the loss of a ship in Tampa Bay. - comma, not semicolon (unless you add "were" to the latter clause)
  • However, nearby conditions that day suggested tropical cyclogenesis was underway. - this is unclear what the nearby conditions that suggested anything were
  • You should explain somewhere what a "major hurricane" is
  • At 21:00 UTC on October 18, the eye passed over the Dry Tortugas[3] producing a two-hour period of calm over the islands in the evening hours. - add comma after Dry Tortugas
  • It had grown considerably in areal extent with a radius of maximum wind nearly twice as large as climatologically expected for a storm of the hurricane's intensity and location. - given the excellent writing elsewhere in the article (so far), I believe this sentence could be a bit tighter, or perhaps reformatted slightly
  • You mention the ET track over Nova Scotia, but not Newfoundland or Greenland
  • Pan-American cancelled flights to and from Cuba in advance of the hurricane. - I believe you have a missing word here (Airways)
  • The United States Weather Bureau enumerated 318 deaths due to the hurricane in their summary of the system published in the Monthly Weather Review, noting that reports possibly indicating additional deaths were yet to be received from Cuba and the Cayman Islands. - this is a bit long and unwieldly. I suggest moving the "In their summary..." to the first part of the sentence
  • A powerful storm surge killed 20 people in a small village. - there's no reports which village?
  • Havana Harbor was forced to close because of an excessive debris and sunken craft in its waters. - the "an" seems unnecessary
  • about half the crops in the outlying areas of Cuba were lost - what are the "outlying areas" referred here?

Hurricanehink (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I've made most of the changes you suggested. Unfortunately, reports do not specify the name or location of the village where 20 were killed. --TheAustinMan(TalkEdits) 19:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
No worries, thanks so far for your great work. Here are more comments.
  • In 2018, an analysis of historical U.S. landfalls suggested that a similar storm striking the same areas would inflict $73.5 billion in damage when normalized for 2018 demographics and inflation. - I suggest adding a comma after "damage". Perhaps link inflation? Maybe not, your call.
  • One lieutenant piloting a crew of three on an instruction flight out of Naval Air Station Lake City crashed shortly after takeoff 5.5 mi (8.9 km) east of the base, with weather cited as a possible cause. - two things. First, could it just be "An instructional flight out of Naval Air..." - instead of lieutenant/crew. Second, you could mention the crew of three, something like "The crew of three was uninjured", or, if they were injured, mentioned that. This seems like a potentially important bit of info, as all weather-related crashes are.
  • So this is a bit nitpicky. You mention three tornadoes in Florida, and there is also an image of a waterspout near Key West. Was the waterspout one of those tornadoes? If not, could you also add somewhere that the storm spawned waterspouts and three tornadoes? Or some better way of wording that.
  • "They down in the cities of Arcadia and Wauchula as well as southern Polk County." - add missing word ("touched"?)
  • A 250 ft (76 m)-long segment of seawall typically rising 8 ft (2.4 m) above average high tide was destroyed, resulting in the flooding of an adjacent estate - where?
  • In total, 4,000 ft (1,200 m) of seawall and road along South Roosevelt Boulevard was destroyed - link the road to Florida_State_Road_A1A
  • As much as 150 ft (50 m) of beach eroded because of the elevated seas. - in Fernandina Beach?
  • Given the geography of Florida and the progression of the storm, IMO the Jacksonville paragraph should come a bit later, although I see why you put it there (I'm guessing because that's where the highest surge was).
  • Rainfall-related damage primarily to tomatoes, cabbage, beans, and peppers collectively resulted in a 75 percent loss of crops in the Hollywood area. - add commas please
  • Despite fruit trees largely surviving, salt spray carried inland by the winds threatened the ultimate loss of half of the remaining citrus-bearing trees in the St. Petersburg area, exacerbating the wind-torn crop losses. - so what ended up happening hear? The "threatened" part is what threw me, since that means it hadn't happened, and we're not sure if it did happen.
  • Did Environment Canada have anything for the storm?

All in all a good article! I'm glad to see it at FAC. I hope my delay in finishing my review hasn't annoyed you too much, and I hope these comments aren't too arduous. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for the comments—they're certainly not too arduous. I made the suggested fixes, including removing the part about threatening since I couldn't find any information to substantiate what actually happened. Unfortunately, Environment Canada seems to be no longer supporting their old hurricane impact database, but I did check it when it was still up back in July and surprisingly there was nothing there, nor was there anything from Canadian newspapers I could access. TheAustinMan(TalkEdits) 12:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Then I'm happy to support! Thanks for your hard work on this important article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


JC[edit]

This is an excellent piece of research, and it's a strong candidate for the best-illustrated pre-1950 storm article. Great work! I hope to offer a full review soon, but in the meantime I picked a relatively short section at random (in this case, "Elsewhere in the US") so I could get a feel for the article's substance. My initial impression is that the content is strong, but the prose is loose and at times confused. Some examples of how I'd tighten things up:

  • Total losses in the state of Georgia from the storm were estimated at between $250,000–$500,000. - I'd remove "from the storm" as self-evident.
  • Downed trees were reported in several communities, blocking streets and highways. → "Downed trees blocked streets and highways in several communities."
  • Communication services were scant in some areas as telecommunication and power lines were severed by the storm. - If utility wires were severed, it follows that comms would suffer as a result—or, from another angle, disrupted communications could really only have one cause in the aftermath of a severe windstorm.
  • Strong winds also damaged the shingles and roofs of some buildings to varying degrees; the shipyard in Brunswick, Georgia, was particularly hard hit, with several of its buildings and four cranes damaged. - Shingles and roofs? I'd ditch the semicolon and start a new sentence. Hard-hit is hyphenated.
  • The high wind-swept tides caused coastal inundation throughout the Southeastern U.S. coast... - "coastal ... coast"
  • "a multitude of" → "many"
  • where the seas rose 5.9 ft (1.8 m) above mean sea level. - "seas ... sea"
  • The highest rainfall total measured in the United States as a result of the hurricane was documented at the Brunswick airport, where 11.4 in (290 mm) of rain fell. - I'm not sure how I'd rework this, but it's a slog to get through at the moment.
  • Power and communication lines were downed across the Carolinas. Power outages affected much of Charleston, South Carolina, stemming from winds of 65 mph (105 km/h). → Winds reaching 65 mph brought down power and communication lines across the Carolinas, leaving much of Charleston without electricity." (pipe link without specifying SC is fine, I'd think)
  • Trees and signage... - Why not just "signs"?
  • ctrl+f yields 15 instances of "the city" throughout the article, and while some are acceptable, others—like "the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad just south of the city"—make me backtrack to recall the city in question. If you've only mentioned Florence once, you can refer to it by name again.
  • ...unpicked cotton crops perished. - "perished" is a bit dramatic...
  • Winds of 30–40 mph (48–64 km/h)... - False precision.
  • The storm's effects were comparatively minimal as its extratropical remnants tracked farther north, producing a wide swath of precipitation and high seas that extended alomg the United States' East Coast. - Try "The storm's effects tapered as precipitation and high seas spread north along the U.S. East Coast."
  • In Virginia, widespread rains were reported throughout the state. Some flooding occurred around Staunton, blocking some minor roads. High winds downed as many as 30 percent of the apples remaining on trees. I'd consider removing the first sentence, which adds little value. I'd change the second sentence to "Some street flooding occurred around Staunton". And the apple thing doesn't make much sense: was that 30% of the whole crop? Or after the first round or harvests?
  • The strongest winds were limited to the Norfolk area where winds of 35 mph (56 km/h) were felt; tides 2 ft (0.61 m) above normal were also reported there. → "Greater Norfolk endured 35-mph winds and a 2 ft storm surge."
  • In Newport News, the elevated seas rose over the seawall, inundating low-lying areas. → "The seawall in Newport News was overtopped, inundating low-lying areas".
  • Tree limbs were torn by the winds, though no resultant damage to property was reported. - Talking about damage that didn't happen is for short articles.
  • Minor telecommunication disruptions were reported in Maryland by the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company; a local Weather Bureau meteorologist characterized the storm as "an old fashioned nor'easter". - How are these clauses related?

And as 1:30 am closes in, that's it for now. These are just suggestions which you can feel free to ignore at your discretion. Regardless of how (or whether) you address these specific points, the article could benefit from a once-over by an uninvolved editor with a few hours to kill. – Juliancolton | Talk 05:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I've implemented some of these suggestions and also reread the rest of the article again for flow and clarity. --TheAustinMan(TalkEdits) 19:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

image review

  • Suggest scaling up the Chesapeake Bay image
  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • File:1944_hurricane_effects_in_Key_West_MM08838-26x_(15477075451).jpg and File:1944_hurricane_effects_in_Key_West_MM08838-22x_(15480223745).jpg: who is Quinby?
  • File:1944_hurricane_effects_in_Key_West_MM00017078x_(15293610590).jpg: if this is a Navy photo it should be PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: E. J. Quinby being a Navy Commander, all three Key West files have been changed to reflect their PD status. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Support from Hurricane Noah[edit]

  • The storm began quickly over the western Caribbean Sea, strengthening into a tropical storm on October 12 within hours of becoming a tropical cyclone. I don't like using storm twice in the same sentence. I also think it could be less wordy. NoahTalk 17:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Supporting... NoahTalk 23:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all working, per the checker tool
  • Formats
  • ISBN formats should be consistent with regard to hyphens
  • be consistent in the inclusion or otherwise of publisher locations for book sources
  • Ref 29: Why is this not in short form, since Barnes is listed in the sources?
  • Refs 42 and 43 have "subscription required", but no link
  • Also 49
  • Ref 61: Im not sure that Flickr should be credited as the "publisher" of this image, rather Florida Keys Public Libraries – but I'll leave that to you
  • Ref 105 – see 42/43/49 above
  • Quality/reliability: the sources are broadly what one would expect to see – newspaper articles, meteorological institutions and some scientific journals. As far as I can judge, collectively they meet the requisite FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate the source review--removed the non-url {{subscription required}} and transcluded the Cayman Islands rainfall table template so that references between the template and the article could be made consistent. TheAustinMan(TalkEdits) 12:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Digital media use and mental health[edit]

