For the criteria to become a featured article, see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.
For the similar process page for good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.
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 and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, Buidhe and Hog Farm—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

  • 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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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.

Do not use graphics or complex 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. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed.

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback.

Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

  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 (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.

Commenting, etc

Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

Shortcut
  • 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.


Shortcut

Nominations

Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show

Nominator(s): SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For your consideration, I give you the series finale to Ed, Edd n Eddy. I've taken the page to this from what it is now since the start of 2022. Unless one counts a review from Steve Pulaski, the reception section has been expanded to include all the reviews I found from trustworthy publications. Hopefully it's comprehensive enough to meet FA standards. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass, no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 23:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

  • What is the current structure for the "Reception" section? I think it would be more helpful to give this section more structure so readers could get a better sense of how critics viewed this film. I believe this essay, WP:RECEPTION, is very helpful for working on these types of sections as they can be difficult to write. I just do not think have this information presented in a long, single paragraph is ideal or as engaging as it could be. To be clear all the information in this section is good. My concern is about it is structured.

This is my only comment. I believe all of my concerns were already addressed in the peer review so I do not have too much to add. Once my above comment is addressed, I will support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I hope this is helpful and have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be honest, Aoba47, I didn't have a particular order/structure in mind when compiling the reviews and am not sure how to rework them. If it wasn't limited to five sources who all felt it did a good job of ending the series, then I might have a better sense of what to do. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is fair, and I completely understand your point. I will read through that section more thoroughly either today or tomorrow to see if I could get a better handle it to give more direct feedback or suggestions. It could be a case where this is the best way to present this information. I hope that it is okay with you and apologies for the wait. Aoba47 (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could help, and for the record, that Pulaski piece linked above had a sense of "it was a good way to wrap up Ed, Edd n Eddy" as well. No qualms with waiting. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tullimonstrum

Nominator(s): Fossiladder13 (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about...Tullimonstrum, an enigmatic bilaterian animal from the Mazon creek fossil beds of northern Illinois. It has stumped paleontologists for over 50 years on its taxonomy. Some suggestions include, Conodonts, an Echinoderm, a fish, and an sea squirt larvae. The creature comes from the late Pennsylvanian of the Carboniferous period, around 307 million years ago. It is so far only known from the Mazon creek sites, so it is a very unique organism. I would like to thank anyone who can help give feedback. Fossiladder13 (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • File:Tullimonstrum recon.png — looks sketchy (both from a copyright and informational perspective) coming from a vanished user. I would take it out as there's probably no way to find out where the information contained in this image comes from or why it's trustworthy.
  • File:Tullimonstrum.png — what is the source for this image?
  • File:Tullimonstrum gregarium (obsolete reconstruction).jpg —marked as not factually accurate on Commons
  • Infobox is sandwiching with the first image (contrary to MOS:IMAGES), but that issue could probably be fixed if you expanded the lead to 2 paragraphs, which you should probably do anyway.
  • Welcome to FAC! (t · c) buidhe 19:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I've gotten rid of the images that were sketchy or inarticulate, and also tried to fix the sandwiching issue. Fossiladder13 (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    what should I do next @Buidhe? Fossiladder13 (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks great! Image review is a pass. I would still advise expanding the lead to make sure it covers the main points in the body. (t · c) buidhe 20:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe, ok I have expanded the lead, how does it look. Fossiladder13 (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Definite improvement. (t · c) buidhe 20:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What could I change next @Buidhe? Fossiladder13 (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Utermohlen

Nominator(s): Realmaxxver (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent a long while improving this article (about ten months, seven on FAC). The only reason I am here again is because I want to be finished with this; I'm just kind of tired of this and want to focus on my other projects now.

William Utermohlen was an artist that was active for around four decades. When he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1995, he tried to understand what was happening to him the only way he could, art. for about six years, ending in around 2001, he created a series of self-portraits that show the effects of the disease on his art. The portraits show several emotions, but Nicci Gerrard summarised it as "emotional modernism".

This originally started in July 2021 as a hobby, I did'nt originally want to get this to the bronze star or, even GA status. But I felt like it could become an FA after it did become a GA in October. After seven months and three unsuccessful attempts, this is going to be the last attempt. Once I am done with this FAC, I am done with trying to improve this article. Realmaxxver (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Realmaxxver! Obviously it's not encouraging not to succeed at FAC, but when I look at the article now versus when it first showed up here, I am wowed by the great improvement that was made. (t · c) buidhe 21:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ping commentators on previous FAC: Wetrorave, DMT Biscuit, Ceoil, asking if your concerns were addressed (t · c) buidhe 22:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1920–21 Burnley F.C. season

Nominator(s): BigDom (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I originally submitted this article for FAC just over 12 years ago. Sadly, it didn't pass that time and I kind of forgot about it for a decade or so. But the recent FA promotion of Burnley's other title-winning season in 1959–60 prompted me to have another go at this one. Since last time, I've managed to access the archives of an alternative local newspaper, which allowed me to add a bit more detail about the team's playing style and some more context around some of the matches. These kind of articles might not be to everyone's taste, but hopefully I have addressed the main concerns from the first nomination, so here we go! BigDom (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

  • "Burnley's chairman, Harry Windle, had been elected to the position in 1909, and manager John Haworth was marking his 11th consecutive year in charge." - source?
    • Added
  • "The team's last competitive match had ended in a 0–2 defeat" - I would say that by far the most common way to report a football score is with the larger score first, irrespective of the outcome e.g. this source says "Liverpool lost 1-0 to Real Madrid", not "Liverpool lost 0-1 to Real Madrid". I would reconfigure any score shown like this one to show the larger score first.
    • I thought I'd caught all these to be honest, thanks for spotting this one!
  • Shouldn't the bit about Moorwood joining in October and the bit about Bamford leaving in September be in the paragraph starting "Transfer activity continued after the season began"?
    • Rejigged
  • "Bradford City, who had finished 15th in the league in 1919–20" - source?
    • Added
  • "Burnley moved to the top of the table on goal average" - link GA?
    • Done
  • One solitary league attendance is unknown?
    • Yep, not given in Simpson. I had a look at the match report in the Burnley Express archive (where I presume Simpson also looked) and the Lancashire Daily Post (Preston's local paper) but no luck. As you probably know, attendances weren't officially recorded in those days so they weren't always reported in the newspapers.
  • "drawn against Queens Park Rangers at Turf Moor in the Second Round." - no reason for caps on second round
  • Or third round
    • Have changed these in the prose, left them capitalised in the table (but can also change here if you prefer, I tried it and didn't like the way it looked)
  • "the Charity Shield, then known as the Dewar Shield" - are you sure this is true? Our article on the Community Shield makes no mention of it ever having that name, and RSSSF says "The FA Charity Shield was introduced in 1908 to succeed the Sheriff of London (Dewar) Shield"
    • Must have been the Burnley Express correspondent using the old name, deleted that subclause.
  • The tables need row scopes
    • Forgive my ignorance, but what does this do other than just turn the cell grey? (done, by the way)
      • It's to do with visually impaired site users who use a screen reader, it makes the screen reader read the contents of the table out correctly....or something..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Players having played at least one first-team match" table doesn't include the Lancs/East Lancs Cup games, which earlier you categorised as first team games - are the line-ups not recorded for these?
    • I will have to go back to the library to check the newspaper reports, might be after the bank holiday before I get chance though.
  • In the aftermath section you use the {{inflation}} template in conjunction with {{currentyear}}, but the documentation for the former explicitly says not to do this
  • That's what I got - great read overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for having a read through! I've addressed most of these, I think, just need to do a quick library trip to check again for those missing lineups. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the Woods (song)

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song by American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift. Ms. Swift may be an overselling musician (her albums sell millions whether critics like them or not) but she is also a gifted songwriter, and this song is one of many testaments to that statement. I believe the article satisfies criteria for an FA, and I look forward to any and all comments. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

  • For File:Taylor Swift - Out of the Woods.png, I would clarify that the source link is an archived version of the link.
  • In the lead's second paragraph, I'd avoid starting two sentences in a row with "was released". The sentence structure for both sentences are also very similar in general so I'd revise them further to avoid repetition.
  • This part, Swift struggling to escape from a magical forest battling against nature, does not really make sense to me. Maybe change it something like, escape from a magical forest while battling against nature?
  • I have a question about this part, Pitchfork ranked it among the best songs of 2014, from the lead. Is this review notable enough to single out in the lead? I do not think it is notable enough to single out in this fashion.
  • I do not think this sentence, 1989 was released on October 27, 2014, by Big Machine Records., is necessary in the "Background and production" section. I do not think the album's release date really fits in this section.
  • In the second paragraph of the "Background and production" section, I'd avoid repeating "1980s sound" in two sentences in a row.
  • This sentence, The track was produced by Swift and Antonoff, and Swift's vocals were produced by Max Martin., is quite repetitious by repeating Swift and produced twice.
  • Was there any coverage or commentary on why the record label released the music video before promoting the song as a single?
  • Were there any outright negative reviews for this song?
  • The premiere date for the music video is repeated in two separate sections.
  • I do not think the wolf wikilink in the "Music video" section is necessary.
  • I believe this song was included in Miss Americana. Did that receive any coverage to be considered notable (if I am correct that is)? I am basing this off tunefind so it could be wrong.
  • Did this song appear on any year-end charts?

I hope this review is helpful. I have focused my comments primarily on the prose. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article another time to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly White

Nominator(s): Jon698 (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Beverly White, who was the longest serving woman in the Utah State Legislature. During her career she would sometimes be the only woman to chair a committee, held multiple leadership positions within the Democratic caucus, and was awarded as legislator of the year multiple times by multiple groups. She was also incredibly active in the Utah Democratic Party and the national party. Jon698 (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 11:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Sanford

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Terry Sanford, one of the most important United States governors in the 20th century. Arguably the earliest New South governor, he was the first Southern governor to call for an end to racially discriminatory employment and also put education at the top of the North Carolina political agenda for decades. He thereafter served as president of a university and was in the U.S. Senate for one term. This article was originally an FA from 2008 until I had it delisted in 2019 for obvious lack in comprehensiveness. After three years of work, I think it's ready for reconsideration. -Indy beetle (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • No licensing issues found
  • Why isn't File:Terry Sanford, 1961-1965 (8408755490).jpg the header image? Seems better quality
    • I think a photo which shows the actual subject is preferable to a painting which tries to replicate the subject. The file for the painting may be higher resolution, but it doesn't actually have as much detail of Sanford's face and has kind of an airbrushed look to it (because it is a painting). -Indy beetle (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments
  • Oppose based on length/summary style—13108 words. Greater use of summary style would benefit the article and enable the reader to get to the main points expressed more concisely. Some sections especially "Race relations and civil rights" are really long and will be hard to parse for mobile viewers. Recommend using summary style to reduce length or breaking up with subheadings. For example, you could split off an article Governorship of Terry Sanford, similar to presidency articles.

(t · c) buidhe 12:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Readable prose size is 80 kB, which falls into WP:SIZERULE category of 60+ kB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material). It is fair that I could trim down some of the governorship sections, but I'd argue that Sanford should justify a larger than typical scope, considering his career was three major acts (governor, Duke president, and senator) which have been written about extensively. GA Jimmy Carter is 88 kB. FA Harry S. Truman is 82 kb, FA Mitt Romney is 88 kB. FA George W. Romney is 69 kB, which I can probably work this down towards. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: currently have gotten it down to 75 kB. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF

Will review soon. Hog Farm Talk 15:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to be able to get this all in one go due to current work situation, so just some quick thoughts for now ...

  • Drop the congressional bioguide EL as it's being used as a source
    • Done.
  • Campbell 2017 needs the editors
    • Done.
  • The dates of his Ethics Committee chairmanship need cited
    • Couldn't find the information to back up the exact dates (the ones given here may have been wrong), some of the info out there is contradictory, so removed from infobox.
  • " though their home was rented. " - note sure this is necessary; the mention of the rent issue in the next sentence doesn't really need this introduction
    • Removed.
  • Not sure that it's the best to list 1942-1960 as the dates of his military service as he appears to have been out of duty in 1946 and 1947?
    • Clarified his dates of service.

More to come tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 04:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In the first 1948 Democratic gubernatorial primary, Sanford voted for R. Mayne Albright. During the runoff election he supported W. Kerr Scott, and after Scott was elected governor he appointed Sanford to a position in the North Carolina State Ports Authority" - it's not super clear what this signifies without stating what Albright and Scott based their platforms on, especially for Albright which we don't even get a link for
    • Albright is worthy of an article, but that is for another time. He took the urban liberal and labor union vote, while populist Scott got the farm vote. The important thing here is Sanford made a connection with Scott and was rewarded for it, so I've trimmed out the part about Albright.
  • Early political career - did Sanford have established views on segregation? He supported Graham who is stated to have supported civil rights, but then also supported Kerr Scott and helped write speeches for Scott about separate but equal
    • You'll see later in the article that Sanford had considered racism to be immoral since he was student at the University of North Carolina where, tellingly, Graham was university president. His early public actions with regards to racism and segregation were largely moved by pragmatism it would seem; during the 1960 campaign for governor he framed himself as a moderate segregationist but stood staunchly opposed to the racist candidacy of Beverly Lake. I don't recall seeing any of his biographers or other serious writers consider him a true segregationist, and he despised the tactics of Lake, George Wallace, and Jimmy Carter (when ran he deceptively for Governor of Georgia as a segregationist). Sanford only really dealt with racial issues when he became governor, and in those times he became increasingly convinced that the social and economic marginalization of black people was bad for the state.

Ready for the governorship section; hopefully can finish this off in a couple days but very busy with work so I can't commit to a firm timeline. Hog Farm Talk 04:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay; work was really hectic last week.

  • "and for displaying a lack of familiarity with certain issues" - such as?
    • At one point Gavin excused an earlier mistake involving how to fund teacher pay (he did not realize you would need a significant tax hike to pay for a 50% wage increase for all public teachers) by saying that he couldn't turn to Democrats in the state budget office to give him information on the state budget. Sanford pointed out that the state budget and related info was a matter of public record. Sanford said, "He doesn't know his position, I don't know it and no one knows it." Gavin also said he supported one interest group's education improvement plan but not another advocacy group's plan, despite the fact that both plans were identical. This felt like extraneous detail to include.
  • Did he only serve one term as gov. by choice or by term limits (apologies if it's in there and I missed it)
    • By constitution; added.
  • "He traveled to Washington D.C." - Should there be a comma after Washington? I've got no idea how that works with the MOS
    • It would appear so. Commas added.

Ready for Senate career now; sorry this is taking so long. Hog Farm Talk 01:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "and thought the body its wasted time," - I'm struggling to figure out exactly what this is trying to say, can it be rephrased?
    • I've removed this, since Sanford's quote thereafter really captures his feelings on the Senate.

Support - it's a longer one, but I didn't see anything that was really bloated or off-topic. I don't see the length as a concern, and I'm comfortable with the sourcing (spot checks not done) and the prose. Hog Farm Talk 04:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh

Moved to talk page on 05:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, length is not a major issue for me. The article currently is ~75,000 characters. We had James Longstreet promoted some 8 months ago, which is over 96,000 characters. So, while the article is very long, we can take exceptions for people like Sanford and Longstreet. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mandrill

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the mandrill, arguably the most iconic looking primate and the most colorful mammal. After an extensive GA review by Mover of molehills, I think its showtime. LittleJerry (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sandwiching article states that "Mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left. How­ever, a­void sand­wich­ing text be­tween two im­ages that face each oth­er;" There's no problem with that there. LittleJerry (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately on my screen there is. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the problem? LittleJerry (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Colour alone is being used to convey important information. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thats how range maps work. buidhe? LittleJerry (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Mandrill_and_flower.jpg: where is that licensing coming from? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same question on the amended version. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. buidhe? LittleJerry (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria what exactly is wrong with the image licensing and the map? What do you mean "where is that licensing coming from?" and what's wrong with the color of the map? LittleJerry (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the map, because there are other shaded areas in other colours, the use of only colour to convey information presents a problem for users with vision problems. For the image licensing, the image description page includes a source link, but I do not see the licensing claimed at that link. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced flower image. BhagyaMani, could you remove the green stuff on Africa and make it uniformly white to contrast with the purple? LittleJerry (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I used the wikimedia map as base layer, which is coloured in white + green shades. It is not possible to change this coloration, I'm afraid. The darker green areas represent protected areas, I think. BhagyaMani (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BhagyaMani can't you use File:BlankMap-World.png or File:World map blank black lines 4500px.gif? Zoom in on middle Africa like File:Distibución gorilla.png? LittleJerry (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

  • Etymology seems a bit incomplete. For example, according to [1] the name was first used by William Smith for the Chimpanzee but later transferred to this animal.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the latter meaning "baboon" – Is the meaning really restricted to baboon? This source [2] states "baboon or ape". Please check with other sources.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • central Africa – capitalise?
Not nessacarily. LittleJerry (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But see Central Africa and Central Europe. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's okay to use lower case for non-geopolitical articles. LittleJerry (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But "central Africa" and "Central Africa" have different meanings, see [3]. Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • and placed in the genus Papio. – is there an "it" missing?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This divergence correlates with the split of two known mandrill SIVs – This is too technical and needs more explanation I think. You could spell out the abbreviation, and it is not the virus itself that split but virus species?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2.90 gb – Again, I would spell out the abbreviation.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • draft genome – What does "draft" mean here exactly?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Males have a 700–950 mm – suggest to change to cm which appears to be more standard?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • red and blues hues – "blue"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rear view of the animal is an important feature, but I miss a picture of it.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The darker and more subdued coloring of female faces is caused by melanin – I think this could be misleading. It reads as if the female coloring is entirely due to melanin, which is not the case; melanin only makes it darker.
Thats what its saying. It already mentions where the red and blue colors come from and states that females are darker due to melanin. LittleJerry (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rump skin of male mandrills also have melanin – But melanin is everywhere regardless (also in human skin, for example)?
Nope. Not on the face. LittleJerry (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would surprise me. Do you have a source for the claim that it does not occur in the face? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes cite 33 states that males don't have melanin on the blue facial skin. LittleJerry (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both mandrills and drills are more arboreal than baboons. – This could do with more detail; how much time do they spent in trees? Are there percentages, case studies, or similar?
There's no information on that. The article already states that they sleep in trees. LittleJerry (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mandrills may associate or compete with other primates such as – Here, detail is lacking in my opinion. What does it mean "to associate", do they form groups?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • More later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • to mark mark enclosure boundaries – word too much
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ulterior benefit – I don't understand what "ulterior" adds here. Why is it needed?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The blue facial skin is more consistant in brightness. – "consistent"?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The blue facial skin is more consistant in brightness.[32][61] Blue skin is another sign of dominance; – why "another" when it was just mentioned in the previous sentence?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When a males loses dominance, these physiological changes are at least partially reversed.[32] The blue facial skin is more consistant in brightness.[32][61] Blue skin is another sign of dominance; and higher ranking males tend to have more contrast between red and blue facial coloring. – Information order is confusing and seemingly contradicting: 1) males may loose color, 2) but not in the face, 3) they loose it also in the face. Could be better formulated to show how this fits together.
I don't see the contradiction. It states the red coloration varies with dominance while blue is more consistent. LittleJerry (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Individuals may cooperative during hunting and share kills – cooperate?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • nematode loa loa – upper case
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another 15-month long study of a 120 member group found that the mandrills had a home range of 8.6 km2 – how does that fit with the previous information that gives much larger home ranges? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Smaller group, smaller home range. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • secondary sexual characteristics – link? (there is an article)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the mandrill in culture? Lion King comes to mind, but there must be influences on western African cultures too. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No information on that. Cherry-picking examples in popular culture will lead to listcruft. LittleJerry (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Thorburn

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1980 World Snooker Champion, known as "The Grinder", who is generally recognised as the first champion from outside the the United Kingdom. (Sorry, Horace Lindrum!) I've tried to keep the playing career part of the article quite focused on the main points as discussed in sources, rather than provide lots of tournament-by-tournament detail. I can provide relevant extracts from offline sources on request. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

  • Does ref 3 source everything from "he left school" onwards?
  • No. I've added a page reference for the sentence here that it does support. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 1977 World Snooker Championship was the first to be held at the Crucible Theatre." - probably worth specifying where in the world this is
  • "Ian Morrison called "unfounded."" - full stop should be outside the quote marks I think
  • "the explosive break-building of Higgins."" - same here
  • That's all I got as far as the end of the "1983 world championship maximum break" section. I'll look at the rest later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "team finals" table, you have notes saying who was in the Rest of the World and Ireland A teams, but not the others (eg Canada) - any reason?
  • Note b to k are complete sentences so need full stops
  • Any reason why notes m and q are the only ones not to start with a capital letter?

C. J. Cregg

Nominator(s): theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is Claudia Jean Cregg, a fictional character on NBC's The West Wing and my indirect namesake. She was a core cast member throughout the entirety of the show's run, and earned her portrayer, Allison Janney, more Emmys than anyone else on the show (justice for Martin Sheen, who played President Jed Bartlet and somehow didn't get any). Her portrayal was—while hampered by the show's misogynistic atmosphere—smart, funny, and assertive. I've been working on lots of West Wing characters articles (not to mention lots of people named Claudia), but I'm proud and excited that this is the first in both categories that I'm submitting for FA. Thanks in advance to everyone who weighs in! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Things that need consensus from new commenters:

  • Is three dates in the citations (date published, date archived, date accessed) too many? should the latter be cut?
    I don't see why. Archives can fail or be inaccessible, so it's important contextual information to put the access date, which can differ from the archive date. Urve (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from indopug

  • the infobox should be restricted to real-world information. In-universe information cannot really ever be objective and doesn't belong in an infobox. Especially since this one is so long and contains possibly trivial and uncited (I did searches for the family members and could find no mentions in the article body) information.
    • Hmm, I'm not so sure I agree with the idea that all in-universe information is subjective and has no place in the infobox. Looking around other fictional character FAs, lots of them do have in-universe sections (see Bart Simpson). That said, I've limited the in-universe section of the infobox to information relevant and cited in the prose. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, can "C. J." be spelt "CJ", which would look less clumsy in the text (especially when used frequently)?
    • I'm not wild about it – she is rather rare as a fictional character (the only biography-style articles that refer to their subjects by common name) with an acronym'd first name, but C. J. is a fairly common spelling in the media and my own preferred spelling. "C.J." seems incorrect, and "CJ" feels unprofessional. I have, however, removed the {{nbsp}} tags from in between C. and J., as I think those were a little overkill. It's like asking for US instead of U.S.; up to personal preference. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three dates in every citation is overkill. The reader doesn't need a retrieval date when he has access to a permanent link.—indopug (talk) 06:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieval dates are mandatory under the MOS. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:CITEWEB, "Citations for World Wide Web pages typically include . . . the date you retrieved (or accessed) the web page (required if the publication date is unknown)". Since pub dates are known here, retrieval dates are not mandatory at all.—indopug (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      let's put a pin in this for now; if there's consensus to remove the retrieval dates, we'll go for it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Guerillero; in general, the most important date is at the beginning of the citation anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You and I know that, but a lay reader is confronted with three dates, two of which have nothing to do with the article being cited itself.—indopug (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments, indopung! I've made some replies :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • oops, bad ping to indopug theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Guerillero

I will do the source review --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favorite characters from one of my favorite shows
  • Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." What is the significant influence of Gregg 2009?
  • Heisler 2009a and Heisler 2009b need the publication info
  • Why is Comic Book Resources a High Quality Reliable Source?
  • Why is The Cut a High Quality Reliable Source?
  • Is the tweet from AP covered anywhere else?
  • Missing author for The Journal News article
  • Post-Teen Vouge's 2016 slip into being a glorified mouthpiece of the DSA, I have a decent amount of skepticism of using them for political opinions
-- Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Indy beetle

  • Why is the character's first name used in preference to her surname? There is a mix on naming choices in this article generally that should have some logic to it. Simon Donovan is referred to by his last name, for example.
  • "Indeed" is used to start sentences four times. It's not really a great word to use, and adds unnecessary editorial emphasis to some statements over others in Wiki voice.
  • Indeed, C. J. is widely thought to be an adept, empathetic, confident, witty, and independent character with considerable depth, This is cited to four sources. Unless one of those sources plainly states that these are "widely thought" views of the character, this is technically a WP:SYNTH violation. None of the quotes provided with those citations suggest that this is a majority view, it just happens to be an amalgamation of sources which profess a positive view.
  • Since The West Wing frequently mixes the personal and professional, This is somewhat vague. Perhaps be more specific that the show covers both the "personal lives" and "professional careers" of its characters.
  • This is realized in the series finale, "Tomorrow"; in the episode, C. J. leaves the White House, choosing Danny instead. No need for the dramatic implication; just say outright, "choosing to pursue a relationship with Danny instead" or something applicable.
  • Critical reception of C. J. Cregg has been highly positive, both during and after the show's run. Is this claim directly supported by a reliable source?

-Indy beetle (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative replies: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The characters are referred to by their WP:COMMONNAME – some characters, like the show's core senior staff, are on a first-name basis with the audience (RSes) and each other. Other characters, like the president and side characters with honorifics, aren't generally referred to by first name by reliable sources or the show.
    • Cut the "indeed"s
    • I mean, I suppose you're right that the "widely thought" isn't in the sourcing, but I'm not sure I agree that that's a SYNTH problem. If every reliable source stated that the Earth was a globe, but none opined that every other source thought the exact same way, would we really not be allowed to say "the Earth is widely thought to be a globe" (that would be relevant in the Flat Earth article)? When we're looking for the common name of an article, do we need sources that say "this is most commonly referred to as A, but it's also B or C"? It seems a strange interpretation of SYNTH to say that editors are responsible for assessing the attitude of reliable sources as it relates to due weight, but aren't allowed to express that in prose. That said, I'd be happy to look for broader sources, or change to "has been described as" to narrow the scope to those for, but I don't know if I take much issue with it.
      • Well, since it is the viewpoint of RSes, I just put it in wikivoice.
    • Fixed "personal/professional" and C. J./Danny

Sayfo

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 15:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the lesser known sibling of the Armenian genocide. Thanks so much to Ichthyovenator and Hog Farm who reviewed at ACR, Jens Lallensack for the GAN, and Miniapolis for a thorough copyedit. (t · c) buidhe 15:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • The shading in the Assyrian percentage map is quite difficult to distinguish - see MOS:COLOUR
  • Suggest scaling up the Paris Peace Conference map
  • File:Syrian_Women_of_the_Kurdistan_Mountains_in_Flight.png: why is Iranian copyright believed relevant? The given source was published in the US and UK. If it is kept, the tag indicates that the description should specify which rationale applies.
  • That comment on Iranian copyright applies to multiple other images
  • File:Assyrian_warriors_from_Tergawar,_Iran.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • File:Map_of_southeastern_Anatolia_printed_in_The_cradle_of_mankind;_life_in_eastern_Kurdistan_(1922)_(14576929017).jpg: one of the authors listed died less than 70 years ago
  • File:Oramar._Looking_northwards_across_the_gorge_towards_the_crags_of_Supa_Durig_between_Jilu_and_Baz.jpg: can a more specific copyright tag be applied?
  • File:Syriac_Orthodox_family_in_Mardin,_1904.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Ditto File:Map_of_Assyria_Paris_Peace_Conference_1919.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I put Iranian tags because the photographs were taken in Iran, so I figured that would be the source country.
Okay - tag requires that the description page identify which rationale listed is believed to apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Assyrian_warriors_from_Tergawar,_Iran.jpg —published in US in 1924, details added to image description.
  • File:Map_of_southeastern_Anatolia_printed_in_The_cradle_of_mankind;_life_in_eastern_Kurdistan_(1922)_(14576929017).jpg As stated in the deletion request, the man who died in 1935 is credited with the illustrations in the book, while the other guy wrote the text
  • File:Oramar._Looking_northwards_across_the_gorge_towards_the_crags_of_Supa_Durig_between_Jilu_and_Baz.jpg Same situation as the previous one, this is PD-old-70-1923, licensing corrected
  • File:Syriac_Orthodox_family_in_Mardin,_1904.jpg I'm not sure about the author's death date, but the French source linked in the image description says the author's works are public domain and I have no reason to doubt it.
  • As for the map, I don't know about the author's death so removed that claim. But it was definitely published in 1919 or 1920. (t · c) buidhe 05:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GGT

I had worked quite a bit on this article a number of years ago, so am quite familiar with the topic in general. Buidhe's important work on this rather under-researched but important part of history has been exciting to follow and I'll be pleased to read through the article and share some of my thoughts - this is my first FAC review on en.wiki so please do bear with me.

  • I'm not too comfortable with the image in the lead. We don't really know where this was taken, we don't know who took it. The only verification we have about the image is the single sentence caption in a 1916 book that seems to have been sponsored by the Assyrian Church. All it shows is a bunch of women wearing the garments of the day and carrying a bunch of bags in a countryside setting. I've just seen too many instances of falsified or out-of-context claimed images of atrocities for this period. Granted, these are mostly from the denialist camp but as the article explains quite well, the Assyrian church had its own reasons for being less than factual. So I'm not comfortable with having this image in the article without a secondary source using it, or at least some attribution.
  • Similarly with the image captioned "Cavalry and slain Assyrians at the mission in Urmia". This image is so low-resolution that it's not even very meaningful. The caption in the primary source from which it's taken raises more questions than it answers.
    • Removed both images
  • "The Syriac Orthodox Church has officially rejected the use of "Assyrian" since 1952, however, but not all Syriac Orthodox reject Assyrian identity." "However, but" sounds a bit clunky.
    • Reworded
  • "David Gaunt has estimated the Assyrian population at between 500,000 and 600,000 just before the outbreak of World War I, significantly higher than Ottoman census figures." This sentence conveys Gaunt's estimate to be much more confident than it actually is. In fact, Gaunt is very tentative in his calculations in the cited work as well as his more detailed account in Massacres, Resistance, Protectors. His bottom line is that there aren't really any reliable figures for the population, and I don't think that this comes across as such in the article. The sentence also begs the question of what the official Ottoman figure was and why it's discounted, which should be easy enough to add to the article.
    • Reworded. There was no official Ottoman figure for Assyrians since they were counted in a fragmentary way by religious denomination; I removed the reference to the census. In his 2006 book, Gaunt says that the 1914 Ottoman census's figures for "non-Muslims were thoroughly misleading and inaccurate. As a token of the confused nature of the official census-taking and the lack of coordination between the local correspondents, the Syriac Orthodox population is shown in three separate categories: Süryaniler, Eski Süryaniler, and Jakobiler"
  • I'm hoping to keep posting comments as I read through the article. --GGT (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your feedback! (t · c) buidhe 15:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the improvements! I consider the issues above to be fully resolved. Moving on...
  • "Under the Qudshanis-based Patriarch of the Church of the East, Assyrian tribes ruled farmers in the Hakkari mountains east of Tur Abdin (adjacent to the Ottoman–Persian border) with aşiret status—in theory, with full autonomy." I note that this section, along with a substantial part of the article, relies extensively on Gaunt's work: I won't critique this too much as I'm aware that this is an understudied topic but some of his more general comments should be taken with a pinch of salt, and this is one of those. The sentence doesn't make sense to me as a native Turkish speaker as aşiret isn't really a status. It simply means "tribe" (so the sentence is repetitive) and was integrated into Ottoman administrative hierarchy as such, but it wasn't a status that was bestowed, so to speak, and it also didn't theoretically provide full autonomy. (For a non-Turkish speaker I imagine this sentence also doesn't really clarify what an aşiret is.) This article provides a good overview of what an "aşiret" is its place in Ottoman law. If Assyrian tribes enjoyed full autonomy, that would have been thanks to the remoteness of the region rather than any status.
    • Rephrased
  • "Assyrian efforts to maintain their independence" - this should probably read "autonomy" rather than independence.
    • Done
  • "Historians date mass violence against the Assyrians to the 1830s or earlier" - I'd say that the wording here is a bit too similar to the source. Also Gaunt doesn't really cite any historical works to substantiate this statement.
    • Reworded
  • There is a bit of a chronological confusion here - the Russo-Turkish war precedes the creation of the Hamidiye cavalry; the cavalry should probably be discussed within the context of the Hamidian massacres. --GGT (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added dates and restored chronological order. The cavalry were not involved in the 1895 massacres in Diyarbekir. (t · c) buidhe 14:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In particular, the Ottoman Empire wanted to annex Persia's Azerbaijan province to connect with Russia's Muslim subjects in Transcaucasia." I'd say that this is a slight oversimplification of the Ottoman motives, this article provides a better summary than Gaunt for this IMO. At any rate, the aim wasn't necessarily to "annex" to territory but rather to "occupy" it.
    • Removed the sentence. I'm not sure exactly what the academic consensus on this issue is, but I would hesitate to cite that source since as far as I can tell it doesn't say anything about Assyrians.
  • "Historian Donald Bloxham emphasizes the negative influence of interfering foreign powers in the Ottoman Empire (including plots to annex territory) under the pretext of protecting Ottoman Christians." A very important point - I think one or two sentences about the British involvement with the Assyrians prior to the Sayfo is actually essential background.
    • Do you know any good sources on this? I can't find any and Bloxham's book says virtually nothing about Assyrians that's not already covered. I know there were American, French, and British missionaries; is there a reason the British were most important?
  • "According to Gaunt, the Sayfo should be considered among other settler genocides that sought the elimination of the original inhabitants to redistribute land to a different population." I'm unable to verify this I think. It's not in Gaunt's chapter (p. 245 onwards) and it's not on p. 331, which is cited. In general, I find the focus on Turkification and settler colonialism as a motive for Sayfo in this paragraph a bit bizarre and undue. The areas populated by the Assyrians weren't really very "desirable" areas and unlike the properties of the Armenians, they mostly weren't repopulated by Turks. Yalçın (2009) quotes Dündar in a comment that is general about the repopulation of Christian villages with muhacirs, that shouldn't be understood as specifically applying to the Assyrians. And again I don't think Gaunt really substantiates his resettlement argument in the 2015 paper either, the whole paragraph is vague ("The order to resettle the Nestorians of Hakkari was one step within this greater scheme"), and as I said I think the article relies a bit too much on Gaunt's analysis of events already - this might be a good place to cut down on it unless other researchers explicitly agree with him on this.
  • --GGT (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does show up on page 331 of the version I consulted. The argument is more that they were mostly killed by other locals (not primarily Turks) with less involvement from the government. Although their land wasn't the most desirable, my understanding is it was indeed taken over by other people (although mostly not muhacir) after the Sayfo. Locally driven violence and land appropriation is typical of settler genocides (eg. see Civilian-Driven Violence and the Genocide of Indigenous Peoples in Settler Societies.) However, I don't feel strongly about including this particular language, so removed

Comments by Ovinus

Will get reviewing in a moment. Thanks for your important work as always. Ovinus (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • First sentence – I'm pretty sure MOS says to avoid slashes. (Sorry to be the obsessive/pedant.) Is it because of the controversial terminology? I think that's a perfectly valid exception, but just want to make sure
    • Yes, it's because the people may be called either Assyrians or Syriacs
  • "irregulars" (twice) – too technical for a lead. perhaps "guerillas" or "paramilitaries", but I'd even prefer "independent fighters" or something
    • Changed to "Ottoman forces" referring to both soldiers and irregulars
  • "were not part of the genocide" – Clarify whether they were not part of his order specifically or the ensuing genocide in practice
    • The latter, clarified
  • "Local actors played a larger role for local actors than the Ottoman government" – I do not understand this sentence
    • "Local actors played a larger role than the Ottoman government", fixed
  • "this is rejected by Turkey" – Also say that Turkey denies the Armenian genocide, which is quite relevant I think
    • Not sure about this, Armenian genocide denial is only briefly mentioned in the body so seems like it may be UNDUE in the lead. Thanks for reviewing! (t · c) buidhe 02:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understood
  • "collective identity such as the Armenian national movement" – maybe "analogous to" ?
    • "similar to"
  • "There were no accurate estimates of the prewar Assyrian population" – were or are?
    • The source is discussing past estimates
  • "The first mass violence targeting Assyrians was in the 1940s ... killing several thousands during the 1840s" – I assume you mean 1940s, and probably remove the second date
    • 1840s, fixed
  • "During intertribal feuds, most violence was directed at Christian villages under the "protection" of the opposing tribe." – I assumed "most" was considered over Christian villages, so I rephrased, but rv if that's not right
    • Not sure what you mean
      • Never mind, I confused myself
  • "realize Pan-Turanism" – define or remove
    • Removed
  • "Turkify" – I remember this word was used in Armenian genocide, but just to confirm, RS use this word?
    • Cited source says "Talât developed a scheme of demographic engineering that would also enable the Turkification of those refugees who were not already Turkish speaking."