Nominator(s): [E.3][chat2][me] 06:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the complex, multifaceted, relationship between digital media use and mental health of its consumers and users. This has been in the media significantly since 2016 to a greater and greater extent, and there is a lot of confusion and misinformation amongst the public at large, in my experience - even moral panic. It is intended to be the main article of the category Digital media use and mental health. It intends to address history and terminiology, and then considers all the mental health views, following WP:MEDRS for medical claims. Problematic use has the most WP:DUE weight, followed by mental health benefits and the treatment of mental health problems with digital interventions. It then investigates other disciplinary perspectives, and the response of large technology firms. [E.3][chat2][me] 06:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Also linking to the GA review, Peer review and pre-FA nom comments.--[E.3][chat2][me] 06:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your substantial efforts in bringing this article, obviously an important one, to this stage. I am not a subject matter expert, but I know enough to know that this is a subject of much current research. As such it's a page that will require frequent and substantive updating, and is therefore exactly the sort of page that I, personally, would not bring to FAC, and I'm not sure that I'll be able to support, once I've read through it...Vanamonde (Talk) 10:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that that is necessarily a problem for FA. Such a topic will need periodic updates (say, once per year) but it's unlikely that it will require head-to-feet rewrites or daily updates which are generally much more difficult to manage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes I hope by listing it as Level-5 vital importance, with the FA nom and subsequent, anticipated FA reviews probably yearly will allow the article to be continually updated at high quality. Many kind thanks --[E.3][chat2][me] 19:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Why that image for the lead with that caption?
  • File:NetBet_Sports,_Casino,_Live_Dealers.jpg: why would this be own work? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes that may not be own work, I changed to an alternative, from the original image diff to new image diff. As to the lead image, my rationale is because there are many images previously used on related pages where people were illustrated likely without their permission. The series of images from Rawpixel Ltd. is appropriately licensed and shows probable paid actors that seem to be illustrating mobile phone usage +/- overusage. An alternative caption is "Smartphone usage may affect mental health", do you have another suggestion? Or do you suggest an alternative image? --[E.3][chat2][me] 06:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The issue is that we're illustrating them not only without their permission but also in such a way that is potentially derogatory given the unfortunate stigma around mental health concerns. See Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Moral_issues and the examples section that follows. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I am presuming that we do have their permission being stock footage actors, and it seems intentional and therefore not derogatory to me. Other media organisations have used Rawpixel's stock footage in this way see here & here. --[E.3][chat2][me] 10:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • What other sites do with stock imagery is neither here nor there, as they'll have different policies and practices around such usage. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Given this is appropriately licensed stock footage of actors I suggest that we are within the image use policy. I have changed the main image to an alternate stock footage with this diff, to avoid using the same subjects twice on the page. --[E.3][chat2][me] 12:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Also hopefully now with the caption being "The relationships between digital media use and mental health are under study" there is no implied potential stigmatisation of the stock footage actors. --[E.3][chat2][me] 13:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have found here one of the series of Rawpixel images where Rawpixel explicitly captions "The free high-resolution photo of addict, addiction..." so I take that as pretty firm consent of behalf of the subjects to be depicted in this way. --[E.3][chat2][me] 13:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Verification: spotchecks not carried out
  • Links: all links to sources are working, per the checker tool
  • Formats
  • Be consistent in formatting page ranges. Compare e.g. Ref 2 (225–232) with Ref 6 (652–7)
  • Ref 6: the publisher for Beales et al is Liverpool University Press ("Liverpool" is the location)
  • Ref 9: give the publisher (Wiley), not just the New York location
  • Ref 39: I'm probably being a little stuffy, but I'd prefer to see "Publishing" rather than "Pub"
  • Ref 43 (Hinduja & Patchin): here, you give location and publisher, elsewhere just the publisher. Publishers are required, locations are optional, but there needs to be consistency.
  • Ref 44: ISBN formats should be consistent (re hyphenation). 44 also lacks publisher
  • Ref 55: probably best to delete the doi, rather than record the link as "inactive"
  • Ref 59 lacking publisher
  • Ref 88: the publisher would appear to be Jana Partners LLC
  • Quality/reliability: the sources are mainly scholarly, and as far as I can see, appear to meet the requisite FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notes[edit]

As this hasn't received any substantial prose review or support for promotion, it may need to be archived within the next week. In the mean time, it may be prudent to reach out to active editors in this topic area and ask for a review against WP:WIAFA. --Laser brain (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Due to the lack of recognition and consensus on the concepts used, diagnoses and treatments are difficult to standardise or develop, especially considering that "new media has been subject to such moral panic". - not thrilled about this sentence, espeically as the last segment comes over in a non-neutral tone in the context it is used on this page. Would be better being rephrased and de-quoted - maybe something like, "The lack of recognition and consensus on the concepts used renders diagnoses and treatments are difficult to standardise or develop. Heightened levels of anxiety around new media further obfuscate assessment of impact and management" ?
Done --[E.3][chat2][me] 23:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
...characterized by virtual Internet sexual activity that causes serious .... - any reason why "internet" is capitalised here?
In American English "Internet" has traditionally been capitalized. However, Merriam-Webster notes: "In U.S. publications, the capitalized form Internet continues to be more common than internet, although the lowercase form is rapidly gaining more widespread use. In British publications, internet is now the more common form." American Heritage Dictionary lists "internet, also Internet". I reviewed Manual of Style/Capital letters; searched within the Manual of Style for "internet"; and searched Help for "manual of style internet", but did not find any specific Wikipedia guidance. I am in favor of "internet". Perhaps we should propose including a line or two about the word in the MOS and recommend using "internet" for articles in American English. I suspect most articles in BE, AU, NZ, and other forms of English already use the lower-case version, although I did not investigate.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 13:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Internet capitalisations occurred with the GOCE copy-edit. I prefer "internet", and per Markworthen's analysis this is NZ English, will change --[E.3][chat2][me] 23:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Social media addiction while excluded from the DSM-5 is under consideration as a mental disorder - ...by the DSM-5? This sentence is awkward as is

Overall I think it has improved with each review. I still get the feeling it is a bit "bitsy" but am aware this may be due to the nature of the body of evidence out there and not any fault as such of the article itself. Nothing else is really jumping out at me prose or comprehensiveness-wise but I will take another look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Re: "under consideration as a mental disorder" in DSM-5—that is a very good point. I revised the sentence (diff).   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 14:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, this is a tough one - I can't see any more prose issues and it seems pretty comprehensive. So is a tentative support from me though for some reason I can't put my finger on I don't feel wildly confident but maybe that is because of the patchiness of the research and hence no fault of the article. My thumbs-up is dependent on other thumbs-up (which it needs to be anyway) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou very kindly for all your help with this, a tentative thumbs up from yourself, a psychiatrist and a wiki expert for FA is much far than I thought it would ever get. You're right, the literature is inconclusive, and it makes the article "bitsy", I've been struggling with multiple layouts and the like the whole time, concluding this is the best it can be. My literature searches have been as robust as my skills allow (although not systematic). Thanks so much again. I've posted quite widely on the wikiprojects hoping for some more interested reviewers. --[E.3][chat2][me] 15:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

I have done a little copy editing on the way, which you will want to check.

  • "However, concerns have arisen from researchers, clinicians and the public" How about 'However, concerns have been expressed by researchers, clinicians and the public'?
  • "different OECD nations had marked variations in childhood technology use" Could that specify whether the variation refers to types of technology, rates of usage, or both?
  • "recognised in the ICD-11" When an acronym is used, it should be given in full at first mention. (See my tweak to OECD.)
  • It is first mentioned in the lead and expanded there, do I need to expand it in this section too? --[E.3][chat2][me] 00:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
No. The MoS says do so "if helpful for readers", so if you think it isn't, leave it.
  • "the lack of well-established evidence or expert consensus" Should that be 'and of expert consensus'? (In fact that whole sentence is difficult to follow and could bear being relooked at.)
  • rephrased and removed evidence here. --[E.3][chat2][me] 01:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "in regard to its suitability as a separate psychiatric entity, or whether it is a manifestation of other psychiatric disorders" Are you setting up a dichotomy here? If so, could it be more clearly expressed as such? If not, ditto.
  • changed to "The utility of the term addiction in relation to overuse of digital media has been questioned, in regard to its suitability as separate, digitally mediated psychiatric entities, as opposed to manifestations of other psychiatric disorders." --[E.3][chat2][me] 01:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • changed to "The utility of the term addiction in relation to overuse of digital media has been questioned, in regard to its suitability to describe new, digitally mediated psychiatric categories, as opposed to overuse being a manifestation of other psychiatric disorders." Does that make sense? --[E.3][chat2][me] 02:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "careless use of the term may cause additional problems" I feel that this needs a 'such as ... ' or similar.
  • "Panova and Carbonell published a review in 2018 that specifically encouraged terminology of "problematic use" in regard to technology behaviours, rather than continuing research based on other behavioural addictions" It may be me, but having read this several times, I am unsure what it is trying to communicate.
  • "with some calling to delineate proposed disorders" Would that read better as 'with some calling for proposed disorders to be delineated'?
  • "has caused difficulty with timely publishing of evidence-based guidelines, with experts from the fields of psychology and psychiatry calling for further study" Minor point: "with" twice; could one be replaced? More serious point: "further study" of what? (evidence-based guidelines?)
  • Rephrased to " Experts from the fields of psychology and psychiatry have called for further study, especially to establish whether causal relationships exist." --[E.3][chat2][me] 01:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "with risk of depression developing at both the low and high ends" → 'with risk of depression developing increasing at both the low and high ends'?
  • "individuals of ages 14–24" Optional: "of ages" → 'aged'.

~*"the largest five social media platforms" Is this cited? I am not sure that it is accurate. Perhaps 'five large social media platforms'