Bleed American

Nominator(s): MusicforthePeople (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC); DannyMusicEditor (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. This article is about the fourth album from alt rock act Jimmy Eat World, released in mid 2001. After nearly becoming a casualty of the major label system following their third album, the band bounced back with their most commercially successful release to date. It was certified platinum in the US, gold in Canada and silver in the UK. Sometime before this, the album's title was changed to Jimmy Eat World following the 9/11 attacks. Its second single "The Middle" was a top five hit in the US, becoming a staple of the pop punk genre, and is the band's signature song.

While I initially did some expansion to the article a few years ago, DannyMusicEditor (talk · contribs) did further work on it and took this to GA status in 2016. After I did some more expansion in 2021, ahead of the album's 20th anniversary, Danny and I talked about bringing this to FA status. In the interim, we brought Tell All Your Friends to FA earlier this year and have decided to do the same for Bleed American now. MusicforthePeople (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:Bleedamerican.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Fixed [4][5] MusicforthePeople (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

I remember this album fondly

  • There is an over reliance on AllMusic when better sources exist
    • Can you be more specific as to which ones are excessive? Sure, it has a lot, I'll give you that, but are there any you'd most rather be replaced? dannymusiceditor oops 16:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most (barring the review/bio, of course) of the AllMusic refs are for the release dates. MusicforthePeople (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • emo pop can be cited to reviewers instead of the void of all music. Same for clarity's release year. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Before I do that, what exactly do you mean by "the void of Allmusic"? At least it's not detail just thrown into a sidebar and not just a listing in their portal of artists/releases. dannymusiceditor oops 22:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Jimmy Eat World's news section a high quality reliable source?
  • You switch between liner notes and booklet
  • The booklets for Static Prevails, Clarity, and Dude Ranch don't really support what you are trying to get them to do
    • Why not? Unless you're saying those booklets don't actually credit Trombino, in which case I would be surprised. I do not have them on hand. The Dude Ranch part was one of my ideas - I could see it going if I have to, because I suppose in one light "breakthrough" can be subjective. dannymusiceditor oops 16:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aubin 2000 does not support the text
    • I have questions about punknews to begin with
      • We had this issue on our last FAC, and we took the source to be discussed at RSN. Some concerns and opposes were raised there, but when we answered their concerns, the airwaves went silent and the thread was eventually archived. As far as I was concerned, there was no real need to dig it up three months later - I assume that by no further comment, that the problems had been resolved. dannymusiceditor oops 16:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update: That's annoying, you can't even see the date of publication on this source. If you could, it would support the content; we would just have to change it to say it had been recorded by October. dannymusiceditor oops 16:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Without a date on it, the source isn't supporting things --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Before the site's current design, they used to show the dates in the posts. If you press F12, then CTRL+F, then type datepublished in the search box, the date it was posted shows up. MusicforthePeople (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing that Ealdgyth dropped her objection, I will let it go Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch the linking of publications
  • Why is Line and Ink a high quality reliable source?
  • You sometimes you Harv/SFN templates and sometimes do them by hand
  • You are going to need to sell me on The Gunz Show
    • Mike "Gunz" Gunzelman's show is broadcast on idobi Radio, where he personally interviews the band for the content used on this page. Would you say the band's word is suitable? That's the reason the tweets are in here, too. Of course we'd use a better source if it was out there, but we're not sure there are any. dannymusiceditor oops 16:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto for the tweets
    • Personally, I use WP:ABOUTSELF to craft my judgment on this one. Obviously, if there were better published sources to cover the matter, we would use them, but I do not know of any, and I think the band's works count as being about themselves. Do you think they could be amiss on any of the criteria listed? Let me know, dannymusiceditor oops 16:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are the worst source possible. But I will withdraw my objections. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sleeve refs need to be merged
  • Chart history is broken

Spotchecks probably have to be done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout (video game)

Nominator(s): Lazman321 (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout is a role-playing video game released for the PC in 1997 by Interplay Productions. It was a critical success and was praised for its unique setting and gameplay. The game was quite pivotal in the history of role-playing games, as it was one of the games credited for renewing interest in role-playing video games when the genre was dying off in the West. It spawned a series that still remains famous and successful to this very day. The current year is 2022, making it the 25th anniversary of Fallout. I plan to make this today's featured article on October 10, 2022, to celebrate this anniversary. I have worked on this article since April 2021 and made a successful good article nomination in July 2021. I returned to improving this article further in March 2022 upon realizing that this year is the 25th anniversary. It has received a peer review and a copyedit from WP:GOCE. I now believe it is ready for a featured article candidacy. Feel free to leave down any comments pertaining to the improvement of this article in preparation for featured article status. Lazman321 (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—except for the one I removed, the images look OK (t · c) buidhe 10:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about comprehensiveness from Shooterwalker

I made some comments at peer review, and this article has come a long way in terms of its writing. But thinking about the comprehensiveness requirement under WP:FAC, I think the legacy section omits the influence of this game on other games. For example, Assassin's Creed Odyssey cites this game as an influence on its open world design (which is impressive considering the decades separating the two games). There's even more influence on contemporaries like Neverwinter Nights 2. A game like this has almost endless influence, which can be a daunting task to document and verify. But I think with a little bit of effort you could cover the broad strokes.

  • One strategy is to use the search engine at WP:VG/LRS to look for sources that are about other games, but decide to name drop Fallout.
  • Another strategy is to check the Wikipedia articles listed under "what links here", and look for articles about other games that might have a verifiable link to Fallout.
  • One last strategy is to check the List_of_video_games_considered_the_best#cite_note-183 and look for comments that further describe how this game is influential. This article already mentions them in the context of awards and accolades, but I think the same sources also have something to say about the game's influence on the RPG genre and the whole medium of video games.

I don't know if I will have time for a more thorough review, but based on the peer review, I think the prose is well on its way. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done: I have added more games to the legacy section. Your second suggestion was really useful for including more games that were influenced by Fallout. I would have never thought to use it, so thank you. I didn't include Assassin's Creed Odyssey however. This is because the interview listed in the article seems to be talking about the series as a whole rather than the original game; the in-source mention linked to Fallout 4. I wanted to mostly include games that were either influenced by the first game itself or the classic games. Lazman321 (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point about Assassin's Creed. The one-sentence list is a decent start, I think that readers would be interested to know where the influence is between these games. For example, was it the open world level design? Quest design? Skill system? It deserves at least a full paragraph, to really drive home what aspects of Fallout are part of its enduring influence. Especially if someone like Warren Spector had something to say about Fallout directly. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are asking me to go through each game and describe how Fallout influenced them, I don't think that's necessary. There already is a paragraph in the legacy section dedicated to what aspects of Fallout were influential, which I think is sufficient. Besides, most of the sources do not mention how Fallout influenced them exactly, including the Warren Spector source. Detailing the ones that do would probably be adding undue emphasis on trivial details. Lazman321 (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DWB (Placeholder)

I'll aim to look at this in the next few days. Anyone else that wants to jump in before me feel free. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkwarriorblake: It has been over a week. When are you going to start your review? Lazman321 (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments from Spy-cicle

Unfortunately I will not have the time to undertake a full review though I do have a few quick comments.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there a specific reason why there is no gameplay screenshot?
  • Comment: There was a screenshot, but it was removed by Buidhe for lacking context. I might add a better screenshot soon.
  • I am not sure why what appears to be the WP:OFFICIAL name Fallout: A Post Nuclear Role Playing Game and retronym Fallout 1 are tucked away in an efn. I can understand why tucking away minor stylisations may be worth putting away in an efn (e.g. Red Dead Redemption 2) but putting the official name is an efn seems to be against MOS:LEAD.
  • Done: Incorporating official title into the lead.
  • The official name does not appear in the body once as well.
  • Not Done: The official name is neither short enough nor common enough to be used in the body without unneeded awkwardness. If there is a secondary source that discusses the name, I'd be more inclined to use it, probably in the development section.
  • Per WP:VGBOX "art without any platform-related logotypes should be used where possible either from an official source or by editing the cover picture in order to create a platform-neutral picture." The current box art uses logotypes could probably be replaced with a logoless one [6].
  • Not Done: Also per WP:VGBOX: "The identifying art should be from the game's original release. If the game was released on other platforms at a later date, the original artwork with its respective platform-related logos should still be used. Exceptions can be made when a later release was significantly more notable than an earlier release." The cover art used in the infobox currently is from the original release, while the image you are suggesting is from the version on Steam, which is nowhere near as notable as the original version on PC.
  • Chris Jones is linked in infobox but is a redirect
  • Done: I removed him; he wasn't even mentioned in the body.
  • Citations should be cited in order (e.g. [10][18][24] not [24][10][18])
  • Done except for instances where I felt changing the citation order would interfere with text-source integrity.

I have addressed your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ovinus

The article seems reasonably comprehensive (although I know little about video games) but the writing needs a thorough copyedit. In particular, there's a fair amount of flowery language (e.g., "became incredibly successful, both critically and commercially"; "the first game in the series to sell incredibly well was Fallout 3"; "which contained multiple possible settings to play with") and vague language (e.g., "the inhabitants will be immersed in dilemmas"). I would suggest going back to peer review, and I would definitely review in-depth there. And since it's a relatively popular article, I'd be willing to undertake a copyediting effort in due time, if you would like that. But I can't support the article in its current state. Ovinus (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and copyedit the article. Honestly, when this article was listed on the WP:GOCE requests page, I would've preferred you or Baffle gab1978 accepting and copyediting the article rather than someone who had less than one year of experience on Wikipedia. I do have a question, however. Why can't you do an in-depth review during the feature article candidacy instead of the peer review? I do not want to have this candidacy archived just so you can review it on the peer review. Lazman321 (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's an unfortunate situation because peer review gets insufficient attention, so instead FACs become the place for extended commentary. I can simultaneously review it and copyedit it, but I'd like to discuss changes, clarifications, etc. with you outside of this page. How about I'll get started on it, and I'll raise my questions on the article's talk? Also in the future, you can always ask me directly if you'd like! Ovinus (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Thank you very much. Lazman321 (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Coords shouldn't consider this a support, since I can't make any claims to the article's accuracy; I'm mostly commenting on my own work.) My copyedit isn't quite done yet—still a few quibbles from me on the article talk—but I believe the writing is better. That being said, it took longer than expected and I naturally got somewhat "close" to the writing, so I'm sure I made plenty of oversights. I'm also not experienced in video game copyediting, so there may be jarring tense issues and writing that is too "immersive" in the game. Ovinus (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from JimmyBlackwing

I'd like to second Ovinus's note about the need for copyediting. Scanning it, I see a number of snakes, and some awkward phrasing. Take this sentence: "Fallout was commercially successful, however, it was not a breakout hit upon release, especially compared to the other role-playing video games Baldur's Gate and Diablo; it failed to meet expectations in sales." (You can strike this note if Ovinus's copyedit is completed.)

Alongside that, regarding the number of copies sold, I question the framing that the game had "lackluster sales" that "failed to meet expectations." Based on the footnotes, these ideas come mostly from IGN's history of the Fallout series. I personally consider IGN to be, in terms of accurate history, a situational source. It's notorious for factual errors. Notably, the writer provides no direct quotation to support this claim, nor any numbers. Wide access to data on Fallout's sales wasn't available at that time—most of the sources in the sales section now, I had to dredge up from lost news archives and old magazines that would've been unknown to the writer of that piece.

And those sources call Fallout's sales solid. Compared to most computer games at the time, that was unquestionably true. Fallout was a good performer in Interplay's catalog, even compared to games with more mainstream appeal, like Carmageddon—which Fallout handily outsold in the US. It wasn't Diablo, but most games weren't, including the successful ones (see: Close Combat, Dark Reign, Quake II). I don't think the article should give IGN's framing pride of place.

I'm unfortunately too swamped with work to do a more comprehensive review than this. I'll leave that to other editors. I just noticed these points and wanted to mention them quickly. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the changes and additions to the article since I made this comment have improved things. This isn't a "support," because I haven't assessed the article in full, but my few objections have been resolved. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Herman the Archdeacon

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a man who did not have a Wikipedia article until recently even though he was important enough to have an Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article. Once I got into it, I found him a fascinating character. Mike Christie and Tim riley have given helpful feedback at Peer review. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Another fine article; I didn't have much to say at the peer review and have nothing to add now. How many Anglo-Saxon kings do you have left to bring to FAC, by the way? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Mike. There are 9 Anglo-Saxon kings to go and 3 Danish. However, that includes Alfred the Great, which I have so far copped out of as it is such a mammoth project. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image and source review—pass
  • Heavy reliance on Licence, but it looks like that's the main source that exists. I assume that the page numbers in Roman numerals are citing the introduction. No source checks done.
  • "Herman the Archdeacon... was probably born in Germany." The first sentence of an article usually summarizes the subject's importance. I would shift the birthplace information to the second paragraph and then add a paragraph break before "Herman was a colourful character". (t · c) buidhe 22:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Herfast came into conflict with Baldwin, abbot of Bury St Edmunds Abbey over" - comma needed after Abbey
  • "Lanfranc, the Archbishop of Canterbury sent an" - need a comma after Canterbury
  • "sent an angry letter to Herfast, demanding [....] and concluding by demanding" - any way to avoid using "demanding" twice in the same sentence?
  • "according to Licence, "was to" - there's no closing quote mark later in this sentence, so it's unclear where the direct quotation ends
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

The few quibbles I had were thoroughly dealt with at the peer review, and on rereading the article I can find no more to carp about. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. A good read, well and widely sourced, balanced and comprehensive (as far as a layman can judge) and pleasingly illustrated. I look forward to seeing it on our front page. Tim riley talk 20:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The dead tree sources look good to me --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shaylee Mansfield

Nominator(s): Pamzeis (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shaylee Mansfield... she hasn't been around for very long and is probably younger than most of us. So Mansfield began appearing in viral ASL videos as a child and received some media coverage. In 2016, she starred in a viral Disney Parks ad. She became an actress after appearing in films like Noelle with Anna Kendrick and Feel the Beat with Sofia Carson. She has also made a request to Instagram that garnered coverage from Slate, MIT Technology Review and CNET. And finally, this year, she became the first deaf actor to be credited alongside the voice actors in an animated production... at 12 years old! This article passed a GA review earlier this year by Mujinga and was peer reviewed by Aoba47. All (constructive) comments welcome! Pamzeis (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review — pass: The only image is from YouTube, licences under CC. The image has ALT text. Made this formatting change. Rest looks fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accessibility review — pass: Image has ALT text. Made these formatting changes in the table. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "As of 2016, Shaylee attends a deaf school" - 2016 was six years ago, so this should be in the past tense
    • Done
  • "Because of the earlier relationship between Mansfiled" - spelt wrong
    • 💀
  • "the first-such credit" - that hyphen should not be there
    • Removed
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much! Pamzeis (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "ASL" is not repeated again in the lead. Do we need to define the acronym?
    • Removed
  • "Mansfield has a younger sister named Ivy, who is hearing" — I feel the wording is a bit odd, though I am not sure.
    • Assuming you're talking about the bit after the comma, it's not odd to me and is the same as saying "who is deaf" (grammatically, not in definition). I googled the phrase and found a few reputable sources using the phrase
  • "E! said: "We can't" — Optional suggestion. A cable channel does not say, though it issues statement.
    • Revised
  • Citations for Filmography? Most of the films are mentionned and cited in the prose, but Role needs citations. It would be better, I think, if you could add citation for individial films (as done in various other filmographic FLs)
    • IMO, it's not necessary except for uncredited roles, but I added refs anyways.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to your comments :)​ Pamzeis (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very happy to support this article! Do you know any other FA promoted when the subject was this young? But that should not be an issue. In my opinion, this article meets WP:FA?#1e. If you have time and inclination, would appreciate your review for any of these articles. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help! Pamzeis (talk) 02:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Older nominations

Bryce Dallas Howard

Nominator(s): BattleshipMan (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an American actress and filmmaker, who is the daughter of director Ron Howard. She is most famous for her role as Claire Dearing in the Jurassic World trilogy. It has potential to be FA candidate. I did some edits on it to help improve it and I had WP:GOCE clean up the grammar and flow of it had it FA criteria. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Everything looks good here for the most part. I'd just recommend adding ALT text to the images in the body of the article, expanding the caption for the infobox image, and re-examining the dead source/author link for the one image mentioned above. Once that is all done, this would pass my image review. Aoba47 (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no picture expert, but I think you're right about what you said about the images on that article. Someone will need to do that. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

I have some concerns about the article’s comprehensiveness. There are aspects of her public image that are missing in the section. For example, Howard has been occasionally called an “it girl”. I would also like to see some information about the reception to her acting overall and her working method. Such commentary is not always available, especially for young actors, but given Howard’s experience industry, I assume there is some.

I am not sure if these points are worth opposing over, but it’s definitely something that needs to be addressed if this FAC is considered for promotion at some point. Since this nomination is relatively new, I think this research can be done within the scope of FAC. I don’t expect there to be a section with large paragraphs in Howard’s case. I might help you later find some sources regarding this as and when I have more time. FrB.TG (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will have to time for everything you just said. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't entirely rely on me for this though. Given that you are the expert on Howard's biography, it's likely that you would find (or possibly did find) such information more easily than me. My time on Wikipedia these days is limited and almost exclusively devoted to expanding another actor's article. FrB.TG (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daglish railway station

Nominator(s): Steelkamp (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is about a small railway station in Perth, Western Australia. With not much changing about it since it was built in the 1920s, it is quite a short article. With eight railway station good articles, I figured I must get at least one as a featured article, to make sure I'm getting the structure and everything else right. I have used the feedback given to me by my eight station good article reviews to improve this article to hopefully make this my first featured article. I look forward to receiving feedback Steelkamp (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To address some comments I will probably receive, I will say this:

  • There are no patronage figures more recent than the ones presently in the article.
  • The government has not yet announced a specific date for the opening of the Airport line.

– Steelkamp (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 06:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from AviationFreak

  • Coords given in title line and infobox are unnecessarily precise. Suggest using something like -31.9518, 115.8134 (conversion into DMS is fine)
    • Done.
  • Island platform can be linked
    • Done.
  • operated as a parcel's office - "parcel office"? Maybe in Australian English it would be "parcels office"? Not sure, but in any case I don't think it's possessive.
    • Source is inconsistent between parcels office and parcel's office, so I chose parcels office.
  • Suggest piping "accessible" to Accessibility (i.e. handicapped-accessible) given that it is ambiguous
    • Done.
  • Could use a footnote about when "peak" is
    • I've linked to peak hour, which I think hour or rush hour is sufficiently understandable to readers. I won't want to go more specific than what I've done because: A. timetable changes that happen every few years could slightly change the start and end of the 10 minute frequency period; and B. I don't want to violate WP:NOTGUIDE by having the service information too detailed; and C: 10 minute frequencies start in one direction before the other direction.
  • Pipe "public holidays" to Public holidays in Australia
    • Done.
  • Suggest removal of comma after 4.9km/3mi
    • Done.
  • It is between Railway Road to the south-east and Stubbs Terrace to the north-west. - This reads as a bit confusing to me.
    • Reworded that sentence.
  • Last comma in first paragraph of "Description" is extraneous
    • Done.
  • Fremantle should be linked
    • Done.
  • What is a "platform face"?
    • Changed wording to platform edge, hopefully it is clearer now. The reason I make the distinction between platform edge and platform is because the PTA numbers each platform edge as its own platform. So this station has a platform one and a platform two. You can see what I mean by looking at the infobox image.
  • "Bitumen" should be "asphalt" as I understand it, but there are apparently ENGVAR differences there; From what I understand it's still "asphalt" in Australian English?
    • Done, it appears you are right.
  • Suggest piping pedestrian subway to Subway (underpass)
    • Done.
  • Is the number of parking spaces in the lot necessary information?
    • I think so. It conveys the sort of station it is. A station with 58 bays is different to a station with 500 bays. It implies that the station is more walkable than a large park and ride station.
  • We have mentioned the lack of tactile paving three times now, once in the lede and twice in the body. Suggest removing one, probably the first one in the body as it's not placed with other accessibility-related info
    • Done.
  • Suggest de-linking siding in favor of linking "turnback siding" to the more specific pocket track
    • Done, didn't know that was an article.
  • ...has capacity for five trains per hour, and so an additional turnback will be needed... - Suggest removing the "and" after the comma
    • Done.
  • Premier James Mitchell, Minister for Railways John Scaddan, and Mayor of Subiaco Walter Richardson - There are three Seas of blue here
    • I've changed this so there is no longer a sea of blue there. The source only actually mentions Walter Richardson by name so I've removed the names of the other two there.
  • "Northwest" is not hyphenated, but in other places in the article directions like this are hyphenated.
    • Done.
  • station's parcel's office - Same question as above
    • Done.
  • Services on the Fremantle line were restored on June 23 per our article on the closure, so suggest "It re-opened on 29 July 1983 after services on the Fremantle line were restored."
    • It appears that article was wrong. I couldn't find any sources which say 23 July, but I could find many that said 29 July. Other than the ones in the article, there are these: [7] [8] [9]
      • Interesting - I see you've corrected the article. Thank you!
  • served by the Airport line when that opens -> "served by the Airport line upon the line's opening" or something similar
    • Done.
  • Same suggestion as above for peak footnotes and linking public holidays
    • See above comment about peak.
  • If night service is only half-hourly or hourly, suggest including that in the lede as service info is presumably some of the most important for travelers at the station today
    • Done.

Overall a solid article prose-wise. Best of luck on your first FAC! AviationFreak💬 21:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review AviationFreak. I've addressed all your comments. Steelkamp (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This looks good, and I was definitely getting a bit close to NOTGUIDE with the footnote suggestion. All concerns have been satisfactorily addressed. Support on prose.

Comments

  • "who was a mayor of Subiaco, member for the electoral district of Subiaco and premier of Western Australia in the 1900s" - I would change "a mayor" to just "mayor" to be consistent with the other two (both in the lead and body)
    • I decided to do the opposite and changed "member for the electoral district of Subiaco, and premier of Western Australia" to "a member for the electoral district of Subiaco, and a premier of Western Australia". This is because it wouldn't be grammatically correct to write that Daglish was member for the electoral district of Subiaco.
  • Tactile paving is linked in the lead but not the body
    • Done.
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, let me know what you think after the changes I've done. Steelkamp (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from TAOT

Hi Steelkamp! Thanks for nominating this article. I will leave you some comments within 24 hours. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • In general, please check for compliance with MOS:DATECOMMA. For instance, Opened on 14 July 1924, should be Opened on 14 July, 1924.
    • I believe that only applies for MDY dates, not DMY dates. See examples at MOS:DATE.
  • There is a car park on both sides of the station, Should this be "There are car parks on both sides of the station"?
    • I agree. Done.
  • Nice work on the photos. Overall this is very well done. I will add a few more nitpicks but overall you are quite close to FA status at present with this article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Airport line, Perth gives a starting date of "By 30 June, 2022." I suggest being more specific in this article than "the first half of 2022" as we are already 5 months into 2022.
    • There have been recent reports of delays. Now the government is saying it will open "later in 2022". I have changed the article accordingly.
  • The Public Transport Authority (Western Australia) was formed in 2003. Who owned the station before that time? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added a footnote.
  • Rail yard can be linked.
  • Daglish station underpass entrance is not a very descriptive caption. I suggest expanding upon it a bit more. Not something I am dead set on being a requirement for FA but I believe it's worth considering.

That's all I have. Happy to support once these two comments are addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what do you think now. Steelkamp (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of anything else. Happy to support at this time. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Hill Yard

Nominator(s): Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second nomination of this article. My first nomination last year, while garnering 3 supports, was failed over text-source integrity concerns, and my reaction to this was less than ideal. I gave it 4 months to cool off, and have since performed a major check for this issue and made numerous corrections. The article itself is about a rail yard in Connecticut, which once held the title of the largest such facility in the United States east of the Mississippi River. Today it is much smaller, but remains the largest rail yard in Connecticut. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It appears you forgot to transclude this to the main FAC page. I did that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I get for starting a FAC at almost midnight my time. Thank you for catching that! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from AviationFreak

  • Classification yard is linked twice in the lede (once as "humps"). Check article thoroughly for other duplinks.
    This is true, but the link written as "humps" is to a specific section of the article. Not sure how best to handle this. Hump yards probably deserve their own dedicated article but that's a project for another day. Does this still count as a violation of duplink? If so, I can remove it, but I believe retaining it provides relevant information to the reader. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is fine to my eyes - DUPLINK is written in terms of "generally", and I think IAR would be well-applied here as it is legitimately beneficial to the reader. AviationFreak💬 22:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my eyes some of the commas in the article are extraneous (e.g. last comma in the first paragraph), but I am personally particularly picky about this and not even sure that my reading is the "correct" one. Wouldn't worry about this unless other editors say anything.
  • Our article on Selkirk Yard states that it was built in 1924 and was merely rebuilt in '68.
    Yes, the rebuilding in 1968 was what led to Cedar Hill's decline. All mentions which implied it was newly built have been edited accordingly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why were the Mott Haven workers striking?
    You mention this right below, but the claim is that they were striking just because other workers were striking at Mott Haven. The strike did indeed end within 2 days after it began Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My question concerns the actual Mott Haven strikers themselves though - Why were they striking? I thought it might be helpful to have a phrase about why the strike took place to begin with. AviationFreak💬 22:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It turns out the Mott Haven workers went on strike because the railroad abruptly fired the assistant yard master there without any sort of proceedings first, which upset the workers who liked him. I've added a bit about this to the article along with a new source which says this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...beyond sympathy with the Mott Haven strikers. - This should be "sympathy for the Mott Haven strikers."
    Wording changed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking Switchman
    Linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking Brakeman
    Linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking Flagman
    Linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Love the inflation templates, but for values this large (especially when spelling out "million" for the original value) I would recommend using {{Format price}}. Documentation on this here.
    I spent about 15 minutes trying to figure this out and I have had no success. I could just write them in plain text, but that loses the ability to quickly update the inflation end year in the future. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong but I can't get this to work properly. It seems so silly that I can't figure out something this simple but here we are. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure I got it done for all the places where it would be applicable. AviationFreak💬 02:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. I'm not sure why it gave me such a headache. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • no fewer than seems overly editorialized to me
    Yeah, I can see how that could come across that way. I've removed that phrase. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest changing ...allowed for fewer workers... to "...required fewer workers..."
    Wording changed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specify whether 91,000 t is long or metric tons
    That's metric tons. The conversion template uses "t" for metric tons. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...resulting in the hills... -> "...creating the hills..."
    Wording changed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyphenate battery powered
    Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...in the entire United States -> "in the United States"
    Word removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the detail that the towers were labeled A through D really necessary?
    Probably not. Ironic that I'm the first to delete things from articles for being too much detail. I've removed this detail and merged the sentence with the one following. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link PA system - Odd to me that suckh a system would be called public address when it's used for apparently private communication, but I see that's what the source says
    Linked. Yeah, I'm not sure exactly why they say public, but that's what the source used. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • U.S. Senate can be linked
    Good catch. Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...New York governor Malcolm Wilson... is a sea of blue. Suggest something like "...Malcom Wilson, then the governor of New York..."
    I see what you mean about sea of blue. I could change it to "Despite a directive from Malcolm Wilson, the Governor of New York, in September of that year to reopen the bridge, the bankrupt Penn Central failed to do so." but I'm not a huge fan of how this sentence reads now. Would "Governor Malcom Wilson" with governor piped to Governor of New York work? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How does "The bridge remained closed despite a directive to reopen it from Malcolm Wilson, the Governor of New York, later that year." sound? AviationFreak💬 02:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I like that wording. Added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • department of transportation can be linked
    Replaced with Connecticut Department of Transportation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Connecticut Department of Transportation really ought to be linked
    This has been done. Specifically where it just said "the state's department of transportation" I specified we are talking about CTDOT. No reason to link to both the concept of a department of transportation and specifically CTDOT in my opinion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha. The first use of the phrase was lowercased when I reviewed and I figured you could link to both the concept and CTDOT if you wanted to. This works fine though and tbh I think most readers either know or can infer the function of a DOT as a concept. AviationFreak💬 22:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking Railroad ties
    Linked at first mention in the body. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Risley's Bridge is brought into the article without much context; if it is just a bridge in Berlin, CT, suggest just saying "a bridge"
    I suppose naming the specific bridge isn't necessary. I've changed it to just "a bridge". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking trap rock
    Linked. It's such a commonly known term in this area of CT that I forget it's not common in most places (fun fact, the image used in the trap rock article is in New Haven, Connecticut, but a few miles from Cedar Hill Yard). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...illegally disposing the mercury... -> "...illegally disposing of the mercury..."
    Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking lead paint and asbestos
    Both linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposed Cross-Harbor Rail Tunnel in New York City would result in more usage of Cedar Hill Yard. - This probably needs attribution
    One of the sources definitely directly makes this connection, I need to go through and check which one and then attribute it in-text. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Rail Freight In The Housatonic Region" reference is the one that gives this idea. On page 28 of the PDF: "Advocates for the project in Connecticut suggest that Cedar Hill Yard in North Haven is well positioned to provide intermodal services to take advantage of this new connection, as intermodal sites in New Jersey are operating at capacity, and there are limited sites in New York available for new facilities." I've added a citation from this to the following sentence, as it supports both sentences. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about the bad experience at FAC earlier with this article. I had a similar experience; hope this nom goes better! AviationFreak💬 22:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AviationFreak: Sorry for the delay in getting a loose end tied up. How does the article look now? Anything else you want me to work on? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Should just be one thing with the sea of blue left. AviationFreak💬 02:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Taken care of now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! Support on prose. AviationFreak💬 15:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:New Haven Alcos at Cedar Hill 1949 postcard.jpg, File:New Haven EF4 locomotives at Cedar Hill Yard 1964 postcard.jpg — how is it known that the first publication of these images was without copyright notice?
    User:Pi.1415926535, the uploader of these images, will likely have the answer to this question. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For postcards that aren't an obvious reprint of an earlier postcard, it's vanishingly rare for it not to have been the original publication. I can count on one hand the number of times I've found a postcard where the photo had been previously published. While it's difficult to perfectly eliminate any possibility of previous publication for any images under this license, I see no reason to suspect previous publication (and thus license issues) with these specific images. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other image licensing looks ok (t · c) buidhe 06:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