  • "YouTube was the only platform with a net positive rating "based on the 14 health and wellbeing-related questions", followed by Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat, with Instagram having the lowest rating" This, to me, leaves it a little unclear that four platforms had net negative ratings; "a net positive rating ... followed by ... " could easily be taken to mean that those "follow[ing]" also had "a net positive rating", especially on the light of the following sentence.
  • I agree. changed to "and the other platforms measured had net negative ratings, with Instagram having the lowest rating." --[E.3][chat2][me] 01:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Twenge and colleagues" The preceding studies mention a date. Could this one? Similarly with "Ophir and colleagues".
  • "were correlated with depressive symptoms" "were" → 'was'.
  • "questioned the surveys' research methodology, such as" I would suggest "such as" → 'citing' or similar, unless there is a consensus that these concerns were well founded.
  • ""reconsidering the internet as an environment rather than as a tool, [... exploring] the internet's role in cognitive ecology, as well as the inadequacy of treating the internet as a tool and thus of the current internet-addiction model"" After several reads this has managed to communicate negative information. Can I (strongly) suggest replacing it with a (intelligible) paraphrase.
  • changed to "A different perspective in 2018 by Musetti and colleagues reappraised the internet in terms of its necessity and ubiquity in modern society, as a social environment, rather than a tool, thereby calling for the reformulation of the internet addiction model" --[E.3][chat2][me] 01:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "suicidal ideation" should be linked at first mention.
  • "Similar modest increases" Is "modest" in the cite? An increase of 50% does not strike me as "modest".
  • True, I was thinking absolute rather than relative, removed modest --[E.3][chat2][me] 01:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "and one may argue to multitask less on digital media" Is this intended to communicate 'and one may argue that it is more effective to multitask less on digital media' or similar. As it stands it seems to have words missing.
  • "There is some limited evidence into the effectiveness of" "into" → 'of'.
  • "manage risk of harm online" → 'manage the risk of harm online'.
  • "high believers" Is there not a more felicitous term?
  • Yes I think thats a sociological term, changed to highly religious people --[E.3][chat2][me] 01:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "They theorised that these same vulnerable groups" Assuming that "vulnerable groups" refers to "lower-income youths" then: 1. is this explicitly cited; 2. vulnerable to what; 3. could it be made clear that the use of "vulnerable groups" refers to "lower-income youths".
  • Vulnerable groups refers to vulnerable to mental illness. the lower income groups are already vulnerable to mental illness and then the risks are amplified by their higher use of digital media. Is it clearer here? --[E.3][chat2][me] 01:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "It called for further study, identifying, "adolescence a tipping point in development for how social media can influence their self-concept and expectations of self and others" Again I am unclear what the report is calling for; again I would suggest a paraphrase rather than a quote.
  • "often findings in relation to behavioural addictions or digital media used in individual studies" Recommend 'relation to specific behavioural addictions'. (I read this three times, typed a complaint and then, belatedly, "got it".)
  • Changed to " are under study, often neuroscientific findings in individual studies of digital media use patterns, similar to other behavioural addictions, fail to be replicated in further studies" --[E.3][chat2][me] 02:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Gaps in quotes are sometimes shown as " ... " and sometimes as " [...] ". Standardise?
  • "small to moderate effects on mental health" "effects" → 'benefits'?
  • "but this would require validating evidence from future randomised controlled trials" This seems to beg an 'in order to ... '
  • Changed to "Smartphone applications have proliferated in many mental health domains, with "demonstrably effective" recommendations from one 2016 review encouraging cognitive behavioural therapy, addressing both anxiety and mood. The review, however called for randomised controlled trials to validate their recommendations." --[E.3][chat2][me] 02:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "It admitted "heavy responsibilities"" Replace "It" with either 'He' or 'Facebook'.
  • "enabling users to set timers on application overuse" Should that be 'use', not "overuse"?

Some points from a first run through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

An exceedingly fine article, which I imagine I will be supporting. Ideally some of the content would be devolved out to sub-articles, but as these don't exist this article has had to work hard to cover everything; it has done a pretty good job of it. A passing thought is that the level of Wikilinking seemed low for such a technical article - I could be wrong on that, so don't worry if you disagree.
I am away for the weekend from a couple of hours time. I will still be on Wikipedia but may not get around to this FAC again until I am back. As all of the issues I have brought up so far have been satisfactorily addressed I suggest that Homeostasis07 carry out their prose review and I save my reread for when that is done and dusted? Is that OK? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Of course. Many kind thanks again, and for the kind comment. --[E.3][chat2][me] 14:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Second run through[edit]

Again, some copy editing for you to check.

  • Yep happy with all your copy edits, they're great! --[E.3][chat2][me] 11:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Lead:

  • "for some years" A bit vague for a FA. Is the actual year not known?
  • Since 1996, with Kimberley Young. --[E.3][chat2][me] 11:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Havent included yet, but for interesting prose we could say "experts- since the mid 1990s, very soon after the marked increase in uptake of of the world wide web. Is it too WP:SYNTH or narrative? Also Young originally presented in 1994, but obviously was studying before this. Changed to mid 1990s for now. --[E.3][chat2][me] 11:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No, that looks spot on to me. Succinctly puts it into context. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "recognises gaming disorder" Is that internet-gaming? If so, could you state it; if not, what is the relevance?
  • Redefined by the WHO to avoid addiction terminology. Have inserted "commonly known as video game addiction" --[E.3][chat2][me] 11:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Scientists, however, are unsure about the direct links between digital media use and mental health outcomes." "unsure about the direct links" seems a little 'hand wavey'. Could it be phrased a little more tightly?
  • Hows "unsure about the existence of hypothesised causal links" --[E.3][chat2][me] 11:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "to try to reduce the risks of digital media use" Optional: Specify the risks which are being reduced.
  • I think given journalists have questioned this, as have experts, as well as the closure of the tech firms, this isn't possible to address esp in the lead. --[E.3][chat2][me] 11:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

History and terminology:

  • "Terminology used to refer to compulsive digital-media-use behaviours are" "Terminology" being singular, I think that "are" should be 'is'. A similar issue with "They" in the next sentence. Possibly use 'terminologies'?
  • "Gaming disorder has been recognised in the ICD-11" See second point under Lead, above.
  • "Different recommendations from the DSM and the ICD" "from" → 'in'.

Problematic use:

  • "This has led multiple experts cited by Hawi and Samaha of Notre Dame University – Louaize to suggest that digital media overuse may not be a singular construct, with some calling for proposed disorders to be delineated based on the digital platform used" This sentence doesn't really work. Shout if you disagree, or agree but would like suggestions as to how to rephrase.
  • This has gone through multiple rephrasings, tis difficult, especially in the DYK approved. I use Hawi and Samaha because they summarise succinctly with all of their refs. I'm basically saying, a point I've considered important since the start of my contributions in this sphere, that multiple experts are calling for delineating "internet addiction" as having subsets due to the gender difference. --[E.3][chat2][me] 11:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • OK. Leave it. If it's good enough for Reidgreg it's good enough for me.
  • "prospective study designs going forward" I don't think that both "prospective" and "going forward" are needed.
  • "compared psychological benefits and problems of five large social media platforms" "of" → 'for'.
  • "new media" is used twice, without being defined. If it is a synonym for digital media, I suggest standardising on the latter.
  • Since digital media isn't quite a synonym except in the second use, I have defined in the first use
  • "and even some positive associations in terms of well-being" "even" seems PoV; is this, or a similar word or phrase, used in the source?
  • It is but it isn't necessary for the encyclopaedia, removed. --[E.3][chat2][me] 11:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "and one may argue to multitask less on digital media to be more productive and efficient" This needs tweaking for sense/grammar.
  • Sorry, but still doesn't quite make sense. How about ending with 'it is possible to argue that it is inefficient to multitask on digital media'?
  • "as commented in a 2017 UNICEF Office of Research literature review" "commented" seems an odd word in context.
  • changed to "Other experts, cited in in a 2017 UNICEF Office of Research literature review, have recommended addressing potential underlying problems rather than arbitrarily enforcing screen time limits" --[E.3][chat2][me] 11:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "A number of different methodologies of assessing pathological internet" "of" → for?
  • "gaming disorder" Internet-gaming disorder?
  • No "internet gaming disorder" is a subset of "gaming disorder" as the latter can be offline, now clearly stating that WHO uses gaming disorder, APA internet gaming disorder (although not officially approved by the latter). --[E.3][chat2][me]
  • "Medications have not been shown to be effective in randomised controlled trials" Optional: → 'In randomised controlled trials medications have not been shown to be effective'.

Mental health benefits:

  • "can develop social connections over social media, that develop a sense of" "develop" twice; possibly change one?

Other disciplines:

  • "a digital analyst, anthropologist and keynote speaker working in the field" Optional: → 'a digital analyst and anthropologist'.
  • "noting lower-income youths may spend up to three hours more per day using digital devices, compared to higher-income youths. They theorised that these same groups" Does "these same groups" refer to lower-income youths, higher-income youths or both?
  • changed to "lower income youths" --[E.3][chat2][me] 11:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "that are already vulnerable to mental illness" Can a group be vulnerable to mental illness?

Digital technology use in mental health care:

  • "Digital media use in healthcare is unregulated in most countries" This seems a random sentence. I don't see how it links to the rest of the paragraph, the section, or even the article. Is there a missing fragment?
  • Yes the article did originally talk about regulation to a significant extent, deleted for relevance. I guess we can remove its last vestiges unless anyone objects --[E.3][chat2][me] 11:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
China[edit]

Response of large technology firms:

  • I understood that some of the World's largest digital platforms are Chinese based. Earlier you say "China ... [has] treated digital dependence as a public health crisis". How, if at all, is this reflected in changes made by the platform providers?
  • I dont think the large China tech firms have been addressing publically, from a customary google search. The response from china has been mainly opening treatment centres, further discussed in the internet addiction linked article. --[E.3][chat2][me]
  • To me this is the only issue giving me pause about supporting is this one, criteria 1b, "it neglects no major facts or details". The article seems a little weak in this respect if it doesn't address, if only negatively, how these issues play out in China, a not insignificant proportion of digital media users.
Definitely understand the concern. I do not think WeChat or Weibo have released statements to assert they are mitigating risks of their platforms to date, however I cannot find a source to state this either, so that's not possible to include under the final section. I will now include this review when I delineate the large social media platforms, and also citing it whenever I state that excessive social media use is associated with mental illness. --[E.3][chat2][me] 12:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
So I understand China's strategies don't seem to come from the tech firms but government regulation.. This is addressed in the see also articles under problematic use: internet addiction, Video gaming addiction, Online_gaming_in_China (through a double click from this article to get to). We dont have a section currently on government regulation because so far, the rest of the world hasn't been regulating. Facebook has invited regulation, and there has been one proposal from a US congressman in problematic social media use. I can add some Chinese content to that article too. Personally, I think that the sub articles should have that content unless it becomes a "response from the large technology firms", but to satisfy criteria 1b, the new review article is included. What do you think about that compromise or do you have other suggestions? --[E.3][chat2][me] 13:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I like the mention of WeChat you have added. Frankly, I would feel uncomfortable supporting if some mention were not made inline in the article of the online game anti-indulged system standard issued by the General Administration of Press and Publications. Or something similar. It seems to go straight to the topic of this article. I see no reason why it needs a separate section, nor why it needs to be lengthy. Perhaps retitle the last section "Platform provider and governmental responses"? And include a sentence or two?
It good Wikipedia style, I am prepared to be argued out of this, but I suspect that you agree with me. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
Retitled the section and I added new content. I'm a bit uncertain as to the reliability of this source in the article Online gaming in China, which was written after the publication of this (Permalink). I am unable to verify whether this proposal ever came into fruition in China. I have my doubts, considering more than a decade later they have proposed a similar thing. So I think its best to stick with the more recent information. --[E.3][chat2][me] 12:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC) FYI I asked at Reliable sources noticeboard here. --[E.3][chat2][me] 12:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Retitled the section and added China content summarised (sourcing thoughts above) --[E.3][chat2][me] 12:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Good. Supporting. A top class article you have created. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Was a great review and a great process. --[E.3][chat2][me] 13:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • It is now looking very good, and reading more smoothly - nice job with Homeostasis07. A couple of issues for you above; only the China one is significant. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm coming from a question on a different board and just trying to find some sources here "Government Regulation of Online Game Addiction" from CAIS, Enmeshed in games with the government: Governmental policies and the development of the Chinese online game industry from Games and Culture, Policy and prevention approaches for disordered and hazardous gaming and Internet use: An international perspective from Prevention Science, and a few more possible hits from Google Scholar search on this area. --Masem (t) 14:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that @Masem:. I'm a bit worried about the first source because for claims it cites the poorly cited wiki article Online gaming in China. Will take a look at the others tomorrow. --[E.3][chat2][me] 15:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Have updated predominantly with the fantastic last ref, @Masem:. What do you think? also if you have time to comment/review the rest of the article would be most appreciated. --[E.3][chat2][me] 12:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Homeostasis07[edit]