Ref Text cited Probable ref text Comments/Fixes
6 "In 1914, the New Haven added electrical catenary to the yard as part of its electrification program; operations with electric locomotives began in October of that year." No direct quote. This is a summary of the whole article Nothing tying this event to 1914 or October
25 "Traffic was rerouted over alternate trestles until the repairs, estimated by a New Haven Railroad spokesperson to cost up to $100,000 (equivalent to $970,000 in 2020 dollars), could be completed" No direct quote. This is a summary of the whole article Cite 25 was also used. From the AP; the wire service should be mentioned. Integrity good
4 "The strike came to an end on November 23." I am paywalled out, but things seem good
42a "Penn Central was merged into Conrail in 1976, along with many other bankrupt or troubled railroads in the Northeast, making Conrail the yard's new owner beginning in April." "Since April, ConRail [...]" Article does not mention the conrail creation
42c "Conrail also rebuilt and reopened several tracks in the yard that had been out of service due to their unsafe condition, a consequence of deferred maintenance." deferred maintenance is not mentioned
42d "The railroad projected it would spend over $3 million (equivalent to $4,800,000 in 2021) on repairs between the two yards; Conrail's Northeast Region general manager told a local newspaper that "By the end of the year, 30,000 more ties will be installed in Cedar Hill and Hartford Yards and an additional 34 miles (55 km) of tracks surfaced". Good
42e "In August 1976, Cedar Hill averaged 34 TOFC loads per day, and Conrail projected this number to double upon the completion of a clearance raising project for Risley's Bridge in Berlin, Connecticut." Good
8a "The New Haven Railroad purchased approximately 500 acres (200 ha) of land in the Cedar Hill area in 1917 in order to construct a new classification yard." Good
8b "Construction began the same year." Good
47 "With the line abandoned, the key link between Cedar Hill Yard and the rest of the country was severed." I don't see a connection to the yard here

10% spotcheck --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will look into cite 6 which appears to have been an error on my part. The dates I listed are right, but I used the wrong cite to support them.
    I actually am not sure where I got the October 1914 date from. I haven't been able to find a source that says exactly when it was completed, but I have a source in July 1915 that refers to the electrification in Cedar Hill Yard as "recently completed", so I have changed the text to say it was completed by July 1915. I also found construction on the electrical catenary began in 1913. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re cite 25, the Associated Press is already listed as the agency.
  • Re cite 42a, it's a pretty widely known fact that Conrail succeeded Penn Central but I will add a cite that directly states this.
    This has been done. The existing "Conrail at 40" reference supports this and I have added it next to cite 42a. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re cite 42c, it is true that deferred maintenance is not directly mentioned but it's a pretty obvious conclusion based on the information within the source in question. I could remove the deferred maintenance part of the sentence but that would also remove context (that being the New Haven and Penn Central didn't properly maintain the yard due to financial problems).
  • Re cite 47, it is true the source does not directly make the connection. The preceding parts of the article however do illustrate that the bridge and the Maybrook Line were of importance to Cedar Hill Yard. I believe there are one or two existing sources which also directly make the connection between the bridge being abandoned and a decline in traffic at Cedar Hill Yard, I will take a closer look and add an appropriate citation here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Rail Lawyer predicts fight over freight" source directly links the closing of the Poughkeepsie Bridge to Cedar Hill Yard. I've added it here to supplement citation 47. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like I'm Gonna Lose You

Nominator(s): NØ 00:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Meghan Trainor's song "Like I'm Gonna Lose You", which features guest vocals from John Legend. She almost didn't include it on her debut major-label studio album until being convinced otherwise by her uncle. When it was ultimately released as its fourth single, it revitalized the album's commercial momentum and became Trainor's third top-10 single from it, also reaching number one in Australia, New Zealand, and Poland. Since its first GA review in 2016, it has been a rocky road for this article. I rewrote it recently and think it fares well with regard to the FA criteria. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 00:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

  • The following part, soul love ballad, is a WP:SEAOFBLUE to me. I would unlink love song to avoid this, and I do not think this link is particularly beneficial since it is a very well-known concept that would be understood by a majority of the article's readers. I would do this for each instance of these links throughout the article.
  • I tried some alternate wording here.
  • I still do not think the love song link is entirely necessary, and I think saying "a soul ballad" is better than saying "a ballad in the soul genre". Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, singing the song in a candlelit room, I would just say singing in a candlelit room to avoid the repetition of singing/song.
  • Done.
  • Removed size.
  • For the Legend image, I would clarify in the caption what year it was taken.
  • Clarified.
  • Done.
  • That makes sense.
  • The classic link seems unnecessary to me.
  • Removed.
  • I'd vary the sentence structure of the third paragraph of the "Composition and lyrical interpretation" section as there are three sentences with starting with "Trainor/She..." and the prose could be re-worked to be more engaging.
  • I reworked the prose a bit. It is necessary to distinguish where we are talking about Trainor's verse vs. Legends so this type of sentence structure is unfortunately inevitable.
  • That's a fair point. Thank you for addressing this for me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would avoid this sentence construction, with the latter commenting, as I have seen repeated notes in the FAC space to avoid using "with X verb-ing".
  • Rephrased.
  • I would re-examine the "Critical reception" section's structure. I know I've suggested WP:Reception to you a few times so apologies for sounding like a broken record, but I do find it to be an incredibly helpful resource. I'd more clearly organize this section by topic and while I see bits and pieces of this, this section does not strongly back up the critical consensus brought up in the lead. I'd think further revision would be beneficial for this.
  • Apologies, I too observe this as something I struggle with. I tried to organize it into thematic elements with para 1 being general positive commentary on the song, and para 2 about Trainor's vocals and about if it suits her.
  • No need to apologize. These sections are notoriously hard to write well. It looks better to me, but I will do a more thorough read-through later this week. I am uncertain about the "eulogized" word choice as I always associate that with deaths and funerals (i.e. delivering a eulogy) so I am not sure if that is the best choice for this part. Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first paragraph of the "Critical reception" section, you use "deemed", and I would avoid that as it does make the prose somewhat repetitious.
  • Changed to "found".
  • When I first read this part, She dueted with Matt Prince during the show in New York City, my immediate question was who is Matt Prince? I am guessing he is a singer of some sort, but further clarification would be helpful since he does not have a link to support him unlike the other artists mention in the same sentence.
  • So true. Introduced as "American singer" now.
  • I am uncertain about this part, she was steady while singing its towering notes and did not struggle. It is currently being presented in Wikipedia's voice, and I would instead more clearly attribute in the prose who is describing the performance in this manner.
  • Attributed more clearly now.

I hope this review is helpful. I will do a more thorough read-through of the article later in the week. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is tremendously helpful as you always are. I do remember you telling me that this is your favorite Trainor song so I hope it will be an enjoyable read for you :) --NØ 06:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your responses. It is flattering that you remember that this is my favorite Trainor song. It may be simple, but I am a sap for these kinds of love ballads. I do enjoy this song and others like "Like You'll Never See Me Again" which explore similar themes. I will look through the article again later in the week, but I do not imagine that I will have much to add beyond this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, They wanted Trainor to record, I would clarify the "They" as it is not immediately clear to me. Is it referring to Epic Records as a whole or the specific people mentioned earlier (i.e. L.A. Reid, etc.). I think further clarification would be beneficial.
  • Specified it is Epic now.
  • Christina Milian did a cover of this song for Resort to Love, but I could not find any third-party coverage. Could you find anything about this? If it was not covered by a third-party source, I would not include it as it is not notable enough then. I just wanted to raise it to your attention.
  • It seems the cover did not make any record charts or draw coverage in reliable secondary sources. We could point a reference to soundtrack credits but I have doubts we can demonstrate notability and thus WP:WEIGHT for its mention.
  • Agreed. Thank you for checking into this. It seems like this largely flew under the radar, probably because the film did not seem to get a lot of attention in the first place. Aoba47 (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is likely a matter of personal preference, but I'd put Credits and personnel adapted from Title album liner notes. at the top of the section. I've seen it like this more often in other articles, and I think it would be beneficial to establish at the start of the section where this information is being supported.
  • Agreed and fixed. Honestly I have no idea what made me not do this in the first place, lol.
  • It happens. I have seen some articles use this structure, but I've seen more articles put it first. Aoba47 (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Billboard Hot 100 is linked twice in the "Charts" section. Once in the weekly table and a second time in the year-end table. It seems odd since the other items in the year-end table are not linked a second time so it is not entirely consistent. I'd imagine it would only need to be linked in the weekly table.
  • Good catch.
  • I decided to remove this altogether.
  • Has there been any retrospective reviews of this song? I could not find any when I did a brief search, but I was curious if you had any luck with that or if this kind of articles are just not written for this song.
  • Personally I could not find anything. Sad since it is one of her most lasting hits.
  • Thank you for checking into this. It is interesting that Trainor does not receive the same retrospective reviews or lists as other artists. There are of course retrospective articles written about specific songs (such as "All About That Bass" and "Dear Future Husband"), but others seemed to have fallen out of popular discussion (at least in terms of published articles). Aoba47 (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This should be the end of my review. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. My review is based primarily on the prose, but I could not see anything obviously wrong with the images, media, or citations. Best of luck with this nomination and thank you for putting up with my nitpicks lol. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All should be addressed now. Thank you so much, Aoba47. Personally I found all of your suggestions reasonable. Hope you have a great week ahead!--NØ 18:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the kind words. I support this FAC based on the prose. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Media review from SNUGGUMS (Pass)

I meant to assess this sooner but got sidetracked. Sorry for that. Anyway, here are some comments:

  • For File:Meghan Trainor - Like I'm Gonna Lose You (Official Single Cover).png, try to avoid using Discogs even for file sources when that site is full of user-generated content. Can the artwork be found anywhere outside of that or the YouTube link? If neither Meghan or John shared it on their social media, then your best bet is a music retailer or streaming service.
  • The original uploader pointed a link to a blog where it is no longer found. I have eliminated the Discogs link and cited the record label.
  • To be blunt, I always get suspicious of potential fabrication whenever seeing cover art without any accompanying URL to help prove authenticity, so getting one from Epic would help. Someone might otherwise think you're trying to cover up how a piece isn't actually the official artwork used. In this case I know you didn't just pull this out of nowhere or create it on your own, but no links at all is never a good solution. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems Epic published it on the Italian radio site so I added that too. Its use in the official audio is a pretty solid proof of its authenticity though, in my opinion.

More to follow later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, SNUGGUMS! :) --NØ 12:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SNUGGUMS

  • "debut major-label" → "major-label debut"
  • I do see how your suggested wording makes sense too but I prefer to use the former since "debut major-label", "second major-label", "third major-label", etc. can be a consistent wording format on articles for her future albums, while the other sounds weird with other numbers.
  • Something about the tense from "attaining" within "attaining 5× Platinum certifications in Australia and Canada" doesn't feel right. Maybe go with "and attained" when the sentence begins with "It peaked at number one".
  • Done.
  • Commonly recognized terms like "single" and "music video" don't need to be linked per WP:OVERLINK
  • "it was not in keeping with its doo-wop sound" reads awkwardly; you'd be better off with something like "it did not keep with the album's doo-wop sound"
  • Changed.
  • I'm not convinced the exact album release date is particularly relevant here
  • Gonna have to disagree since that is the date the song first became available to stream or buy. Essential information in my opinion.
  • "an unlikely pairing to perform a love duet" doesn't really convey how much Jeff Benjamin enjoyed this track
  • Fixed. :)
  • Amended.
  • "reached number 99 in the United Kingdom, earning a Gold certification" should have an "and", plus I'd change "earning" to "earned"
  • Agreed.

Thankfully there aren't any glaring issues that I could find. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing as well, SNUGGUMS. Do let me know if there's anything else!--NØ 04:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, and I support after making one minor change here to follow the numerical sequence you allude to for future albums. Your mileage may vary on this but I personally think it reads less awkwardly than "debut major-label". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Speatle

  • Lead looks fine.
  • Her uncle, Burton Toney, forced her manager to hear it: "You need to hear this song, she didn't show you this song, you need to hear it." Is the quoted stuff really necessary?
  • Removed.
  • Ref 13 doesn’t need to be cited three sentences in a row, just cut it to the last one.
  • Done.
  • Trainor wrote it after having one of "those nightmares that your brother or sister or boyfriend just dies", following which one is relieved to find them still breathing… per MOS:CLICHE this should be changed to “still alive”.
  • Agreed and done.
  • Music critics including Gittins and Newsday's Glenn Gamboa thought "Like I'm Gonna Lose You" sounds like a "classic"; the latter commented that it will serve Trainor throughout her career which will surely last long. Last five words probably aren’t needed.
  • Removed.
  • Elysa Gardener of USA Today deemed it proof that she is most appealing when she is not cunning and agitational. Trainor hasn’t been referred to in a while, so replace the first “she” with her last name. Also, tense problem. “is” should be changed to “was”.
  • Both done.
  • Some critics like Gittins and Sims praised Trainor's vocal prowess on "Like I'm Gonna Lose You", while others thought its subdued style did not suit her. The latter felt that the song was the "most refreshing" on the album, and found its focus on her voice a welcome change from the production-heavy nature of other tracks. This could mean either Sims or the song’s critics. Make it clearer.
  • Done.
  • Wow. That was both shorter and longer than I expected. My I-90 review had 10+ bullets while this one only has 8.
Thanks a lot for the comments, Speatle. It is much appreciated!--NØ 12:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dugan Murphy

Though I just authored my first music article (Oshima Brothers), I am still largely inexperienced in this end of Wikipedia. Having said that, I'll read through the article and type out some comments in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It doesn't seem necessary to me to repeat in John Legend's photo caption what is said in that section about his guest vocals. I recommend changing the caption to simply "John Legend in 2008" or something like that.
  • WP:CAPTION recommends that a caption be succint but still "establish the picture's relevance to the article"
  • I'd say something similar about the music clip caption repeating information about the song's genre and Trainor's musical style. If you decide to keep that info in there, definitely change ", where" to "in which".
  • Likewise with this caption, we need to give readers context of what they're supposed to be hearing. I will take your wording suggestion.
  • Is it worth redlinking Big Yellow Dog Music? When I search for the phrase, I see it coming up in lots of other articles.
  • Personally I haven't done this on my other FAs and don't see how it would be particularly useful.
  • I am likewise remiss to redlink things, but I thought I would raise the question anyway, especially because this article is well outside my knowledge area. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it's because I don't read many articles about music, but "sonically in the same vein" sounds awkward to me, and perhaps unnecessarily verbose. I recommend changing "served as the follow-up singles, which were sonically in the same vein and" to "served as similar follow-up singles" or something simpler like that. Just an idea.
  • Changed to "sonically similar". I think it is helpful to specify if the similarity is sonic or lyrical.
  • The use of "serviced" sounds odd to me. Is that industry jargon? Sounds to me like it should be "sent".
  • Changed to "promoted" since "sent" would cause repetition in the following sentence.
  • I had to read "following which one is relieved" a couple times to figure out what was being said. I think that should be reworded for clarity.
  • Does "after which one is relieved" work better according to you?
  • Not really. My mind first reads "which one is" instead of "following which" or "after which". What do you think about adding a comma after "which"? I've read it so many times that I'm not longer a good test subject, but I think adding that pause ought to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • Same sentence: I think it may be worth changing "Trainor wrote" to "Trainor said she wrote" or something like that to make it clear who is being quoted, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Attribution.
  • Done.
  • The sentences that begin "Trainor sings about how" and "In his verse" include quotes, but it's not clear who is being quoted. That information should be in the text of the article, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Attribution.
  • Actually it is quoting the lyrics, which is already expressly implied. It is standard practice that these objective things not be erroneously credited to just one critic. I would suggest checking out composition sections on some other song FAs to get a hang of it.
  • Re-reading it now, I see how the text makes a clear reference to the lyrics. After the previous paragraph's discussion of critical interpretation, I guess I was stuck in that mindset in the second paragraph. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I'm being silly here, but shouldn't "Legend talks" be "Legend sings"?
  • Changed. This works too.

I'll read through the rest and leave more comments later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Trainor performed 'Like I'm Gonna Lose You' at the American Music Awards on November 22, 2015, in a medley with 'Marvin Gaye' (2015), her collaboration with Charlie Puth." After reading this sentence a couple of times, I was still unsure what Puth's role was. Did Puth sing Legend's role in the duet? I recommend rewording to make that more clear.
  • Clarified.
  • Credits and personnel: using a standalone sentence fragment to introduce two lists with bold headings seems like it is against the MOS, but I can't point to what the rule would be. I think I would probably make it a full sentence. But then, all that sentence does is express what is already said in the citation, so then I would be tempted to remove the sentence fragment and move the citation to the headers for the two lists since you probably don't want to repeat it after every single list item and you certainly don't want to put in the section header. What is your thinking here?
  • I converted it to a similar sentence as FAs "Shake It Off" and "Blank Space" which I frequently refer. Should be OK now.
  • There is at least one sentence (last sentence of the lede) with an Oxford comma, but also one (last sentence of the first paragraph of Live performances) without. I believe if you add the comma where it is missing that the article will be consistent.
  • Thanks for pointing this out. Fixed.

I really appreciate the global coverage of the commercial performance section. I don't know how common that is for music articles. Not having much experience with music articles, this one certainly seems comprehensive to me without being overly detailed. And the lede section does a good job of comprehensively summarizing the body without too much detail. I didn't spend too much time looking at the sources, but at a glance, they look reliable. I certainly appreciate that everything in the article is cited. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the comments and compliments, Dugan! Everything should be addressed now.--NØ 17:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. I'm happy to support this nomination based on every criteria but the media, which I didn't check on. Ping me if I'm needed for anything else on this nomination. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Lee Vilenski

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

Lede
  • Most music critics - do we need to say "music"? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed.
  • Linked both now.
Prose
  • Amended.
  • Composition and lyrical interpretation - all three paras start the same way Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed first and I welcome any ideas you may have for the other two.
  • The above is quite common throughout actually. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's not much scope for change considering we have to keep an active voice throughout, honestly. Like above, I welcome any specific ideas.
  • Removed.


Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lee Vilenski.
Couple more points - one ref goes to a Dropbox page - how do we know this is official? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Dropbox is an official link produced at ARIA's site here if you scroll down to click "Latest accreditations".
  • Should probably link to that instead IMO. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That page does not verify the certification actually. So it cannot be linked for verification here. The current link is automatically generated by the template and what other FAs use. I believe it is the most appropriate.
There is a lot of see also links - seems quite odd why they are in that place - do these fit WP:SEE ALSO. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi LV, sorry for bothering but I just wanted to know if those were all your comments or the review is still pending.--NØ 18:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jaguar

Evidently I've arrived late to the party. I have read through the article and cannot find any faults with it, prose-wise or with the sources. It is well-written, comprehensive and meets the FA criteria in my opinion. Support from me. ♦ jaguar 19:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

@WP:FAC coordinators: If there is no issue, I would like to proceed with the next nomination sometime early in June. Thanks as always.--NØ 10:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can nominate another article once there's a passed source review. (t · c) buidhe 13:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, do you have some time to do this source review?--NØ 18:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no -- I'm travelling until mid-June and am likely to be busy after that; I might be able to do a content review or two but not a source review which requires more organization of tabs and data than I can manage on an iPad. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Hog Farm, I was wondering if you may consider passing this today. It would be cool if it became my second successful nomination within this month.--NØ 07:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or maybe Gog the Mild or buidhe. Sorry for bothering with the pings but there's just one day left.--NØ 19:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Go ahead! (t · c) buidhe 19:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • buidhe I meant promoting this nomination, actually.--NØ 20:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (Pass)

  • All the citations appear reliable to me. I have a few comments about the formatting, but other than that, it is solid and I have done spot-checking and I could not find any issues with that.
  • Thank you so much. This is really a big help!
  • While this is not required for the FAC, I would encourage you to archive web citations, such as Citation 8, to avoid any future headache with link rot and death.
  • Done.
  • It should be made clear in Citation 91 that this is an archived version of the citation.
  • Done.
  • For foreign language citations, like Citation 56, would it be possible to include an English translation?
  • Unfortunately I wasn't able to find this on any of the other FAs I reference and I am not entirely sure this is possible.
Unless you just meant a trans-title, which I have gone ahead and added now.
  • Thank you for recognizing what I meant. Sorry about that confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some Billboard citations are marked as requiring a subscription while others are not. I would imagine that it should be consistent throughout.
  • This is intentional as only Billboard chart refs seem to be behind a paywall. I believe another distinction is that subscription ones have "pro" in the url link!
  • That makes sense to me. Thank you for explaining this to me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that this source review is helpful. Have a great rest of your week. Once my comments are addressed, I will look through the citations one more time, but I believe at that point, it will pass my review. Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very helpful. I believe I have addressed everything, Aoba47.--NØ 07:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything! This passes my source review. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli citizenship law

Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the history and law of Israeli citizenship. This continues the series of nationality/citizenship law articles I have been steadily rewriting. This article obviously covers a sensitive topic so please point out any areas that may not be sufficiently neutral. Thanks, Horserice (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Added for both photographs.
  • File:Emblem_of_Israel.svg needs a US tag
  • Done.
  • File:British_Colonial_passport_for_Palestine_issued_by_Albert_Montefiore_Hyamson_in_1929.jpg: it would seem in this case that the first copyright holder would not have been the State of Israel but rather the UK? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My guess is that since Israel is the successor state to Mandatory Palestine and Israel continued to use British copyright law until 2008 that the original uploader assumed that it was more appropriate to use the Israel template rather than the UK one. I've added the UK template but left the Israel one in for now.
Sorry for being unable to address comments more quickly. Horserice (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without progress towards promotion, the article is liable to be archived in the next few days. (t · c) buidhe 00:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from BigDom

Not a topic I knew much, if anything, about but I didn't want to see this archived without any comments on the prose so had a read through. I have to say it was very well-written and accessible to a non-expert, just a couple of very minor comments I came up with:

  • "the Supreme Court" -> I'm from the UK and we have our own Supreme Court but as soon as I read this my mind went straight to the US Supreme Court since it's often in the news, maybe worth using the full name on first mention?
  • Done.
  • "comprehensive jurisdiction" -> is this a law term? If so, what does it mean? A Google search for the phrase brings up a lot of hits in the context of China & Hong Kong
  • Eh, I was using it as an alternative way of saying that Britain held sovereignty so I replaced it with exactly that.
  • "on request by the Israeli government" -> "at the request of the Israeli government"
  • Done.
  • "involuntarily deprived from" sounds a bit strange to me and a Google search for this exact phrase only brings up a handful of Wikipedia pages (and mirror sites) written by yourself. Maybe "removed from" (or another synonym)?
  • I probably was phrasing it this way in some other article to more explicitly distinguish between voluntarily relinquishing citizenship versus having it involuntarily deprived. Used "removed from" instead. I guess it really is weird phrasing if I'm the only person on the internet writing that.
  • "replaced by less restrictive conditions of stay until they become eligible for citizenship over a period of 4.5 years" -> "replaced by less restrictive conditions of stay over a period of 4.5 years until they become eligible for citizenship" (seems more logical to me this way)
  • Done.
  • "Haredi/ultra-orthodox" - NPOV issue? The page Haredi Judaism says the term "ultra-orthodox" is often considered pejorative.
  • Oh whoops, that's not good to overlook. Removed this.

Sourcing looks good and media check has already been done. One thing I would say is that the lead feels a little short for an article of almost 3,000 words. Maybe something about dual nationality and revocation of citizenship could be included? Hope these comments are useful. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look! I've also expanded the lead slightly and hope this addresses everything. Horserice (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, happy to support. BigDom (talk) 11:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1990–91 Gillingham F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you like reading about the exploits of mediocre football teams? Then you will love my 13th nomination of a season from the history of English football club Gillingham, as they spent a season achieving little of note other than damaging everyone's eyes with one of the ugliest playing kits ever seen in English football. As ever, feedback will be most gratefully received and promptly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Eem dik doun in toene

  • Good job on making the home kit in the infobox!
  • "long-serving goalkeeper ended" ==> I think a comma is missing between "goalkeeper" and "ended"
  • "In the spring" ==> I would avoid seasonal references
  • How did the Gillingham fans actually react to their team's home kit?
  • "biggest away win since 1968" ==> biggest away win in the league or overall?
  • That's all I have. Nice read again, Chris. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 08:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eem dik doun in toene: - thanks for your review - responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Edwininlondon

This appears to me in a good shape. Some minor comments:

  • Long-serving defender Paul Haylock --> Is that long-serving appropriate? How many years at the club, as I see he also played 7 years for norwich
  • Gillingham's first match of the season --> first league match
  • in his absence Peter Heritage and Steve Lovell were the starting forwards --> swapping 2 for 1??? :)
  • what was the league position at the end of September?
  • In the next eight, however --> In the next eight matches, however
  • Crown finally made his first appearance in the starting line-up on 20 October against Blackpool --> I assume they played a match later in October. If so this sentence should precede the sentence about the league position
  • was against Darlington on 29 January --> given the apple incident it would be good to add if this was an away match or at home

That's all I could spot. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: - all done apart from the second one, because it wasn't just their first league match, it was their first match full stop -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, those friendlies are considered pre-season. All good. I Support on prose. Nice work, as always. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from BigDom

Prose is in very good shape, just a couple of minor comments from me:

  • Why is the inflation value given as of 2020?
    • Because the updated value is calculated via a template and apparently at the present time 2020 is the most up-to-date data it holds. It will move forward in time.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FA Cup - don't think "at the first opportunity" is needed. The previous sentence already says it was the first round, and the main point is they were eliminated.
  • League Cup - in the table, both matches say "first leg"
  • Aftermath - could there be a little information about players from this season moving on? (both 1921–22 Cardiff City F.C. season and 1959–60 Burnley F.C. season mention at least oneor two players)
    • Added one. The only other players to move on were just fringe/bit-part players and I feel it would be undue weight to spotlight them here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from that, all good! Cheers, BigDom (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Lalakaon

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 18:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a battle that took place in 863 between the Byzantine Empire and Melitene, one of the frontier emirates of the Abbasid Caliphate, which marks a real as well as symbolic turning point in the Arab-Byzantine wars. The Byzantines managed to encircle and annihilate the forces of Melitene (Malatya), and kill its ruler. This set the stage for the century-long 'Byzantine Reconquista', and also allowed the Byzantines to bring Bulgaria more firmly into their cultural orbit. The article is not very large, but quite complete. It was promoted to GA and A-class several years ago, but I never got around to nominating it for FA, so it is long overdue. Any suggestions for further improvement are of course welcome. Constantine ✍ 18:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 19:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Warning, this is nearly 3 weeks old with minimal participation. If there is no progress towards promotion in the next few days, it is liable to be archived. (t · c) buidhe 20:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Borsoka

  • As Byzantium remained the caliphate's major infidel enemy... Capital letter for caliphate?
    • Changed to 'early caliphates'.
  • ...acquired a quasi-ritualistic character... Quasi-ritualistic or ritualistic (or something else)?
    • Quasi-ritualistic. There was something almost of a ritual in these raids, they were a symbolic expression of the caliphs' obligation to fight the infidel and a major source of legitimacy, but were never (after a certain point in time) actually aimed to destroy the Byzantines. At the same time, this was still actual warfare, with deaths, pillaging, sieges, enslavement, etc.
  • With the waning of the Abbasid Caliphate's power after 842... The article about the Abbasid Caliphate describes the period between 775 and 861 as the "Abbasid golden age".
    • Well, sort of. The collapse of Abbasid power only occurred in the 860s, but the Abbasids stopped being a military threat to Byzantium for good after 842, and signs of disintegration were already there, in hindsight. Have rephrased accordingly.
  • Consider linking "emirates".
    • Done.
  • Consider using the template "(r. XXX–YYY)" when first mentioning an emperor, emir, caliph...
    • Had used it in the lede, now moved it to the main body. With Ali al-Armani, the regnal dates are not applicable as he was an Abbasid commander, not a semi-hereditary emir like Umar.
  • Were the Paulicians renegades or heretics?
    • What about deleting the adjective "renegade"? It presents a Byzantine PoV.
  • ...(probably the governor of Tarsus)... Do we need to know it? It is an assumption.
    • Well, the balance of likelihood is that he was indeed the emir/governor of Tarsus. Will have to look up how he is described in the sources though.
  • ...Tarsian army... Perhaps "Ja'far's army" since we do not know for sure that he was the governor of Tarsus? (And Tarsian is not a common adjective.)
    • Done, for comprehensibility.
  • ...the Byzantine historians Genesius and Theophanes Continuatus... Perhaps "the 10th-century Byzatnine historians"?
    • Done.
  • ...Persian historian al-Tabari... Perhaps "the contemporary Persian historian"?
    • Added 'contemporary' but removed 'Persian'; al-Tabari was of Persian/Iranian ethnicity, but lived and worked in Baghdad as an Abbasid official. Rephrased accordingly.
  • ... Petronas (the Domestic of the Schools, or commander-in-chief of the Byzantine field army)... To be consequent, consider changing to Petronas, the Domestic of the Schools (or commander-in-chief of the Byzantine field army).
    • Done, with some modifications.
  • The potential expansion of Rome's ecclesiastic influence to Constantinople's doorstep could not be tolerated by the Byzantine government... Actually, it could have been tolerated, but the Byzantines did not tolerate it. (WP:NPOV)
    • Very good point, thanks. Changed.

Thank you for this nice, short, well researched and interesting article. Borsoka (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for taking this on, Borsoka! Have dealt with most of your points, will do the rest soon. Constantine ✍ 19:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is only one pending issue. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

I read this last weekend, but got distracted and forgot to comment. Hang on. Ceoil (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, went through it again, made trivial edits and found nothing substantive to complain about. My review is on prose, and on that basis it excels and is very engaging and I was grounded in who is who all the way through. Given the nominator, I doubt there are issues with sourcing; from a scan and a few author checks they seem first class. I did a few google searches for surveys to check comprehensiveness, and like Borsoka above am happy that the article is necessarily short, or in this case not padded out. Support. Ceoil (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time, and for your edits, Ceoil! Much appreciated! Constantine ✍ 19:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton Town F.C.

Nominator(s): Curlymanjaro (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Carlton Town Football Club, a small Nottinghamshire team competing at the eighth tier of the English football pyramid. I've long wanted to write-up a local team (in-part inspired by the Stocksbridge Park Steels F.C. entry), and I hope I've done this one justice. The article passed GA requirements last month and has since featured on DYK. After re-reading (again), I think the article's ready for FAC comments. Thanks! Curlymanjaro (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
    • Fixed.
      • Not quite - lead image still uses that. Suggest also scaling up some of the uprights. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed.
  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Done.
  • File:Carlton_Town_FC_logo.png: second source link is dead
    • Fixed.
  • File:ArthurClamp.jpg: if the photographer is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
    • Removed this image to cut down on clutter. I can't prove anything, but presuming the photographer was an adult of 18, and the latest this photo could've been taken is 1915, he'd have been 95 in 1992.
  • File:SneintonFC1926.jpg: the given US tag relies in part on the image being PD in country of origin on the URAA date, but there's also a tag indicating that it may not be PD in country of origin - that is contradictory
    • Fixed.
      • Nothing seems to have changed here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • My apologies, fixed now I believe.
          • Since this is to be moved to Commons, it would be helpful to specify why the image is believed to be PD in country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:SneintonCricketClubandGround1920.png: is this CC or PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • PD, I believe. Fixed.

Comments Support by Eem dik doun in toene

Interesting article and it's great to see "lesser-known" football clubs being nominated at FAC.