  • Intend to add a prose review here once Gog the Mild's section above reaches a conclusion. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I've just read the lead so far (where I couldn't see any problems, but I'll re-read after reviewing the rest of the prose). I believe this to be a very important topic, and I find the subject fascinating. It seems immaculately referenced (abundance of academic sources), so the prose should be a breeze to review. Should be able to post my initial review within 24 hours... Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay. It's quite a large and dense article, so has taken me a bit longer than usual to get through. There are some very technical sentences that initially seem quite hard to digest on first read, so hopefully my review will be able to resolve such things. That being said, you've done a brilliant job so far of making the article as easy to understand as possible (for the lay person). For such a complicated and technological-based subject, it's (mostly) incredibly easy to follow. I agree with Gog the Mild above that there initially seems to be a lack of wikilinking on the article, but I found that many of the terms I was about to suggest linking were just redirects to the article itself, so that'd be pointless. It's clear this article is a stepping stone in the future creation of a massive series of articles. Kudos on your work so far. ;) Here are my suggestions so far:
Thanks for the kind comments. Yes its been a long time coming, hopefully this overview with all the sub articles and links leads to further expansion of sub articled down the track. --[E.3][chat2][me] 02:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


History and terminology

  • "A 2018 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report noted the benefits of structured and limited internet use in children and adolescents for development and education, and that excessive digital media use is associated with mental illness." → "A 2018 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report noted the benefits of structured and limited internet use in children and adolescents for developmental and educational purposes, but that excessive use can have a negative impact on mental well-being."
  • Link ICD-11 here; unlink same from 'Assessment and treatment' section.
  • "animal models" can be linked as animal model, or just animal model (which is a redirect. I personally prefer redirects, but I know others don't like them. I'll leave that up to you).
  • You could do with specifying who "Panova and Carbonell" are, because they come across as two random names that don't mean much to the average reader. How about something like: "Tayana Panova and Xavier Carbonell of Ramon Llull University"?
  • Done, but I changed to psychologists, and only using surnames.
  • population based → population-based?
  • Radeski and Christiaki, the 2019 editors of JAMA Paediatrics, published a review that investigated: there seems to be some inconsistency with how these two names are spelled throughout the article. All the sources identify the first as Radesky J or JS, and the second as Christakis D or DA; both academics have collaborated on several different reports, so I'm assuming these are all the same two people. However, the prose has different spellings of "Radesky"/"Radeski", and "Christakis"/"Christiakis". If it's as I suspect, the names should be corrected. If I'm mistaken, then please ignore. ;) Also, I believe JAMA Paediatrics should be italicised.

Problematic use

  • "This has led multiple experts cited by Hawi and colleagues to suggest that digital media overuse may not be a singular construct, with some calling for proposed disorders to be delineated based on the type of digital media used." → "This has led multiple experts cited by Nazir Hawi and his colleagues at the University of Notre Dame to suggest that digital media overuse may not be a singular construct, with some calling for proposed disorders to be delineated based on the type of digital media used." Also, the latter use of "digital media" is a bit repetitive. How about switching it up to "device" (since it wa explained in the previous section that this relates to the type of device used—problematic smartphone use, problematic internet use, etc.)
  • Changed to digital platform and Notre Dame University – Louaize --[E.3][chat2][me]

Mental health

  • "A 2016 technical report by Chassiakos, Radesky, and Christakis identified"... → Some names that don't mean much as they are (to me anyway). How about changing this to "A 2016 technical report which appeared in Pediatrics identified"...
  • This is the same Radesky and Christakis, just another author --[E.3][chat2][me] 02:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "but these were outweighed by negative effects, including those on sleep, body image, and "fear of missing out"." → "but said that these were outweighed by the negative effects, specifically on sleep, body image, and "fear of missing out"."
  • "Twenge and colleagues published in 2018 two cross sectional surveys of 506,820 American high school students," → "A report published in Clinical Psychological Science in 2018 featured two cross-sectional surveys of 506,820 American high school students,
  • "They concluded that more time engaged with electronic device use," → "They concluded that more time engaged with electronic devices"
  • "However, Ophir and colleagues questioned in 2018 the survey's research methodology," → "However, a later report in the same publication questioned the survey's research methodology,"
  • "The relationship between bipolar disorder and technology use has been investigated in a singular survey of 84 participants. The survey found marked variations in technology use based on self-reported mood states. Matthews and colleagues then postulated that for patients with bipolar disorder, technology may be a "double-edged sword", with potential benefits and harms." → "The relationship between bipolar disorder and technology use has been investigated in a singular survey of 84 participants for Computers in Human Behavior. The survey found marked variations in technology use based on self-reported mood states. The authors of the report then postulated that for patients with bipolar disorder, technology may be a "double-edged sword", with potential benefits and harms."

Screen time

  • Couldn't find anything to complain about here.

Proposed diagnostic categories

  • Who are "Stein and Parashar"?
  • Explained the textbook and citations --[E.3][chat2][me] 02:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Online problem gambling, Cyberbullying, Media multitasking, Assessment and treatment and Mental health benefits

  • Nothing to complain about here, except the previously mentioned random linking of ICD-11 in 'Assessment'.

Digital anthropology

  • Link first instance of digital anthropology (first sentence, as opposed to the first sentence of 2nd paragraph).

Digital sociology

  • "noting lower-income youths may spend up to three hours more time per day using digital devices, compared to higher income youths." → "noting lower-income youths may spend up to three hours more per day using digital devices, compared to higher-income youths."

Gonna have to leave it there for the time being, @E.3: will continue soon. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Great thanks for the comments. Have put them all in the article! --[E.3][chat2][me] 02:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For convenience the changes from this review are in this diff. --[E.3][chat2][me] 13:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


Neuroscience

  • "Although brain imaging modalities are under study, often neuroscientific findings in individual studies of digital media use patterns, similar to other behavioural addictions, fail to be replicated in further studies, and as of 2017, the exact biological or neural processes that could lead to excessive digital media use are unknown." → This sentence reads pretty awkwardly. Something like "Although brain imaging modalities are under study, neuroscientific findings in individual studies often fail to be replicated in future studies, similar to other behavioural addictions; as of 2017, the exact biological or neural processes that could lead to excessive digital media use are unknown." might be easier to digest. But feel free to rephrase however you like, because you've done a better job of rewriting things so far than I have. ;)

Digital technology use in mental health care

  • Research of digital health interventions in young people is preliminary with a meta-review unable to draw firm conclusions because of problems in research methodology. → I feel like you're missing a comma between "preliminary" and "with".

Response of large technology firms

  • "However, journalists have questioned the functionality for users and for parents and companies' motivations for these interventions." → "However, journalists have questioned the functionality of these products for users and parents, as well as the companies' motivations for introducing them."

The last of my prose review. See no problem supporting this once these small points have been addressed. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Thankyou so much, for the review and for the support! --[E.3][chat2][me] 12:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No problem E.3, happy to support now on both prose and sourcing. Good luck with the nomination. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 17:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Kosmoceratops[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a dinosaur which is said to have had the most ornamented skull of them all, therefore the cool name. Writing this article has also been motivated by a certain US president slashing the national monument which is the only place this dinosaur has been found in half, and hopefully getting this article to the front page one day could spread some awareness (I've tried to keep its wording neutral enough for that). The text can be pretty complex in places (as the animal has been central in scientific arguments about very technical concepts), so I'm ready to simplify and rewrite anything if suggested. FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Support from Bobbychan193[edit]

I was the copy editor in charge of this article after FunkMonk submitted it to the GOCE Requests page in July. During the copy edit, I read through the entire article and improved its prose throughout, contributing to the GA status it currently holds. The article is extremely detailed and comprehensive. There is room for minor improvements to be made, and I highly encourage experienced FAC reviewers to identify them to improve the article further. Overall, I think it is worthy of FA promotion. Bobbychan193 (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, it is also nice that the CE has removed the wording further from the source texts, so there should be no close paraphrasing left. I did some minor adjustments to make some things less ambiguous, but otherwise it is kept pretty much as you left it. FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Yeah, I briefly browsed through the version history. The changes you've made look good. Congratulations on the GA by the way. Bobbychan193 (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the CMN 8801 image and the Kaiparowits Formation map
Scaled up the map, as for that skull image, it isn't particularly important compared to the images that show the subject of the article, so I think scaling it it up would be unbalanced. Also, the small text on it isn't important to this article, so doesn't really need to be visible (only the skull itself is of interest here). FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggest adding alt text
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • What makes Durbed a reliable source? ABelov2014? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
As "amateur" images they have been reviewed for accuracy at WP:Dinoart and modified further to comply with sources, which have been listed on their file descriptions so they can be verified by reviewers and readers. This procedure has been discussed and approved on the FAC talk page and other places, and it is agreed such images can be used here according to WP:original images and WP:pertinence (see footnote with links here:[10]). FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
The second of these images provides no source other than the DeviantArt page. This discussion certainly suggests that as a minimum requirement. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
That was an oversight, now added. FunkMonk (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Verification
  • No spotchecks carried out. I am slightly concerned that, in the "Discovery" section of the article, lengthy and complex paragraphs are referenced by long citation strings at the paragraph's end, with no indication as to what parts of the text these citations relate. This makes verification of the text difficult if not impossible. Would it not be possible to distribute the citations within the text?
It's because the citations often support different parts within the same sentences, but I've tried to distribute it more than it was. In places I couldn't get it below three citations, though. One place I've kept four citations since the sentence is supposed to reflect multiple sources: "Media outlets stressed the importance of the area's fossil discoveries—including more than 25 new taxa—while some highlighted Kosmoceratops as one of the more significant finds". Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • All links to sources working, per the ext. links checker tool
  • Formats
  • Stick to one format for archive & retrieval dates
Fixed, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Be consistent re. the inclusion of publisher locations for book sources
Added for all. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 26 lacking page ref
Can't find this anywhere, and the pdf I have is some unformatted manuscript version. I have taken the number of pages from that, but it is unlikely to be the final number, since the images are not integrated in the text. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Ditto ref 38
It says "e5016" whatever that means (it is common for online published sources), but changed it to the pdf page range. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Quality/reliability: No issues. The sources appear to be comprehensive and scholarly, and to meet the requisite criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

I forgot about this. I read it while on a bus some time ago. Looked good IIRC. Will take another look and comment soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

*parietalsquamosal - should this not be, "parietosquamosal "?

Yes, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In 2016, Mallon and colleagues found Kosmoceratops and Vagaceratops to form a clade, with their new genus Spiclypeus as sister taxon - "the new genus"?
Yes, more formal. FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks good otherwise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, should be fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Hence support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Support from Super Dromaeosaurus[edit]

Looks very good, although many of the terms are challenging for me. I'll continue later. Super Ψ Dro 12:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Good suggestions, quite a few links I had overlooked. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Link "ornamentation", "processes", "wetlands", "Utah" (first mention at discovery) and quadrupedal (lead).
Done both in lead and article body. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Explain "subadult" at the lead.
Done there and in article body. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "adapted to processing fibrous plants, and coprolites found in the Kaiparowits Formation may have been produced by ceratopsids." I find this "and" a bit unnatural. Maybe you could change it to "fibrous plants; coprolites found" or something like that. But it's possible that others with a better English knowledge disagree.
Changed to the more informative: "The teeth of ceratopsids were adapted to processing fibrous plants; coprolites from the Kaiparowits Formation that contain wood may have been produced by ceratopsids." FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe explain "postmortem".
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "complex slicing batteries" what do you mean with "batteries"?
A battery in this sense just means "a number of similar articles, items, or devices arranged, connected, or used together" in the dictionary sense, but I used the full term "dental battery" instead now, which links to the dinosaur tooth article, which should explain it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "The forward-curving epiparietals had prominent sulci" explain.
Done, also added link. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I usually explain what a clade is but it's a somewhat basic term in paleontology, so it's up to you to explain it or not.
Added the more specific "group consisting of all taxa sharing a common ancestor". FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • More links: "osteocyte", "blood vessel" (not really neccesary), "climate" (same here), "shell", "cuticle", "ecosystem", "hypothesis", "biologist". Super Ψ Dro 20:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Done for all except biologist and hypothesis, which I think are pretty common terms, per WP:overlinking. Linked mollusc shell and paleoclimate instead of just shell and climate. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Explain "coprolite" at the lead and maybe "cuticle".
Copied explanation for coprolite, and just found out there's an Arthropod cuticle article which I just linked. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I see a general use of adding a comma before "and" when enumerating (for example, "parts of the jugal, squamosal, and parietal bones"). I think that the comma in these cases should be deleted, but I leave it to your choice.
That is just serial comma, which is a style I prefer (I think it's good for directing the flow of the reading). FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, not a big problem.
  • The last links: "deposited", "shallow sea" (optional), "scavengers", "erosion", "Colorado", "endemism" (at paleobiogeography), "dispersed", "misnomer" (perhaps, I don't know how common is this word) and "Montana". Super Ψ Dro 17:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Linked all just to be safe. Also linked sediments... FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Explain "palynomorphs" and "orogenic".
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "western North Americ" missing letter.
What the... Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "and drained into the Western Interior Seaway, and the Gulf Coast region of the United States has been proposed as a good modern analogue" again, I think this "and" can be replaced by something else.
Replaced with semicolon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "in a silty sandstone channel lithofacies" I assume that the last word is in singular. You probably should explain what a "lithofacies" is.
Facies is both plural an singular, as that article states. Added explanation, though I'm not sure if it makes it less confusing... FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
It's fine. Super Ψ Dro 08:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "which suggests a pond environmet" fix this typo.
Amazing, how did this and the other one get through, and good you noticed, haha... FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
It's easier when you have to pay more attention when reading in a foreign language... Super Ψ Dro 08:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "to be an invalid nomen dubium" italics.
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The paleobiogeography subsection is quite long, do you think there could be some way to divide it into... subsubsections?
I thought of it before, but it's hard to find a way to justify a split. Chronological? Responses to the initial claims? Not sure what such a section would be called. FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, I guess nothing can be done here... Super Ψ Dro 08:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

This should be everything. Very good article, I have no doubt that it will become a FA. Super Ψ Dro 17:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

You noticed a lot of stuff that should have been fixed long ago, so a very helpful first FAC review (I think it's your first?)! FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Yes, it's my first FAC review. I found this easier than a GAN review since you know that it's not up to you and you don't need to hurry. I might review more in the future. Regarding this article, I guess now I can give my support. Super Ψ Dro 08:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, yeah, there's not as much time pressure, but the FA criteria are stricter. But since you've already had a FAC nomination yourself that is successful so far, you know the drill... FunkMonk (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Adele Spitzeder[edit]

Nominator(s): SoWhy 06:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most prolific German swindlers who pioneered the Ponzi scheme before Charles Ponzi was even born. The article received GA status in April and underwent peer review with much help from Gerda Arendt and Wehwalt, the latter agreeing to be my mentor for this nomination as well. This is my first FAC, so please excuse any mistakes I might make. Regards SoWhy 06:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt, Cassianto, SchroCat, and Tim riley: Sorry for the mass ping but I made some major expansions to the "public image" section after you supported. Would you mind reviewing those as well? Regards SoWhy 07:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • A couple of minor tweaks, but the additions work well, and the section is up to scratch. - SchroCat (talk) 07:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Kees08[edit]

Passing comment, might want to work on your p and pp's in your citations. A p is used for a single page, pp is used for multiple pages. An endash is used in lieu of a hyphen when denoting a page range as well. Not sure I'll do a whole review, but wanted to point this out. Kees08 (Talk) 06:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Done, thanks for pointing it out. I didn't realize {{sfn}} supported pp. Regards SoWhy 07:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

ALT text is OK-ish. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Wrt File:Adele Spitzeder Karikatur Volksküche.jpg, the source does not specify a date but since it depicts something that has to have happened during Spitzeder's banking days and those were from 1869 to 1872, the publication must have happened in that period. Regards SoWhy 09:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I just checked the source "Nebel" and it says "Ende September 1872" (End of September 1872) on p. 91. Changed it accordingly. Regards SoWhy 18:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I added another image. Would you mind checking it as well? Also, I'm happy to improve the ALT texts if necessary. Regards SoWhy 15:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Dank[edit]

  • Very happy to see you here, SoWhy! My understanding is that articles can't pass FAC if they rely on {{Interlanguage link}} ... my information may be out of date, I'd be happy to discuss it at WT:FAC if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 11:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
    Define "rely" ;) - A ill link is helpful compared to no link. I recommended in the peer review to write at least stubs, for a nicer look, but have seen FAs with ill links, for example The Cloisters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
    My personal tolerance level is zero ill's at FAC, but I don't make the rules. If other reviewers think they're fine, then I'll quietly exit this review. - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
    SoWhy, would you please write stubs about the seven topics? - If not we should discuss this in general on the FAC talk, because an ill link is really more helpful to the reader than no link; it establishs sort of notability, and leads to more information. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
    I agree with the notion that having a ill is better than having no link at all (or a redlink only). After all, per WP:REDYES, placing red links to notable topics is encouraged and I don't see the harm in it being accompanied by a small link to an existing article on another project. So I think this should definitely be allowed. That said, I will endeavor to turn these red links blue. Regards SoWhy 14:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
    When translating the topics in question, stubs suffice. The links look decently blue then, and the connection to more information in the other language is there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
    Absolutely, stubs are sufficient. And, as I think I've mentioned, my grandfather was German-ish ... I'd love to have more German-themed FAs ... this isn't an anti-German thing. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
    That thought never crossed my mind. I created the parents' articles now but it might take me a couple of days to do the rest, since opera and stuff like that is not my wheelhouse. Feel free to help out of course Face-wink.svg Regards SoWhy 16:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
This one's news to me. I'm pretty sure I got The Founding Ceremony of the Nation through in 2017 with at least one ILL.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Wehwalt, read above: it's Dank's personal limit, but who wouldn't respect that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The notation for interlanguage links is intentionally meant to look like there's something that needs to be done that hasn't been done yet ... that conflicts with the message we're giving out about Featured Articles, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 23:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Dank, we heard that you think so, and said that we respect that. I see it that way for real red links, while ill-links are links to articles, just in a different language, which means a world of a difference for me. Higher education for girls was rare at the time, so I'll probably write Höhere Töchterschule [de] eventually. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Fine. No desire to get into a policy discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Otherwise, I'm quite happy with the quality of the writing, and I came here expecting to give a quick prose support. - Dank (push to talk) 11:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Just a note that I'm unwatching, since some of our best prose reviewers are now on board. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Support from Gerda[edit]

I gave detailed comments in the PR, read it again now, and am happy to support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Public image

  • "playing outside the bank and provided free meals" - needs a comma or some other way to not connect the meals to the bank ;) - better.
  • "The constant and deliberate long queues" - not sure that conveys what it is meant, but may be jut me. - "The constant and intentional long queue", - what's an intenional queue? keep simple?
  • "to up to 4,000 patrons" - what exactly? - per day? at all?

Thank you for expanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks for the comments. I hope it's clearer now. Regards SoWhy 10:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The first yes. Asked more pecisely for the others. Btw, I opened a peer review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Spitzeder intentionally let long queues form so that she appeared more popular. I added a bit more detail and rephrased the whole thing, I hope it's okay now. I also clarified that 4,000 refers to the seating available. I'll check the PR later. Regards SoWhy 12:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but that would be an intenionally long queue, no? - The new wording is fine, so only the 4,000 customers left. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The article now reads a tavern providing beer and food at discounted prices and with seating for up to 4,000 patrons. I'm unsure what is still unclear, could you please elaborate? Face-confused.svg Regards SoWhy 12:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I was unclear about that I mean the third question, about the feeding of the 4,000. Is that number "ever", or "per day" or what? If ever, it doesn't seem high. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

On first read, excellent. On more thorough reading, I would advise the following:

  • You need to go through and blitz some nouns in favour of pronouns. A general rule is once they've been named, follow each sentence with a pronoun. If ambiguity exists, such as in this case, Spitzeder being mentioned in the same sentence as another female/females, revert back to the name once, then follow the pronoun route. CassiantoTalk 07:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Done. SoWhy 09:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Ehringer tried to flee with 50,000 gulden that she claimed was a gift from Spitzeder, but they were both arrested with the money" -- Was the money also arrested? Was the money used to finance their arrest? Stupid, I know, but it could be tighter. Suggest "...but they were both arrested for being in possession of the money", if indeed that was the case.
    • Done. SoWhy 09:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In "Early life" we jump from Adele to Spitzeder and then back again. I think I see what you're trying to do - to avoid the confusion between Betty and Spitzeder - but in places, it's really not needed. If you are calling Betty "Betty", then there can be no confusion with Spitzeder, despite them sharing the same surname.
    • Done. SoWhy 09:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Lead

  • They'll be some who'll want to know what a "confidence trickster" is. Rather than forcing them away to find out, a handy link upon first mention in the lede would be of benefit.
    • Done. SoWhy 09:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Spitzeder was estimated to be the wealthiest woman in Bavaria." -- by who?
    • Hopefully done, please check if it's okay like this. Thanks for the comments! Regards SoWhy 09:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "The largest such newspaper in the city, the Volksbote was in serious financial troubles which it solved with a 13,000 gulden loan from Spitzeder.[57] The Volksbote in turn responded to each criticism in the Münchner Neueste Nachrichten by defending her business".[57] -- Do we need to repeat ref 57?
    • I merged the two sentences with a ";" which takes care of both the duplicate ref and the unnecessary partition of what is essentially information that belongs together. Regards SoWhy 07:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support -- checked and all ok. A great article indeed. CassiantoTalk|

SC[edit]

There are a few places where you have four refs together; it may be worth considering bundling the refs together to ease the effect on the eye. (I have a personal rule of three normally, but everyone's mileage differs).