  • "Sneinton Football Club, the club's" ==> Club ... club's is a bit repetitive
    • Replaced with "its".
  • Is the ref in the lead really needed, since it's supposed to be a summary of what's said in the article?
    • Removed.
  • "It was most recently promoted in 2006–07 from" ==> maybe: "It most recently won promotion in 2006–07 from"?
    • Done.
  • "The team enjoyed success in its first season. Finishing" ==> it's quite a short sentence, so it might better to merge it with the following one.
    • Done.
  • The team is plural, so "they" should be used instead of "it". (e.g. "The team enjoyed success in its" ==> "The team enjoyed success in their")
    • Done.
  • Did anything noteworthy happen between 1950 and 1965?
  • a valid promotion, it duly topped, comfortable League, unimpressive League ==> all sound a bit too journalistic to me.
    • Fair comment. "Valid promotion" is included since Carlton finished in a promotion spot at the end of the previous season but had it denied to them because of a technicality. "Duly" because they rebounded from this, after a big investment, so that they could achieve what they had actually earned in the previous season. I realise I might be digging myself into a bigger journalistic hole here, but I've deleted "comfortable" and replaced "unimpressive" with "poor". Hope that suits.
  • "Improved year on year" ==> who stated this?
    • The club, I think. Deleted!
  • "establishing a record" ==> establishing a club record?
    • Done.
  • Perhaps mention Vardy's stature when talking about the 2008–09 playoff semi-final? E.g. "future England international Jamie Vardy"
    • Done.
  • I believe there's a bit of recentism in the history section as the last 20 years cover about as much text as the previous 75 yrs.
    • This is a very valid criticism, one which I've wrestled with quite a bit. The truth is that the club spent the years between 1947, after the second reformation, and the football-pyramid-entering 1995–96 season in massive obscurity, even locally speaking. Looking through contemporaneous articles on the British Newspaper Archive, Sneinton very rarely gets a bespoke mention week-to-week. We're talking the most parochial of the parochial divisions for the most part. There are entries I've found which chart its league position on a given week, along with all the other teams, but that indicates very little about general performance and might lead to mischaracterisations. My other defence is that more recent events tend to have better coverage online, although with a small club such as Carlton, even this can sometimes be tricky.
  • "Central Midlands Football League", "Northern Counties East Football League", et cetera ==> which tiers do these leagues belong to?
    • Clarified (I hope).
  • Why are the honours and tournament tables collapsed?
    • Just my preference, I'm open to reversing that if you prefer.
  • I'm missing info/sections about Carlton's crest/colours, supporters/rivalries, records. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alas, me too. I can describe the crest and colours but sadly have no historical background with which to buttress it, so the section would just be a restatement of the infobox (which is fine - let me know). According to my sources, I've virtually nothing on fans and rivalries, which is a shame (I'm questioning whether sources even exist on these). Tournament records are in a (collapsed) box at the bottom, and the record attendance is described in the section covering the ground at which it happened.

Really appreciate you looking at this @Eem dik doun in toene: I'm glad you enjoyed the read. Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Curlymanjaro, no problem and thanks for the clear explanations. I understand it can be quite a task to find enough/the necessary info. I still think the history section from 2002 can be trimmed down a bit to make it all more balanced. About the collapsed tables, I would uncollapse them as most people will check out the club's honours, and it will save a click. I would also make a crest/colours section then, even if it'll be short. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 08:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, @Eem dik doun in toene: what do you reckon to the improvements? I had to get slightly creative with sources for Carlton's rivalries, but since these are informal affairs at a low level of competition, I hope that's acceptable. Curlymanjaro (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think the article looks better now! I'm not sure if the FM Save ref is "acceptable" but that'll come up at the source review I reckon. Good luck with this nom. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

  • "its early years were [...] described by the Manchester Courier in 1909 as "the leading amateur football club"" - that doesn't work grammatically, Suggest "its early years were marked by considerable local success, leading to the club being described by the Manchester Courier in 1909 as "the leading amateur football club""
    • Done.
  • "Its reputation declined for several decades afterwards, participating" - again, it wasn't the reputation that participated. Suggest "Its reputation declined for several decades afterwards, with the team participating"
    • Done.
  • "Carlton has played its home games" - it's the team rather than the club as a singular entity that plays games, so here it should be treated as plural
    • Done.
  • "Sneinton moved to sign more “promising amateurs of the city”" - why is that last part in quote marks? Who is it a quote from?
    • A nameless newspaperman. Since I've cited the source I might as well shorten the sentence and remove quote marks.
  • "Sneinton, "by no manner of means", insisted" - literally no idea what this means, can you clarify?
    • It means they weren't wealthy. Reworded.
  • "paid for the team's travel to Stockton, where it was defeated 7–2" - the team is plural, not singular
    • Done.
  • Refs after "annual profit" are not in numerical order
    • Fair enough, happy to change that. Previously, I've been instructed to order according to where the cited info is placed within the sentence.
  • Remove the redlink on Trent Rangers as this club is not notable and never going to have an article
    • Done.
  • "returning to the Sneinton district after a season away" - why? Where did they play the previous season?
    • Its unclear in my source. I suppose its connected to general disruption after Carlton dissolved because of the war, but I can't say for sure.
  • "being noted as "much-improved"" - by whom?
    • Clarified.
  • "Eager "to progress beyond the confines of local parks football"" - again, who is this is a quote from?
    • The NPL. Easier just to change into straight prose.
  • "joined the Central Midlands Football League at the twelfth tier of the league system" - the CML Premier Division was level 11 back in 1995, not 12
    • Help me understand this, please. At which point did Carlton's tier change without promotion or relegation?
      • With the creation of the Conference North in 2004. Prior to that, the divisions below the Football League went Conference > NPL Premier > NPL 1 > NCEL Premier > NCEL 1 > CML Supreme > CML Premier, so in 1995 the CML Premier (the level at which Carlton entered) was level 11. Similarly in 2001 when they were in the CML Supreme, that was at level 10 as per the above. So, when the Conference North was formed in 2004, the NCEL Div One shifted down from level 9 to 10, so by staying in the same division Carlton went down a tier. Hope that makes sense..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notwithstanding a "reasonable" first season" - reasonable according to whom
    • Removed quote marks.
  • ""In a desperate quandary"," - again, who is this quote from?
    • NPL again. Bit journalistic so replaced.
  • "Sneinton's third-place finish in the eleventh tier in 2000–01" - tenth tier at that point
    • See other CML comment.
  • "if not for "ground grading issues" negating this opportunity." - ground grading issues is a perfectly standard term, so no reason to present it as a quote
    • Wasn't aware of this before. Removed.
  • "guarantee a valid promotion should it be achieved" - really weird wording. Maybe "make the team eligible for promotion if they finished in an appropriate league position"
    • Done.
  • "establishing a club record in the FA Vase by entering its third round" => "establishing a club record in the FA Vase by reaching its third round" as otherwise it sounds like they just went straight in at the third round
    • Done.
  • "playoff semi-final, losing 5–2 to Stocksbridge Park Steels" => "playoff semi-final, Carlton losing 5–2 to Stocksbridge Park Steels"
    • Done.
  • "Finishing ninth in 2009–10, Brookbanks" - it wasn't Brookbanks who finished ninth
    • Done.
  • Refs after "red and white mix for 2021–22" in wrong order
    • Done.
  • Same after "before its collapse in 2011, Gedling Town"
    • Done.
  • "Located on the Colwick Lawn Estate [...] he led" - it wasn't the ground that led this
    • Done.
  • "becoming the home of Parliament Street Methodists" - again, this non-notable team is never going to have an article so remove redlink
    • Done.
  • Refs after "requiring a relocation of the pitch within the premises" again in wrong order
    • Done.
  • "30 carparking spaces" - I don't think "carparking" is a single word
    • Done.
  • I can't see any reason to have a References heading and then a Footnotes subheading right after it when there are no other sub-sections in that section
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much for your thoroughness, @ChrisTheDude: once the CML tier-position thing is cleared up I should have addressed everything. Curlymanjaro (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (on 1a) from BigDom

Sorry, but I felt I had to be honest. It's good to see a substantial article about a smaller club, but I think there are quite a few prose issues and it isn't at the required "professional standard" yet. Some of the word choices strike me as a bit strange (that's not necessarily a problem, everyone has their own style), but some bits I found a little confusing and had to read two or three times before I could work out what was meant. Here are a few things I've picked out (not exhaustive):

  • "The Football Association (FA)" - the acronym "FA" is already used a sentence earlier. It only appears in competition names throughout the article anyway, so not convinced it is needed.
    • Deleted.
  • "the club became frustrated" - the players, the board, the supporters?
    • Prose changed.
  • "In 1948, the team vacated to a pitch at Colwick Wood Park, returning to the Sneinton district after a season away." - I see this sentence has been mentioned above but reading the article as a newcomer it's not clear at all what is meant. Is it trying to say that the team had played elsewhere for a season (presumably 1947–48 and if so, where was it?), or that Colwick Wood Park is somewhere outside Sneinton (if so, where is it?)?
    • The former. The problem is, my source doesn't say. We're talking about a local parks team in the late 1940s; quoting directly: "The Sneinton F.C. have secured new playing headquarters for the coming season. A return, after one season's absence, being made to the district of the club's origin ...". I wish I had more for you. I've changed the existing prose, anyhow.
  • "finishing seventh in 1949–50 but with steady finances." - why "but"? Would a team finishing 7th not expect to have "steady" finances?
    • Changed.
  • "Avoiding relegation,[30] the club again transferred leagues ahead of 1969–70 to rejoin the Notts Alliance in its Division Two, being noted as "much-improved" by the Nottingham Football Post in 1976–77." - did avoiding relegation have anything to do with transferring leagues? Also, what happened in the years leading up to the improvement?
    • I'm not sure on the first point, largely since the sources aren't very helpful. However, on the second, I've uncovered that Sneinton's first season in the division was a stinker. This could explain the "improvement" comment.
  • "Sneinton eventually won the 1984–85 campaign" - "eventually" sounds like it took them a long time to win that particular season
    • Removed.
  • "satisfied both activities" => "met the needs of both"
    • Changed.
  • "leading to the appointment of a deputation in protest." - presumably it was the club protesting, not the Improvement Committee? Also, it reads as if "deputation in protest" is a single noun phrase.
    • Correct. Changed.
  • "contesting a season remotely" sounds rather odd - I would change this whole sentence to be honest. How about: After reforming in 1947, the club relocated to one of two public pitches at Colwick Wood Park in 1948, having played its matches in the intervening year at an alternative venue."?
    • Changed.
  • "In the early 1990s, the team moved to their current location on Stoke Lane in Gedling, dovetailing with Sneinton's competitive ambition to progress through the English league system." - dovetailing?
    • Was probably better to remove the entire third clause of that sentence, to be honest.
  • "That said" - not really encyclopedic tone.
    • Changed.
  • Source issue: what makes CBJStar a reliable source? It seems to be a student newspaper.
    • It is. My only defence would be that, apparently, it was a story too insignificant for the bigger local papers; I see no reason or opportunity for the writer, even if they're a student, to get the presence of a youth academy suite wrong.

I really wanted to support this so would be happy to come back and reconsider once some work has been done on the prose. Good luck! BigDom (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for checking this over, @BigDom: doing an article like this is a poison chalice in some respects. The need is clearly there for better articles on smaller clubs, but finding information is often a flipping nightmare! Curlymanjaro (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strom Thurmond filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957

Nominator(s): AviationFreak💬 15:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This filibuster is the longest ever conducted in the US Senate. As this is the article's second nomination, sending pings to buidhe, Hurricanehink, AryKun, Kavyansh.Singh, Hog Farm, and ChrisTheDude who left reviews at the previous nomination. I have completed a source-prose integrity table, which is on this nomination's talk page, as that was the primary concern at the last nomination. AviationFreak💬 15:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check

  • "An agreement among the Southern senators to not stage an organized filibuster had been reached in Senator Richard Russell's office on August 24, four days prior to Thurmond's speech." — checks out; as for "four days prior to Thurmond's speech", it is basic maths (we have his filibuster date cited)
  • "The filibuster began at 8:54 p.m. on August 28, 1957 with a reading of the election laws of each of the 48 states" — mostly checks out (doesn't mentions "1957", though)
  • "During the filibuster, Thurmond sustained himself on diced pieces of pumpernickel bread and small pieces of ground steak." — checks out
  • "Most Southern Democratic senators opposed the filibuster, despite its popularity among their constituents, because (as Richard Russell put it) the South had already secured a compromise in the bill which would be jeopardized by a filibuster and there was not enough support to prevent a cloture vote anyway" — mostly checks out, but rather than "oppose", "did not join" would be more accurate.
  • "The filibuster failed to prevent the passage of the bill, and further failed to change the vote whatsoever." — checks out
  • "Thurmond's filibuster has been described by historian and biographer Joseph Crespino as "kind of a urological mystery"." — checks out (even the historian part "For historians, the most puzzling aspect ... says Crespino."
  • "Goldwater asked Thurmond to yield the floor to him for a few minutes, and Thurmond was able to use the restroom while Goldwater made an insertion to the Congressional Record." — checks out

Of the above spot-checks, I found one minor trivial issue. Rest all fine for these seven cases – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "opposed" to "did not join". AviationFreak💬 17:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh

Note: I supported the first FAC

  • "The bill in question worked to make voting more accessible to African Americans.", "as the civil rights bill was designed specifically with the voting rights of African Americans in mind." — Repetition?
    • Changed "as the civil rights bill was designed specifically with the voting rights of African Americans in mind" to "and has contributed to Thurmond being referred to as a Confederate" (referenced in body) as I felt that "His filibuster is widely seen as racist today." would be a pretty stubby sentence
  • "the bill passed the Senate less than two hours after Thurmond's conclusion" (emphasis added) v. "The bill passed two hours after Thurmond finished speaking"
    • Removed "less than"
  • "alongside the Eisenhower administration" — first time mentionning Ike in the prose, so should have his full name (Dwight D. Eisenhower administration would work, I think)
    • Done
  • "The filibuster began at 8:54 p.m. on August 28, 1957 with" — missing MOS:DATECOMMA
    • Done
  • "and was signed into law by president Dwight D. Eisenhower" — if you agree with my third suggestion, this should then be "President Eisenhower"

That is it! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: I've completed these suggestions, let me know if you have any others! AviationFreak💬 17:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If you have time and inclination, would appreciate if you can review any of these. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

I supported last time, happy to support again. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Royal necropolis of Byblos

Nominator(s): el.ziade (talkallam) 11:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a group of shaft and chamber tombs that housed the remains of Bronze Age Gebalite Kings. A chance landslide in the early 1920s uncovered the first of the underground tombs. Some of the burial chambers that escaped looting contained a great number of funerary goods; among these were ornate royal Egyptian gifts bearing the names of Twelfth Dynasty pharaohs. Inscriptions found in the tombs allowed the identification of some of the buried Kings. The most important of these finds was the famed Ahiram sarcophagus. The story of the re-emergence of the ancient city of Byblos/Gebal, and the subsequent discovery of the royal tombs, is reminiscent of Indiana Jones movies.

I have spent long hours searching archives and drafting this piece, and I have covered good ground so that it not only informative, but also compelling. The article underwent a thorough GA review, which made it significantly better, and I am very grateful for AirshipJungleman29's time and effort. I am hopeful, with your guidance, to drive the article to 'featured' status.el.ziade (talkallam) 11:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Hi Elias, I don't think you've been to FAC before, in which case welcome! Some house-keeping... It looks like you have a peer review open for this article, and you need to close that now that the FAC has been opened. Also, as a fresh nominator, we'll want a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing, a hoop we as all newbies to jump through, as well as the regular source review for reliability and formatting; that can take place in the course of the overall review here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ian Rose , it is true that I edit sporadically, but I have 4 FAs under my belt already. Some guidelines may escape me since I am not here often. I welcome any feedback that will help improve the article. I will try to close the peer review, I haven't had many comments there. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, changed the name too... Okay the spotcheck is not a necessity. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the name change is confusing, it seemed liked a good idea then 😅. I had the pleasure of working under your guidance before, and I am looking forward to this review too. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
  • File:Byblos View.jpg, File:Ahiram Sarcophagus.jpg probably not freely licensed, nominated for deletion on Commons
  • File:Cimetiere royal.png what's the source for the info on the map?
  • The Montet maps and photograph; according to Internet Archive's scan these publications were in 1928 and 1929, after 1927 as indicated by the tag. Since it was published in France it would also need to be public domain in France to be kosher on Commons, which it does not seem to be if Montet created these sketches since he died in 1966

Other images look ok (t · c) buidhe 08:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a source review
  • Article is well structured and length is reasonable. However, I noticed a majority of the citations are from the 1920s. Are there more recent sources that could be cited instead? I realize stuff like "The longer inscription is carved on the font (typo for front?), long edge of the lid" are not likely to change over time, making the datedness less of an issue, but, for example, it would be best to cite a more recent source for the number of grave goods recovered.
  • akg-images is not a high-quality reliable source in my view

(t · c) buidhe 08:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your usual meticulous work Buidhe below are my comments.
  • Concerning File:Byblos View.jpg, it's a real shame to see it go. There are no replacements. As for File:Ahiram Sarcophagus.jpg I am not oppose it's deletion, I have already replaced it in the article.
  • File:Cimetiere royal.png: it's derived from the map in the early 1920s letters from Montet to Cagnat a copy of the Image on JSTOR. Shall I add this bit of info on commons?
  • Montet's maps and photographs are sourced from the Internet Archive open source library, IA states that it respects the intellectual property rights and other proprietary rights of others. The Internet Archive may remove certain content or disable access to content that appears to infringe the copyright or other intellectual property rights of others. I believe we are safe in this regard, is there something else we can do? These images are fundamental to the understanding of the article. I can upload them here under a fair use label if this prevents them from being lost. Please advise. The copyright term in France was +50 years after the death of the author at the time of the publication of the above-mentioned works.
  • I will try to find more recent sources to add to the early 20th century ones. But mind you these are seminal works and are still authoritative. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the copyright term in france is life + 70 years, including works that were published before the change came into effect. I agree that Internet Archive usually only shows full text for out of copyright works, but I don't think that's something we can rely on to determine copyright status. I've expanded the image description for File:Cimetiere royal.png. (t · c) buidhe 19:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m quoting a legal website pertaining to intellectual rights protection of sketches: «  Si le “dessinateur” a effectué quelque chose de visuellement très simple : par exemple un fond de carte faisant apparaître les frontières et le réseau hydrographique d’un pays. Ce “contenu” ne peut pas prétendre à la protection par le droit d’auteur. Il n’est qu’une information (plus exactement, une somme d’informations), donnant une représentation rudimentaire de la réalité. Le fond de carte nu n’est pas une œuvre originale, il n’a pas d’auteur. Ce fond de carte n’entre pas dans le champ du droit d’auteur ; il peut donc être repris sans problème. »
[ If the “dessinateur” has done something very simple visually: for example, a base map showing the borders and the hydrographic network of a country.  This “content” does not qualify for copyright protection.  It is only information (more exactly, a sum of information), giving a rudimentary representation of reality.  The bare basemap is not an original work, it has no author.  This base map does not fall within the scope of copyright;  it can therefore be resumed without any problem. ]
In archeology
«  En élaborant ces dessins, ces relevés de fouilles, ce rapport de fouilles, l’auteur du dessin élabore des archives de recherche qui sont des archives publiques…  À l’instar des règles applicables à un fond de carte très simple et à une carte originale protégée (le fond de carte peut être utilisé sans demander d’autorisation mais il convient d’en indiquer la source par honnêteté intellectuelle ; la carte originale ne peut être reproduite ou réutilisée qu’avec l’accord de l’auteur), on peut appliquer le même raisonnement à un histogramme ou à un graphique. Si le graphique est très simple et fait apparaître quelques données en abscisse et en ordonnées, il constitue une représentation brute, non protégée par le droit d’auteur. Si l’histogramme ou le graphique sont très élaborés (ombre, couleurs, bref, de l’infographie qui donne à la représentation un caractère créatif original), ils sont originaux, donc protégés par le droit d’auteur. »
[ By developing these drawings, these excavation records, this excavation report, the author of the drawing develops research archives which are public archives… Like the rules applicable to a very simple background map and a protected original map (the background map can be used without asking permission, but the source should be indicated for intellectual honesty; the original map  can be reproduced or reused only with the agreement of the author), the same reasoning can be applied to a histogram or a graph.  If the graph is very simple and shows some data in abscissa and ordinate, it constitutes a raw representation, not protected by copyright.  If the histogram or the graph are very elaborate (shadow, colors, in short, computer graphics that give the representation an original creative character), they are original, therefore protected by copyright. ]
source el.ziade (talkallam) 00:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had to google translate because I didn't have the time, but you guys get the picture. el.ziade (talkallam) 16:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

  • Nice to see some more Lebanese history here, especially during these hard times. Will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the above note, I think the intro could mention explicitly that this is located in modern day Lebanon.
    done, thanks FunkMonk el.ziade (talkallam) 06:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Location of Royal necropolis" The royal? Add the and remove capital r?
It's the template Wallah it's not me lol. Fixed it.
  • You mention an acropolis only once, in an image caption, could be mentioned and linked in the article body if it's important?
Linked it in the infobox, I think it's enough there.
Well, the main point is, why is it important enough to mention in the caption, but not in the article body? If it's not important for the article body, it's just confusing to introduce a new term just in a caption. Otherwise, it could be elaborated on in the text, or removed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last unaddressed issue. FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Main article: Byblos" followed by "Byblos (modern Jubayl)", is the "main article" really necessary when you can just link the first word of the paragraph?
No problem
  • "derived from the Canaanite Gubal" Link Canaanite.
Done
  • Link more unlinked terms in the infobox and first mentions in image captions?
Sure, done
  • "that has been inhabited, and continuously used" Why not just say "that has been continuously inhabited", means the same?
yes *smh*
  • Link Bronze Age?
done
done
  • Link Ramses II.
done
  • Link Phoenicia.
done
  • Images are a bit clogged up in the lower right of the article, perhaps use some horizontal multiple image templates instead, like in for example quagga?
All done except for the images, will get to these later. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, do you mind if I don't change the layout? I am not fond of large blocks either, they are disruptive in an article where all the images are of the same size. Please don't ask me to alternate right and left too :( el.ziade (talkallam) 14:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the "problem" would still be there with the images below, so not easy to solve. But I think much of the cramming is caused by the huge image "Gold oenochoe from Tomb IV in Mycenae.", which I don't really think is even necessary to show here, as it is not from this necropolis, and the caption doesn't explain the connection. FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, you're right, the Mycenae image doesn't really belong. I linked it for comparison. el.ziade (talkallam) 07:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Renan had relied on Strabo's writing" Strabo and other people could be presented like you do with other people, by nationality and occupation, for consistence.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Now Byblus, the royal residence of Cinyras,​ is sacred to Adonis; but Pompey freed it from tyranny by beheading its tyrant with an axe; and it is situated on a height only a slight distance from the sea." Is this a quote? If so, it would remove ambiguity if you added quotation marks.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Byblos is a much later Greek exonym, possibly a corruption of Gebal." I think it's important to add this at the beginning of the main text (Historical background) too instead of just in a footnote, because now it's a but confusing that you jump between using the terms Gebal and Byblos seemingly at random, for example: "Ancient texts and manuscripts hinted to the location of Gebal... Strabo identified Byblos as a city situated on a hill some distance away from the sea."
  • "Renan correctly posited that the Ancient Byblos must have been located atop the circular hill dominated by the Crusader citadel of Jbeil." What was his reasoning?
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Byblos (modern Jubayl)" Elsewhere you spell it Jbeil.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem be using British spelling (archaeology) some places, but others US (metres). Should be consistent.
On the other hand, you also say " work on the archeological tell" and "kilometres", So decide on one English variation and check throughout for consistency. FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
archaeology works both ways, but I changed it. Sticking to US english. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I actually don't think you need to change archaeology then, but up to you, as long as the rest sticks to US English. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the period of French Mandate" Usually it would be "the French Mandate", definite.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "landslide in the seaside cliff of Jbeil" Wouldn't this be "on"?
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The next day the administrative advisor of Mount-Lebanon" Mount Lebanon hasn't been introduced at this point, I don't think all readers would know what this refers to.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link hypogeum and sarcophagus in the article body.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the excavation of Ancient Byblos" Why capital A?
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Maurice Dunand succeeded Montet" Again no introduction of this person, check for consistency throughout.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had been emptied from their contents" Emptied of?
oops el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "instead of rock at a later period of time" Do we know how much later?
This is detailed in the dating section. I'd rather not repeat it here if you don't mind it el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was closer to that the northern group" That of?
yep el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use the name "Abi Chemu" in captions, but "Abishemu" in the article body.
Yeah, depending on the sources. Older French sources use Abi Chemu. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, as long as you're consistent within the article about which version you use, I see you changed one caption, but there is still "Sarcophagus of Abi Chemu featuring lengthwise fluting on its lid". FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on Tomb I chamber's north wall" A bit oddly worded, perhaps "on the north wall of tomb I's chamber?
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A coarsely built wall separated the chamber of Tomb I from its well." Why is this past tense when the previous description is present? There are other cases of this too where it seems pretty random.
The walls and other structures were dismantled during excavation, this is why. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The two conduits did not communicate." Connect?
Right el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was also the only tomb to have an inscription within its shaft." State in which language.
I did in the following sentence, or else it could have been understood as "the only Phoenician inscription as opposed to "only inscription" . el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The semicircular shape of Tomb V, known as "Ahiram's tomb"" I think it would be less confusing if you state already here it was a king.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since you have this section without having mentioned a king before: "According to Montet, the builders of the tomb did not consider that the king's corpse was". FunkMonk (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the center" If you use British English, should be "centre".
I haven't even given it a thought. I will consider this from now on. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on their down to the royal grave" way down?
Right thanks, el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All of the three chamber sarcophagi were looted and only contained human bones" Do we know of who?
No we don't have any surviving clues el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did other sarcophagi contain bodies or bones?
no bodies we recovered. The environment is too wet to preserve soft tissue. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is enough known about any of these interred people to warrant articles, or just short descriptions of who they were here in this article?
I will look into this, Good idea el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link sedimentary.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think ashlar could be linked.
done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", without any masonry retaining walls" The walls?
Done el.ziade (talkallam) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @FunkMonk for the review. I could have read and re-read the article a hundred times and not have picked up the areas of improvement you suggested. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Review of the rest of the article below. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and an entire corner section of the lid have broken off" Has broken (singular).
"the lug at the northwestern corner and an entire corner section..."
  • "body of the sarcophagus IV is" I don't think definite "the" is needed here.
Fixed the sentence
  • "Montet ascertains that" Why present tense?
Fixed
  • "while the rest of the lions' bodies appears in bas-relief on the long sides" I think it should be "appear", because bodies is plural.
Right
  • "Two scene of a funerary procession of four mourning women occupies the" Scenes, as it's plural? And "occupy" because it's plural.
Fixed
  • Do we have any images of these scenes?
Added
  • "Tomb I contained a 12 centimeters (4.7 in) obsidian vase" I think it could be specified if this is the height?
Indeed it is
  • "Tomb II had two royal Egyptian gifts, 45 centimeters (18 in) long obsidian box" Missing "a" in front of the measurement?
Done
  • Link the two Amenemhat names in the article body too.
Done
  • "which French art history expert Edmond Pottier likened its spiral decorative patterns to that of the gold oenochoe from Tomb IV" I think the grammar is a bit odd here, could be "the spiral decorative patterns of which the French art history expert Edmond Pottier likened to that of the gold oenochoe from Tomb IV".
Thank you, done
  • Link Mycenae and Aegean in article body.
Done
  • "which divide the body of the receptacles in into several parts" First "in" seems superfluous.
Done
  • "A funerary inscription written in Phoenician identify the names" Identifies, singular.
Done
  • "triggered a landslide in the seaside cliff of Jbeil" By this point in the intro, you have not connected the name Byblos to Jbeil, so unfamiliar readers will not know its the same.
Clarification in the lead.

Thanks @FunkMonk el.ziade (talkallam) 15:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I've marked one unaddressed issue left above. FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk Solved, thanks for pointing that out. I left an explanation in the edit summary. el.ziade (talkallam) 10:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - nice work, and certainly something I think would be worth giving a look for our ancient Egypt interested reviewers. FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you buddy, I know I could have made your review much smoother had I given the article a few more reads. Truth is I find it very hard to catch my own typos and grammar mistakes. This review gave me a much needed boost to step up my game. el.ziade (talkallam) 18:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
THat kind of stuff is ok for me as long as the content itself is good. But it may scare other reviewers off, so hopefully we've adressed most of it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a building that once contained the United States' most profitable custom house. The magnificent design includes a plethora of sculptures and statues on the exterior. The second floor contains a sprawling rotunda with ceiling murals, as well as other rooms embellished with carved details. It was first proposed in 1889 to replace 55 Wall Street, though various delays and disputes pushed back the opening to 1907. It was to be more expensive than every other public building in New York City except for the notorious Tweed Courthouse. The U.S. Customs Service left the building in 1974, and it fell into disuse for several years. Luckily, the building was restored in the 1980s and the building now contains the George Gustav Heye Center as well as U.S. government offices.

This page was promoted as a Good Article two years ago after a Good Article review by CaroleHenson, for which I am very grateful. In addition, the page received a GOCE copyedit a few months ago from Rublov, whose efforts I also appreciate. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from AviationFreak

These might be a tad nitpicky as the article overall looks very well-polished, but here's what I've got so far:

  • 55 Wall Street is linked twice in the body, once as the "Merchants Exchange" building (should it be Merchants' exchange?)
    • I removed the duplicate link and added an apostrophe. You're right, it should be possessive. Epicgenius (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our article on Columbia says that she is the female personification of the US, not a personification
  • Since 50 short tons is the same in both long and metric tons, is there perhaps some way to simplify the conversion?
  • Lintel is linked twice in the body; Only found this by chance, the article needs more thorough checking for duplinks (also entablature and George Gustav Heye Center)
  • To me, The primary figure of each group is female and flanked by auxiliary human figures seems to imply that the female figures are not human - Maybe clarify with "...of each group is a human female and..."?
    • That is a good point. I worded it this way because the previous sentence says the female figures are personifications; by definition, a personification is a representation of a human. Epicgenius (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • eight carved keystones, which contain carved heads - Suggest removing the first "carved"
  • Same thing as above with tonnage conversions for seafaring nation statues
  • Suggest linking Great Seal of the United States for United States' coat of arms
  • There were elevators in each corner... - Did something happen to these elevators?
    • Oops. I meant to say there are elevators in each corner. Epicgenius (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking Ionic order
  • I may be missing something with both this and the elevators comment above, but The northeastern corner contained the cashier's office... - What happened to the cashier's office? When was it removed? What exists there now?
    • This is addressed at the end of the paragraph: "The former cashier's office has been incorporated into the Heye Center's museum store." I don't know when the cashier's office was removed, but it presumably occurred in 1973 when the Customs Service moved out. Epicgenius (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since most Rotundas appear to be circular (at least from the pictures on our article), may be worth noting that this one is elliptical (I assume the measurements of 85 by 135 feet are the minor and major axes of the ellipse, in a geometric interpretation)
  • ...which are bonded using Portland cement. - Are the layers bonded to each other using this cement or are the individual tiles bonded together using the cement? If the latter interpretation is correct, suggest using "grouted" instead of "bonded".
    • Both. The layers are bonded to each other, and the individual tiles are also bonded. Epicgenius (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wainscoting is linked, but is used in prose (without a link) earlier on. This may be an issue that exists with other terms.
  • The outer portion of the fifth story was initially used for document storage since the windows overlooking the fifth story were small apertures within the entablature - Why does this arrangement make the space more suitable for document storage?
    • The windows were quite small, so that story would not have been usable as offices. Epicgenius (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a dollar amount is available for the customs collector's salary in the House's heyday, it would be great to have that in the article alongside an Inflation template
  • Suggest using Inflation template(s) for dollar values throughout - Not necessarily every mention, but at least for values that are important to the rest of the paragraph/section (e.g. The appraisal estimated that it would cost $1.96 million to acquire land at Bowling Green.)
    • I have now added inflation to all significant dollar values. Epicgenius (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "federal-government buildings" be hyphenated? Not sure if the guideline calls for it in this particular context, but it is unhyphenated elsewhere.
  • A jury of three men - I only think of "jury" as being a legal term, would "committee" be a better term here?
  • Suggest linking United States Bicentennial
  • Standardize whether punctuation appears inside or outside of quotes (to my recollection it was always outside up until the last section, but this probably warrants another check).

Overall a very comprehensive and well-written article! Let me know if you have any questions about my comments. AviationFreak💬 19:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AviationFreak: Thanks for the detailed comments. I have addressed all of your concerns now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, it looks great! Support on prose. AviationFreak💬 16:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by PMC

Since this is the first time I've done an image review, I'm going to note every image so that my work can easily by checked should a coord feel the need. At this time, I have no concerns as to the copyright status or origins of any of the images.

  • Infobox image: building is public domain due to age, own work photo
  • Roof detail: own work and appropriately licensed
  • Asia sculpture: sculpture is PD-old, created 1903-1907, photo own work
  • Sculptures of seafaring nations: created when the building was, so PD-old, photo own work
  • Lobby and rotunda images: own-work photos of interiors too old to be copyrighted
  • Rotunda murals: all paintings are PD due to age, and all photos are PD due to being taken by federal government employees
  • Merchant's Exchange drawing: PD-old
  • King's Color-graphs: PD-old as the book was published 1910.
  • The version here looks a little pink compared to the archive.org scan - not sure which is more correct; that may be worth looking into.
  • 1912 image: book verifiably published in 1912, PD-old
  • 2008 building exterior: as infobox image, own work and building too old to be copyrighted
  • 2013 entrance: own work of PD building exterior
  • Interior detail images by Rhododendrites: own work of PD-old designs
  • The images are used judiciously - there is no over-cramming of unnecessary images.
  • I see one instance of sandwiching when my browser is set to my typical width of 1500px - the Asia sculpture and the "Sculptures of seafaring nations" images.
  • I'm curious about the choice to include a gallery of all the rotunda paintings but only including one of the Four Continents sculptures.

Overall another example of your excellent work in the topic area. I look forward to supporting on the basis of image use. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Premeditated Chaos: Thanks for the image review. Regarding the Four Continents sculptures, I just added the other three images using Template:Multiple image. I also moved the "multiple image" template to the top of the section to avoid any sandwiching at all. Epicgenius (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Everything looks good to me. I'm happy to support based on excellent image use. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Vincent Beer

Nominator(s): Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a pre-prohibition brewery run by monastery that generated quite a bit of controversy. I went through a GA review by Kusma and then a peer review by Ceoil and SandyGeorgia. After doing another read over, I think it is ready for you all. Thank you to my reviewers for getting it to this point. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review for the lead image, if all you did is cropped a public domain image and added some lines and text, these modifications are certainly below the threshold of originality in US law to enable a copyright claim; compare the examples at c:COM:TOO US (t · c) buidhe 22:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever c:COM:TOO US means, that you don't put into graspable, actionable, English, nor does the policy page. But public domain? Ceoil (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I think it is just subject to copyright protection because it "possess[es] some creative spark". I made creative decisions by choosing what to label, what not to label, the wording of the labels, and the placement of the labels based on my decade of experience as a professional cartographer. I would agree with you if just labeled the ruins. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

I do like beer and monastery history so great to see this. Am re-reading, and while inclining towards promotion have things to say. Ceoil (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe the "Beer Fuss" and "golden age of Saint Vincent Beer" don't actually exist outside of the imaginations of the brewery's promotors
  • A lot of the sentences are staccato, eg "Wimmer agreed to close the tavern but sought to retain the brewery.[1] O'Connor refused to make the community that Wimmer founded a priory.[3] Wimmer appealed to Pope Pius IX during a trip to Rome, but was denied.[3] "
  • There are many instances of jarring alliteration, eg " pointing to the permission" etc
  • started pressuring the monastery to stop" - began to pressure
  • Watch capitalisation - Saint Vincent Archabbey, Seminary, and College
  • Zurcher skewered the archabbey for brewing Saint Vincent Beer instead of joining the temperance movement, - the placement of "skewered " here is baffling and hints at a calculation that is not explained. Also for brewing Saint Vincent Bthe beer
  • I think this is almost good to go, after you meet my demands. Ceoil (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ceoil:
    • Lamendola, Oetgen, and Klein all speak of the "beer fuss" as a thing. Klein is the most attached to the idea of a golden age. Lamendola refers to it as the "so called golden age." Oetgen makes no mention of it. I do get your point. The archabbey would be considered to be nanobrewery today due to how little beer was actually produced.
    • I fixed that section.
    • Alliterations are awesome! I went looking for weird wordings
    • Fixed
    • Fixed
    • There isn't a deeper meaning. Switched to the more common "criticized"
    -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • Lead The beer was initially produced at the archabbey in 1856 and had peaked to a demand of around 1,110 barrels by 1891. - say why early on why it became popular (luck, taste, well placed backers, etc)
  • Lead external sale by 1900 - to where and what proportion was this consuming total output
  • There is is lot more context in the articles's body than the lead of the article re the closure, maybe expand the lead, eg who is Aurelius Stehle
  • but Michael O'Connor, the Bishop of Pittsburgh, objected to monk ownership - on what legal and presumably moral grounds
  • I relocated The drink was a young dark, hoppy Bavarian-style beer.[5] Its grain was harvested ... as best as could, but is still a stray factoid as currently placed; can you better place in narrative
  • The actualities, reasons and wider drivers of the unlinked "Beer Fuss" are not made clear. Ceoil (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil
  • None of the modern sources nor the newspapers from the 1800s make a claim as to why it was popular
  • This is not mentioned in the sources
  • expanded
  • added that he was a temperance movement person
  • expanded
  • expanded
-- Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy with overall FAC feedback work and expansions. Support with non-deal breaking suggestions:
    • Is "Monks and Their Decline in 1898" a book or a pamphlet - the lead indicates that it was solely published to stop the beer, but it had a 88 pages, which indicates a diatribe
    • the monks continued to produce the drink for internal consumption - for their own consumption
    • where beer was brewed in abbeys - begs questions; was it from an earlier or contemporary recipe, how many abbeys, were they producing for "external" (maybe "selling" is better, as on 1st read of lead I thought international vs. domestic sale) production or just drinking it all themselves. Appreciate sources may be thin, if so ..."using a recipe used by a number of abbeys". Ceoil (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PMC

Claiming myself a spot, comments sometime this week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technically I'm still within my week. Here we go.

Lead
  • It feels unnecessary to call it an alcoholic drink, then call out the style of beer in sentence two. To me beer is a common enough concept that you don't have to explain it in an article about a type of beer. Unfortunately there aren't any comparable FAs to compare to, so it's possible I'm nuts and the granularity is necessary.
  • The beer was initially produced at the archabbey in 1856 feels redundant. The first sentence in para 1 already mentions the start date, and this restates that in more words without adding any additional information.
  • Francesco Satolli, the Apostolic Delegate to the United States. He wrote to Archabbot Leander Schnerr asking for the brewing to be stopped. Something wonky has happened here. Also, when?
  • When did Zurcher write his book?
  • What's The New York Voice, and when did it decide it hated monks and beer? What was it accusing the abbey of anyway?
  • the monks continued to produce the drink for domestic consumption - Assuming you mean the monks kept making the beer to drink for themselves, the phrasing "domestic consumption" doesn't really work, as it most often refers to the consumption of goods in the country they were produced in.
Background
  • I feel like the background section gets ahead of itself by describing Wimmer as the founder of the first Benedictine monastery in the United States but not mentioning that the St Vincent was that monastery. It oddly implies that there was another one first.
  • The dates in the background section don't match the lead. The lead says brewing started in 1856 and that Pius IX allowed for commercial sale in 1858. The background section says that they were brewing by 1849 and got permission for production and sale in 1852.
  • Not sure the second paragraph belongs in the Background section, as it's a description of the beer and some critical response to it. Actually, I wonder if background/early years aren't better off merged into one section.
    • I have never found a good place to put this information. Back to its own section, I guess --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Early years
  • This section says the brewery was built in 1856, but the previous section seems to say there already was a brewery. Please clarify, unless I've misread something.
    • The 1849 brewery was in Indiana, PA and did not produce St Vincent Beer. Sources skip over what happened to that brewery. I retooled the sentence --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • was publicly condemned form - I assume that's supposed to be "from the movement", but "by the movement" would be more correct, I think
  • Link to Temperance movement in the United States?
  • "more mild" - milder
  • "who sell alcohol" - I think it should be "who sold alcohol", or maybe "who were selling"
Beer Fuss and Decline
  • When did The Voice release their article, and do we know what it claimed?
  • The monks, however, continued I'm not sure "however" is necessary, although it's also not a hill I'll die on if you like it as a matter of style.
  • The following year the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified making it illegal to produce alcoholic drinks and starting Prohibition. This sentence is a bit awkwardly worded. Prohibition in itself is the ban on producing alcohol, so it feels redundant to say it again. Perhaps "and beginning the Prohibition era"?
  • This is nitpicky, but this sentence "Officially, the brewery building was used for storage for the farm," should probably have a clarifying word like "Thereafter" or "Subsequently" to make it obvious that that was only after Prohibition came in
  • fixed --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Decline" says the ruins were demolished during the restoration of the gristmill; the lead says during the "removal of the gristmill".
  • Fixed leade --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with any suggestions, no problem, I'm open to discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All fixes look good, I am happy to support this nomination on prose. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Vami

Verdict: Pass. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checks:

  • Citation [20] would more accurately draw from pages 129 and 130.
  • Citation [3] checks out but is needlessly repeated at This upset O'Connor who refused to grant the community that Wimmer founded status as a priory.[3] Wimmer appealed O'Connor's refusal to Pope Pius IX during a trip to Rome, but was denied.[3]
  • Citation [13] checks out.

X –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supports by Lee Vilenski

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

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

  • "It's popularity" => "Its popularity"
  • "As part of a media campaing" => "As part of a media campaign"
  • "In 1856, the first Saint Vincent Beer was first manufactured" - repetition of "first" doesn't sound great
  • "established a brewery in small log building" => "established a brewery in a small log building"
  • "next to the archabbey's gristmill" - no need to relink the archabbey here
  • "The brewery buildings sat in what is now the parking lot for the gristmill" - this caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop
  • "The Archabbey" - earlier when not using the full name you wrote "the archabbey". Be consistent in your capitalisation
  • "At the time, the Catholic Church working" => "At the time, the Catholic Church was working"
  • "in place for just four and a half year" => "in place for just four and a half years"
  • "asking him end the archabbey" => "asking him to end the archabbey"
  • "When sold, it was sold it limited quantities" => "When sold, it was sold in limited quantities"
  • "Neither contemporary nor cotemporaneous sources mention what became of this earlier brewery" - this also needs a full stop
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude & Lee Vilenski: I responded to your comments -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1982 World Snooker Championship

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC), User: BennyOnTheLoose[reply]

This article is about the 1982 edition of the World Snooker Championship. Davis's first defence. Second nomination - let me know what you think! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 22:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doing a prose review of the article. Side note, I have my own FAC up here, and I would appreciate any comments. Of course, while appreciated, you are not obligated to leave a response. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
    📝see my work     11:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "30 April and 16 May 1982 at the Crucible Theatre, Sheffield, England" --> somewhat awkward placing of commas, but that might just be me. I'd put a "located" between "Crucible Theatre" and "Sheffield" to alleviate that
    • "The tournament was sponsored by cigarette company Embassy and was organised by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA)." --> There are a lot of "was"s in the first paragraph of the lead, which raises concerns about repetition. Plus this sentence could be reworded in such a way that the active voice is employed. "Embassy, a British cigarette company, sponsored the tournament, and the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA) handled the organisation for the event", perhaps?
    • "It had a prize fund of £110,000 and the winner received £25,000." --> a comma before the "and" is missing
    • The lead's second paragraph has a lot of participle phrases. "having defeated Doug Montjoy..." "becoming the latest champion who was unable to defend his first world title..." "defeating Welshman Ray Reardon 18–15 in the final..." all within three consecutive sentences. I believe you can rewrite one or two of these sentences to avoid repetition.
    • "The World Snooker Championship is ... the official snooker world championship" --> this is just restating the title. We can rewrite this to "the official global (or worldwide?) tournament for snooker"
    • I'd rewrite the next sentence to "Developed in the late 19th century by British Army soldiers stationed in India, the sport was popular in the United Kingdom before being introduced to Europe and the Commonwealth" just to avoid having snooker appear in two sentences in a row
      • In view of that wording change, I'd also rewrite "the sport is now played worldwide" to "nowadays, snooker is played worldwide"
    • "governed by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA).[6]Thirty-two" --> space after the citation
    • "Thirty-two professional players competing in one-on-one single-elimination matches that were played over several frames." -> I feel like there is a verb missing here, because at the moment this reads like an incomplete sentence
    • " This was the first world championships" -> the verb is singular but the noun is plural
      • Many thanks for the detailed feedback. I've addressed the points above in the article, and hopefully fixed most of them. I've used a slightly different wording about it being the "official" championship, as there are at least two other world snooker championships: the IBSF World Snooker Championship and the World Women's Snooker Championship. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problem! By the way, with regards to this sentence - "The World Snooker Championship is the official world championship of professional snooker. Developed in the late 19th century by British Army soldiers stationed in India, the cue sport was popular in the United Kingdom..." - this essay argues that elegant variation, such as the one used here "world championship of professional snooker... stationed in India, the cue sport...", diminishes clarity. This is because at first glance, readers will not be able to tell what "the cue sport" refers to, and would have to spend more time than necessary figuring out the answer to that question. Here you seem to be doing elegant variation to introduce new information about professional snooker, which the essay says is not always an ideal way to go about it, for the reasons already outlined above. A way to improve clarity would be to put "the cue sport" beside "professional snooker", replacing the term with the "it" pronoun, i.e. "world championship of professional snooker, a cue sport... it was popular in the United Kingdom..."
    • All of the sentences in the third paragraph for the Overview section are in passive voice. I believe the MOS prefers the active voice whenever possible, no?

More comments to come once I get around to reading the tournament summary. :) Please ping me whenever you get around to addressing these points, by the way! FAC pages really need a "subscribe" button in the same way talk page sections do...

Will have a look at these in a mo. You can watchlist FAC pages, btw. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NØ

I will have a look at this article. The review above looks extensive already so apologies if I repeat something.

  • Is there a reason why newspapers that have articles are unlinked in the references?
  • "a score of 18–12 in the final the previous year" could be "a score of 18–12 in the the previous year's final".
  • "The first World Championship, in 1927, was won by Joe Davis in a final at Camkin's Hall in Birmingham, England." could be active voice.
  • "The tournament was sponsored by cigarette company Embassy." would sound better in active voice too in my opinion, actually this could be done wherever applicable.
  • "after which Knowles scored 67" - points?
  • "Knowles said he had been to a nightclub until 2:00 am that day" - maybe "been at/in a nightclub"? They sound more appropriate than "to" here.
  • "Higgins failed to pot the last red and conceded the frame" - last red what?
  • "Reardon, a six-times champion" - shouldn't this be "six-time champion"?
  • "he had not sufficiently recovered from a broken leg sustained in October 1981" - "he had not sufficiently recovered after sustaining a broken leg in October 1981"
Great work just like all of the other articles in this series. If possible, I would be really glad if you were able to contribute something at my currently active FAC.--NØ 11:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Lee Vilenski are you going to address these and will you consider leaving comments at my FAC linked above? Hope you're able to see this.--NØ 01:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MaranoFan. Thanks for the review. I've amended the article in response to most of your comments, except the one about linking newspapers. My understanding is that there should be consistency in whether types of source are linked, and not a presumption that all newspapers will be. But I'm happy to make this amendment if necessary. Regards. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, Benny. I am going to support the article for promotion.--NØ 17:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TRAPPIST-1

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a star in the constellation of Aquarius (constellation) which is known to have 7 planets orbiting it in a resonance. About 3-4 of these could be warm and cold enough to support liquid water; there has been a lot of research on whether these planets might be habitable and the star system has drawn attention in the popular press and even popular culture. It is an important target for the James Webb Space Telescope. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review no licensing issues found, but File:TRAPPIST-1 system to scale.svg should have a source in the image description for the data presented on the graphic. Also, the first image in the body sandwiches the infobox, which is really long. Would it be possible to collapse parts of the infobox or reduce the amount of info you're trying to get across there? I noticed that parts of the infobox are not cited either inline or in the body. (t · c) buidhe 10:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted a question about the data on commons:User talk:Cmglee. It seems like this is supposed to be the reference of many of the infobox data, but apparently they can't be collapsed so I've commented them out in the interim. I think perhaps they should be put somewhere else (with refs) but I'd like a second opinion on that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Update: The information in that image apparently comes from TRAPPIST-1#Planetary system; added a link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon

I have no domain knowledge, so here are my comments from a layperson's perspective:

  • surface temperature of about 2,560 K --> perhaps this too should be expressed in relative terms to the Sun, as in its absolute form it will be meaningless to many
    I see, but I am not sure how meaningful "half as hot as the Sun" would be to laypeople. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • and thus to have temperatures suitable to the presence of liquid water and thus --> and thus repetition not particularly elegant
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As many as four of the planets (d, e, f, g) --> perhaps an introduction to these odd names could happen a few sentences earlier. Something along the lines of "initially three, then seven terrestrial planets around the star, named TRAPPIST-1b through h.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • in fact almost twice as old --> are you sure you need that "in fact"? sounds a bit colloquial to my foreign ears
    Yeah, that was superfluous. Cut it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The life expectancy of a small, faint star like TRAPPIST-1 is --> whereas in the lead I liked relative info over absolute, here I think we need both. I'd much prefer to know how many billions of years it has left, as well, how many left for our Solar system. Also include the age of the universe
    Added a source and this information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • coronal mass ejections; these are eruptions of coronal material to the outside of a star --> I find that semicolon odd here, but also this explanation surprised me. Up until this point I had to click through to many technical terms I had never heard of (brown dwarf, photosphere, chromosphere, faculae, etc.) and I didn't mind. But "coronal mass ejections" I actually could kind of get directly from its name, and the explanation desn't add much even. I personally would favour seeing inline explanations of uncommon terms. I would not have one for coronal mass ejections.
    I actually decided to move this to a footnote for consistency reasons. I don't think we can explain all these terms inline without severely breaking the flow of the text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that would break the flow. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • TRAPPIST-1b, TRAPPIST-1c, TRAPPIST-1d, TRAPPIST-1e, TRAPPIST-1f, TRAPPIST-1g, and TRAPPIST-1h --> bit more readable and still clear would be TRAPPIST-1b, 1c, ...
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • taking a few to about 20 days --> why a few and not something like "with orbits taking between 1.5 and 20 days"?
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • distances of 1.7×106–8.9×106 kilometres (1.1×106–5.5×106 mi) --> that's a lot of symbols munched together. Perhaps better to split it up and say something like "ranging from x to y"
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • much closer to TRAPPIST-1 than Mercury --> perhaps for extra clarity something like "all of them much closer to TRAPPIST-1 than Mercury "
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are named in alphabetic order --> I would expect this to come a bit earlier, right after their names
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • exterior to planet h and is part of the planetary resonance --> link planetary resonance
    Done and moved footnote up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • coplanar --> link or explanation
    There is a footnote? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Would a link to Coplanarity be ok? Edwininlondon (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • caption Orbital comparison. should not have a full stop b/c it's a fragment, not a sentence. The next caption is a sentence, and should have a full stop. Check the others
    I have to confess that I am not entirely certain when a stop is needed or not, can you double check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Edwininlondon (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • similar to similar ratios --> duplication
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8:5, 5:3, 3:2, 3:2, 4:3, and 3:2 between each planet pair --> perhaps "neighboring planet pair"?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The resonances and the proximity to their host star has led --> have led?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • making the matter of tidal locking more complicated and potentially more habitable --> not sure if this flows well, it now reads that tidal locking gets more habitable
    OK, no idea how that sentence was written. Rewrote it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • cause the development of subsurface magma oceans in some planets --> the previous elements in this semicolon separated list had a verb, why not this one?
    I think "cause" is a verb here? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I did not make that very clear, so trying again: the "likewise it would influence .." but has a subject and verb, but the next bit "cause the development of subsurface magma oceans in some planets;" does not have a subject on its own, and likewise the last bit "or induce volcanism which replenishes atmospheres" does not have a subject or verb. I would think that all semicolon separated fragments have the same structure. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ,[122] or induce volcanism which replenishes atmospheres --> should that comma not be a semicolon?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • cannot --> can not per MOS:CONTRACTIONS
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • compared to a Sun-like irradiation --> link irradiation
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three or four[42] planets – e, f, and g[132] or d, e, and f --> why use bold?
    To highlight the letters. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see quite which part of MOS:BOLD would allow for that. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Switched to {{em}} Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • glaciation --> link
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other factors are --> for what?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • kinetics, energetics --> link
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soon more. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Magnetic and radiative effects of TRAPPIST-1 --> would be good to use the unfamiliar term radiative in this section, and link it
    Done. I do have one structural issue here, though - there is a discussion on mantle melting here despite the section itself saying that tidal heating is much more important. I wonder if there'd be a way to put all the mantle melting in one section without creating too many short paragraphs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because of the higher wavelength --> 2 paragraphs in a row starting with because of
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Water-dominated atmospheres --> why is water linked?
    Unlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oxygen-dominated atmospheres can form --> I expected each bullet point to have some statement about the planets' atmospheres, whether likely or not. And ideally each bullet point starts with such a statement, and then additonial context. Like the first bullet point
    There isn't the same information available for every atmosphere, so that wouldn't work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the exoplanet and the visibility of its atmosphere scale with the inverse square of the radius of its host star --> not sure I get this: what property of the exoplanet scales? or do you mean the visibility of the planet? And would it be better to use "an" instead of "the"?
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • - in particular carbon dioxide, ozone and water --> (in particular carbon dioxide, ozone and water)
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • in fact, TRAPPIST-1 emits amounts --> do we need that In fact?
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • TRAPPIST-1 is moderately[23] to highly active --> in what way?
    That's the bulleted list. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Samara, Patsourakos and Georgoulis 2021 --> previously it was X et al. Consistency would be better
    The pattern is that 1-3 names get spelled out and 4+ get an et al. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stellar wind-driven escape in the Solar System --> are those 2 capital S's really right?
    I think yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • common volatiles such as ammonia, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and water --> most of these were alreeady linked
  • overall, so many terms are linked multiple times, really check the whole article for this. See MOS:REPEATLINK
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you use the Highlight duplicate links under Tools in the left hand navigation, you can see which ones are still left to repair. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I got the rest. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 50% water by mass,[247] because of this --> this doesn't flow very well
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • favour the evolution of --> inconsistent with "could harbor": BrE or AmE?
    BrE. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • mix oceans and supply and redistribute nutrients[255] and stimulate --> a few more commas needed
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • carbon monoxide that are toxic to higher life --> I'm surprised by this fact. Higher life as we know it on Earth, sure, but any life?
    The source certainly thinks so, IMO incorrectly for the reason you say but we need to work with what sources claim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the identification of close by ultra-cold --> I would add a hyphen between close and by
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • drawing widespread attention in social media, streaming TV and websites[ba][280] and it received widespread --> duplication of widespread, and would it not be more logical to start with newspapers? I assume they covered it first and then the public reacted
    Done, but I wouldn't assume that order of events - newspapers take longer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Isolation's single --> should In Isolation not be redlinked? or do you think it is not notable?
  • same with Leah Asher?
    I don't know any of these people/groups, the fact that they mentioned TRAPPIST-1 is documented by third-party sources but the people/groups themselves probably aren't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • by the High Energy Stereoscopic System --> I assume by the people running the system, not some AI
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • in Namibia --> countries usually not linked
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Owing to its relative closeness to the Solar System, the small size of the star TRAPPIST-1 and the fact that, from Earth's perspective, the planets frequently pass in front of the star, the TRAPPIST-1 planets --> I don't think this is correct: you have "its" but the subject of the main clause is plural. The whole thing is not particularly elegant, maybe consider a rewrite
    Changed to plural but I don't see how to rewrite this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps something along the lines of "The TRAPPIST-1 planets are the most easily studied habitable planets outside of the Solar System, owing to their relative closeness, the small size of their host star, and the fact that, from Earth's perspective, they frequently pass in front of their host."
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Future observations with observatories and ground-based facilities may allow future --> future duplication and are observatories not ground-based? And would you not get better observations from space telescopes? Ah, ok you mention that after the semicolon. Perhaps better to rephrase to avoid this at first reading
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Together with the discovery of Proxima Centauri b, the discovery of the TRAPPIST-1 planets and the fact that about three of TRAPPIST-1's planets are within its habitable zone has led to an upswing of studies on planetary habitability[299] and are considered prototypical for the research on the habitability of M dwarfs. --> perhaps a few commas to help the reader parse this?
    I don't think that's easy to do. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the subject of the clause "are considered ..."? I'm not a native speaker so if you think this is grammatically correct then I trust you. It just doesn't look ok to my foreign eyes. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, neither am I. I've done a small change there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • TRAPPIST-1 has drawn intense scientific interest,[177] and the star has been subject of detailed studies, including studies assessing the habitability of each planet,[98] including the possible effects of vegetation and whether an ocean could be detected by using starlight reflected off its surface. --> twice includng, and the beginning is a bit odd since that was already clear from the preceding bit. And mentioning habitability feels repetitive, given the previous sentence
    I've cut the habitability bit, but the preceding sentence is more general than TRAPPIST-1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel that "TRAPPIST-1 has drawn intense scientific interest" could be a good opening for the whole Scientific importance section. Where it is now is a bit jarring for me since by then this statement was already obvious to me from all the previous sentences. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like a good suggestion; it's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spacecraft mission designs using present-day rockets and gravity slingshots would need hundreds of thousands of years to reach TRAPPIST-1. --> unsourced and would it not be better placed right after "by humans with current or expected technology"?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Still a bit jarring for me: it goes from current and expected tech to theoretical and then back to current. I'd do the present-day before the theoretical. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reordered. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is an unusual number of bullet point lists, but I think it is fine as I guess it falls under the exception of MOS:PARA
    Yeah, many of these things work better as lists than as paragraph(s). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at the footnotes later. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Footnotes a b and i need sourcing
    Sourced the first, the second is two mathematical formulae (gravity and logarithms) and the third is also an unit conversion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tidal heating is heating induced by tides, which deform planets and heat it in the process --> should that "it" not be "them"?
    Yes and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • e.g carbon dioxide, is trapped within a "cage"-like assembly of molecules from another compound, e.g --> it's e.g. (twice)
    Deduplicated. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant to say that e.g is misspelled twice: it is with a . after the g: e.g.
    Ah; did that fix. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10×1033 ergs (1.0×1027 J) --> should that not be written as 1×1034 ergs (1.0×1027 J)?
    Yes, and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 58495 times that of Earth --> 58,495 times that of Earth
  • tidal stress 22735 times that of Earth --> tidal stress 22,735 times that of Earth
    I am concerned that using the comma separators might make people think we are talking about decimals. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:DIGITS gives 2 options, commas or spaces. But it has to be consistent. In the 1st section you have commas: 2,566 K (2,293 °C; 4,159 °F)
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discovery was sometimes the top news. --> a bit of an odd wording
    Recast this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which however may not have time to reliably detect certain biosignatures. --> I'm not a fan of these kind of half-sentences. But I can't see anything in MOS that suggests it is frowned upon.
    The MOS isn't the one and only writing rule. I think a question here would rather be how to write the sentence otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: frankly the writing doesn't seem up to the high quality FA standard. I started looking at how to massage the article, but gave up because it needs plenty of TLC. It's a B+ article with good referencing. Praemonitus (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Buidhe

I'm happy to check this over with a view to improving prose and making sure it's understandable to a wide audience. Has Edwininlondon ended his review? (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm done, go ahead. I'm sure you can improve the prose a lot. Your work on Corry Tendeloo was much appreciated. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have precise numerical ratios of 8:5, 5:3, 3:2, 3:2, 4:3, and 3:2." —in which order?
    Outward, but the source does not specify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is predicted to lead to intense planet-planet interactions that could drive volcanic activity on the planets" needs to be clearer as to whether this volcanic activity is occuring in the present or future. If the former, "probably causes" is probably better
    Former, so changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot of hedging "likely", "predicted", "could have", "hypothesized" etc. May be unavoidable but I'd see whether it's possible to rephrase some of these to be more specific about the likelihood
    Yeah, that's pretty much unavoidable until we get more precise data. I don't think that most of these theories have had their probability given. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not spell out trappist in the lead since you don't spell it out in the body text
    That was deliberate, so that folks know why the acronym. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "0.0898 times" more understandable if expressed in percentage
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a source comparing the mass to Jupiter? If not, axe the footnote. If so, incorporate into the text rather than writing that red dwarves are dense (dense compared to what?)
    Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rotation period of active regions" is there a link for this
    Not as far as I know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how useful it is to have footnotes defining terms that are basically the same thing you get from hovering over the link. I'm not super comfortable citing sources that aren't about TRAPPIST-1 and it seems to add considerable bloat to the article.

I am hearing you, but in other content reviews at FAC and elsewhere I've been told that links do not fully substitute for footnotes. Besides, relying on links wouldn't actually resolve the sourcing question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "similar to the ratios of the Solar System and of the moons that orbit its giant planets" -> I don't understand
    This is a sentence I struggled to formulate - the planet/star mass ratio resembles that of the Solar System and to the moon/planet mass ratio of Solar System gas giants. I've put that in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which would have important implications for the climate of the planets" vague
    Yeah, it's a bit hard to summarize the effects in a few sentences. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The distribution of the fragments would control the Earth-like mass the planets ended up having" I don't get it
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ohmic heating[f] of the atmosphere of TRAPPIST-1e, f, and g amounts to 5-15 times the extreme ultraviolet radiation" as what?
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it may be losing hydrogen at a rate of 1.4×107 g/s" — removed, if this is important needs to say where this number comes from
    Hmm? There was a source besides it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this based on some projection or what? (t · c) buidhe 09:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was based on Lyman-alpha transit data from the Hubble Space Telescope. Would "based on Hubble Space Telescope observations" be clear enough? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure (t · c) buidhe 10:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made a lot of edits to the article, feel free to rv if unhelpful (t · c) buidhe 08:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've readded a couple of footnotes per my comments above. The one about Kepler-90 is mainly b/c numerous sources say that TRAPPIST-1 is the star with the most planets, and I think that TRAPPIST-1e needs special mention as it's the planet most commonly discussed in terms of habitability. The misattribution to NASA is specifically discussed by the source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I can support or oppose the article, but I hope I did improve it somewhat. (t · c) buidhe 12:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Raymond

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 14:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After two straight FACs of Missouri 1864, it's now Mississippi 1863. General Grant is moving eastwards into Mississippi to attack Vicksburg, when a third of his army runs into a single Confederate brigade outside Raymond. The battle is fought in woods, and spirals out of control with neither commander able to exercise a whole lot of command. The Union's numerical mismatch eventually forces the Confederates back, but the battle convinces Grant to drive the Confederates out of Jackson before taking on Vicksburg. Hog Farm Talk 14:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review and source review—pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 02:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

I supported this two days ago at ACR, having assessed it to FAC standard. So I may as well recuse and see if I can find anything further to niggle at. Gog the Mild ( talk) 14:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Infobox: "near" - upper case initial letter.
    • Done
  • I assume that "Gregg's brigade" has a lower case b?
  • "The strategically important city of Vicksburg, Mississippi, was still in Confederate hands". This seems to me to beg for an explanation of what this meant. ', thus preventing through navigation by military or commercial vessels' or similar, perhaps? (Otherwise the canal bit doesn't really make sense.)
    • I've clarified - it was not only the linchpin that held the eastern and western halves of the CSA together, but it also was a strong defensive position commanding the river.
  • "In late November, Union infantry commanded by". A company? A whole battalion? Maybe something like 'a union army of some 40,000 men [or whatever] ...'?
  • "Grant's men drove inland". Again some idea of numbers, and possibly for the Confederates, may be helpful to a reader.
    • Added (24,000 for Grant, 8,000 for the CSA under Bowen)

More to follow. Gog the Mild ( talk) 18:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not wild about "back side" rather than 'reverse slope', but it's your call.
    • Changed, as it's a bit colloquial.
  • "some high ground northeast of the brigade over Fourteenmile Creek." Should that be 'bridge'?
    • Good spot. Fixed
  • "Union Brigadier General John E. Smith's five-regiment brigade of Logan's division (about 6,500 men)". This reads to me as if the brigade were 6,500 strong. Is that what is meant?
    • The figure is for Logan's division as a whole. Clarified. Hog Farm Talk 21:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to not enter the battle until after the 50th Tennessee had entered the fighting." "... enter the ... entered the ..." And again in the next sentence.
    • Rephrased
  • "McPherson expected that Sherman might arrive". William T. Sherman? This suggestion comes a bit from nowhere. Why might McPherson think that? Perhaps add something in Prelude?
    • I've removed this. Smith is the only of the sources to mention this, from skimming the appropriate section of Smith again I can find no indication why McPherson would have expected this, and Sherman clearly didn't show up. Since it doesn't appear elsewhere, not even in Grabau's highly detailed monograph, I see no reason why it is significant enough to be included.
  • "closer to Sherman's position." Should 'expected' or 'anticipated' or something be added?
    • See response above
  • "three percent of McPherson's force, while Gregg lost about 16 percent".
    • Spelled both out (I think that's what needs done here?)
  • "McClernand's men had also encountered part of Pemberton's force during the battle at Raymond." I don't recall this being mentioned during the account of the battle.
    • A classic example of me trying to say one thing and ending up writing another. McClernand's men skirmished with Pemberton's Confederates in a completely different area at the same time as the fighting at Raymond. Hog Farm Talk 21:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assessment: the opinions of academics should be expressed in the present tense. Eg 'Bearss describes' and 'Miller also states' etc. See MOS:TENSE.
    • I very badly misread your comment in the ACR on this matter - I think I've caught all of them
  • "leaving tactical decisions to lower commanders." Optional: "lower" → 'junior'.
    • Done
  • "The Battle of Raymond is one of 16 American Civil War battle sites studied by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC)." Just checking whether "is" → 'was'?
    • Yes, should probably be "was" because the CWSAC hasn't issued a report in awhile that I'm aware of. More concerningly, this clause was missing an "is Mississippi" (the total nationwide CWSAC site count is well over 300 IIRC) Hog Farm Talk 20:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

  • "near the junction of the roads to Utica and Port Gibson": as far as I can tell from the map in the article, the same road goes to both.
    • Going to have to dig into this. Bearss 2007 says this with no map, Bearss 1998 uses an overlay of a modern topographic map which isn't helpful. No maps in Ballard or Miller. Grabau 2001's maps show the Utica Road and the Auburn Road. IIRC Smith has decent maps so I'll check them as well. Hog Farm Talk 14:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Just the one question above. The excellent map really helped me understand the sequence of events, though since Gallatin isn't on it I did have to refer to Google maps to figure out which road was the Gallatin road. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: - I think the reference to Port Gibson and Utica here is probably correct, based off of a quotation in Smith p. 72 - "The Utica Road ran south from Raymond, a second road bisected the Utica artery about one-half mile behind Gregg's position and ran southwest to Port Gibson, and yet a third dirt thoroughfare angled off the main road to the southeast toward Gallatin". I think the combined weight of Smith and Bearss here is better than the reference to "Auburn Road" in the map in Grabau. If you're wondering why the deployments in the sentence in question in the article don't match up to what Smith describes here, Smith is referring to an earlier alignment than Bearss. Hog Farm Talk 22:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK -- I would say the map is simply not showing the exact roads being described, but that's OK -- so long as the article is correct. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Adam Cuerden

Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 18:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cuerden Technically the FAC already had an image review. Not sure about the sign. For some reason I thought signage was always OK per US freedom of panorama rules, although quite possibly I'm wrong. (t · c) buidhe 18:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for stepping on your toes. This isn't exactly standard signage, but I can't see any reason it wouldn't be US Federal Government so can't see why it would matter. U.S. Freedom of Panorama rules are not my subject of expertise, but commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#Artworks_and_sculptures doesn't indicate that's true about signs. Also, the first point is probably worth discussing. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 19:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As to #1, I agree, but am quite busy with work for another day or to, so I won't be able to pull the new file immediately. Adam Cuerden - Do you know how to search Google for an image for the #2 item? Google seems to have taken the method I formerly used away from the right-click toolbar. Hog Farm Talk 23:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried reverse image searches, but it's not coming up. It might have been pulled, or it might be buried in an archive deep enough that Google can't find it, or, most likely (especially given it looks like it was made in MS Paint) it was a temporary document that got replaced. Not really a problem, just... not ideal. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 02:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've added an image of General McPherson, which is from the National Portrait Gallery and well out of copyright. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 19:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pendright

Lead:

  • Initial attempts to capture the strategically important Mississippi River city of Vicksburg failed.
Initial attempts by whom?
Union. Added
  • The Confederate commander of Vicksburg, Lieutenant General John C. Pemberton ordered Brigadier General John Gregg and his 3,000 to 4,000-strong brigade from Jackson to Raymond.
Add a comma after Pemberton.
Added

Background:

  • During the beginning of the American Civil War, Union military leadership developed the Anaconda Plan, a strategy for defeating the Confederate States of America that placed great importance on controlling the Mississippi River.[1]
  • During the begining or "at" the begining?
  • Changed to "Early in the ..."
  • a strategy -> "as" a strategy
  • I think it works better in AmEng without the "as"
  • The stratagy was to control the Mississippi River and thus defeat the Confederate States- wasn't it? In which case, it should be so stated.
  • There were other components (blockading the coastline of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Seaboard was just as important) so I prefer the current phrasing
  • The strategically important city of Vicksburg, Mississippi, was still in Confederate hands, serving as both a strong defensive position commanding the river and a linchpin between the two halves of the Confederacy.
  • Add by before commanding
  • Done
  • a linchpin -> "the" linchpin
  • Done

<>The word attempt appears four times in the first paragraph of this section?