Acting
  • "to quit the engagement": "quit" always seems a little informal to me. "Leave" would be a shade better
  • "offered a spot to work": is this an acting role she was offered? (Spot is a little too informal and unclear)
  • "She turned it down because at her mother's wishes who offered her 50 gulden each month for life": this needs to be sorted – I think I know what you're trying to say, but it's a bit garbled
    • Changed all three. Regards SoWhy 10:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "attributed her lack of success to her appearance": this may need a little more explanation, as this is the first mention of her appearance (did the newspapers say she looked too old, or frumpy, or unattractive, etc)
    • The source literally says "Allein, Sie hatte keinen sonderlichen Erfolg, woran übrigens weniger der Mangel an Talent als vielmehr ihre äußere Erscheinung die Schuld tragen mochte, welche für die Bühne offenbar nicht besonders geeignet war", which can be translated roughly as "However, she did not enjoy particular success, not from a lack of talent but rather more likely because of her outward appearance, which was apparently not particularly suitable for the stage". I will check if I can find a source that has a better description. Regards SoWhy 10:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I added more descriptions of her appearance. Regards SoWhy 19:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "with her girlfriend Rosa" I know you deal with the question of her sexuality in a section below, but I think you either need to soften the term, ("her friend") or drop in a couple of words of explanation
    • I don't think softening is a good idea since it would also change the meaning. But it might be good to have a sooner mention of Ehringer in the paragraph. I'll see what I can find. Regards SoWhy 10:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I just noticed that I mixed up the names here, Rosa was her second girlfriend but when she returned first she was with Emilie. Mea culpa. I'll go through the sources again and add more info where I can find it. Regards SoWhy 10:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Growth
  • "One of her employees was Rosa Ehringer,": just "Ehringer" needed here, as we've already been told her name is Rosa
    • Changed. Regards SoWhy 10:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Image
  • "barking orders": this comes over as less than neutral, as there are many ways to give orders. If there is a source that says "barking" (or similar), then it's best to say that "according to xxxx she 'barked her orders' to everyone", or whatever.
    • This source calls it "laut und herrisch" ("loud and overbearing"). I'll see if I can find something else or reword it. Regards SoWhy 10:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I rephrased that paragraph to match the sources more closely. Regards SoWhy 19:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Personal life
  • I'd be tempted to scrap this section and add some of the info further up (to the part where you have "with her girlfriend Rosa" – other bits, such as Emilie Stier, you can either footnote or drop into the chronology); the final sentence you can put at the end of the Bankruptcy section, where the rumours about her homosexuality part is. (One of the reasons I'd get rid of it, is because it only deals with the homosexuality and nothing else. It's a brief mention, which is good, but can be used further up to give weight to the story as it develops).
    • I'd rather try and develop it further, I think there is more to write once I can recheck the sources and now have the main book at home that I lacked when I first wrote the article. Regards SoWhy 10:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Expanded with information on her various relationships. Regards SoWhy 19:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

An interesting subject, by and large nicely covered. – SchroCat (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Thanks for all the suggestions, I think I have addressed them all. Please recheck if you have a minute. Regards SoWhy 19:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent work, and thank you for the additional work you've put in over the last day or so. The personal life section reads nicely now, and has enough there to stand on its own, and the changes you've made elsewhere all work well. - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley[edit]

Excellent to see a newcomer to FAC, and with such a sound first attempt. I shall be supporting, but a few very minor comments before that:

  • Early life
    • "National Theatre Munich" – I see the WP article omits the expected comma before "Munich", but I don't think we should follow suit here. Piping as National Theatre, Munich would follow the orthodox English form. (I see the National Theatre Munich article was created commaless, by the late and much-missed Viva-Verdi, in whose absence I'll raise the point of the missing comma on that article's talk page.) As the Spitzeder article is in AmE there is, I suppose, a case for making that National Theater, Munich here, but I don't press the point.
    • "quit the engagement" – "quit" was much used in English centuries ago but is now seen as either old fashioned, legalese or Americanese. Better to have a plain "leave"
    • "She turned it down because at her mother's wishes who offered her 50 gulden" – not English. Perhaps, "She turned it down at the behest of her mother, who offered her 50 gulden" or suchlike.
      • Still not in English: "23,000 gulden which she turned it down at her mother's wishes". Deleting the "it" would do the job. Tim riley talk 21:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
        • @Tim riley: You, Sir, are correct. I probably thought about writing "she turned it down" before settling on the current sentence and forgot to remove the "it". Regards SoWhy 05:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
    • "attested her the necessary talent" – unexpected use of the verb. I don't think you can attest somebody: what is needed here is something like "attested that she had the necessary talent".
    • "attributed her lack of success to her appearance". This is a bit vague. The reader may reasonably wonder in what way her appearance was inimical to success.
  • Growth of business
    • "from an insider tip to a large company" – I can work out what this means, but it could be put more clearly and elegantly. Perhaps the point would be as well made simply as "quickly grew into a large company".
  • Later life and death
    • "Spitzeder was released from prison in the fall of 1876" – the Manual of Style bids us avoid dating things by season unless the seasonality is relevant. (What is fall in the US – or autumn elsewhere in the English-speaking world – is spring in the southern hemisphere). The month would be better here.
    • "sensational exposes about her" – "exposés" needs the acute accent (even in AmE, surely?)
    • "she published her memoirs" – in the lead it was a singular "memoir". Best be consistent.
    • "The constant scrutiny of the police was too much for her to bear though, so she... " – the "though" is a touch chatty. I might make this something like "The constant scrutiny of the police was too much for her to bear, and she ...".
  • Literature
    • We have a mixture of 10- and 13-digit and hyphenated and unhyphenated ISBNs. The MoS bids us use hyphenated 13-digit version when possible, if appropriate. There is an excellent tool here to convert and hyphenate where needed.

That's all from me. I hope these few minor suggestions are helpful. – Tim riley talk 10:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Tim riley: I think I got everything, some of it was the same SC mentioned as well. Please recheck if you have a minute. Regards SoWhy 19:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Happy to support now. I greatly enjoyed this article, and it seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. We could argue about the lack of hyphens in the ISBNs, but life really is too short, and I hereby drop the subject. If, as I hope and expect, the article is promoted to FA it will be a fine achievement on the main author's part: creation (translation or no) to FA within a year. Very ritzy. Tim riley talk 16:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about that. I forgot that the Citoid engine adds the ISBNs as well, I thought only about those in the bibliography section. Too bad they are not hyphenated automatically though. Regards SoWhy 18:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by WBGodric[edit]

  • ... and a cross around her neck, often insulting her customers with crass language.[27][46] This, however, actually enhanced her standing with the common people.[46] ... - How? Does the source go into the details? I think a reader will be inclined to know the reasons about how exactly the crassness and insults led to enhancing her reputation. WBGconverse 08:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Winged Blades of Godric: It's a bit like the "He's saying it like it is" approach populists often use. She insulted customers and told them point blank that she won't give them any securities and in return, they said "Wow, she is so frank with me, I should give her my money!". I expanded the section a bit and rephrased that part, I hope it's clearer now. Regards SoWhy 12:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources are all working, per the ext. links checker tool
  • Formats
  • Ref 49 requires pp.
  • Ditto 55
  • Ditto 57
  • Ditto 60
  • Ditto 61
  • Ditto 62
  • Alphabetic sequence: I'm not sure what principle you've applied in sequencing the references list, where no author is provided. No doubt there's a logic in what you've done; could you explain?
  • "Historische Commission bei der königl" requires "in German"
  • Likewise Hitzig etc, 1873, Nerger, Nettersheim, Plickert, Schumann, Spitzeder 1878, Strohmeyr, Währisch, Winkler
  • Be consistent about the inclusion of publisher location in book sources. You generally omit this, but see Nettersheim
  • Quality/reliability. I am not competent to judge the quality/reliability of the many German language sources, but have no reason to suppose that they are not of the standard of the English sources, which appear to meet the necessary criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Thanks for the source check. I apologize for the pp mistakes, those I added after the first reviews and I forgot about it. I added the language parameter and removed the one publication location. As for sequencing, I ordered the list by author's last name and where there is no author, I used the publication's name (hence "Augsburger Allgemeine", the name of the newspaper, comes before "Bachmann"). I couldn't find any guideline on how to do it correctly, so I went with what seemed right. If you have a better idea, I'm all ears. Regards SoWhy 20:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Not worth bothering with, unless someone else complains. Brianboulton (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notes[edit]

Greetings, SoWhy! Since it looks like this is your first spin through FAC, it's customary to get a spot-check of your sources for any potential verification or plagiarism/copyvio issues. I've requested one. --Laser brain (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Laser brain: I have no idea what that entails but if I can help in any way, please let me know. Regards SoWhy 14:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
PS: I don't know if it helps but the main biography I used, "Nebel 2018", is partly available on GBooks. I just didn't know how to add that to the article in a meaningful way but it might be useful for a spotcheck. Regards SoWhy 06:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll do this, but it'll probably take me a few days.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Would you be willing to spot-check a few of the German-language sources? Many thanks, if you have time! --Laser brain (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no time until 5 September, concert and full house. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I ordered the Nebel book on ILL, but it hasn't arrived yet. I hope it will in the next couple of days.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
It's probably not allowed but I could just send you scans of any pages you need from the one I have Face-wink.svg Regards SoWhy 07:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, but I have the book now and will start with the check.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@SoWhy: The number of issues found below for just one section is troubling, and may indicate a larger issue with accuracy in citations or in interpreting the sources. @Carabinieri: Based on your audit so far, do you feel the issues warrant a larger audit? --Laser brain (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I've started on going through another section. I'm sorry about my slow pace.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Laser brain and Carabinieri: I'm truly sorry for that. Face-sad.svg When I started out, I translated the de-wiki article and added refs later. Then I replaced the previous ref system with Harvard-style refs. Somewhere during that process, I must have mixed up some of the sources. Most of those problems should be related to the sections that existed before the ref-style-switch but may I ask for a day or two to ensure that the rest is accurate? I don't want to cause you more work than absolutely necessary. Regards SoWhy 05:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@Laser brain and Carabinieri: Okay, I went through the whole article again, copyediting where needed. There shouldn't be any problems left if I didn't miss anything. Thanks for your patience. Regards SoWhy 12:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Carabinieri[edit]