I've rephrased several of them out

Beginning of Grant's campaign:

  • Some of these included revisiting the 1862 canal attempt, [by] cutting a canal [in the river] near Lake Providence, Louisiana, and then navigating [it] through [several] bayous to bypass Vicksburg.
Consider the above changes
I've done something a bit different, as I don't think it was clear enough that these are three separate list items
  • By March 29, these alternatives were abandoned and Grant was left with a choice between attacking Vicksburg from directly across the river, pulling back to Memphis and then attacking overland from the north, or marching south on the Louisiana side of the river and then crossing the river below the city.
  • "these alternatives were abandoned" -> by whom?
  • By Grant. Added
  • "a choice" -> should it be "the" choices?
  • Rephrased
  • Could replace 2nd "the river" with it?
  • Done
  • Attacking [the enemy from] across the river [Grant could] would have risked heavy casualties, [but]
and pulling [his men] back to Memphis could [have been] be interpreted as a retreat [and] ,which would be politically disastrous.
Consider this or someting like it?
  • On April 29, Union Navy ships bombarded Confederate river batteries at Grand Gulf in preparation for a crossing, but did not silence the position.
but "they" did not...
  • Grant could either move north towards Vicksburg, or head east and later turn to the west and attack Vicksburg from that direction.
from "this" direction

Gregg's approach to Raymond:

  • Hiram Bledsoe's Missouri Battery and its three cannons was positioned with the 1st Tennessee Battalion and had orders to fire on any attempts to cross the bridge over the creek on the Utica Road.
  • its three cannons "was" or were positioned?
  • any attempts by whom?
  • A 30-odd word sentence w/o a pause?
  • The 41st Tennessee Infantry Regiment was held in reserve about 0.5 miles (800 m) behind the 3d Tennessee, near Raymond's cemetery.
which was near the Raymond cenetery.

More to come - Pendright (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 British Open

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first snooker event of the 2021-22 snooker season. The British Open returned to the calendar after 17 years away! There was two maximum breaks, and was won by a dazzling Mark Williams. First round contest between seperated couple Mark Allen and Reanne Evans had some controversy as Evans refused to shake hands.

A really great event. A little shorter than some of my other events, due to the shortened frame lengths, but nothing should be missing. Let me know your thoughts Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review not sure about File:British Open 2021 Poster.jpg. This is not like an album cover or official logo; it's unclear how many people have seen this poster and to what extent it is necessary to identify the event. Other image licensing looks ok. (t · c) buidhe 18:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coord note: We're almost at 3 weeks and without progress towards promotion the nomination is likely to be archived in the next few days. (t · c) buidhe 12:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

  • Some inconsistency between BBC/BBC Sport/bbc.co.uk in ref formatting
  • Inconsistency in whether sites are referred to by name or url, e.g. The Guardian, and Eurosport; but also www.sportinglife.com and www.scotsman.com
  • Why "|quote=Sport Cast" for ref name="wst._HowT" ?
  • Capital T for the Guardian.

Format

  • Suggest moving ref after "won by Alex Higgins," to after won by "Silvino Francisco" as the 1980 source can't verify that the British Gold Cup was later the British Open.
  • "which changed names" seems awkward straight after "Higgins,"
  • "broadcast by: ITV Sport" - ITV4 according to the source. Looks like ITV Sport is a producer rather than broadcaster.
  • Why are some broadccasters redlinked and others not?
    • So I've done some research, and these are the ones I might be able to make an article about. The other ones I'm less sure of. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs [5][2] are out of order. (Porbably look at this after other changes, in case sequence changes)
  • "Matches were played as the best-of-five frames, until the quarter-finals and semi-finals, which were played as best-of-seven-frame matches, and the final as a best-of-eleven" - doesn't quite work, I feel. Maybe "..matches. The final was best-of-eleven."?

Tournament summary

  • "maximum break in the first frame" - I like commas so would have "maximum break, in the first frame", but you can wait and see what better writers say.
  • "The pair who had fought over child maintenance, had their first professional meeting at the event" - comma after pair. Maybe a different word like "players" instead of "pair" here, given the context?
  • I'm not sure about "fought over child maintenance", might benefit from rewording
  • "but missed match ball" - feels like it's missing a word
  • "allowing Allen to win the contest" - probably add that he had to pot something to do this; it wasn't automatic after Evans missed.
  • "Both of the finalists of the 2021 World Snooker Championship, Shaun Murphy and Mark Selby met in the first round." How about "The finalists from the 2021 World Snooker Championship, ..."?
  • "his first main tournament win since retiring in 2012" - add something about him coming out of retirment, for people who donp;t pay close attention to his career.
    • I would, but he did return a full year prior. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "behind to Dominic Dale to win 3–2." Could reword to avoid the to-to.
  • "after missing a shot, because the red ball had a stray hair on it." - expand slightly. It wasn't a direct cause, was it?
  • "but lost 0–3 as neither player made a break above 50" - I'd prefer "but lost 0–3. Neither player made a break above 50"
  • "Trump played Elliot Slessor, but lost 2–3" - why "but"? Same question for "Wilson played Slessor, but trailed 0–2" and, in the picture caption, "but lost 2–3"
  • "3–1 win over defending champion Higgins" - "defending champion" was mentioned in the first paragraph of the section, so can probably be removed here.
  • "the sole player remaining within the top 16" - how about "the sole player from the top 16 remaining"?
  • Could wikilink 1997 to 1997 British Open in the body.
  • Could, optionally, add a cuegloss link to "deciding frame"

Tournament draw

  • "Kurt Maflin withdrew from the event (denoted by w/d), his opponent received a walkover (w/o)" - use a full stop rather than a comma, or add something like "so"
  • I suggest adding the direct link to the final score ([11]) as a reference to the final.
  • Add an explanation of the bold and parenthesised numbers in the final. (The intro only has "players in bold denote match winners.")
  • What's the source for "Referee: Leo Scullion"?
    • It's likely in Snooker Scene, when I'm feeling better I'll check it out. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and Lead

  • "It was the 27th edition of the British Open event," doesn't seem to be cited in the body
  • "this broke with the tradition of most ranking tournaments which use a seeded draw under single-elimination tournament format." isn't covered in the article body

Comments above, Lee Vilenski. As always, feel free to challenge any. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Ophelia (2005)

Nominator(s): ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Among the slew of hurricanes during the disastrous 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, Ophelia is a forgotten oddity. It took an incredibly erratic path along the Eastern Seaboard, coming tantalizingly close to land for eleven days and finally moving toward Atlantic Canada and its ultimate dissipation. While not a hurricane of major consequence, it had locally significant impact in North Carolina and resulted in four deaths along its path. I firmly believe this is the most thorough collection of information on Ophelia you will find. I combed through hundreds of newspaper articles, dozens of operational discussions, and dozens of scientific journals to arrive at the article you see now. Many of the journals had limited information or were incredibly detailed, beyond the level that would be useful in this article. After being a decaying Good Article for 13 years, this storm finally meets the level of detail expected of us. I hope you all enjoy the read and I'm looking forward to how I can improve this further. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • A lot of the images I can't confirm the source but will AGF
  • File:Hurricane Ophelia 2005 enlarged map.png — the stated source does not look like the backdrop actually used.
  • Lead paragraphs are inordinately long and would be improved with a couple paragraph breaks.

(t · c) buidhe 04:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the source links for the three satellite images, NASA reformatted urls years ago so we have tons of these images with dead links I guess. The enlarged map is the Black Marble, working on getting an appropriate source link since it's a slightly diff version. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: The Black Marble map has been replaced by a much cleaner graphic made by TropicalAnalystwx13. I think that covers the image concerns. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're good here: pass (t · c) buidhe 00:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

  • Link named storm in the second sentence?
  • Over the next week, Ophelia's intensity oscillated between tropical storm and hurricane levels as intrusions of dry air, varying levels of wind shear, and gradual upwelling of cooler waters from its meandering path impacted it. - I suggest simplifying slightly. I suggest changing "as" to "due to", and removing the final "impacted it".
  • The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the most active on record at the time "by almost all standards of measure" - I think you either need to attribute this quote (like saying "as described by meteorologist Jack Beven"), or remove it. Since the sentence is just as accurate without the quote.
    • I can't attribute the quote to a single author as the paper was written by the entire HSU. I do feel it adds a bit of flavor to the section rather than just rattling off facts and stats. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forecasters at the National Hurricane Center (NHC) described the dual lows as a "complex scenario" and possible tropical cyclogenesis would be slow to occur. - I think the grammar needs to be improved for the second part, maybe even just adding "that" before "possible".
  • Link UTC, and maybe add a note explaining what time that is relative to local time.
  • I suggest splitting the first sentence in the "Fluctuating strength and meandering" section into two sentences, as you have two "with" clauses.
  • "convection became increasingly organized as it moved back over the Gulf Stream" - you never said that it moved away from the Gulf Stream, as the previous mention of the GS was that upwelling occurred "even over the relatively warm Gulf Stream." Maybe here say something like "as it moved back over warmer waters of the Gulf Stream"? Or that it moved away from its previous area of upwelling?
    • I couldn't find an explicit mention of when it moved away from the Gulf Stream, just that it moved back over so I'm not sure how to remedy this. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During this time the storm made its closest approach to Massachusetts, passing 70 mi (110 km) to the southeast." - is it worth adding "Cape Cod" here?
  • Given the decent impacts in Canada, I think you could describe the track with a bit more detail with regards to its passage near Nova Scotia and over southern Newfoundland.
    • Details of the extratropical track are pretty limited in reports but I added some basic info. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As such, 462 dropsondes were deployed in the storm between September 6 and 17, the second-most in a single storm during 2005." - behind what storm?
  • You don't go into much detail about Bahamas warnings or impacts. Unless I'm mistaken, the article only says: "Winds at Freeport and Settlement Point reached 30 mph (45 km/h)."
    • For whatever reason it's incredibly difficult to find information in the Bahamas. The wind observation is all I could unearth, not event a news report of rain showed up in searches. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pumping of water into Lake Rosalie was authorized by the South Florida Water Management District, but the pumps were unlikely to arrive in time. " - I'm not sure this is needed. The "were unlikely" part seems like it was a contingency plan that didn't end up happening.
    • I disagree with its removal, there was action taken in response to Ophelia but it was just unable to be implemented. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Secondary roads saw up to 12 in (300 mm) of standing water in poor drainage areas in the city." - just verifying, this is in Palm Coast?
  • "In South Florida, temperatures rose 3–5 °F (1.7–2.8 °C) above normal." - could you explain the relation between Ophelia and the temperature rise?
    • I couldn't find a source explaining the relation, just that the storm was the cause. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe clarify that the missing SC surfer was presumed dead? You include that as a fatality in the lead, but don't spell it out so clearly in the impact section.
    • Adjusting to specify just missing since it was never explicitly a confirmed fatality.
  • "A one million gallon sewage spill occurred in Wilmington." - was this due to floods? How long did it take to clean up? This is the only part of the impact that left me wanting more.
    • I wasn't able to find much, just a more precise location and revised spill amount. The spill is largely overshadowed by a larger one just two months prior in the same spot. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and eventually slated for demolition in February 2010." - so was it actually torn down in Feb 2010?
  • Nothing for Virginia or Maryland?
  • "On September 15, Governor Easley requested assistance from the South Carolina Government." - IDK how to make this clearer, but Easley was NC's governor, so maybe clarify what type of assistance was requested?
    • I think just adding that he's the NC Governor helps out. The type of assistance is stated in the next sentence. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "President Bush signed this request October 7, designating ten counties as major disaster areas" - presumably the six from the previous sentence, as well as...?
  • "Senate President Marc Basnight and House Speaker James B. Black" - maybe specify that it's just the state government leaders?
  • In the see also, any reason you link List of Atlantic hurricanes? Also, I think you could explain why Arthur was included (similar impacts?)
    • Pretty sure it's just a leftover generic link, I've adjusted the overall links ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, this is a very well-done article, on par with any other featured tropical cyclone article. I just think there are a few things that need to be addressed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I was able to address most, if not all, of your concerns. Many thanks for the review Hink! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fixes, I'm happy to support! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination attracts further interest over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TAOT

Hi, I will take a look at this and leave comments within the next 48 hours (probably a lot sooner but leaving myself some wiggle room). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC) In general, these will follow the sections of the article unless a comment applies to the article as a whole.[reply]

Lead

Background

  • Many of the records set during the 2005 season were subsequently toppled during the 2020 season which saw 30 tropical or subtropical storms. Is this really relevant to the topic here? It seems to me as off-topic.

I will add more comments later. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just leaving a note that I will be getting to the comments here and on the talk page within a few days. I’ve been busy with work and exhausted by the time I get home. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cyclonebiskit, thanks for being patient. I'm taking a look at more of the article now:

Origins

  • Throughout September 6, the aforementioned MCS's Remove the apostrophe, this is improper grammar.

Fluctuating strength and meandering

  • This section title is kind of awkward, how about "fluctuation in strength and track" or something along those lines?
  • Early in the storm's lifecycle, meteorologists struggled with a track forecast that was "anything but straightforward" as models depicted a wide-range of scenarios for the depression. If this is a direct quote, there should be a citation at the end of the sentence in question, as far as I understand it.
  • High sea surface temperatures of 84 °F (29 °C) fueled bursts of deep convection throughout September 8 and following the formation of an eyewall and well-defined upper-level outflow, Ophelia intensified into a hurricane around 21:00 UTC on September 8 with sustained winds reaching 75 mph (120 km/h). This really ought to be two sentences, or be rearranged. There's a lot of information here for just one sentence.
  • this coincided with it regaining hurricane status for the third time. Coincident... You use coincided and coincident twice in a row here. Another word should be used in one of these instances.
  • Vertical mixing can be linked.
  • By 00:00 UTC on September 12, Ophelia weakened back to a tropical storm. How many times in a row had this happened by this point? It's hard to keep track without it being specified here.

North Carolina impact and extratropical transition

  • Link New England.
  • The ridge previously halting the hurricane's northward motion began accelerating off the New England coastline; however, westerly flow in its wake would not be strong enough to induce significant acceleration of Ophelia. Accordingly it began an "excruciatingly long passage" along the shores of North Carolina. I assume the second sentence is referring to Ophelia, but with the previous sentence talking about the ridge it's unclear as written. Suggest removing any ambiguity here.
  • Over the next two days, the hurricane's eyewall scraped the North Carolina coastline bringing hurricane-force winds to these areas. Is it worth mentioning and/or linking the Outer Banks here?

Research

  • I see you refer to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as "the NOAA" here. My understanding was that in its acronym form it's simply known as "NOAA" without "the"?
  • Surprisingly enough, The Hurricane Rainband and Intensity Change Experiment exists and can be linked.

I will work on the rest of the article soon. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia

This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Ophelia (2005)/archive1 § SandyGeorgia comments.[]
  • There is one instance of pp for a page range (Angel et al. 2005, pp. 149–150.), but multiple instances of page ranges of more than one page using only a single p (sample: Rogers et al. 2006, p. 1,525–1,527). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need this editorializing in the image caption? An enlarged and annotated map of Hurricane Ophelia's track along the East Coast of the United States ... Can it be shortened to just "Hurricane Ophelia's track along the East Coast of the United States"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are there italics in the image captions here and here?
  • Many of the maps breach MOS:COLOUR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SandyGeorgia: We’ve been working on revamping the track maps for over half a year at this point to get the colors to adhere to ACCESS. After some issues with canvassing (and subsequent ArbCom case) I think we’ve arrived at a color consensus so the next step is how to improve the maps. Since that could take who knows how many months, would a map such as the one in Zelda 1991’s article be adherent to MOS? I’m fine foregoing the classic map if this is the route we have to take in the interim. With the second map showing the zoomed in track, I think that complies with ACCESS since the color of the track doesn’t convey info, it’s just aesthetic. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not lodging an Oppose based on this, as I recognize this is an issue across almost all maps in almost all featured articles, and there is probably no easy solution ... just trying to raise awareness, and glad to hear work is underway. I can't make much sense of the Zelda map ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is hurricane-status hyphenated here (it is not modifying anything), and what is soon adding? The following day it organized into Tropical Storm Ophelia and soon reached hurricane-status on September 8. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gradually growing in size, the system reached its peak strength on September 14 upon reaching hurricane strength for the fourth time with maximum sustained winds of 85 mph (140 km/h). Convoluted, hard to follow, reach ... reaching ... vary wording ... maybe ? ... Gradually growing in size, the system reached hurricane strength for the fourth time and its peak strength on September 14, with maximum sustained winds of 85 mph (140 km/h). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another ... person ? (As opposed to fatality)? Rough seas led to one fatality in Florida and left another missing in South Carolina while rain-slicked roads contributed to a fatal accident in North Carolina. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence is ungrammatical: Forecasters at the National Hurricane Center (NHC)[nb 2] described the dual lows as a "complex scenario" and that possible tropical cyclogenesis would be slow to occur. ... and stated that ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I've made the suggested changes. Thank you very much for looking over the article and handling the CCI! I'll be excerpting this into the main review page for the FAC coordinates to see these comments. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Streets (song)

Nominator(s): ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 13:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song that achieved commercial success in frankly the most 2020s way possible: blowing up on TikTok. After an Internet challenge which featured "Streets" went viral on the platform, the resulting boost in streams propelled this song to number 16 on the Billboard Hot 100 and number 8 on the Global 200---a pretty impressive feat. The trend was so influential to the song's notability, in fact, that the music video for the song features the artist Doja Cat performing her version of the online challenge.

When I found the article lying on the GA nominations backlog for 6 months, while still having several issues with regards to sourcing and prose, I decided to take on the duty of nursing it to good health. Now, after a GA review from Realmaxxver, and a very helpful PR from the wonderful @Aoba47 and @GWL, I believe that this article satisfies the criteria for a featured article. This is my first-ever foray into FAC, so please remind me when I fall short of understanding how the process works! Cheers, ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 13:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

  • I understand the purpose of this part, Incorporating both Doja Cat's singing voice and rapping voice, but it seems like an unnecessarily wordy way to say that she sings and raps on this song. I think this information could be conveyed in a better way.
  • You Right, right! That part of the lead should be less verbose now
  • I'd move the citation for this sentence, "Streets" was a sleeper hit that gradually acquired Internet-driven success., to the end. as the current placement is not the best for readability.
  • ref 32 is used to cite only the "sleeper hit" claim, and that article does not support the other part of the sentence that says "gradually acquired Internet-driven success." I think it will be fine to keep it where it is, but we'll see if anyone else objects.
  • I still find the separation to be unnecessary, but I will leave this up to other reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Paul Anka, Yeti Beats, and Theron Feemster images, I would include the year these photos were taken in the caption to provide full context to readers.
  • Rewritten. I also split the caption for the Yeti Beats/Theron Feemster images into two sentences, since I found them to be overwhelmingly long.

Great work with the article. A majority of my concerns were already addressed in the peer review phase. I believe this should be everything from me. Once the above comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick comments above, @Aoba !! I have addressed everything that needs to have been addressed. Also, if you don't mind --- I need to know if you're able to do a full source review of the article? Of course, that's not necessary on your end, and these comments are already of enough help for me. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 05:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. As for your question about a source review, I will have to decline on that one. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, apologies. Anyways, once again, thanks! I am glad that you supported. And I completely understand that you declined ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 15:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

So, let's see what we got here left after the PR. Pinging nominator Troubled.elias per offwiki request. I might do a prose review when I am in the mood for it; may also do source formatting check. GeraldWL 15:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! I will drop by comments really shortly. Please ping me again if for whatever reason I neglect to respond within a reasonable timeframe :") ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 13:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox image is good: it is reduced, and the parameters are validly copied from other articles. Good job with the footnotes too btw :D
  • Thanks :")
  • Theron's image looks good
  • Hooray!
  • I was kind of conflicted seeing Yeti's image's parameter, considering the EXIF data has no data on the camera used, but then again EXIFs can be wrong, and a Google Lens search has no avail, so I'll give a pass on that.
  • Actually, there is EXIF data, at least on the original image file. I didn't use the crop tool to trim that photo, so it is very likely that that is the reason why there is a discrepancy in the EXIF
  • Paul Anka's and Doja Cat's images are well-licened: one PD and another OTRS-verified
  • Neat
  • The music video:
  • "partly because it has been viewed over 100 million times on YouTube already." This is redundant; most fair use rationales only state "because it is in low resolution"
  • I'm not sure I follow. That "...partly..." line is for the "Respect for commercial opportunities" parameter and not the "minimal use" one, which is where the "low-resolution" bit is indicated. Being low-res and not harming the commercial viability of a product are not exact synonyms (though of course one is the result of the other), so is it really redundant?
  • Troubled.elias, typically I would write "This is a low-resolution image used only in one article with a valid purpose, and thus will not hurt any commercial opportunities." No rationale as far as I'm aware of ever states other reasons, and it's not needed, since the commercial protection is pretty apparent in the "minimal use" and "purpose" sections. Using the number of views as a justification also isn't really a legally effective defense either. GeraldWL 01:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got that. Rewrote as you asked
  • Okay got it. I can put a "song copyright belongs to" clause before the labels. Then I'll write a separate sentence that states the owner of copyright for the video. I can see the "Streets" music video in the website for Lucky Bastards Inc., but not in the London Alley Entertainment website. Do you know how you managed to find out that London Alley did production for the video?
  • Nevermind, found it. Turns out the director works for London Alley
  • Aight, the captions. You can remove note K and L, then alter note M to start with "The latter" to avoid confusion.
  • Is there really any reason to remove the two footnotes? Subjective descriptions like "this was described as erotic" should all be attributed properly to whomever said it. It makes no sense to provide attribution only for the "epic version" claim just because you think only one of the descriptions should have quotes. By the way, I have explained my concern with trying to unquote "film noir-like" in the bullet point below this one.
  • Captions, as we know it, are not part of the prose but the images. That's why you don't see gameplay screenshots with cited captions very often, because they're covered in prose and images are merely enhancers of the prose. I think you can honestly phrase the whole thing with "erotically suspenseful". Also, in a way, "Doja Cat dances while lit from behind with red lights" can be combined with "and an "epic version" of the Silhouette Challenge". "the online trend that contributed to the song's success" is not needed, assuming at this point people already know what the challenge is. GeraldWL 09:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I've removed some of the footnotes (while still keeping the one that attributes the "epic version" line to Billboard). And you're right to point out that by this section of the article folks would already be familiar with the Silhouette Challenge's significance towards the song's success. The caption should be trimmed accordingly now.
  • Hmm, I still think it's a bit lengthy; I very rarely see screenshot captions with all these attributes, as in, the publication and author. Even if you want to keep this attribute, you will have to cite it, which makes the caption way more lengthy than it should. As I stated, the suspense and eroticism can be merged. "Several critics have categorized the music video as erotic, suspenseful, and fantastical." More specific quotes can be seen by readers in the prose. GeraldWL 13:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you advise we change the whole caption for the screenshot to, then? Remember that the NFC use rationale currently states that the image is there to (1) depict the Silhouette Challenge, (2) convey the sultry and scary tone (keep in mind that the prose mentions only one writer who described this video as such, so your "several critics" suggestion confuses me), and (3) illustrate the film noir comparison made by The Times writers. Thus, the caption should adhere to, at the very least, two of these points. "Several critics praised or otherwise noted the video's aesthetics and its combination of sultry and scary tones; two writers compared the visuals to that of film noir media." --- would that be good enough for you?
Plus... I'm not really sure about the whole "you will have to cite it, which makes the caption way more lengthy than it should" comment... a lot of captions for music video screenshots have citations within them. See Shake It Off#Music video and All About That Bass#Music video for instance.
  • Well, I found a way to get rid of the citations and trim the caption! Glad that we could make that happen. Hopefully I have now solved this comment of yours ^^ And I'm sorry that I came across slightly miffed here
  • "The clip was described as "film noir-like", an erotic "horror-fantasy", and an "epic version" of the Silhouette Challenge," --> "The clip was labeled as film noir, erotic horror fantasy, and an "epic version" of the Silhouette Challenge," ... These genres are not coined by the critics so they don't have to be quoted.
  • Cairns and Helm did not call the music video "film noir"---they only made that comparison, i.e. by saying "film noir-like". Hence that term being in quotes. I could try and rewrite that part to "compared the video to film noir" to properly paraphrase, but that would make an already-long image caption even longer (and unnecessarily wordy; I think that sentence does the job of combining the descriptions just fine). Plus, your suggestion for "erotic horror fantasy" has some MOS:SOB problems, and I would just link the entire thing to erotic horror.
  • The Yeti and Theron caption has a citation, but it's already cited in prose? GeraldWL 13:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "co-wrote 11 out of 12 songs on Hot Pink" claim is not mentioned in the prose itself, so I had to put a citation in the caption as well to get that fact covered
  • Alt texts:
  • The infobox: "Doja Cat facing frontwards as she kneels on top of a smashed car hood." facing frontwards as she kneels on top of can be trimmed to atop; we don't need to be too specific in alt texts
  • Trimmed
  • "The title "Streets" is handwritten in red on the center of the cover art. Below it is smaller, white text spelling out "Doja Cat". A red sticker that says "SILHOUETTE REMIX" is plastered on the bottom left corner." --> "The song's title is written in red on the center, and "Doja Cat" below it, alongside a "SILHOUETTE REMIX" sticker."
  • Trimmed, although very slightly. "The song's title is written in red on the center, and 'Doja Cat' below it" is clunky in a syntactic way---there is no verb on the latter clause that applies to "Doja Cat". If you were to remove the "and", the clause on its own will not make sense. Plus, the sentence does not specify the colour of the text that says "Doja Cat", which would lead readers to assume that it is also red. Which is not. That part of the alt text now currently reads "The song's title—in red—is written on the center, and below it is smaller, white text spelling out "Doja Cat". A red sticker that says "SILHOUETTE REMIX" is plastered on the bottom left corner."
  • Portraits typically don't have to be alt-texted unless it's an infobox image of a bio article. So for photos of Yeti, Theron, Anka, and Doja Cat, you can change them all to "Refer to caption".
  • Got that. Although when I look at the article using my phone, Yeti Beats and Feemster's photos are displayed from top to bottom instead of from left to right. Which makes the caption somewhat confusing. Thus I'll have to indicate which photo depicts which person. "A photo of Yeti Beats." vs. "A photo of Theron Feemster"
  • "A male driver in his cab, looking to his left. Behind him is a shop display window lit by red lights. The silhouette of a woman, who poses provocatively, is shown in the window." -- This can be changed to "Refer to caption" too, as the caption's sentence 1 describes it well.
  • Done
  • Question: @GWL, have I addressed all your concerns for the image review?
    Looks good! Moving on to source reviewing below. GeraldWL 07:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

Happy to be challenged on any of my comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Footnote 1 does not have a reference.
  • Added the Apple Music references, which are used in the track listing and release history sections
  • The images of Yeti Beats and Theron Feemster have different widths to each other. Can they be equalised?
  • Yep - I've added a new cropped version
  • How do we know the dropbox content is from ARIA?
  • If you go to their official website's accreditations page and click "Latest accreditaions [sic]" it would take you to the dropbox link. It's certainly a choice on their end; I understand why this tipped you off at first
  • Refs 108 and 109 have Billboard mis-formatted
  • Looks like another editor kindly took the time to fix that issue
  • Footbnote b: "This date pertains to when the song..." - how about something like "This date is when the song..."
  • Rewritten
  • Footnote c: "in which the three served as songwriters" to something like "for which the three served as songwriters"
  • Done
  • Footnote f & K: "...are attributed to ..." - maybe "...are from..."/2"...is from..."
  • I honestly like "attributed" better since it feels more elegant. But to prevent unnecessary repetition I have applied the suggestion to one of the footnotes
  • Footnote g: I think '"Audience impressions" refer to' should be '"Audience impressions" refers to'
  • Good catch
  • "Length 3:47" from infobox doesn't match any of those on the track listing. I guess it may be 3:47 on the album, in which case a citation should be added I think.
  • Lead: "Some critics who reviewed Hot Pink praised the track for demonstrating Doja Cat's versatility as a musical artist" feels a bit vague, pehaps because of the "some", or because it doesn't go on to say anything about what other critics wrote.
  • My thought process behind this was that if I removed "some" from that sentence, it would give the impression that quite a lot of critics commented on the song during their Hot Pink reviews, when the prose only gives two. We could quantify "some" and change it to "two" if you prefer
  • Lead: "...Kemosabe and RCA Records.." perhaps mention that the single was on these labels in the lead.
  • Sorry - can't quite parse that. Do you mean that I should specify that Kemosabe and RCA Records are record labels?
  • Backgrond: 'During 2019, Doja Cat released three additional singles in promotion of Hot Pink, two of which appearing in over 200,000 videos on the platform combined—"Rules" and "Cyber Sex".' - I don't understand this.
  • Oh yeah sorry. Should be more straightforward now
  • Background "aforementioned" seems unnecessary.
  • Right - reworded to "successes of the tracks"
  • Production and songwriting: "proceeds to, in the words of Billboard editor Jason Lipshutz," To me, this wording seems like he is expressing a truth rather than an opinion.
  • Changed "in the words of" to "in the views of"
  • Commercial performance and release: "with negligible amount of airplay" something like "with a negligible amount of airplay"
  • Commercial performance and release: "with negligible amount of airplay for the song because of its unprecedented boost in fame online" - reads like the fame online was the cause of the negligible airplay.
  • I was under the impression that that was correct per the cited Billboard source ... Relevant quote: "Airplay for the single is virtually nonexistent, with minimal chart activity deriving from the radio sector as 'Streets' was an unplanned single that gained traction through users on TikTok and social media apps" But I may have misread. Currently I have reworded to the following so that the whole train of thought makes more sense---open to any alternative suggestions.
At first, the track received a negligible amount of airplay; instead, its initial chart activity was driven predominantly by streams and digital sales because of its unprecedented boost in fame online.
  • Update: I revised that final bit to "driven predominantly by streams and digital sales because of its online success" because the Billboard source says that the single release was unplanned, not the boost in fame
  • Commercial performance and release: "Kemosabe and RCA Records.." - same point as for the lead above.
  • Commercial performance and release: Should "third biggest" be hyphenated?
  • Not quite sure about this one honestly... in my head I can see good arguments for both the hyphenated and unhyphenated version. I would gladly appreciate a third opinion from another editor ^^
  • Commercial performance and release: "in its second charting week[74]" - add comma before ref, or move ref to the end of the sentence.
  • Moved to the end
  • Critical reception and analysis: "in her most serious form" is a direct quote from the source.
  • Enclosed in quotes
  • Critical reception and analysis: Perhaps remove "..during the album's runtime" as I'm not sure that the source is specific about whether it's "her most serious form" on the album or in general.
  • That is a good call
  • Critical reception and analysis: I expected more than four sources here. Are there further reviews from reputable sources that can be added?
  • Unfortunately, no... One of the FA reviewers actually raised the same concern during the peer review. Here's an abridged recap of what I said at the time
When I scoured for reviews of Hot Pink posted at the time of its release, there were only two of them that described something about "Streets" in non-trivial detail. Actually, the Pitchfork review for Hot Pink, quite annoyingly, has said very little about the song itself ... That and the Consequence review were all the critical commentary I can find for the song during 2019, unfortunately
Though I believe the amount of critical commentary about the song is at a bare minimum - it addresses both the composition itself, as well as its commercial reception. So it doesn't seem to neglect any major details per WP:WIAFA.
  • Music video: "Aaron Williams, an editor for Uproxx" has already been mentioned, so perhaps just "Williams" or "Williams of Uproxx"?
  • Amended
  • Music video: "Mason of Slant Magazine" - magazine was mentioned in the preceding para, so just "Mason" would do
  • Rewritten
  • I ran scripts to fix a couple of date formats and dashes.