Hi, I have a quick question. The page numbers on all the references to Nebel appear to be slightly different from the edition I'm using. For instance, the information about her move to Vienna and her schooling there appears on pages 26 an 27 in the book I have, while the article gives page 21. What edition of the book are you using? I have the second edition (from 2018), but the weird thing is that the first edition also appears to have the same pagination as the second based on the table of contents at DNB.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, some of the later page numbers line up, so maybe this is a mistake?--Carabinieri (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@Carabinieri: I might have used GBook's pagination for some of the earlier refs that I added before I had the book myself. I'll do a quick check and fix any such mistakes. Regards SoWhy 18:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@Carabinieri: I fixed those I found, as I suspected they were all among the first I had added for this source based on the GBooks version which has wrong numbering. The rest I added after I had the book in hand and thus should be correct. Btw, my edition is the first edition, also dated 2018. Weird... But again, sorry for the inconvenience caused and thanks for taking the time! Regards SoWhy 18:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I've only gone through the "Early life" section, but I've found a few issues:

  • "Her parents met in Berlin" A bit pedantic, but ADB only mentions that they both worked at the same theater in Berlin, not that that's where they first met. Nebel (p. 23) is a better source.
    • Fixed. --SW
  • "which led to the family moving to Munich". Not mentioned by Währisch, should probably also use Nebel.
    • Changed to Strohmeyr since Nebel is clearly incorrect here (he writes the move was in 1833 when Josef already died in 1832). --SW
  • "When Josef Spitzeder died after only one performance on 13 December 1832" Währisch only says that the death was sudden, not when it happened nor that it was after only one performance.
    • Fixed. --SW
  • "Betty then married Franz Maurer and took an engagement at the Carltheater in Vienna in 1840, where Spitzeder attended a Höhere Mädchenschule run by the order of the Ursulines; after a year, she entered the convent's boarding school" Why cite Killy/Vierhaus?
    • Probably a mistake, removed. --SW
  • "In 1844, she persuaded her mother to move back to Munich" As far as I can see, Nebel only says that they moved back to Munich, not that she persuaded her mother.
    • I'm sure I read it in one of the sources but I cannot find it anymore. Fixed. --SW
  • "At age 16, she went to a renowned school led by Madame Tanche" I don't see where Nebel says renowned
    • Should have been Währisch 2010 which says it was "sehr bekannt". --SW
  • "she was tutored in foreign languages, composing and piano-playing" That makes it sound like that was at school, but according to Nebel it was after she left school.
    • So it was. I think originally the wording was correct originally but with this edit it was changed and I didn't catch it. Fixed now. --SW
  • "In 1856, she debuted at the Hofbühne in Coburg to great acclaim playing Deborah and Maria Stuart." It's Mary Stuart in English. This should probably link to the plays rather than the historical figures. Neither source mentions 1856, Nebel says 1857.
    • Strohmeyr (p. 133) says 1856. Changed accordingly to reflect both sources. --SW
  • "In her memoirs, she claims that both the duke of Coburg and the duke of Württemberg praised her talent" That makes it sound like the praise was for her performances as Deborah or Mary Stuart, but as far as I can tell it's not.
    • She only played those two roles in Coburg, so it can't have been for anything else. But I'm open to suggestions on how to rewrite it. --SW
  • "Since there were no vacancies at Coburg, she left the Hofbühne to take an engagement at Mannheim before returning to Munich for a few guest roles at the National Theatre" Should be pp. 20-21.
    • So it should. Fixed. --Sw
  • "Contemporary sources such as Der Neue Pitaval attested that she had the necessary talent but attributed her lack of success to her appearance" That suggests there was more than one such source, but the article only cites one.
    • Rephrased. --SW
  • "Her "masculine" behavior is generally highlighted, smoking cigars, being loud and bossy, having no interest in clothing that accentuates the female physique and enjoying the company of young and beautiful women" This is a direct translation of Nebel.
    • Rephrased. --SW

I'm also a little confused by the format of the Währisch reference. Why does this use cite book? I'm also unsure about the use of the autobiography and queer.de as sources. I'm not sure about whether queer.de should really be considered a reliable source, but in any case it's just a summary of the Nebel book. So why not get the information straight from the horse's mouth and cite Nebel? It's a much better source. I'm also not sure how reliable the autobiography of someone known as a fraudster is. Most of the information from this source could also be cited to Nebel.--Carabinieri (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I used cite book because cite web does not allow to cite a chapter but this source comes with an overview and a more detailed subpage. If you know of a better way to handle this, I'm open to suggestions. I removed the queer.de source and replaced it with the underlying source where needed. As for the autobiography, it contains some details that Nebel does not, so I added Nebel alongside it. I think that should be okay, shouldn't it? As for the rest, I added comments above. Thanks for taking the time! Regards SoWhy 13:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Amarte Es un Placer (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

My last FAC failed because of the lack of activity. Before re-nominating, I had a member of GOCE do another copy-edit. I look forward to addressing any concerns on the article. Erick (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I am a little confused by this part (it is a pop album with R&B, pop ballad, and jazz influences) because "pop ballad" is not really a genre of music like pop, R&B, and jazz. I am not sure if "pop ballad" is really necessary in this part, and I think it could be removed without losing any information.
  • The infobox says the album is pop and R&B, but the lead says it is a pop album with R&B influences. R&B influences is not the same as a fully R&B album so there is a slight inconsistency there. The body of the article says that it is just a pop album, i.e. (is a pop album composed of twelve love songs), so I think the best course of action is to just remove "R&B" from the infobox.

Great work with the article, and I am glad that you re-nominated it for the FAC. I only have two relatively nitpicky comments as I had commented during the first and second FAC. Hopefully, this nomination will receive more feedback. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? Either way, have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Aoba47:, I went ahead and removed the unnecessary tidbits as you've suggested on your comments. If I have time tomorrow and don't feel too tired from work, I'll try to address your FAC. Erick (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Great work with it! Aoba47 (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from Toa Nidhiki05[edit]

Going to give this a look within the next day. Toa Nidhiki05 12:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Just an update that I’ve not forgotten about this. Will review tonight, hopefully. Toa Nidhiki05
Lede
  • It was then the highest-grossing tour by a Spanish-speaking recording artist. > It become the highest-grossing tour by a Spanish-speaking recording artist.
  • It was certified gold in the United States, and achieved multi-platinum status in Argentina, Chile, Mexico, and Spain. > Remove the comma
  • The album had sold more than three million copies as of 2007 > The album has sold more than three million copies worldwide as of 2007
Background
  • In 1997, Luis Miguel released his twelfth studio album Romances. It is the third record in his Romance series where he performs covers of classic Latin American boleros.> In 1997, Luis Miguel released his twelfth studio album Romances, the third record in his Romance series where he performed covers of classic Latin American boleros.
  • Amarte Es un Placer is a pop album composed of twelve love songs, consisting mainly of orchestrated romantic ballads and several uptempo numbers. > Amarte Es un Placer is a pop album composed of twelve love songs. It consists mainly of orchestrated romantic ballads and several uptempo numbers.
Commercial performance
  • In the United States, the record debuted on top of the Billboard Top Latin Albums the week of 2 October 1999 succeeding Bailamos Greatest Hits by Enrique Iglesias > In the United States, the record debuted on top of the Billboard Top Latin Albums the week of 2 October 1999, succeeding Bailamos Greatest Hits by Enrique Iglesias
@Toa Nidhiki05:, I've addressed everything you mentioned in the comments. Erick (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Good work on this article. I've happy giving a support for now on prose. Toa Nidhiki05 19:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notes[edit]

I've placed this on the Urgents list but it will need to be archived soon (again, unfortunately) unless it receives some more attention. --Laser brain (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like some good progress has been made here. I see the article had a source review during its first nomination in December 2017. Have sources changed since then? --Laser brain (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
A few more sources have been added, but no major changes. I can't see any obvious format/quality issues, and I'd be inclined to let this go. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from Homeostasis07[edit]

I'll be reviewing this over the next few days. I hope Erick won't mind me mentioning this, but he told me last week that he was in the path of Hurricane Dorian. The bulk of the hurricane avoided Florida, but it still caused some significant power outages. Hopefully the end of my review will coincide with his eventual and safe return. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC) @Homeostasis07: The hurricane didn't do much as I live in inland, but thank you for your kind words and for taking the time to review the article. Hopefully I'll do yours Tuesday. Erick (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Lead

  • It was released by the record label WEA Latina on 13 September 1999. - fairly obvious that WEA Latina is a record label, so consider changing to "It was released by WEA Latina on 13 September 1999.
  • and was assisted by other composers - I don't think "other" is needed there.
  • Despite the popularity of his contemporaries like Ricky Martin - I don't think "like" is needed there.

Background

  • When asked why he opted not to record an English-language album as other Latin acts such as Enrique Iglesias and Ricky Martin had successfully done, Miguel replied: → When asked why he opted to not record an English-language album, like other Latin acts such as Enrique Iglesias and Ricky Martin had successfully done, Miguel replied:

'Composition

  • Manzanero composed three ballads for the album: "Soy Yo", "Dormir Contigo", and "Ese Momento".[17] "Ese Momento" deals with a... - consider changing the last mention of "Ese Momento" to "The latter deals with a..."
  • The song caused a controversy when... → The song caused controversy when...

Singles

  • 'Promotion' and 'Critical reception' are the two largest sections, so I'll come to those with a clear head tomorrow. Should point out now that I skipped ahead to both 'Accolades' and 'Commercial performance', and saw nothing to nit-pick about in either. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Promotion

  • Miguel had the 23rd highest-grossing tour in the country with more than $15.7 million earned from his 44 shows in the US. → Miguel had the 23rd highest-grossing tour in the US that year, with more than $15.7 million earned from his 44 shows in the country.

Critical reception

  • While Lannert regarded "Soy Yo" and "Dormir Contigo" as a "pair of moving romantic ballads" that could help the disc stay on top of the Billboard Latin charts. He opined it was time for Miguel to record an English-language disc and have Carey and her producers assist with the album. → While Lannert regarded "Soy Yo" and "Dormir Contigo" as a "pair of moving romantic ballads" that could help the disc stay on top of the Billboard Latin charts, he opined it was time for Miguel to record an English-language disc and have Carey and her producers assist with such an album.
  • Roger Catlin of the Hartford Courant felt that when the ballads "pile on", it was like a "Telemundo soap-opera overkill". → Roger Catlin of the Hartford Courant said that when the ballads "pile on", the album felt like "Telemundo soap-opera overkill".
  • The Houston Chronicle's critic Joey Guerra gave the album two-and-a-half out of four stars, saying he was underwhelmed with this production for sounding like Miguel's previous recordings. → The Houston Chronicle's Joey Guerra gave the album two-and-a-half stars out of four, saying that he was underwhelmed with the production for sounding too similar to Miguel's previous recordings.
  • Mario Tarradell of The Dallas Morning News wrote a more positive review of the album. He complimented "Te Propongo Esta Noche" and lauded the ballads like "Dormir Contigo" and "Ese Momento" as "sensual and solemn". → Mario Tarradell of The Dallas Morning News wrote a more positive review of the album, complimenting "Te Propongo Esta Noche" and lauding ballads like "Dormir Contigo" and "Ese Momento" as "sensual and solemn".