Hi Troubled.elias. I can't see any big issues, only things to tweak. I might have some further comments or questions later. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Doing the easy to look sources first, then the more complex ones. Will do spot-check. GeraldWL 08:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation formatting
  • The Apple Music sources need publisher parameter to the record labels/company.
  • Done
  • Ref 7: remove the Illustrators parameter. Those people merely drew the featured GIF which holds little significance. The parameter is more reserved for multimedia articles, like this one.
  • Got it
  • Ref 8: Remove "Billboard Staff". We don't put staff attributes.
  • Alright. A few other refs had that listed as the author so I went ahead and removed those parameters for those refs as well :))
  • I can't look at ref 9 and the archive is pretty laggy, but it looks multimedia so I'll let this pass.
  • Oop- you're right. Nothing is showing up when I click the archive link. Perhaps I can use something other than Internet Archive for it?
  • Ref 20: is "19439-71705-1" catalogue number? If so, are there prefix letters at the number (e.g. ISC 0000)?
  • Yep, it is the catalogue number. And no, there ain't any prefixes before the ID (see also this Discogs entry).
  • Ref 51-52, 63-66, 105: can you fill in the transl-title parameter? Google Translate should work as the titles are very short.
  • To keep consistent, I have not added a trans-title parameter for any foreign-language references, because refs 63, 64, and 66 are generated by Template:Single chart instead of Template:Cite web. With the current parameters in {{Single chart}}, I am not able to add a translated title, unforts. See also my response to the point below this one.
  • Ref 53-55, 57, 59-75, 93-99, 101-102: is there a way these links can be archived? If Wayback doesn't work, there's always ghostarchive.org
  • The templates behind those references are generated by Template:Single chart and unfortunately with the way that things are, there is no way for me to sneak in an archive link... which is really annoying from a verifiability and formatting point of view. As mentioned above, the same goes for the translated titles
  • Ref 56: decapitalize "Select". "SK – SINGLES DIGITAL – TOP 100", "202105" should be italicized per ref 75's format.
  • I'm trying to keep the Slovak Charts citation's formatting consistent with the Czech Charts citation's if that makes sense... hence the capitalized "Select". I can't just change how the note looks for the Czech citation because, well, it's not generated by any of the cite templates. It's not like I can change how the Mexico Certs ref (ref 75) looks either, because funnily enough, that is also generated by a non-cite template. Specifically, Template:Certification Table Entry. My god, these templates need some serious cleanup to keep references consistent, now that I think about it. Lmao

Other than that, looks good. I might revisit later just to make sure.

Spotcheck

1998 FIFA World Cup Final

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1998 edition of the World's most important football (soccer) match, the FIFA World Cup Final. It featured the host nation, France, in their first final, against the previous champions Brazil. The pre-match headlines were dominated by the initial omission of Brazil's star player Ronaldo, only for him to later end up playing... but as a shadow of his usual self. Several conspiracy theories later emerged, but it remains something of a mystery to this day... As usual, any and all comments gratefully received, and I'll be happy to do reciprocal reviews for anyone who asks.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review can you put a source for the lineup in the image description for File:BRA-FRA 1998-07-12.svg ? (t · c) buidhe 23:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM

Lead

  • "final match... The match" could mix it up a little.
    Tweaked.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as the holders" is that 100% clear to non-experts?
    Amended.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one defeat, after which they defeated" repetitive.
    Tweaked.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could link "round of 16" in the lead.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also "kick-off"?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And corner.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "slotting the ball" pretty sure this might get called out by non-football readers as "jargon" or too "in-universe".
    Tweaked.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any consequences of the final, reactions, subsequent tournament performances for either side, etc. which could be added to expand the final para of the lead.
    Added.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • "as did Brazil as the" as ... as... bit clunky.
    Tweaked.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an 80,000-capacity" so why did the final only have 75,000 spectators?
    I've had a search around, and I can't find any direct evidence. Even in current times it seems the capacity is 80,000 but 75,000 tickets are sold. No explanation why though.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The match ball for this..." this is less significant than the previous performances of he finalists so I'd put it as the final para of this section.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "having been involved ... having been eliminated" repetitive.
    Tweaked.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by the Czech Republic. Their midfielder Zinedine Zidane" -> France's midfielder...
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Route to the final

  • "were already confirmed as winners" did this impact their team selection for Norway?
    Added.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "before Patrick ... before the end" before .... before repeat.
    Tweaked.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the golden goal rule in effect" I hate to be the first person to say it, is this worth a footnote explaining the principle of "next scorer wins" here....??
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brazil kicked first and the first five penalties were all scored," and this could be misconstrued by those who aren't aware that penalties are taken alternately....
    Clarified.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "France began their campaign..." first two sentences of this section start with "France..." bit repetitive.
    Tweaked.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Zidane get suspended for his red card in the Saudi game?
    Clarified.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently Blanc's GG was the first ever in the FIFA World Cup, worth noting?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More anon. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I think I've looked at all your points so far... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

  • There were a lot of comments in the press about Blanc's red card in the semifinal; it was clear from video footage that Bilić was faking his injury. This article is about the final, not the semifinal, but given that it meant Blanc could not play I think a mention of the controversy is warranted.

I made quite a few copyedits; most were minor but please check to see if you disagree with anything. The above is the only suggestion I have; the article is in excellent condition. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mike Christie: thanks for the review and copyedit. I've added a couple of sentences about the Blanc-Bilić incident on the semi-final. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

  • "The 1998 FIFA World Cup was the 17th edition of the World Cup, FIFA's football competition for national teams" - you specify men's in the lead but not here
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where which they were beaten" - where which?
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was labelled by former Brazilian Pelé" - pretty sure Pele is still Brazilian
    Fixed, I've added "forward".  — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The match ball for this game was" - was it the match ball for the whole tournament? If so, I would say that. If just for this game then it needs moving later, because otherwise you have a structure that essentially goes background to the whole tournament > specifics of the ball for the final > details of the earlier rounds > everything else about the final. which does not make chronological sense
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I got as far as the end of the Route to the final section, I will look at the rest later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from ChrisTheDude

  • "an in-swinging corner from the right taken by Emmanuel Petit" - no need to repeat his full name
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Guivarc'h was taken off, as Dechamps brought on Dugarry in his place" - Deschamps is spelt wrong, but surely it was the manager who brought on a sub, not Deschamps?
    Good point. Changed to Jacquet.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Think that's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, @ChrisTheDude:, I think I've looked at these points now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amakuru, did you miss these recent comments? (t · c) buidhe 12:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - @Amakuru:, if you fancy reviewing another football article, your feedback would be most gratefully received here (if you don't fancy it or don't have the time, no problem at all) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danzig Street shooting

Nominator(s): Reidgreg (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 2012 shooting in Toronto, Canada. It occurred at a crowded block party and is considered the city's worst mass shooting, with 27 bullets fired and 26 people wounded, 2 fatally. All four people convicted in relation to the shooting were teenagers at the time of the incident. I am new to FAC and would appreciate any and all advice. I hope to bring this to FA in time for the 10th anniversary of the event on 16 July. Reidgreg (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 03:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

I have only just noticed this. I shall definitely be recusing to review. If it slips my mind, please nudge me. Good to see it here. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "when they were released back into the community around 2010". Does "back into the community" add anything?
    A common probation condition for gang offences is to avoid certain neighbourhoods, to prevent the offender from re-associating with the gang. If they serve their full sentence, however, then there's no probation.
    An interesting piece of information. Does it relate to my query? If so, how?
    Ah; you're right, the timeframe gives a good indication that they'd served their full sentences. And it does seem like a bit of editorializing. Removed.
  • "By September 2012 there was a 22 percent increase". Perhaps "was" → 'had been'? And over what period and compared with what period?
    According to the source, this is from year-to-date police statistics (from an 11 Sep 2012 police press conference) compared to the same period in 2011. (ie: from 1 Jan – ?? Sept 2011 there were 133 shooting incidents and in the same period of 2012 there were 162). Most statistics are annual, and the high crime rate in the beginning of 2012 is offset by the low crime rate from the investigation and crackdowns, so 2012 taken as a whole can't show that. Now, how should I state this without being too wordy, and should I put additional detail in a footnote? How about: From January to September 2012 there was a 22 percent increase in shooting incidents and a 41 percent increase in shooting victims in the city compared to the same period in 2011. Footnote: Toronto Police Service statistics released at an 11 September 2012 press conference. (Not to self: Toronto Star, Toronto had a (then) record high number of homicides in 2007, which fell for four straight years to a 25-year low in 2011.)
    That works for me.
  • "one of thirteen areas of poverty and substandard city services designated as a priority investment neighbourhood". Either neighbourhood should be plural or rephrase.
  • "as some senior members of the rival gangs were being released from prison." We have already been told this. Perhaps 'since some senior members of the rival gangs had been released from prison' or similar?
  • Aftermath has several over-short paragraphs. Consider running some together.
    I tried to do it one paragraph per topic: the medical response, initial investigation at the scene, the presumably related Whiteleas Ave shooting (short, but a topic to itself), charges laid against Nahom and Mesquito and related, and the search for gunmen. Hmmm. I checked sources and found a way to tie together the second and third paragraphs.
  • "Mesquito was found carrying a loaded .22 calibre revolver". Perhaps 'Mesquito was found to be carrying a loaded .22 calibre revolver'?
    How about: Mesquito had been carrying? (less wordy; I may have initially written it before those charges were settled.)
    Fine.
  • "Mesquito's family were evicted by TCHC for a lease violation." Is it known what the violation was?
    Nope; TCHC doesn't release that information. Some sources gave examples which fit what happened (firearms violations, criminal or antisocial behaviour). Per the peer review, I could not state a causal relationship but tried to give the context of the timeframe, leaving readers to make their own conclusion.
  • "There were concerns about violence during the 4 August Caribana parade". And ...? Don't leave us hanging.
    Okay, found an additional source: no serious incidents.
  • "Officers built relationships with residents of these communities". Do you mean 'those', and lose the comma? If not which communities are being referred to?
    You think there's enough separation for those? It refers to high-crime areas, the last words of the previous sentence.
    I guessed that was the case. IMO it is clearer with "those".
    Okay, done.
  • "Later that month Nahom Tsegazab was charged". Is the date not known any more precisely?
    Hmmm. I have a 22 November news report that Nahom had been charged, and that the charges were discussed by police at a news conference that day. The charges were probably laid that day, but it doesn't actually say so. Similarly, Owusu was charged "about a week before" 4 December. I don't know if this has to do with their being youths, if they might have been shielded from the press at the proceedings.
    Ok. It reads a little oddly, but that can't be helped.
  • Perhaps link "second-degree murder" for the benefit of non-North American readers?
    Linked to Culpable homicide (Canadian law) § Second-degree murder. It seems underdeveloped, which may be why it wasn't linked previously.
  • "Naod Tsegazab pleaded guilty in 2016". Dates regarding Tsegazab seem to be nebulous.
    Naod was the youngest of the four and reporting was limited until he was sentenced as an adult, at which point journalists were summarizing the entire story and the date that his guilty plea was entered (etc) may not have warranted the column space. (Put another way, the Chester Le shooting is only notable in relation to the Danzig shooting.) Will check sources (he was back in the news a couple years ago regarding another murder (link) but outside scope of article). Huh. Glad I checked sources; I made a mistake, both sources for that paragraph indicate that he pled guilty in 2015, not 2016. Fixed.
  • "which had been severed in a pre-trial motion". Perhaps an in line translation?
    Maybe that clause should be removed or placed in a footnote? I'll attempt the latter. Haven't found a link for 'severing charges'. It is definition 4 at Wiktionary.
    Yeah, 'I' understand it, but few non-North Americans would. The issue has now been bumped to the footnote. How would you feel about 'which had been severed (separated) from the murder charges'? Re Wikilinks, I am possibly more cognisant than most of the MoS guidance "as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence" and "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links".
    I think I was resisting because the words are synonyms, but you're right, it reads better like that. Done.
  • "other areas that struggle with gang violence". Should that be 'struggled'?
  • "shooting deaths declined from a seven-year average of 6.4 to 2". Is this the average for the seven-week period. And is the 6.4 the average for the previous seven years, or the seven years including 2012?
    The number for the seven-week Summer Safety Initiative (2012) is 2. The average of 6.4 is for the same period in 2005 to 2011 (inclusive). Does this need to be more clear?
    Probably not. I think that is how a reader would expect Occam's razor to cut.
  • "Neighbourhood Officers program". Should that be an upper case P? If not, why the upper case N and O?
    I believe the guideline is to follow sources as to what constitutes a proper name and what doesn't, and that's how I determined it at the time. A search of the TPS website returns 30+ hits for "neighbourhood officers" but none for "neighbourhood officers program", so it seems that "program" is not part of the program's name.
    Actually not. See MOS:INSTITUTIONS and I shall then leave it in your capable hands.
    I'll come back to this.
  • "D'Mitre Barnaby was gunned down in the parking lot". Just 'Barnaby' as this is second mention. Does "gunned down" mean killed or shot?
    Changed to 'shot to death'. Agree with just "Barnaby" on second mention in list, but kept "D'Mitre Barnaby" for next mention, in case readers skip the list.
  • "Danzig Street shooting (16 July 2012)" doesn't need to be in bold. This only applies to the lead, and only to the first mention of each variant of the article title.
    I'm not sure if there's a guideline for this or if I've just seen it as a practice. When you have a list in which one of the elements is the title of the article containing that list, that element is (sometimes) distinguished by bolding. You see this primarily in navigation templates, which automatically unlink and bolden the article they're transcluded in, but I've seen it in regular lists as well. It's kind of a "you are here" indicator in the list, providing a strong visual anchor point while scanning the list.
    Unless you can find a policy or guideline suggesting that I think that it would be far better to assume that readers already have some idea of which article they are reading. See MOS:BOLD.
    I agree; if I don't find any guidance, I'll change it as you suggest.
  • "one of the emerging leaders of the Galloway Boys". Is their name known?
    Unfortunately, aside from Barnaby, most of those other shootings aren't really notable on their own; coverage is limited. Found a source that says he was 19 (ProQuest 2230129117), that's it.
  • I am not sure why the last sentence of Gang crackdown merits its own paragraph.
    It probably (a) seemed like a conclusion for the whole section, and (b) I might have wanted to keep that one fact cited separately. Fixed.
  • "Akanimo Udofiya donated $150,000 over three years". Which three years?
    From 'shortly after the shooting', 2012–2015. What if I change it to "donated $150,000 towards three years of funding for Our Space"? Or perhaps "donated $150,000 to help establish Our Space"? Our Space was still there afterwards, but I don't have a source for that or how it was funded.
    Either of those sound good.

Lovely stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reidgreg, just checking that you have seen my comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it now; had to rush a GA/DYK for today. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I made the changes where not commented upon above. If this passes, I shall rely on your advice for TFA. – Reidgreg (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A few come backs above. The obvious date for a TFA is 16 July. But this has aleady been "reserved" at potentila and July nominations are currently being accepted. I must get mine in. I suspect that when (and if) this is promoted "No Panties" [!] will be entrenched for 2022. Although if you cared to make a case that the 10th anniversary of this trumped the 20th anniverary of the release of "No Panties" I would be happy to support you. (I'm not scheduling July.) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • Suggest adding location to [55], [71], [77], & [102]; Scarborough is not a well-known location outside Canada.
    • I added the location as: Toronto, Ontario. Scarborough is a former city which was amalgamated into Toronto in 1998.
  • Add publisher and location to [22], as you do for the other CBC News quotes.
  • You have the CBA as the author of [87], but that should be the publisher; the PDF is actually authored by the National Immigration Law Section of the CBA.
  • The link to [2] gives a 404 error and there's no archive link.
    • Whoops! Looks like an extra 'v' was added to the end of the url when pasting it. Fixed and archived.
  • [71] is dead and there's no archive link.
    • That's probably why I put the quote in the citation template, for verification. The url may have been lost when Metroland changed its website. I found it archived at ProQuest 1472012383, which should be accessible via The Wikipedia Library. Added that to the |id= parameter.
  • The archive link for [84] doesn't work.

Spotchecks: I'll look at every 11th footnote, more or less.

  • 11: OK.
  • 22: OK, but you might consider replacing this source with one that post-dates the event.
    • done
  • 33: OK.
  • 44: OK.
  • 56: OK, but doesn't [57] cover everything needed? Not a problem if you want to keep both.
  • 66: OK; again it seems you don't need the other three cites for this short sentence, but it's not a problem if you want to keep them for some reason.
    • I believe those were to show a connection between the gun debate in Canada and the US at the time, a connection which was emphasized more in previous versions of the article and which had been challenged by another editor (I believe that went to a third opinion and resulted in this). Reidgreg (talk)
  • 77: OK.
  • 88: OK.
  • 99: this is used to support "and was released on 2 April 2013 as the third single from Snoop's album Reincarnated." As far as I can tell from other sources this is correct, but "third" isn't supported by this source.
    • Removed 'third' – too troublesome to source. Reidgreg (talk)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. I would suggest just removing the archive link for [84]. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from mujinga

  • I already gave comments at peer review so I'll see how much more I have to say here. Mujinga (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's good you define blocko but "blockos are a form of block party based on a tradition of outdoor gatherings in the West Indies." is too close to the source which says "The block party ("blocko") or community barbecue is based on a tradition of outdoor gatherings in the West Indies."
    How about: "In Toronto, blockos are a form of block party based on a Caribbean practice of outdoor gatherings."? There are only so many way to state "outdoor gathering". "outside" or "get-together" are too informal, while "plein-air" or "al fresco" would probably confuse most readers.
    BTW, this year's Caribana has an official blocko with corporate sponsor Hennessy. Ouch.
    I think that's still a bit close, since you have "based" and "outdoor gatherings" the same Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't seem to get away from 'gathering', but how about: In Toronto, blockos are a form of block party derived from a Caribbean practice of open-air social gatherings. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    sure! Mujinga (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the evenings provide an alternative for residents who cannot afford to go out to restaurants, clubs, etc. " - where is this in source?
    The source has: Her close friend Melissa, 37, a 10-year resident, says the blocko provided a welcome break for low-income residents, most of whom can’t afford many costly nights out. I thought I had something that stated it more explicitly, though. Will have a look around.
    Okay, there was a longer version of the news story (same byline, newspaper) the following day. While the shorter one was available free-to-access, the longer one is at ProQuest 1027205811 via the Wikipedia Library. "Daytime activities are geared to the kids - freezies, hot dogs and water slides. Then, as evening approaches, the teens and adults take over with their music and socializing." Added a citation, which, combined with the above, should cover it, I hope.
    still not seeing where " to restaurants, clubs, etc. " is covered, that seems like original research Mujinga (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note e is great to resolve the confusion on how many wounded
  • "Meanwhile, from 7 July the Twitter account @2ToneShorty," could link Twitter
  • "Tenants contributed to the event, provided food, and ran activities for area children[16] such as face painting[20] and putting a water sprinkler on playground equipment for a makeshift water slide" - suggest breaking this sentence up
    I'm not finding a natural break. How about: Tenants provided food and children's activities, including face painting and an improvised water slide.
    great! Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.
  • "the crowd had grown thicker" - I understand that sentence but "thicker" reads funny to me, maybe that's just a Br-Eng thing though?
    Agreed. I rephrased a little, moving "crowd/gathering" down to that spot.
  • "Worried about people they did not know" - "Worried about the presence of people they did not know" maybe?
  • "Tsegazab then armed himself with a .40 calibre pistol" - .40 calibre pistol can be linked like in infobox
  • "and was confronted by Nahom Tsegazab," - don't need "Nahom" as he's just been mentioned above
    To avoid confusion, I try not to refer to the brothers by surname alone. In this instance, since it's a new section and the one which is at the core of the article, directly describing the main part of the crime (which readers might skip to), I felt using the full name was best. (Similarly, I used full names in the convictions section; to be formal for the brothers and then the others for consistency.) Do you think this is excessive?
    OK, seems fine to me, it is quite confusing Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's in line with MOS:NAME to include the first name for natural disambiguation, as needed. The main issue is clarity. Let me know if you have any ideas for improving this. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Owusu opened fire with a 9 mm handgun," - 9 mm can be linked like in infobox
  • "shooting Tsegazab twice:" - don't think the colon is needed
    Without the colon, it might read that he'd been shot twice in the biceps and an unspecified number of times in the abdomen.
    OK so the full sentence is At approximately 10:40 pm, less than two minutes after arriving at the party, Owusu opened fire with a 9 mm handgun, shooting Tsegazab twice:[4] in the right biceps and abdomen (one of these bullets passed through Tsegazab and injured a bystander[28]). I would suggest: At approximately 10:40 pm, less than two minutes after arriving at the party, Owusu opened fire with a 9 mm handgun, shooting Tsegazab twice.[4] He was hit once in the right biceps and once in the abdomen; one of the bullets passed through Tsegazab and injured a bystander.[28] Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, you're right, that sentence is unnecessarily long and complex. Done.
  • "recklessly firing eleven rounds" could say this is the opinion of the Crown attorney Tom Pittman that it was reckless
    It does stand out as problematic, but I think it's okay. This was from an agreed-upon statement of fact which the CA read in court at Nahom Tsegazab's sentencing. Nahom agreed to it.
    I put a wikicomment about this at that word, where editors could see if if they went in to edit it or tag it for neutrality. Do you think it needs something for readers, like a footnote that this derives from recklessness (law) or perhaps I should link to that somewhere in the article?
    No I think it's fine since it gets clarified later Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mesquito had been carrying a loaded .22 calibre revolver " - at the risk of me sounding like a gun fanatic, you could link .22 calibre to .22 caliber
    Done. And no, I've encountered actual gun... fans.
  • "and police announced no serious incidents at the parade." could add "afterwards"?
    I think that can be assumed. Or should it be: Hundreds of additional officers were deployed to the parade and police announced no serious incidents.
  • "Twitter was flooded with posts referencing "Ledda" in connection" - who/what Ledda is needs explanation
    There were Twitter/rumours that it is Charles's father. Perhaps "Ledda" should be removed? Also Charles's first name and age in that sentence. Done.
  • "On 23 January 2015 the murder and assault charges " - could add a comma after 2015
  • " The defense lawyer praised police and the Crown Attorney, and stated that he had never before been involved in a case where law enforcement, the prosecution, and the defence had worked together to uncover the facts" you've got defense and defence here
    Whoops – thanks!
  • " and completed his sentence the following month" - what does this mean? seems odd to be released early and not be on parole for perhaps three years rather than a month?
    He completed all but one month of his sentence, was released on parole in January 2018, and then completed his sentence in February – after which he was free of parole conditions.
    I realize that the years don't match up with the sentencing. The closest I've been able to figure it out is if time incarcerated prior to sentencing counts as double time-served against the sentence.
    Naod was subsequently arrested for another murder but it seems outside the scope of this article. Perhaps the parole is as well?
    Thanks for the clarifications. I would imagine his sentnece could have been reduced for good behaviour but I don't know if that happens in Canada. As it stands, " completed his sentence the following month" just begs the questions why and maybe it's easier just to remove that phrase Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed.
  • " three men were shot outside a Domino's Pizza parlour at Lawrence" - could link Domino's Pizza
    Are readers of the article likely to follow such a link? I didn't link to Hummers or Jaguars, either.
    I think we had a similar discussion at peer review, I would say link all three since it doesn't cost anything and makes it easier for people who don't immediately know what these things are, happy to see what other commenters say Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, we're not at wall-of-blue territory yet. Done. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Danzig Street shooting (16 July 2012) - i agree with previous commenter that the bold isn't needed here
  • "RISE (reaching intelligent souls everywhere)" might make more sense as RISE (Reaching Intelligent Souls Everywhere)
(talk page stalker) The MoS suggests under "Expanded forms of abbreviations" that "Do not apply initial capitals in a full term that is a common-noun phrase, just because capitals are used in its abbreviation. Similarly, when showing the source of an acronym or syllabic abbreviation, emphasizing the letters that make up the acronym is undesirable." Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
strange! Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is a good summary, the last sentence " Police 43 Division (which includes Danzig Street) reported no homicides in 2013" tripped me up a bit since we are in 2022 and you are talking about 2013. I'd suggest something like "Police 43 Division (which includes Danzig Street) reported no homicides the following year"
    A little wordier, but if you think it makes a difference.
    Seems better! Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mainly nitpicks, let me know if anything needs clarifying Mujinga (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mujinga: Nitpicks are great, the devil is in the details. Some comments, clarifications, questions and counter-proposals above. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, I've made some replies Mujinga (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    made a couple more replies, nearly there for me now! Mujinga (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • "the worst mass shooting in Toronto". I would prefer "in the history of Toronto", but that is just my preference.
  • "Some of these youths held a party with free alcohol following a children's barbecue at a social housing complex. After a series of confrontations, threats escalated into the shooting." I find this confusing. Above you say that the shooting was at a block party, presumably by local residents, here it is a party of the youths, implying that it was a different event, but the reference at the end to "the shooting" implies that it was the same event. (You explain below, but you need to be clearer in the lead.)
    How about: The block party, which began as a children's barbecue at a social housing complex, was continued into the evening by some of these youths who attracted a crowd with a DJ and free alcohol.
  • "With the gang's leadership locked away". Preumably the leadership of both gangs were imprisoned. You should say which one you are referring to.
  • "in conflicts for control of the gang". Do you mean that they were using guns against the fellow members of their gang?
    The sources aren't entirely clear, but I believe it's more like showing who's the toughest among the new generation of the gang, about who will commit the most violent acts of retaliation, convincing other gang members that he's to be respected/feared and will protect them, thereby standing above other potential candidates and earning a leadership position.
  • "From January to September 2012 there had been a 22 percent increase in shooting". September is after the shooting in July. "had been" implies before.
  • "Alcohol is prohibited in common areas without a special-occasion permit." Is "common area" AmerEng for outside the home?
    Common area is a term in property law: areas for use by all the tennants. I'll link it.
  • "Le Side Crew". This is the first time you have mentioned this gang. It should be covered in the background.
    Should it? Owusu is the only Le Side gang member mentioned in the article; they don't feature that much. Also, I don't have anything source-wise that I could use to fill the background section. They're not that newsworthy, I'm not sure if the police considered them a "bona fide gang" at that time. I felt it was important on first mentioning Owusu in the body to note he was a gang member and specify the gang as reported by sources. Did a quick look for new sources, and all I found was the gang's participation in the 2019 tow truck turf war.
  • It should be sufficient if you say something like "a member of another gang called the Le Side Crew" to signal that you are mentioning them for the first time. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the fourth person charged in connection with the Danzig Street shooting, Naod was charged on 4 December with threatening death and weapons offenses but not murder." You covered Naod in the previous paragraph.
    The previous paragraph were his charges for the Chester Le shooting, made at or shortly after his arrest. The mention you quote above are charges for the Danzig Street shooting which came a couple months afterwards.
  • "That same evening a lone gunman opened fire in a Colorado movie theatre, killing twelve.[67][68][69][70]" A simple statement of fact about a crime in the USA has four refs discussing the problem of gun violence. You should either expand the text to explain or leave it out.
    Leave out the statement or the references?
    The references were the result of a discussion just before GA, when the article made a stronger connection of Danzig and the Colorado shooting having a cumulative effect on the gun control debate.
  • Leave out the statment entirely or explain why it is relevant. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although data showed crime was decreasing nationally, a 25–26 July Forum Research poll for the National Post suggested that Canadians believed otherwise." People in Britain and probably internationally always believe crime is worse than it is.
    Well, sources talk about this so I figured I should summarize it.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enoch Fenwick

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 01:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Jesuit who, fascinatingly, followed in his brother's (FA) footsteps in becoming the president of Georgetown University, which did not go so well, and he abandoned the presidency and refused to return. Ergo Sum 01:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately licensed, but are there no images of the subject? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunately, none that I have been able to find. Ergo Sum 07:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14

General comments from someone who is unfamiliar with the topic and generally not my area of Wikipedia-interest.

  • Suggest linking rector in the lead and first instance in the body.
  • also entered the priesthood, while another brother did not enter religious life. – “enter” in close proximity, suggest at alternative wording
    • "Enter" is really the typical language for someone joining the Catholic priesthood or religious life. Ergo Sum 01:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Novitiate – suggest linking
  • to three others parishes – three other parishes
  • undertook several reforms of the curriculum. – perhaps it should be "undertook several reforms to the curriculum"
    • I think "of" is the most common way of phrasing a reform of something. Ergo Sum 01:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wretched." – believe period should be outside the quotation as the full sentence is not quoted.
  • Enoch Fenwick died on – Fenwick died on...
  • That's all from me. This has been a great read. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review, Pseud 14. Ergo Sum 01:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose -- Pseud 14 (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, if you have the time or inclination, I'd appreciate your feedback on my current FAC. Though not obligatory at all... -- Pseud 14 (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720

Non-expert prose review. Only one concern:

  • "Enoch Fenwick was born on May 15, 1780, in St. Mary's County, Maryland, one of four brothers, three of whom would become priests" This is a lot of information for one sentence, so I suggest putting a period after Maryland, as so: "Enoch Fenwick was born on May 15, 1780, in St. Mary's County, Maryland. He was one of four brothers, three of whom would become priests."

I checked the lede and infobox, and everything is in the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Z1720. Do let me know if you have any other concerns. Ergo Sum 21:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support My concern was addressed and I do not have other concerns. Z1720 (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Pass. There are quite a few old sources used here, but they're used to support uncontroversial information of a kind that these sources can be considered reliable for. Formatting looks fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Cenotaph

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the culmination of a project I've been working on (on and off, with quite a few digressions!) for about six years, starting with Northampton War Memorial, which passed FAC back in 2016. It documents the history of what is easily Britain's most famous war memorial, and probably one of the most famous war memorials anywhere. It was never intended to be such. It started life in wood and plaster as one of a collection of monuments for the parade to celebrate the formal end of the First World War, but it caught the imagination of a public mourning the loss of an entire generation of men in a way that nothing before or since ever has. The industrial-scale slaughter had never been seen before, and most of the dead (or what was left of them) were buried overseas. People needed somewhere to grieve, and the Cenotaph gave them that. It was rebuilt almost unchanged and in the same spot in stone, where it has stood for over a century and is still revered today.