And that's everything I could complain about. Will be happy to support once these sentences are amended. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks fore the review @Homeostasis07:. I addressed everything you brought up. I should be able to review your article this Thursday as I'm off work that day. Erick (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing all of my points. I'm happy to support this now. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Support from AJona1992[edit]

I supported the previous nomination and have re-read the article with the new comments that were brought up by reviewers on this nomination. I believe the article is FA worthy now. Best – jona 16:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Crusades[edit]

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the wide ranging subject of the Crusades—religious wars fought by the Catholic church, often but not always sanctioned by various Popes. There sheer scope of the subject makes it difficult to cover successfully and comprehensively. Indeed @Adam Bishop: thinks it may be impossible. However, this is the third attempt—each attempt improving the article so now it is the best, in my opinion, it has ever been and probably the best Wikipedia article amongst the many on the related subjects . At attempt two the prose was criticised but this has now had a full copy edit by the Guild of Copy Editors thanks to @Twofingered Typist:. Also pinging @Richard Nevell:, @Jens Lallensack: and @Lord0fHats: who were very helpful the last time

Considering the challenge this subject presents it is worth reminding reviewers of how it meets the criteria.

It is:

  • well-written: GOCE copyedited;
  • comprehensive: for a summary article it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
  • well-researched;
  • neutral: with difficulty for a contentious subject, it presents views fairly and without bias
  • stable: with few recent edits apart from mine.

It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:

  • a lead;
  • appropriate structure
  • consistent citations.

The Media haas recently been checked at FAC (appart from two new images).

Length—considering the bredth, it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and acts as a summary article for the subject area. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

  • As of today and after a long slog I believe all comments have been addressed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment - please link to the previous noms! Johnbod (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[edit]

Ok, thanks - but not on the main page. Is that usual? And #2 is very incomplete, with a template error. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Morning Johnbod—you can get to the content of #2 through the history.... Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Ergo Sum[edit]

  • Though certainly not a review of the article, if my two cents are good currency here, I think it would be preferable for a reader to first be introduced to the article by one of the nice Medieval or Renaissance paintings of some battle of the Crusades, rather than by the {{Campaignbox Crusades}} template. Especially since the article has a substantial lede section, it can afford to be supplemented by an image as well as a few templates. Ergo Sum 00:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
    • The base {{Military navigation}} template allows for an image, so perhaps a graphic could be incorporated via that route? Praemonitus (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
      • I tried, and failed to do this neatly, so added an image in the normal way Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Great. Only thing is, that image is now used twice in the article. Ergo Sum 03:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

More comments to follow, but initial impressions are not good so far as the prose is concerned. In the first paragraph the comma before "however" is inadequate and ought to be a semicolon or full stop.

And mention of the word "however" brings me to its absurdly excessive use throughout the article. It occurs three times in the lead and twenty-two times in the main text, and at first glance is superfluous in every case.

There is the question of commas after introductory time periods: "In 1095, Pope Urban called" (AmE style) but "Following the First Crusade there were" (BrE style) and then "After the last Catholic outposts fell in 1291, there were" (AmE style again). The "they" in the penultimate (63-word!) sentence of the lead is presumably meant to refer to the Crusades but the last plural before them is "Genoa and Venice".

  • Green tickY—adjusted formatting and replaced they Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Further comments to follow after a thorough perusal. Tim riley talk 09:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles:@Auntieruth55:@Sturmvogel 66:@Hawkeye7:— Guys, back in the day you all did sterling work reviewing this at ACR, is there any chance you can do the same at FAR, please? signature added after Dudley pointed out it was missing Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish I assume that you sent this ping? I think I did not receive it because you have to sign it for the ping to work. I will try to review. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Jens Lallensack[edit]

  • The Albigensian Crusade taught the Papacy that – But this crusade was not introduced previously. I think we need a sentence stating the basic information of this Crusade. It seems to be an important one as it is even mentioned in the lead.
  • Green tickY—Restructured to introduce and bring the details together Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Although the lack of priority given to the campaign against the Cathers in southern France – That Campaign maybe should also be introduced. I think the article gives an interpretation of the crusading against heretics in Europe, but without providing the historical facts first. Consider that the reader of this very basic article might not have heard about these specific Crusades before.
  • heterodoxy, Inquisition. Both need to be linked at first mention. "Medieval Inquisition" is linked later though.
  • mass conversion was implausible and destruction of the pagans counterproductive – counterproductive in which regard? This requires some explanation imo.
  • Green tickY—because the local economy relied on pagan labour, added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67[edit]

A level-3 vital article is hard to get to FA, good on you for having a crack at it. I have quite a few comments, so I'll approach this in a few tranches:

  • the indentation and semi-dot pointing of the last para of the lead doesn't work. Just IAR and make this a fifth para starting with "The Crusades had a profound impact...", and roll the dot points up into running prose. A fifth lead para is acceptable on such a large subject IMHO.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Terminology[edit]
  • put a translation in "" after negotium crucis, crux transmarina and crux cismarina as you have done with iter
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • move "The modern spelling crusade dates to c. 1760" to the end of the para to put it chronological order
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Greeks'
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • in general, use "" for emphasis (ie Franks, Saracen, Muslim etc, not italics
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Causes[edit]
  • suggest (later Roger I of Sicily) is that is correct
Green tickY—DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Orthodox Christian Byzantine Empire of Constantinople seems a mouthful. Which Orthodox was it? Greek? Is a link to Byzantine Empire appropriate?
Green tickY—DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • link Pope for papacy? and be consistent with the initial caps
Green tickY—DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • link penitential
Green tickY—DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • the article says that the Fatimids had captured Jerusalem, then starts talking about the Seljuq hold on the city?
Green tickY—Expanded and explainedNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • link Mohammad
Green tickY—DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "the deaths of the Sultan, Malikshah,"
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I think you are referring to Carole Hillenbrand, fix typo and link
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • link Iron Curtain
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • the para beginning "Through military successes under Emperor Basil II," contains a partial repetition of the content of the last para of the Background section, this also relates to my earlier point about the Seljuqs and Jerusalem. Suggest putting this into the appropriate chronological point of the narrative
Green tickY— when I removed the duplication there remained nothing of note, even the sources were duplicated. So I have removed the entire para Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Serbians→Serbs
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "as well as the Seljuqs", but wouldn't the Seljuqs have been to the south of Constantinople?
Green tickY—no, east but amended Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • be consistent with Seljuk and Seljuq
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • a map would be really useful in the Causes section
Green tickY—added @Peacemaker67:— what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "that providedposed the threat"
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "overall health of the Empire at the time"
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
In the Easter Med[edit]

Down to the In the eastern Mediterranean section. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  • "migrating Turks" Seljuq?
  • "the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV"
  • Germany links to the modern country, is there a better link?
  • "led by: Robert Curthose; Stephen, Count of Blois; and Robert II, Count of Flanders." otherwise the commas are confusing
  • link Byzantium
  • "Malik Shah, the Sultan of the Seljuq Empire" as he has already been introduced
  • "The three-month Crusader march"
  • for Edessa link County of Edessa, and add "which became one of the Crusader states"
  • "The Crusaders besieged the cityAntioch"
  • comma after "Despite superior numbers"
  • "taken Jerusalem from the Seljuq Turks" if that is right?
  • is there a link for Genoese?
  • who is Al-Afdal?
12th century[edit]
  • the initial capital for Crusade/Crusades and Crusader/Crusaders should only be used when it forms part of a proper name, like First Crusade, but not when describing the nature of a series of crusades, like political crusades, or when just referring to crusaders. No doubt you will get other queries about this, it is very important that you have a close look at MOS:CAPS in this regard
Green tickY—phew, all decapped Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "political crusades"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • for the Siege of Edessa link, pipe "loss of Edessa" rather than just Edessa
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • for Pope Eugenius III link Pope Eugene III
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • state that Bernard of Clairvaux was an abbot and link abbot
Green tickY— also added he was a french Benedictine Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "monk called Rudolf initiated further massacres of Jews" as this is the second lot of them
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "King Louis VII of France"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • who were "their traditional allies in Damascus"?
Green tickY— branch of the Seljuks expanded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • for Caliph of Baghdad, link List of Abbasid caliphs
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • if Saladin was subservient to As-Salih Ismail al-Malik what was he doing seizing Damascus and most of Syria?
Green tickY— did it while claiming to be his regent Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "onafter hearing of the defeat" to avoid the repetition of "on"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • link Acre, Israel for Acre
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • for "by surrounding the strategic city", pipe the link to "surrounding the strategic city" rather just surrounding
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • for "his fiancée", link Berengaria of Navarre
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • for Angevin link Angevin kings of England
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Emperor Henry VI→Holy Roman Emperor Henry VI
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Down to 13th century, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

13th century[edit]
  • suggest "In 1200, Pope Innocent III began preaching in favour of what became the Fourth Crusade, his exhortations primarily focussed on France but also on England and Germany." if that is consistent with the intent?
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "This crusade was diverted by Enrico Dandolo, the Doge of Venice, and by King Philip of Swabia, to further their aggressive territorial objectives."
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "Dandolo aimed to expand Venice's power in the eastern Mediterranean, and Philip intended to restore his exiled nephew"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "The latter would require the overthrow of Alexios III Angelos, the uncle of Alexios IV."
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Innocent III was appalled"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • link Excommunication (Catholic Church)
Green tickY— done, edited out Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "After the crusaders had taken Constantinople for a first time, the original purpose of the campaign was thwarted by the assassination of Alexios IV Angelos." Also, I assume they installed the latter then left? Could this be included?
Green tickY— done, wording didn't quite match events so I have redrafted this and added sourcing Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Papacy→papacy, there are other examples of this and papal as well
Green tickY— all done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • decap the "Crusading Orders and Western Aid"
Green tickY— all done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • it isn't clear whether "seemingly of their own volition" refers to their travel to Egypt or their capture of Jerusalem
Green tickY— rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • comma after "king of France"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "Byzantine Emperor Michael VIII" for clarity, as there seems to have been a succession of Michael's
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "was proclaimed king"→"was proclaimed king of Sicily"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • comma after "In 1285 Charles died"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Jihadi and Jihad should be decapped
Green tickY— all done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "the crusades continued to be conducted by short-lived armies led by independently minded potentates, rather than with centralised leadership."
  • "to use the logistical advantages fromof proximity"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest dispensing with "Outremer", or properly introduce it when it is first mentioned
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • link Middle Ages
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Europe