I've largely rewritten and expanded it from the ground up over the course of a couple of years, and slowly accumulated just about every piece of literature which covers it in detail. I'm indebted to Carcharoth for his help and advice throughout the process, and to Tim riley for a very thorough GA review, and now I think it's ready for its star. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the sketch
    • Happy to do so if you can explain how
      • Add |upright=X, where X is how much you want to scale it relative to user preferences. For example, if you have a default image size set of 200px, |upright=1.1 will make the image look like it's 220px for you. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Done, except for the gallery in the bottom where I'm not sure I could add anything that's helpful and not overly repetitive.
  • File:Greek_Parade_Paris_1919.jpg needs a US PD tag and author date of death. Ditto File:Monk-97672_-_The_Temporary_Cenotaph,_Whitehall.jpg
    • Unable to find a date of death for the first but suspecting it may be more recent than 70 years; image removed. Date and US tag added for the second.
  • File:Cenotaph_sketch_by_Lutyens.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:The_Cenotaph_the_Morning_of_the_Peace_Procession_by_Sir_William_Nicholson.jpg, File:Reverse_of_Armistice_Day_Memorial_Medal_1928.jpg
    • Done.
      • Where and when was the first two of these first published? For the last, the image description gives a date of 1928, but the tag indicates published pre-1927? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The first, I don't know when it was first published; it's on display in the Imperial War Museum, and was part of an exhibition on Lutyens' work after his death so there's no doubt that he's the author (and he's been dead for >70 years) and that it has been published. The second, not sure where you're getting 1928 from? The painting dates from 1919. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • For the first, I don't doubt the life+70 tag, but the US tag is problematic if no pre-1927 publication can be verified. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Perhaps I'm missing something, but given this Cenotaph sketch was a sketch made on request by the government, isn't this just Crown Copyright, Template:PD-UKGov, which is worldwide? I can't see why not. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 09:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • "made on request by" is not automatically "created by" - it's possible that it was Crown copyright, but not guaranteed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                True, but he was hired to make the Cenotaph. Presuming this design is part of that, the law at the time was very strongly biased towards things becoming Crown Copyright under this kind of situation. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 06:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                Illustrated London News November 13 1920, page 769. Explicit derivative work of Lutyens' design . Which, given he gave permission, seems you count as publication per [12]. Only Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 07:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                The flag folding - the design called for cloth, so it's not fixed - shows it's the same image, and he gave permission for them to use it, so, unless I'm misinterpreting something, that's publication under U.S. law, and so which copyright doesn't matter now? Check my work? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 07:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you elaborate on why File:Immortal_Shrine_(Will_Longstaff).jpg is believed to be PD in the US?
    • The AWM states that it's in the public domain; that's all the information I have.
      • Okay - I would expect the AWM declaration to apply to status in Australia rather than US. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would imagine so. How can we ascertain its copyright status in the US? @Nikkimaria: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • What is the first publication of this image that can be verified? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Doesn't matter, I fear: Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Dates_of_restoration_and_terms_of_protection. Long story short is... there's two ways it can go out of copyright in the U.S., - 70 years after his death or 95 years after publication - but coincidentally they both work out to it going out of copyright on January 1st 2024. This isn't that far away, so I'd almost be inclined to use a {{#ifexpr|{{CURRENTYEAR}}>2023|[[:File:Immortal_Shrine_(Will_Longstaff).jpg|thumb|caption]]}} Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 17:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              You may be able to argue fair use here, but whether it's worth it is the question. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 17:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              @Adam Cuerden and Nikkimaria: since we seem to be concluding that it's not free in the US, I'm guessing that means it shouldn't stay on Commons? Would uploading it locally be acceptable? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              Unfortunately, English Wikipedia works in the exact opposite direction: It accepts files that are free in the U.S. and not elsewhere. You could possibly justify fair use, though. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 18:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Reverse_of_Armistice_Day_Memorial_Medal_1928.jpg is from 1919?
      • Hope you don't mind me pulling this out of the conversation above. I'm seeing no indication it's not from 1928 or just before. If this is Crown Copyright, it's fine, otherwise this leaves copyright in America 1 January 2024. Now, coins in general do come under crown copyright ("Copyright for designs and images of United Kingdom decimal coins subsists in the Crown." - but it rather depends who made these medals. You may be able to argue fair use in the meantime. Will research Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 17:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay! "The Copyright Act 1911 removed the concept of common law copyright protection from British law, and it also provided specific protection for government works for the first time. Crown copyright was extended to any work prepared or published by or under the direction or control of King George V or any government department" - Crown Copyright. And this was from the Royal Mint, so Crown Copyright. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 02:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:British_Empire_1897.jpg: source link is dead, missing US tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is transcluded from a template. I have no idea what it's provenance is but it's used in thousands of places on enwiki and elsewhere. That said, I'm not convinced of the value of the template in the first place so I've removed it. @Nikkimaria: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I've added my analysis above. Afraid some timing aspects of this are a little inauspicious - lots of stuff barely not out of copyright in America. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 17:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [13] and/or [14] might be a good addition. Let me know if you want it, though; setting up Agence Rol photos on Commons is not straightforwards. I know how to document them. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 19:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If they're usable from a copyright perspective, one or both would make a great addition. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

When reviewing the article for GAN I commented that it struck me as of FA standard, and revisiting it confirms my view. The article is highly readable (nearly 7,000 words, but it didn't seem that long even at a fourth perusal, just now), in impeccable prose, comprehensive as far as I can judge, balanced, well proportioned and well and widely referenced. I don't see any aspect that requires improvement, and the article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 07:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720

Non-expert prose review:

  • Just from loading the page, I find that the lede is quite long, with four large paragraphs. I won't oppose because of this, since I think it is still within MOS:LEDELENGTH but I do recommend that you take a look at the lede and consider removing or summarising some information, especially if other reviewers note the same concern.
    • I struggle with leads, and this was possibly a little too long. I've trimmed it by about 100 words and merged the last two paragraphs so that it all fits on my screen.
  • "...with the repatriation of the Unknown Warrior an unidentified British serviceman exhumed from France..." Place a comma after Warrior
    • Done. Good spot.
  • "The memorial met with public acclaim and has been largely praised by academics and has sometimes been compared to other famous war memorials," -> "The memorial met with public acclaim, has been largely praised by academics and has sometimes been compared to other famous war memorials" This new version replaced the first "and" with a comma.
    • Reworded.
  • Note a might need a citation.
  • Optional: MOS:NOTES says that, "Usually, if the sections are separated, then explanatory footnotes are listed first, short citations or other footnoted citations are next, and any full citations or general references are listed last." This article has the long references listed first, then the short citations, which is outside the norm. Consider switching the order.
    • Thank you but I prefer it the way it is, and it's consistent with my other featured articles.
  • The infobox says the cenotaph was designated a listed building on 5 February 1970, but the article only has the year listed. The full date should be added to the article text so that this information is cited somewhere, or removed from the infobox if the date cannot be verified.
    FAC stalker - date is confirmed in the listing record, Historic England (5 February 1970). "The Cenotaph (Grade I) (1357354)". National Heritage List for England. Retrieved 17 April 2022. KJP1 (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's easily verified, just not that important. I've added it to the body nonetheless.

Those are my thoughts after reading the article. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thank you for your attention to detail, and for your formatting fixes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My concerns were addressed. Z1720 (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Carcharoth

Just a brief set of comments, as I have mainly been watching the excellent work being done on this article.

I think one area that might be 'missing' from the Later History section is something on how the Cenotaph features (due to its location) as part of the landscape for other ceremonial events in and around Whitehall, parliament and Westminster Abbey, and how state funerals (and ceremonial funerals) that pass the Cenotaph (usually but not always en route to Westminster Abbey) feature salutes to the Cenotaph. It may not be possible to add anything, as it is possible that no-one has commented on this, but it clearly does happen. See the accounts of the funeral procession for Douglas Haig in 1928, the death and state funeral of George VI in 1952, the death and state funeral of Winston Churchill in 1965, and a few others as well. I was hoping to find a source that gave a traditional route for such events, but drew a blank.

On the replicas or close copies, it may be worth checking the Alex King reference again as there is a recent article (2020) here that states Lutyens' Cenotaph was "broadly imitated and referenced in a number of First World War Memorials erected during the 1920s, including those in Leeds, Glasgow, and Stoke-on-Trent", referencing King pp.140-150. Carcharoth (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carcharoth. Thanks for your support with the article's development. I think the salutes are evidence of the same kind of reverence as the removal of hats and show the effect that the Cenotaph continued to have on people for years (and arguably still does, though perhaps only on certain days of the year). I've done my best to capture that, and you can see the depth and breadth of sourcing from the bibliography, but I'm not sure it's really been documented. King does indeed mention Glasgow, Leeds, and Stoke but he and Borg use various examples to illustrate the point about its influence and I've tried to avoid an indiscriminate list of other cenotaphs—the IWM identified at least 55, most of which probably owe something to Lutyens but I've added Leeds and Glasgow (I'm surprised Glasgow is a red link!), but Stoke's was demolished and replaced. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood and surprised that Stoke was demolished! The distinction that would be ideal (but probably not clear enough in the sources) would be between other memorials inspired by the Cenotaph, the ones by Lutyens where he drew on his own design of the Cenotaph, and those cases where those raising the memorial explicitly negotiated with Lutyens for the right to erect an exact replica (though usually of a reduced size). Of these three categories, it is this latter category that I would have expected to see covered more in the literature, but it appears not. I did at one point put together a gallery (see here) of examples, as I find that 'exporting' of the design more interesting than the focus on Lutyens' other cenotaphs in the UK, but I see that this gallery didn't survive the upgrade. You say the replicas elsewhere in the empire are in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Bermuda, and Hong Kong. Do you know where in Australia there is a replica? The idea was certainly reported on, as here, but it seems that the plans to use the Lutyens design in Brisbane foundered and it never went ahead, so I am not convinced there is a replica in Australia unless there is an explicit citation (the cenotaph in North Sydney isn't the Lutyens design). The cenotaph in Johannesburg has been linked to the Lutyens design (but isn't a replica). At least one source explicitly talks about the process by which permission was obtained from Lutyens (for Hong Kong): p.109 from this book chapter (Hong Kong’s Cenotaph and Beyond). The authoritative record on replicas (both erected and planned-but-never-erected appears to be still mostly in the National Archives file here (so not usable unless someone publishes and refers to it, as they did for Hong Kong). I do think it is worth putting in a tad more detail about Hong Kong and/or including in the gallery some of the 'empire' replicas (particularly if some of the other images encounter problems). It would also take the focus away from Lutyens' UK work (6 images of his other cenotaphs seems overkill) and illustrate the wider impact across the world, which might give the article and/or gallery a better balance (including explicit replicas is not an indiscriminate list). Carcharoth (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth and HJ Mitchell: I wouldn't worry about the Stoke one. From https://www.iwm.org.uk/memorials/item/memorial/13563 : "Simple replica of the Whitehall Cenotaph in London with a wreath on the front face. This memorial was intended to be a temporary structure and was replaced by the current Stoke on Trent cenotaph (see record number 13670) in 1938." Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 09:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in: There's this cenotaph in Bendigo. Ham II (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ham II! That is a perfect example of what I was talking about. Following this information trail, I ended up at a page from another work co-authored by the late Ken Inglis: Sacred Places: War Memorials in the Australian Landscape (2008). I will quote from page 340, where the erection of a Cenotaph in Bendigo is described as a 'reversal' (i.e. from a utilitarian memorial to a monumental memorial):

"The most spectacular reversal occurred in the Victorian town of Bendigo, where the old memorial hall was accompanied from 1957 by a half-sized replica of London's Cenotaph, unveiled nearly forty years after the original. [The text then describes how the patron asked Lutyen's widow for permission to...] reproduce in Bendigo the most revered of monuments to British Great War dead [with the unveiling ceremony described as...] a festival of conservative imperial Australia."

There are now two cases of Lutyens' replicas being documented in secondary sources (Hong Kong and Bendigo). The tricky thing is to distinguish in the article between memorials influenced by the London Cenotaph, and those that are exact or reduced-scale replicas. These are two distinct concepts and the distinction needs to be made clearer, possibly by use of the examples provided here. Carcharoth (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will have a look at adding something more about other cenotaphs but I doubt the sourcing will support much. There are two in New Zealand that are mentioned in Lutyens and the Great War that are close copies of London's but were actually sketched from newsreel. There are many others that obviously owe a lot to Lutyens but didn't involve him directly, and others that were claimed to be close replicas that look nothing like it, so the distinction you make is not always clear. Will see what I can dig up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: I've added something from Skelton about other cenotaphs abroad, which might help make some distinction, but there's little in the sources about the distinction with UK cenotaphs between "exact replica" and "inspired by" or just "named Cenotaph" beyond the ones that Lutyens designed himself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Support from KJP1

HJM - Very moving. Just read it through twice and it captures the monument's significance very well. Shall get back with a review asap. Just putting a couple of things here so I don't forget them. I'll reorder them properly, so just ignore them for now. KJP1 (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Date of Lutyens' design - approved on 7 July 1919, [15]
    • Already in the article, cited to Greenberg.
  • Photo of Lutyens at the temporary structure - Letters to His Wife, p=370 - great if findable/useable, but suspect not.
    • I assume it's the same photo as in Lutyens and the Great War? See Nikki's image review above for some of the problems we're having with historical photos! If someone has the technical and copyright expertise to get it onto Commons, I'd happily include it.
  • Pevsner|Bradley, pp=245-6, "The chief national war memorial" - Impact: On other war memorials.
    • I was hoping Pevsner might have been a bit more verbose, but he might have decided on succinctness given the depth of writing elsewhere on the Cenotaph and the number of buildings and monuments to cover in Westminster. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the pause on this. Real life is troublesome. Will get to it this weekend. KJP1 (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "The word "cenotaph" is derived from Greek, meaning "empty tomb"" - appreciate this is the NHLE wording, but is it actually Greek or Ancient Greek?
  • I suspect possibly the latter (possibly via the former, but the concept is ancient) but we can only write what the sources say.
  • "It takes the form of a tomb chest atop a rectangular pylon" - I'd link pylon on first meeting.
  • Done.
  • "It has sometimes been compared to other famous war memorials" - not quite sure what's being got at here, or where it (re)appears in the body, unless it's the last para. of "Appreciation"? Is it saying something about its influence/impact, which is discussed in the next para.?
  • Removed.
Infobox
  • Would this benefit from a map? Seems to be space for it.
  • I'm not sure it would be helpful, but it wouldn't do any harm if someone wanted to add one.
Background
  • "his first public commission was the design of much of New Delhi" - nit-picking but are we certain Delhi predates the Johannesburg Art Gallery and the British School at Rome? The former was 1910 and the latter 1911. I think the Delhi commission came in early 1912. Perhaps "his first major public commission", or some such?
Done.
Origins: the temporary Cenotaph
  • "Lloyd George summoned Lutyens[b]" - Appreciate it is covered in Note B (see above), but I'd favour expanding that note to confirm that the design was approved on 7 July 1919, which supports the contention that Lutyens and LlG met in early July.[16] You mention this further down in the Curzon sentence.
  • As you say, the date is mentioned further down. I'm not sure it's necessary to repeat it here. The note already says that Hussey's date can't be correct.
  • "Sir Frank Baines, chief architect at the Office of Works" - link Office of Works.
  • It's linked on first mention.
Reconstruction in stone
  • "Lutyens proposed was the replacement of the silk flags on the temporary Cenotaph with painted stone" - "with ones/models/replicas in painted stone"?
There's possibly room for improvement in the phrasing but I don't think those suggestions are improvements.
  • "wooden money collection box in the shape of the Cenotaph made from wood" - you can probably drop the "wood" without loss.
Reworded.
Design
  • "Above it is the transition moulding which is in three stages-torus (semi-circular), cyma reversa, and cavetto" - a complex sentence, made harder for me by the hyphen. Would a colon work; "the transition moulding which is in three stages: torus, cyma reversa and cavetto"?
I hate colons in mid-prose, sorry!
  • "The coffin lid finishes with a cornice, appearing to be supported by ovolo (curved decorative moulding beneath the edge)" - what's the "appearing" doing? Does the moulding not actually support the corniche?
  • No, it doesn't. It's purely decorative.
  • "The sculptural work was carried out by Derwent Wood" - bluelink Derwent Wood. I'm assuming it's the same guy, although oddly our article on him doesn't mention the Cenotaph.
  • He's linked above.
  • "in the Royal Institute of British Architects' drawing library." - "drawings library", or "drawings collection"?
Drawing library is the term used in the books and seems like a natural term to me.
Appreciation
  • "not all of which have been positive. Some ascribed imperialistic or nationalistic meanings to it, including Haig, who called it "a symbol of the empire's unity"" - I see what you mean, but surely Haig meant his symbolism comment to be positive?
Reworded.
  • "the apparent simplicity and lack of decoration to the two memorials" - "the apparent simplicity of, and lack of decoration on, the two memorials"?
Done.
  • "He compared the diminishing tiers (when viewed from the ground up) to the hilt of sheathed sword" - "of a sheathed sword"?
  • Done.
Impact - On Lutyens
  • A couple of things here. The Cenotaph did make his name, although he got his knighthood in 1918. There's quite a nice quote in Amery et. al., which may be usable. "The immense popular and professional success of Lutyens's intuitive brilliance with his Cenotaph design made him into the most famous architect in the British Empire."{{sfn|Amery|Richardson|Stamp|1981|p=149}} But I think it also needs a snippet on the emotional, rather than just the professional, impact on Lutyens. It is certain from the sources that the war had a major emotional impact on him: "how can such things be. A ribbon of isolated graves, where men were tucked in where they fell. How to arrange their names in decent order. The question is so big, so wide..." (Brown|p=167) Actually, virtually the whole letter is in Hussey (p=373), which might be a better source. Brown also has a nice quote from J. M. Barrie; "The cenotaph grows in beauty. I stand cogitating why and how it is so noble a thing. It is how the war has lifted you and moved you above yourself."(p=172) Again, usable?
I'm familiar with the Barrie quote and the letter. I was reluctant to add another quote to a section that already contains quite a few. The letter seems a little tangential to the Cenotaph specifically. I have Amery but hadn't used it because it's light on detail but I'll have a look.
Impact - On art and literature
  • For me, the poem titles would look better italicised, as the painting and book titles are. But oddly, we appear to adopt both styles more widely on Wiki, e.g. Burnt Norton and The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. Does MoS not prescribe an approach?
  • MOS:TITLE seems to suggest that only lengthy poems get italics. I can't say I'm fussed, but poems from an anthology being in quotes would fit with songs and episodes (albums, series, and anthologies having italics).
Impact - On other war memorials
  • Here, I would use Pevsner, (see above). Both for completeness, and because its description "The chief, national war memorial" conveys both its importance and its influence. It also refers to "demountable railings, set up every November", which Lutyens designed in 1938. Presumably they're not still in use?
Added the quote. I've seen photos of railings (in Skelton I think) but no idea if they're the originals. Not sure they're important enough to mention in the article on the Cenotaph.
Images
  • Yes, understand the challenge (see above). The one that would be good, of Lutyens walking away from the temporary Cenotaph, is also in Brown (p=171). But no idea whether it could be got. I doubt it as I can't even find it on Google.
  • Historical images are a bit of a problem. We need to know the provenance (photographer and original publication dates) to establish the copyright status.
Missing
  • The only thing that immediately occurs is anything around the costs? Vulgar, I know but important. Lutyens writes to his wife of Parliament voting £10,000. Usable?
Oddly, it doesn't come up in any of the books. It's the sort of detail I'd expect Skelton to mention. I'll have another look.

That's it from me. As I said, a very moving read, and you've done sterling work on the whole series. It's getting closer to the point where the Lutyens article itself needs doing! Have a look at the suggestions above, include or discard as appropriate, and I'll be delighted to support. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi KJP1, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog - Apologies, overlooked this one. Harry’s taken a look at my comments/suggestions and I’m very happy to Support. KJP1 (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by WereSpielChequers

Very nicely written, pretty comprehensive coverage. I would suggest adding something about the WWII damage during the Blitz. I'm sure I've seen a heavily sandbagged cenotaph picture somewhere, but I couldn't readily find it. ϢereSpielChequers 10:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WereSpielChequers: This doesn't seem to be documented anywhere reliable. I dug up a reference to the Guards Memorial suffering bomb damage, but nothing on the Cenotaph. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Harry, if we can't find a reliable source for that then we can't include it. ϢereSpielChequers 21:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • [44] is a citation to "Gregory (2009)" that I suspect should be "Gregory (2008)"
  • [116] needs the year
  • Massingham is too early for an ISBN; did you consult a later edition?
I suspect it’s the 1984 reprint, here [17], but will let Harry confirm. KJP1 (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding chapter page numbers to the Richardson cite.
  • The link in [131] is dead.
Repaired.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Ham II

Another excellent piece of work, on the most vital article of your whole project – it's always among the most viewed pages on memorials and public art in London.

  • "The Cenotaph is a First World War memorial" – as originally conceived, but its scope is broader now.
  • "the First World War (1914–1918)" – Not the dates according to the Cenotaph's inscription; it gives the end date as MCMXIX, as one of the article's photos shows very clearly. Perhaps leave these dates out of the lede, assuming the reader has some general knowledge (and if not, they're in the first section of the article body), and if the sources say anything about the 1919 date include that in the article? The discrepancy is the sort of thing a curious observer might want to find out about from the article.
    • Dates removed from lead. I've not come across anything specific to the Cenotaph but a lot of memorials used 1919. I believe they took the Treaty of Versailles, rather than the armistice, to be the "end" of the war.
  • Not sure about the structure of the lede; I would expect to find the date the (permanent) Cenotaph was erected in the first paragraph, but instead it goes into relative depth about the temporary version. I'd also be inclined to include the National Service of Remembrance in the first paragraph, as an indicator of the Cenotaph's significance.
  • "the repatriation of the Unknown Warrior, an unidentified British serviceman to be interred in Westminster Abbey" → "[...] who was interred in Westminster Abbey"
    • He hadn't been interred at the time of the events being discussed.
  • "Southampton Cenotaph" sometimes takes the definite article here and sometimes doesn't.
    • Not sure what you mean? It's not referred to with a definite article anywhere in this article.
      • Sorry, you're right about this. Ham II (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are the citations for the first four sentences of the second paragraph in the Background section?
    • Everything from the start of a paragraph to the first <ref> tag is supported by the reference(s) following.
  • Should the sentence beginning "Cenotaphs originated in Ancient Greek tradition" follow the one on the etymology (in the Background section)?
  • "introduces several design elements common in Lutyens's subsequent memorials" – Should it say what these are?
  • "Homberger, Eric (12 November 1976). "The Story of the Cenotaph". The Times Literary Supplement." – Should this have page references?
    • It's a single-page article.
  • I don't really know if "Lady Emily" is correct for the wife of a knight; some stuff online seems to suggest that it should be "Lady [Surname]".
    • Yes it is. Lady [surname] would be correct for the wife of a lord.
  • "Curzon wants it less catafalque so I am putting a great urn on it" – The phrasing is rather different as Ward-Jackson (p. 418) quotes it: "if possible less catafalqué ... I am putting a great vase or basin on it – to spout a pillar of flame at night and I hope smoke by day". (The starting point of the quotation and the ellipsis are as they appear in Ward-Jackson.) Is the quotation accurately transcribed from Greenberg? Ward-Jackson doesn't specify that the letter he's quoting is to Lady Lutyens, so it might be a different letter saying the same thing.
    • I've been back to Greenberg and the quote in the Wikipedia article is verbatim from the source.
  • "the first anniversary of the armistice" – Capital A for Armistice?
  • "Mond announced that the decision rested with the cabinet" – Link Cabinet of the United Kingdom and capitalise?
    • I don't think anyone reading about cenotaphs wants to go on a tangent about the organisation of the British government, and the term is probably understood by most English speakers.
  • "This was accepted without issue." – "Issue" doesn't sound right in this register; perhaps "without objection"?
    • Your amendment "with no objection" is much better than my suggestion! Ham II (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(the empty tomb)" → "(the "empty tomb" suggested by the word cenotaph)"?
  • "Its mass" → "The monument's mass"?
  • "The base of the cenotaph" → "The base of the monument"? Ditto for "The cenotaph is austere" later.
  • "the world wars" – a proper name taking capital letters? (This would apply to the second sentence of the lede as well.) If so, perhaps capitalise First and Second later too, to make it more obvious what the ordinals refer to?
    • It's not a proper noun.
  • Any mention in the sources of how the carved wreaths on the north and south faces appear as if suspended on ribbons from round protuberances to the left and right?
    • Surprisingly, no.
  • "Lutyens was a pantheist and heavily influenced by his wife's involvement with Theosophy and opposed overt religious symbolism on the Cenotaph and in his work with the IWGC" – too many ands.
  • "to be known as the Unknown Warrior" → "who was to be known as the Unknown Warrior"
  • "The Cenotaph was shrouded in Union Flags, until the king performed the unveiling" – no need for a comma.
  • "the abbey" (all instances) – capital A, I should think.
    • "Abbey" is not a proper noun (cf. a cenotaph vs. The Cenotaph).
      • I'm willing to concede that, but it makes me wonder about "Calls for a permanent Cenotaph began almost immediately" in the second paragraph. Also "Britain and its Empire"; quoted text later in the article has "from all parts of the empire" and "a symbol of the empire's unity". And the subsequent "British and Empire dead" (×2). Ham II (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I could go either way on "the Empire", but I've de-capped all of these now I think.
  • "which Greenberg believed would have been at odds with its "open symbolism and abstract character"" – in context this reads as if Greenberg was someone who voiced an opinion in the 1920s; change the tense of "believed".
    • There's a similar issue with the description of Catherine Moriarty's opinion; for that "observed" can easily be changed to "observed in 1995". Ham II (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Borg observed" → "Borg has observed". I think it should be present perfect tense for scholars' opinions throughout the Appreciation section, as well.
    • Unless there's a style guide I'm missing or some such, I'm not sure why we would put opinions of people who opined in the past, in the present tense?
      • Present perfect. I suppose MOS:TENSE could be used to argue against the past tense, but I'm not going to push this. However, there ought to be internal consistency. There are references in the present tense to writings by Allan Greenberg, David Lloyd and Paul Fussell; apologies if any of those were put in during one of my copyedits. They should be in whichever tense is used for the other scholars' opinions. Ham II (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ham II: Thank you for your kind words and attention to detail, and apologies for the tardy response. I believe I've addressed everything except where I've replied inline. Please let me know if I've missed anything or you want to follow up further. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few more after a second read-through, and I've also replied above. I hope I haven't been holding up Ceoil's review.

  • "Lutyens added entasis (curvature)" → "Lutyens added entasis (slight convex curvature)"?
    • I'm reluctant to get into more detail at this point; the link is blue if the reader wants to know more, and it's covered in a few more words further down.
  • "and has been largely praised" → "and has largely been praised"?
  • "was responsible for Lutyens becoming a national figure" → "[...] Lutyens's [...]"?
    • I think this works with or without the possessive but I prefer it without.
  • "By the time he was commissioned for the Cenotaph" → "By the time he had received the commission for the Cenotaph"?
    • That seems like extra words for no added meaning.
  • "One of Lutyens's sketches for the Cenotaph, in the collection of the Imperial War Museum" – This is not a sketch (despite the filename); I'd suggest calling it either an architectural drawing or, as the IWM's catalogue entry does, an "original design" for the Cenotaph. Also, although our article title doesn't do this, the IWM is properly the Imperial War Museums now. This would also affect the later instances of "Imperial War Museum collections", "the collection of the Imperial War Museum" and "The Imperial War Museum's War Memorials Register".
    • Fixed. It was the IWM at the time of the Cenotaph's inception, and the museum in Elephant and Castle remains so (although it's part of a larger body these days). I don't want to confuse matters by getting bogged down in a tangential detail.
  • "reminiscent of the Parthenon in Greece" – Is it necessary to give the location? If so, "Greece" is a bit imprecise.
  • "The bottom of the structure is moulded onto three diminishing steps" – I don't understand "moulded onto"; is that meant to be "mounted onto"?
  • "in the centre of Whitehall surrounded by government buildings" → "in the centre of the roadway, surrounded by government buildings". A very pernickety point, this, but the Cenotaph is at the end of Whitehall, at the point where it becomes Parliament Street.
    • But it's in the middle of the carriageway.
  • "so as to be barely visible to the naked eye (entasis)" → "[...] (a device known as entasis)"? I realise it is defined in an earlier section.
    • That feels like extra words for no added value.
  • "flags of the United Kingdom—the Royal Air Force Ensign [etc.]" – colon
    • I despise colons in mid-prose; hence the emdash.
  • "the Second World War (1939–1945)" – If the dates for WWI have been removed, for consistency these should be as well.
  • "executed during the war for desertion" – Not obvious from the context which war, but from the reference it must be WWI?

Ham II (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ham II: see what you think now. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As Ceoil said, all my substantive points are met now, so this has my Support. Ham II (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JennyOz

Hello Harry, thank you for this fine article which honours the Cenotaph, the fallen and Lutyens. This is my Anzac Day contribution. I have a few comments and questions...

  • Dozens of replicas were built in Britain and Commonwealth countries - and 'other' Commonwealth countries?
  • Lutyens himself designed several others - is "himself" needed?
  • file Edwin Lutyens.jpg alt of a bespectaceld, balding man - typo bespectacled
  • the Cenotaph came to represent the absent dead and served as a substitute - tense mix? ie, represented/served or came to represent and serve?
  • "public began laying flowers and wreaths around the Cenotaph's base" and "huge quantities of flowers were laid at the base of the monument" - repetitious?
  • A two-minute silence was observed, after which - wlink Two-minute silence
  • missing info? next section is "Reconstruction in stone" but what was temp made of? Mention it was of wood and plaster construction?
  • Suggestions that the temporary cenotaph be - cap C?
  • the fledgling Imperial War Museum (founded in 1917) - move IWM wlink up to here from "design process is in the collection of the Imperial War Museum, as are several"?
  • a wooden money collection box - maybe hyphenate money-collection (otherwise ambiguous ie wooden money)?
  • Its mass decreases with its height, the sides becoming narrower towards the bottom of the coffin than at the base. - not sure "than at the base" is necessary ("decreases with its height" says it). Could also remove "the bottom of".
  • which is in three stages-torus - is that geometry link correct or should be Molding (decorative)#Torus (but would need anchor added there ie per cyma reversa)?
  • file The Cenotaph alt=fabrig flags - typo fabric
  • are several of Lutyens's original sketches; several other - 2x "several"
  • in Westminster Abbey, inaugurated - move wlink up to here from "existence of the tomb in Westminster Abbey."
  • held in Westminster Abbey rather than the Cenotaph - at the Cenotaph?
  • and not an unknown warrior that became - this is only place without caps, is intentional?
  • gun carriage - wlink Gun carriage#State and military funerals?
  • even on a bus - even when on a bus (or even from a bus)?
  • After the unveiling of the permanent memorial, members of the public again laid floral tributes, - this sounds like repeat of "The public response to the newly unveiled memorial exceeded ... began to file past the Cenotaph and lay flowers at its base." Perhaps slight reword eg 'At the permanent memorial, members of the public continued to lay floral tributes
  • glass domes - any wlink? What did they hold/cover/symbolise? Were they Bell jar#Decorative or preservative? If no link or explanation available, ignore this question
  • and how to preserve an appropriate tone. It began preserving the messages so they could be compiled into albums and given to the Imperial War Museum. By March 1921, officials had catalogued over 30,000 items; the volume was such that they were forced to abandon their efforts at preservation. The Office of Works was keen to avoid being seen as a censor but also to preserve the character - 4 x preserv/, any alt word/s?
  • preserve the character of the cenotaph - cap C
  • and on a statue of Winston Churchill. - the statue of? (I presume there is only one of Churchill in vicinity?)
  • base was vandalised with spray paint - move link up to "protestors spray-painted slogans"
  • during Black Lives Matter protests - pipe to George Floyd protests in the United Kingdom?
  • According Paul Fussell, an American - according to
  • such as ANZAC Day - now more commonly formatted as Anzac Day eg AWM, ABC, BBC ref and this discussion.
  • applied to only 2.5% of listings - per cent (per MoS)?
  • According to Jane Brown, in a biography of the architect - her biography?
  • from the unveiling of the Cenotaph until at least 1924.[126] He went on to design over 130 war memorials and cemeteries, many influenced by his work on the Cenotaph. His Southampton Cenotaph was unveiled in 1920, while the permanent monument on Whitehall was still under construction. - needs chrono tweak? (ie "from the unveiling" ... "he went on" ... but then Southampton unveiled before London? Unless "from the unveiling of the Cenotaph" refers to the unveiling of the temporary?
  • cemeteries, many influenced by his work on the Cenotaph - how were cemeteries influenced by Cenotaph? Simplicity?
  • aside - gallery, pity the Longstaff isn't bigger, it's so stunning and evocative
  • "were built across Britain, along with many other monuments inspired to some extent by Lutyens's design" - is slight repeat of "Several towns and cities erected war memorials based to some extent on Lutyens's design for Whitehall" just above?
  • gallery "Other cenotaphs by Lutyens in the UK" Some other? ie there are more than those pictured
  • ref 44 Gregory (2009), p. 268. - year is 2008?
  • ref 99 Dearden, Lizzie - no retrieved date
  • ref 116 Gregory, p. 142. - add year
  • consistency - "21st century" and "20th century" v "twenty-first century"
  • consistency - how do you decide on tenses when quoting authors etc eg historian "Mosse noted that" v "Lloyd notes that"
  • consistency - authorlink v author-link
  • Remembrance Day v Armistice Day - needs explanation? (Armistice Sunday is explained)

Thanks, please let me know if you need any clarifications for my comments. JennyOz (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The relationship between Armistice Day, Remembrance Day, and Remembrance Sunday is a little complicated and probably mostly out of scope for an article on an individual war memorial. Other than that, I believe I've addressed all your comments. Thank you for thoroughness and apologies for my tardiness. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

Placeholder. Waiting for the above to be resolved, and will comment then. Obviously this is an important article. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ham beat me to the party, and have closely follow their review. It is forensic and real, but winding down now and now at a stage, where given Harry's responses, I 'support. I realise some points are open, but they are tweaking, Ham's substantive points have been meet. Ceoil (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]